Passive Cavitation Detection During Skin Sonoporation

  • Jeremy RobertsonEmail author
  • Marie Squire
  • Sid Becker
Conference paper
Part of the IUTAM Bookseries book series (IUTAMBOOK, volume 34)


Passive cavitation detectors (PCDs) have been effectively employed in high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and cell sonoporation studies to monitor variations in inertial cavitation activity during the course of ultrasound application. As inertial cavitation is the mechanism responsible for many ultrasound induced bioeffects, this monitoring can provide valuable information in real time about the effectiveness of the ultrasound treatment. Despite the well-established benefits of employing PCD techniques in HIFU and cell sonoporation applications, little attempt has been made to utilize such techniques in the field of low-frequency skin sonoporation. This study presents an attempt to employ a confocal PCD system to monitor inertial cavitation activity during sonoporation in a Franz diffusion cell setup. To determine whether inertial cavitation activity was effectively monitored, the output of the PCD system was compared to the cavitation enhanced transport of caffeine through porcine skin. The correlation between caffeine transport enhancement and PCD response was poor relative to similar correlations presented in the literature. This result should not be seen as an indictment on the concept as the present study was only a first attempt at employing a confocal PCD in a skin sonoporation setup. The authors intend to refine their methodology and repeat the study.


Cavitation Sonoporation Franz diffusion cell 


  1. 1.
    Tezel, A., et al.: Frequency dependence of sonophoresis. Pharm. Res. 18(12), 1694–1700 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tezel, A., Sens, A., Mitragotri, S.: Investigations of the role of cavitation in low-frequency sonophoresis using acoustic spectroscopy. J. Pharm. Sci. 91(2), 444–453 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Terahara, T., et al.: Dependence of low-frequency sonophoresis on ultrasound parameters; distance of the horn and intensity. Int. J. Pharm. 235(1–2), 35–42 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitragotri, S., et al.: Determination of threshold energy dose for ultrasound-induced transdermal drug transport. J. Control. Release 63(1–2), 41–52 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herwadkar, A., et al.: Low frequency sonophoresis mediated transdermal and intradermal delivery of ketoprofen. Int. J. Pharm. 423(2), 289–296 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lavon, I., Grossman, N., Kost, J.: The nature of ultrasound–SLS synergism during enhanced transdermal transport. J. Control. Release 107(3), 484–494 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tang, H., et al.: An investigation of the role of cavitation in low-frequency ultrasound-mediated transdermal drug transport. Pharm. Res. 19(8), 1160–1169 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hockham, N., Coussios, C.C., Arora, M.: A real-time controller for sustaining thermally relevant acoustic cavitation during ultrasound therapy. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 57(12), 2685–2694 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hallow, D.M., et al.: Measurement and correlation of acoustic cavitation with cellular bioeffects. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 32(7), 1111–1122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yao-Sheng, T., Choi, J.J., Konofagou, E.E.: Identifying the inertial cavitation pressure threshold and skull effects in a vessel phantom using focused ultrasound and microbubbles. AIP Conf. Proc. 1215(1), 186–189 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tezel, A., Mitragotri, S.: Interactions of inertial cavitation bubbles with stratum corneum lipid bilayers during low-frequency sonophoresis. Biophys. J. 85(6), 3502–3512 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, N., et al.: Ultrasound-mediated transdermal transport of insulin in vitro through human skin using novel transducer designs. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 29(2), 311–317 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Merino, G., et al.: Frequency and thermal effects on the enhancement of transdermal transport by sonophoresis. J. Control. Release 88(1), 85–94 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robertson, J., Becker, S.: Influence of acoustic reflection on the inertial cavitation dose in a franz diffusion cell. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 44(5), 1100–1109 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sarheed, O., Abdul Rasool, B.K.: Development of an optimised application protocol for sonophoretic transdermal delivery of a model hydrophilic drug. Open Biomed. Eng. J. 5, 14–24 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han, T., Das, D.B.: Permeability enhancement for transdermal delivery of large molecule using low-frequency sonophoresis combined with microneedles. J. Pharm. Sci. 102(10), 3614–3622 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitragotri, S., et al.: Synergistic effect of low-frequency ultrasound and sodium lauryl sulfate on transdermal transport. J. Pharm. Sci. 89(7), 892–900 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morimoto, Y., et al.: Elucidation of the transport pathway in hairless rat skin enhanced by low-frequency sonophoresis based on the solute–water transport relationship and confocal microscopy. J. Control. Release 103(3), 587–597 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mutoh, M., et al.: Characterization of transdermal solute transport induced by low-frequency ultrasound in the hairless rat skin. J. Control. Release 92(1–2), 137–146 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations