Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of porosity and pore size on the ultrasonic properties of bone investigated using a phantom material

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ultrasonic propagation in bone has been investigated using the Leeds Ultrasonic Bone Phantom Material. Phantoms were produced with different porosities in the range of 45−83% and pore sizes of 1.3 and 0.6 mm. The phase velocity at 600 kHz was found to follow a second-order polynomial as a function of porosity. Phase velocity values between 1545 and 2211 m s−1 were measured and found to be largely independent of pore size for a given porosity. The slope of the phase velocity as a function of frequency (dispersion) decreases with increasing porosity. The values obtained from samples having different pore sizes were also similiar. The attenuation coefficient and normalized broadband ultrasonic attenuation (nBUA) reached a maximum at about 50%. The normalized attenuation ranged from 6 to 25 dB cm−1 over the porosity range available and consistently showed higher values for the larger pore size. Similarly, the nBUA values were found to be between 14 and 53 dB MHz−1 cm−1, with the values for the larger pore size being roughly 10 dB MHz−1 cm−1 greater than those for the smaller pore size. These findings demonstrate that the Leeds phantom can be used to investigate the effect of structural changes in bone and to aid the understanding of quantitative ultrasound. The results support the assumption that the velocity in trabecular bone is not dependent on pore size but is influenced by the mechanical properties of the bone's constituents and the overall framework, whereas the attenuation and BUA are also influenced by structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baran DT, Kelly AM, Karellas A, Gionet M, Price M, Leahey D, et al. Ultrasound attenuation of the os calcis in women with osteoporosis and hip fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 1988; 43:138–42.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antich PP, Pak CYC, Gonzales J, Anderson J, Sakhaee K, Rubin C. Measurement of intrinsic bone quality in vivo by reflection ultrasound: correction of impaired quality with slow-release sodium fluoride and calcium citrate. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:301–11.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Langton CM, Palmer SB, Porter RW. The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. Eng Med 1984;13:89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Herd RJM, Ramalingham T, Ryan PJ, Fogelman I, Blake GM. Measurements of the broadband ultrasonic attenuation in the os calcis in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 1992; 2:247–51.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Turner CH, Peacock M, Timmerman L, Neal JM, Johnson CC Jr. Calcaneal ultrasonic measurements discriminate hip fracture independently of bone mass. Osteoporos Int 1995;5:130–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Strelitzki R, Clarke AJ, Truscott JG, Evans JA. Ultrasonic measurement: an evaluation of three heel bone scanners compared to a bench top system. Osteoporos Int 1996;6:471–479.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rice JC, Cowin SC, Bowman JA. On the dependency of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech 1988;21:155–68.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hodgkinson R, Currey JD. The effect of variation in structure on the Young's modulus of cancellous bone: a comparison of human and non-human material. Proc Inst Mech Eng 1990;204:115–21.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke AJ, Evans JA, Truscott JG, Milner R, Smith MA. A phantom for quantitative ultrasound of trabecular bone. Phys Med Biol 1994; 39:1677–87.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Strelitzki R, Clarke AJ, Evans JA. The measurement of the velocity of ultrasound in fixed trabecular bone using broadband pulses and single frequency tone bursts. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:743–53.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Truscott JG, Simpson M, Stewart SP, Milner R, Westmacott CM, Oldroyd B, et al. Bone ultrasonic attenuation in women: reproducibility, normal variation and comparison with photon absorptiometry. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 1992;13:29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Greenspan M, Tschigg CE. Table of the speed of sound in water. J Acoust Soc Am 1959;31:75–6.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Evans JA, Tavakoli MB. Ultrasonic attenuation and velocity in bone. Phys Med Biol 1990;35:1387–96.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Langton CM, Ali AV, Rigs CM, Evans GP, Bonfield W. A contact method for the assessment of ultrasonic velocity and broadband attenuation in cortical and cancellous bone. Clin Physiol Meas 1990; 11:243–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nicholson PHF, Lowet G, Langton CM, Dequeker J, Van der Perre G. A comparison of time-domain and frequency-domain approaches to ultrasonic velocity measurement in trabecular bone. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41:2421–35.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wyllie MRJ, Gregory AR, Gardner LW. Elastic wave velocities in heterogeneous and porous media. Geophysics 1956;21:41–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nicholson PHF, Haddaway MJ, Davie MWJ. The dependence of ultrasonic properties on the orientation in human vertebral bone. Phys Med Biol 1994;39:1013–24.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lewandowski J. Acoustic and dynamic properties of two phase media with non-spherical inclusions. Ultrasonics 1995;33:61–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tavakoli MB, Evans JA. The effect of bone structure and ultrasonic attenuation and velocity. Ultrasonics 1992;30:389–95.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Han S, Rho J, Medige J, et al. Ultrasound velocity and broadband attenuation over a wide range of bone mineral density. Osteoporos Int 1996; 6:291–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Serpe L, Rho J-Y. The non-linear transition period of broadband ultrasound attenuation as bone density varies. J Biomech 1996;29:963–6.

    Google Scholar 

  22. O'Donnell M, Jaynes ET, Miller JG. General relationship between ultrasonic attenuation and dispersion. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;63:1935–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fry FJ, Barger JE. Acoustical properties of the human skull. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;63:1576–90.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Barger JE. Attenuation and dispersion of ultrasound in cancellous bone. In: Linzer M, editor. Ultrasonic tissue characterisation II. National Bureau of Standards special publication 525. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979:197–201.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aaron JE, Johnson DR, Kanis JA, Oakley BA, O'Higgins P, Panton SK. An advanced method for the analysis of bone structure. Comp Biomed Res 1992;25:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Glueer CC, Wu CY, Jergas M, Goldstein SA, Genant HK. Three quantitative ultrasound bone parameters reflect bone structure. Calcif Tissue Int 1994;55:46–52.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Bone and Body Composition Research, University of Leeds and Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK

    R. Strelitzki,  J. A. Evans & A. J. Clarke

Authors
  1. R. Strelitzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. A. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. J. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strelitzki, R., Evans, J.A. & Clarke, A.J. The influence of porosity and pore size on the ultrasonic properties of bone investigated using a phantom material. Osteoporosis Int 7, 370–375 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01623780

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01623780

Keywords

Search

Navigation