Size matters: Micro- versus nanobubbles in ultrasound imaging and therapy

This study investigates the reported ability of nanobubbles (<500 nanometers in diameter) to exhibit a comparable or superior acoustic response to microbubbles (>1 micrometer in diameter). Eight hypotheses were examined. Both the theoretical and experimental results supported only one hypothesis: The apparent echogenicity of nanobubbles under both linear and nonlinear imaging is due to the presence of preexisting microbubbles, which are not reliably detected by available nanoparticle sizing methods. There was no evidence to support the other hypotheses, although the possibility of microbubble formation due to bubble aggregation/coalescence or swelling due to gas absorption in vivo could not be completely ruled out. Nanobubbles may offer advantages in terms of circulatory stability and potential for therapeutic delivery compared with microbubbles, but these advantages must be weighed against the need to use higher bubble concentrations, higher ultrasound frequencies, and/or higher intensities to achieve equivalent imaging and/or therapeutic effects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science Advances
Published
2025-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ads2177
Citations
16
Primary Topic
Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.79
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Size matters: Micro- versus nanobubbles in ultrasound imaging and therapy

Jia-Ling Ruan, Nicholas Charles Ovenden, Alexandra Vasilyeva, Luca Baù et al.
16 citations
Science Advances
Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
10.79
article

Size matters: Micro- versus nanobubbles in ultrasound imaging and therapy

Jia-Ling Ruan, Nicholas Charles Ovenden, Alexandra Vasilyeva, Luca Baù, Awaneesh Upadhyay, Eleanor Stride, Qiang Wu, Mihir Sheth, Caed Knight
article en
16 citations

Abstract

This study investigates the reported ability of nanobubbles (<500 nanometers in diameter) to exhibit a comparable or superior acoustic response to microbubbles (>1 micrometer in diameter). Eight hypotheses were examined. Both the theoretical and experimental results supported only one hypothesis: The apparent echogenicity of nanobubbles under both linear and nonlinear imaging is due to the presence of preexisting microbubbles, which are not reliably detected by available nanoparticle sizing methods. There was no evidence to support the other hypotheses, although the possibility of microbubble formation due to bubble aggregation/coalescence or swelling due to gas absorption in vivo could not be completely ruled out. Nanobubbles may offer advantages in terms of circulatory stability and potential for therapeutic delivery compared with microbubbles, but these advantages must be weighed against the need to use higher bubble concentrations, higher ultrasound frequencies, and/or higher intensities to achieve equivalent imaging and/or therapeutic effects.

Science AdvancesVol. 11(29)
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre (GB), University of Oxford (GB), NIHR Oxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Centre (GB), University College London (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
10.79
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.