Ultrasound Standards

Regulations and Guidelines
  • Michael H. Repacholi
  • Deirdre A. Benwell
Part of the Medical Methods book series (MM)

Abstract

In recent years, the development of new piezoelectric crystals, ferroelectric ceramics, and magnetostrictive materials has catalyzed a significant growth in the number and diversity of applications of ultrasound devices. As a consequence, in addition to the growing occupational exposure to ultrasound found in medical and industrial situations, members of the general public are now much more frequently exposed to the ultrasonic output of a variety of consumer-oriented devices such as those used for bird and rodent control, burglar alarms, traffic control, and dog whistles.

Keywords

Titanium Welding Europe Cavitation Cataract 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association of Physicists’ in Medicine, Statement on the use of diagnostic ultrasound instrumentation on humans for training, demonstration and research, General Medical Physics Committee of the AAPM, Med. Phys. 2, (1) 38, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. American Association of Physicists’ in Medicine, Activities of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine in Ultrasound Instrument Performance Evaluation, Opt. Inst. Med. 127, 253–260, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. American Chiropractic Association, Physiotherapy Guidelines for the Chiropractic Profession, J. Chiropractic 9, 65–79, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 100 Millimeter Test Object Including Standard Procedure for its Use, AIUM, Bethesda, MD, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Bio-effects Statement, Reflections 4 (4), 311, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Standard on Presentation and Labelling of Ultrasound Images, Reflections 4, 70–75, 1978a.Google Scholar
  7. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Standard Specifications of Ultrascope Sensitivity and Noise Level including Recommended Practice for Such Measurements, Reflections 5, 12–19, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Recommended Nomenclature: Physics and Engineering, AIUM, Bethesda, MD, 1979a.Google Scholar
  9. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Standard for Transducer Characterization, draft in preparation, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine/National Electrical Manufacturers Association, AIUM/NEMA, Safety Standard for Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment, NEMA Headquarters, 2101 L Street NW, Washington, DC, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. Arnott, E., The ultrasonic technique for cataract removal, Trans. Ophthal. Soc. UK 93, 33–38, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare, Guidelines for the safe-use of ultrasound, Part 1: Medical and Paramedical Applications, Safety Code No. 23, Publication 80-EHD-59, 1980.Google Scholar
  13. Carson, P. L., Fischella, P. R., and Oughton, T. V., Ultrasonic power and intensities produced by diagnostic ultrasound equipment, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 3, 341–350, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Child, S. Z., Carstensen, E. L., and Lam S. K., Effects of Ultrasound on Drosophila: III Exposure of Larvae to Low-Temporal Average Intensity, Pulsed Irradiation, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 7, 167–173, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curto, K. A., Early postpartum mortality following ultrasound irradiation, in Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 2, White, D., and Barnes, R., eds., Plenum, New York, 529–530, 1976.Google Scholar
  16. Dyson, M., Woodward, B., and Pond, J. B., Flow of red blood cells stopped by ultrasound, Nature 232, 572–573, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dyson, M., Pond, J.B., Woodward, B., and Broadbent, J., The production of blood cell stasis and endothelial damage in the blood vessels of chick embryos treated with ultrasound in a stationary wave field, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1, 133–148, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frost, H. M., Heating under ultrasonic dental scaling conditions, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Effects and Characterization of Ultrasound Sources, US Dept. HEW Pub. (FDA) 78-8046, Dec. 1977, pp. 64–74.Google Scholar
  19. Hospital Physicists’ Association, A Guide to Medical Ultrasonics and Acoustics, Pub. SRS-10, London, England, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. Hospital Physicists’ Association, Methods of Monitoring Ultrasonic Scanning Equipment, Topic Group Report-23, London, England, 1978.Google Scholar
  21. International Electrotechnical Commission, Testing and Calibration of Ultrasonic Therapeutic Equipment, IEC Publication 150, Geneva, Switzerland, 1963.Google Scholar
