Table 3.

Increase in acoustic absorption coefficient relative to the control condition

Study	Δα ± σ (m–1)
Lorton et al. 2020 [27]
Ex vivo pig liver
0.10% v:v	0.20 ± 0.17
0.19% v:v	0.79 ± 0.21
Ex vivo pig kidney
0.13% v:v	0.70 ± 0.20
0.24% v:v	1.20 ± 0.76
Laminar flow phantom
0.10% v:v, 0.1 mL s–1	0.56 ± 0.08
0.10% v:v, 0.15 mL s–1	0.73 ± 0.16
0.20% v:v, 0.15 mL s–1	1.05 ± 0.17
Ex vivo pig hepatic vein
0.19% v:v	0.37 ± 0.27
This study
Percolated phantom without fluid flow
0.10% v:v, 0.0 mL s–1	0.20 ± 0.35
0.20% v:v, 0.0 mL s–1	0.34 ± 0.51
0.30% v:v, 0.0 mL s–1	0.43 ± 0.57
Percolated phantom with turbulent flow
0.10% v:v, 0.1 mL s–1	0.63 ± 0.19
0.20% v:v, 0.1 mL s–1	0.90 ± 0.20
0.30% v:v, 0.1 mL s–1	1.02 ± 0.18

Δα, change in acoustic absorption coefficient relative to the control condition (m^–1); σ, standard deviation (m^–1).