Comparison of mouse and rabbit lung damage exposure to 30 khz ultrasound

William D. O'Brien, James F. Zachary

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Twenty-four mice and sixteen rabbits were evaluated at one exposure duration (10 min) and at three exposure acoustic pressure levels (0, 100 and 145 kPa) at an ultrasonic frequency of 30 kHz, continuous wave for the purpose of testing whether there was a species difference in the degree of sensitivity to ultrasound-induced lung damage. This study was undertaken because it was hypothesized that the mouse may not be an acceptable or suitable animal model for studies that examine the effects of ultrasound on lung tissue for purposes of extrapolating or estimating the degree of potential damage in other species. The rabbit was selected for comparison to the mouse because the rabbit exhibited sufficient physiological and morphological differences from those of the mouse to test this hypothesis. Using exactly the same exposure conditions and lung assessment criteria, it appeared that the mouse lung was more sensitive to ultrasound-induced damage than that of the rabbit by a factor of between 2.8 and 3.6. Lung lesions in mice and rabbits were similar in character, but were much more severe and extensive in mice. Lesions in both species consisted of intraalveolar hemorrhage that appeared as dark red to red-black areas that were visible on the pleural surfaces and that extend within the lung parenchyma.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)299-307
Number of pages9
JournalUltrasound in Medicine and Biology
Volume20
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1994

Keywords

  • Bioeffect
  • Damage
  • Hemorrhage
  • Lesion
  • Lung
  • Mouse
  • Rabbit
  • Species comparison
  • Ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Acoustics and Ultrasonics

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of mouse and rabbit lung damage exposure to 30 khz ultrasound'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this