  22. International Electrotechnical Commission, Draft, “Methods of measuring the performance of ultrasonic pulse-echo diagnostic equipment,” Technical Committee No. 29: Electro-Acoustics, Sub-Committee 29D: Ultrasonics, 29D (Secretariat) 13, June, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. International Electrotechnical Commission, Draft, “Measurements of ultrasonic magnetostrictive transducers,” Technical Committee No. 29: Electro-Acoustics, Sub-Committee 29D: Ultrasonics, 29D (Secretariat) 15, 1979.Google Scholar
  24. International Radiation Protection Association, Overviews on Non-Ionizing Radiation, US Dept. Health, Education and Welfare Publication, April, 42–49, 1977.Google Scholar
  25. James, J. A., (1963), “News developments in the ultrasonic therapy of Meniere’s disease,” Ann. R. Coll. Surg Engl. 33, 226–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Japanese Standards Association, (1980), Draft- Japanese Industrial Standard, “A-mode Ultrasonic Diagnostic Equipment,” Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  27. Japanese Standards Association, (1978), Draft Japanese Industrial Standard, “Manual Scanning B-mode Ultrasonic Diagnostic Equipment,” March.Google Scholar
  28. Kelman, C. D., (1967), “Phacoemulsification and aspiration,” Am. J. Ophthal. 64, 23–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Khoe, W. H., (1977), “Ultrasound acupuncture: effective treatment modality for various diseases,” Am. J. Acupuncture 5 (1), 31–34.Google Scholar
  30. Kolar, J., Babicky, A., Daslova, J. and Kasl, J., (1965), “The Effect of Ultrasound on the Mineral Metabolism of Bones,” Travmatologiya Protezinovaniye 26 (8), 43–51 (original text in Russian; Canadian Government translation).Google Scholar
  31. Kossoff, G., and Khan, A. E., (1966), “Treatment of vertigo using the ultrasonic generator,” Arch. Otolar. 84, 181–188.Google Scholar
  32. Kossoff, G., Carpenter, D. A., Robinson, D. E., Rabovianovich, G., and Garrett, W. J., (1976), “Octason-a new rapid general purpose echoscope,” in Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 2, White D., and Barnes R., eds., Plenum, New York, 333–339.Google Scholar
  33. Liebeskind, D., Bases, R., Elequin, F., Neubort, S., Leifer, R., Goldberg, R., and Koenigsberg, M., (1979), “Diagnostic ultrasound: effects on DNA and growth patterns of animal cells,” Radiol. 131, 177–184.Google Scholar
  34. Liebeskind, D., Bases, R., Mendez, F., Elequin, F., and Koenigsberg, M., (1979a), “Sister chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound,” Science 205, 1273–1275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norme Experimentale, Appareils à ultra-sons utilisés en diagnostic, UTE C74-335, Paris, 1976.Google Scholar
  36. Norme Frangaise, Appareils à ultra-sons, NF C74-306, Paris, 1963.Google Scholar
  37. Nyborg, W. L., Physical Mechanisms for Biological Effects of Ultrasound, US Dept. HEW Pub. (FDA) 78-8062, Washington, DC, 1977.Google Scholar
  38. Payton, O. D., Lamb, R. L., and Kasey, M. E., Effects of therapeutic ultrasound on bone marrow in dogs, Phys. Therapy 55, 20–27, 1975.Google Scholar
  39. Phillips, C. I., and Williams, A. R., Cataracts: ultrasonic disintegration with Mason horn, Ultrasonics 10, 212, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Repacholi, M. H., and Benwell, D. A., “Using surveys of ultrasound therapy devices to draft performance standards, Health Phys. 36, 679–686, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shoji, R., Murakami, U., and Shimizu, T., Influence of low intensity ultrasound irradiation on prenatal development of two inbred mouse strains, Teratology 12, 227–232, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siegel, E., Goddard, J., James, A. E., and Siegel, E. P., Cellular attachment as a sensitive indicator of the effects of diagnostic ultrasound exposure on cultured human cells, Radiol. 133, 175–179, 1979.Google Scholar
  43. Standards Association of Australia, Ultrasonic therapy equipment, Australian standard AS T40-1969, Standards Association of Australia, Sydney, 1969.Google Scholar
  44. Stewart, H. F., Harris, G. R., and Frost, H. M., Development of principles and concepts for specification of ultrasonic diagnostic equipment performance, Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 3B, White, D., and Brown, R. E., eds., New York, Plenum, pp. 2115–2142, 1977.Google Scholar
  45. Stratmeyer, M. E., Research directions in ultrasound bioeffects - a public health view, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Biological Effects and Characterization of Ultrasound Sources, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare Pub. (FDA) 78-8046, Dec., pp. 240–245, 1977.Google Scholar
  46. US (1980), Market forecast, Electronics 3, 137, Jan. 1980.Google Scholar
  47. Wells, P. N. T., Biomedical Ultrasonics, Academic Press, London, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The HUMANA Press Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael H. Repacholi
    • 1
  • Deirdre A. Benwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Non-Ionizing Radiation Section, Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Protection BranchHealth and Welfare CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations