ОЦІНКА ПОТЕНЦІЙНОГО РИЗИКУ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ ПОБУТОВИХ ПРИЛАДІВ, ЯКІ ГЕНЕРУЮТЬ УЛЬТРАЗВУК, ЗА ДОПОМОГОЮ МЕТОДІВ БІОТЕСТУВАННЯ
Ключові слова:
побутовий ультразвуковий відлякувач комах, безпека людини, ростовий фітотест
Анотація
Відомо, що техногенні ультразвуки спроможні негативно впливати на живі організми і, зокрема, на організм людини. Однак, серед побутових приладів, які пропонуються споживачам, є ультразвукові відлякувачі комах і гризунів, які, згідно інструкції виробників, дозволяється використовувати в житлових приміщеннях протягом тривалого часу через передбачувану відсутність функціонального впливу на живі організми. Оскільки вухо людини не спроможне сприймати ультразвуки, використання побутових приладів, які генерують пружні механічні хвилі означеного типу, може становити потенційну небезпеку для здоров`я споживачів, зокрема, через недобросовісність виробників, прилади яких не відповідають діючим гігієнічним нормативам. При цьому слід зазначити, що фізичні прилади, які реєструють рівень ультразвукового тиску в навколишньому середовищі, є не доступними для пересічних споживачів. У зв’язку з вище викладеним, для виявлення можливого функціонального впливу ультразвуків від означених побутових приладів на живі організми, нами пропонується використовувати ростовий фітотест, оскільки рослини, як і інші живі організми, є високочутливими до пружних механічних хвиль ультразвукового діапазону частот. В ході проведеного нами дослідження, проростаюче насіння ячменю (Hordeum vulgare) піддавали впливу ультразвуків від побутового відлякувача комах «Яструб МТ.04» (частота ультразвуків 30-35 кГц, рівень звукового тиску 90-110 дБ) тривалістю 12 год або 24 год щоденно протягом 4-х діб за умови експозиції на відстані 1 м безпосередньо перед приладом або за тканинною шторою. Проведені дослідження показали, що ультразвуки від побутового відлякувача комах «Яструб МТ.04» достовірно гальмували ріст коренів і епікотилів проростків ячменя і рівень цього гальмування залежав від тривалості експозиції проростків у присутності ультразвуків. При цьому, згідно з Міждержавними санітарними правилами і нормами МСанПіН 001-96, інтенсивність ультразвуків, які генеруються відлякувачем комах «Яструб МТ.04», перевищує безпечні гігієнічні нормативи для людини, які становлять 100 дБ. Таким чином, отримані нами дані свідчать про наявність функціонального впливу ультразвуків, інтенсивність яких перевищує діючі нормативи, на клітини рослин, що дозволяє використовувати ростовий фітотест для оцінки потенційної безпеки використання приладів означеного типу пересічними споживачами.
Посилання
1. МСанПиН 001-96. Межгосударственные санитарные правила и нормы МСанПиН 001-96 «Санитарные нормы допустимых уровней физических факторов при применении товаров народного потребления в бытовых условиях», http://www.tehbez.ru/Docum/ DocumShow _DocumID_ 521.html.
2. Aitkin LM, Nelson JE, Shepherd RK. Hearing, vocalization and the external ear of a marsupial, the northern Quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus. J Comp Neurol. 1994;349(3):377-88.
3. Ananthakrishnan G, Xia X, Amutha S, Singer S, Muruganantham M, Yablonsky S, Fischer E, Gaba V. Ultrasonic treatment stimulates multiple shoot regeneration and explant enlargement in recalcitrant squash cotyledon explants in vitro. Plant Cell Rep. 2007;26(3):267-76.
4. Basta G, Venneri L, Lazzerini G, Pasanisi E, Pianelli M, Vesentini N, Del Turco S, Kusmic C, Picano E. In vitro modulation of intracellular oxidative stress of endothelial cells by diagnostic cardiac ultrasound. Cardiovasc Res. 2003;58(1):156-61.
5. Bernal A, Perez LM, De Lucas B, Martin NS, Kadow-Romacker A, Plaza G, et al. Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Improves the Functional Properties of Cardiac Mesoangioblasts. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2015;11(6):852-65. doi: 10.1007/s12015-015-9608-6.
6. Bohn KM, Boughman JW, Wilkinson GS, Moss CF. Auditory sensitivity and frequency selectivity in greater spear-nosed bats suggest specializations for acoustic communication. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004;190(3):185-92.
7. Chen YP, Liu Q, Yue XZ, Meng ZW, Liang J. Ultrasonic vibration seeds showed improved resistance to cadmium and lead in wheat seedling. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2013;20(7): 4807-16. doi: 10.1007/s11356-012-1411-1.
8. Currier HB, Webster DH. Callose formation and subsequent disappearance: studies in ultrasound stimulation. Plant Physiol. 1964;39:843–7.
9. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, et al. Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature. 2006;440(7082):333-6.
10. Furusawa Y, Iizumi T, Fujiwara Y, Hassan MA, Tabuchi Y, Nomura T, et al. Ultrasound activates ataxia telangiectasia mutated- and rad3-related (ATR)-checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) pathway in human leukemia Jurkat cells. Ultrason Sonochem. 2012;19(6):1246-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2012.04.003.
11. Gregory WD, Miller MW, Carstensen EL, Cataldo FL, Reddy MM. Non-thermal effects of 2 MHz ultrasound on the growth and cytology of Vicia faba roots. Br J Radiol. 1974;47(554):122-9.
12. Hameroff S, Trakas M, Duffield C, Annabi E, Gerace MB, Boyle P, et al. Transcranial ultrasound (TUS) effects on mental states: a pilot study. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(3):409-15. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2012.05.002.
13. Hasan MM, Bashir T, Bae H. Use of Ultrasonication Technology for the Increased Production of Plant Secondary Metabolites. Molecules. 2017;22(7):pii:E1046. doi: 10.3390/molecules22071046.
14. Hauser J, Hauser M, Muhr G, Esenwein S. Ultrasound-induced modifications of cytoskeletal components in osteoblast-like SAOS-2 cells. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(3):286-94. doi: 10.1002/jor.20741.
15. Hering ER, Shepstone BJ. Observations on the combined effect of ultrasound and x-rays on the growth of the roots of Zea mays. Phys Med Biol. 1976;21(2):263-71.
16. Khait I, Sharon R, Perelman R, Boonman A, Yovel Y, Hadany L. The sounds of plants - Plants emit remotely detectable ultrasounds that can reveal plant stress. Dec. 28, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1101/507590.
17. Kratovalieva S, Srbinoska M, Popsimonova G, Selamovska A, Meglic V, Andelkovic V. Ultrasound influence on coleoptile length at Poaceae seedlings as valuable criteria in prebreeding and breeding processes. Genetika. 2012;44(3):561–70.
18. Laschimke R, Burger M, Vallen H. Acoustic emission analysis and experiments with physical model systems reveal a peculiar nature of the xylem tension. J Plant Physiol. 2006;163:996–1007.
19. Lee IC, Fadera S, Liu HL. Strategy of differentiation therapy: effect of dual-frequency ultrasound on the induction of liver cancer stem-like cells on a HA-based multilayer film system. J Mater Chem B. 2019;7(35):5401-11. doi: 10.1039/c9tb01120j.
20. Liu Y, Yang H, Sakanishi A. Ultrasound: mechanical gene transfer into plant cells by sonoporation. Biotechnol Adv. 2006;24(1):1-16.
21. Lu H, Qin L, Lee K, Cheung W, Chan K, Leung K. Identification of genes responsive to low-intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulations. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009;378(3):569-73. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008. 11.074.
22. Miller MW, Ciaravino V, Allen D, Jensen S. Effect of 2 MHz Ultrasound on DNA, RNA and Protein Synthesis in Pisum Sativum Root Meristem Cells. Internat J Radiation Biol Related Studies Physics, Chemistry & Medicine. 1976a;30(3):217–22.
23. Miller MW, Kaufman GE. Effects of short-duration exposures to 2MHz ultrasound on growth and mitotic index of Pisum sativum roots. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 1977;3(1):27–9.
24. Miller MW, Voorhees SM, Carstensen EL, Kaufman GE. The Effect of 2 MHz Ultrasound Irradiation on Pisum sativum Roots. Radiation Research. 1976b;65(3):451-7.
25. Muratova SA, Papikhin RV. The Effect of Ultrasound Irradiation on Induction of Callus Formation and Morphogenesis from the Leaf Discs of Apple Clonal Rootstocks. J Pharm Sci & Res. 2018;10(10):2592–6.
26. Nakano R, Takanashi T, Fujii T, Skals N, Surlykke A, Ishikawa Y. Moths are not silent, but whisper ultrasonic courtship songs. J Exp Biol. 2009;212(Pt 24):4072-8. doi: 10.1242/jeb.032466.
27. Noriega S, Hasanova G, Subramanian A. The effect of ultrasound stimulation on the cytoskeletal organization of chondrocytes seeded in three-dimensional matrices. Cells Tissues Organs. 2013;197(1):14-26. doi: 10.1159/000339772.
28. Palumbo P, Cinque B, Miconi G, La Torre C, Zoccali G, Vrentzos N, et al. Biological effects of low frequency high intensity ultrasound application on ex vivo human adipose tissue. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(2):411-22.
29. Pena J, Grace J. Water relations and ultrasound emissions of Pinus sylvestris L. before, during and after a period of water stress. New Phytologist. 1986;103(3):515–24.
30. Perelman ME, Rubinstein GM. Ultrasound vibrations of plant cells membranes: water lift in trees, electrical phenomena. 2006; http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611133.
31. Perks MP, Irvine J, Grace J. Xylem acoustic signals from mature Pinus sylvestris during an extended drought. Annals of Forest Science. 2004;61(1):1–8. doi:10.1051/forest:2003079.
32. Qin YC, Lee WC, Choi YC, Kim TW. Biochemical and physiological changes in plants as a result of different sonic exposures. Ultrasonics. 2003;41(5):407-11.
33. Ramsier MA, Cunningham AJ, Moritz GL, Finneran JJ, Williams CV, Ong PS, Gursky-Doyen SL, Dominy NJ. Primate communication in the pure ultrasound. Biol Lett. 2012;8(4):508-11. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.1149
34. Sahu N, Budhiraja G, Subramanian A. Preconditioning of mesenchymal stromal cells with low-intensity ultrasound: influence on chondrogenesis and directed SOX9 signaling pathways. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11(1):6. doi:10.1186/s13287-019-1532-2
35. Saliev T, Begimbetova D, Baiskhanova D, Abetov D, Kairov U, Gilman CP, et al. Apoptotic and genotoxic effects of low-intensity ultrasound on healthy and leukemic human peripheral mononuclear blood cells. J Med Ultrason. 2018;45(1):31-9. doi:10.1007/s10396-017-0805-6.
36. Seffer D, Schwarting RK, Wohr M. Pro-social ultrasonic communication in rats: insights from playback studies. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;234:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.01.023.
37. Song L, Wang X, Zhang W, Ye L, Feng X. Low-intensity ultrasound promotes the horizontal transfer of resistance genes mediated by plasmids in E. coli. 3 Biotech. 2018;8(5):224. doi: 10.1007/s13205-018-1247-6.
38. Sun CX, Ma YJ, Wang JW. Enhanced production of hypocrellin A by ultrasound stimulation in submerged cultures of Shiraia bambusicola. Ultrason Sonochem. 2017;38:214-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.03.020.
39. Udroiu I, Marinaccio J, Bedini A, Giliberti C, Palomba R, Sgura A. Genomic damage induced by 1-MHz ultrasound in vitro. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2018;59(1):60-8. doi: 10.1002/em.22124.
40. Wang B, Shao J, Li B, Lian J, Duan C. Soundwave stimulation triggers the content change of the endogenous hormone of the Chrysanthemum mature callus. Coll Surf B Biointerfaces. 2004;37:107–12.
41. Wang X, Liu Q, Wang Z, Wang P, Hao Q, Li C. Bioeffects of low-energy continuous ultrasound on isolated sarcoma 180 cells. Chemotherapy. 2009;55(4):253-61. doi: 10.1159/000220246.
42. Wei M, Yang C-Y, Wei S-H. Enhancement of the differentiation of protocorm-like bodies of Dendrobium officinale to shoots by ultrasound treatment. J Plant Physiol. 2012;169(8): 770–4.
43. Weinberger P, Anderson P, Donovan LS. Change in production, yield, and chemical composition of corn (Zea maize) after ultrasound treatment of seeds. Rad Environ Biophys. 1979; 16:81–8.
44. Weinberger P, Das G. The effect of an audible and low ultrasound frequency on the growth of synchronized cultures of Scenedesmus obtusiculus. Can J Bot. 1972;50:361–6.
45. Xia B, Zou Y, Xu Z, Lv Y. Gene expression profiling analysis of the effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural crest stem cells. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2017;64(6):927-37. doi:10.1002/bab.1554.
46. Yang Q, Nanayakkara GK, Drummer C, Sun Y, Johnson C, Cueto R, et al. Low-Intensity Ultrasound-Induced Anti-inflammatory Effects Are Mediated by Several New Mechanisms Including Gene Induction, Immunosuppressor Cell Promotion, and Enhancement of Exosome Biogenesis and Docking. Front Physiol. 2017;8:818. doi:10.3389/fphys. 2017.00818.
47. Zhang YY, Wu KL, Zhang JX, Deng RF, Duan J, Teixeira da Silva JA, et al. Embryo development in association with asymbiotic seed germination in vitro of Paphiopedilum armeniacum S. C. Chen et F. Y. Liu. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16356. doi: 10.1038/srep16356.
48. Zweifel R, Zeugin F. Ultrasonic acoustic emissions in drought-stressed trees – more than signals from cavitation? New Phytologist. 2008;179:1070–9.
2. Aitkin LM, Nelson JE, Shepherd RK. Hearing, vocalization and the external ear of a marsupial, the northern Quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus. J Comp Neurol. 1994;349(3):377-88.
3. Ananthakrishnan G, Xia X, Amutha S, Singer S, Muruganantham M, Yablonsky S, Fischer E, Gaba V. Ultrasonic treatment stimulates multiple shoot regeneration and explant enlargement in recalcitrant squash cotyledon explants in vitro. Plant Cell Rep. 2007;26(3):267-76.
4. Basta G, Venneri L, Lazzerini G, Pasanisi E, Pianelli M, Vesentini N, Del Turco S, Kusmic C, Picano E. In vitro modulation of intracellular oxidative stress of endothelial cells by diagnostic cardiac ultrasound. Cardiovasc Res. 2003;58(1):156-61.
5. Bernal A, Perez LM, De Lucas B, Martin NS, Kadow-Romacker A, Plaza G, et al. Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Improves the Functional Properties of Cardiac Mesoangioblasts. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2015;11(6):852-65. doi: 10.1007/s12015-015-9608-6.
6. Bohn KM, Boughman JW, Wilkinson GS, Moss CF. Auditory sensitivity and frequency selectivity in greater spear-nosed bats suggest specializations for acoustic communication. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004;190(3):185-92.
7. Chen YP, Liu Q, Yue XZ, Meng ZW, Liang J. Ultrasonic vibration seeds showed improved resistance to cadmium and lead in wheat seedling. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2013;20(7): 4807-16. doi: 10.1007/s11356-012-1411-1.
8. Currier HB, Webster DH. Callose formation and subsequent disappearance: studies in ultrasound stimulation. Plant Physiol. 1964;39:843–7.
9. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, et al. Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature. 2006;440(7082):333-6.
10. Furusawa Y, Iizumi T, Fujiwara Y, Hassan MA, Tabuchi Y, Nomura T, et al. Ultrasound activates ataxia telangiectasia mutated- and rad3-related (ATR)-checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) pathway in human leukemia Jurkat cells. Ultrason Sonochem. 2012;19(6):1246-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2012.04.003.
11. Gregory WD, Miller MW, Carstensen EL, Cataldo FL, Reddy MM. Non-thermal effects of 2 MHz ultrasound on the growth and cytology of Vicia faba roots. Br J Radiol. 1974;47(554):122-9.
12. Hameroff S, Trakas M, Duffield C, Annabi E, Gerace MB, Boyle P, et al. Transcranial ultrasound (TUS) effects on mental states: a pilot study. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(3):409-15. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2012.05.002.
13. Hasan MM, Bashir T, Bae H. Use of Ultrasonication Technology for the Increased Production of Plant Secondary Metabolites. Molecules. 2017;22(7):pii:E1046. doi: 10.3390/molecules22071046.
14. Hauser J, Hauser M, Muhr G, Esenwein S. Ultrasound-induced modifications of cytoskeletal components in osteoblast-like SAOS-2 cells. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(3):286-94. doi: 10.1002/jor.20741.
15. Hering ER, Shepstone BJ. Observations on the combined effect of ultrasound and x-rays on the growth of the roots of Zea mays. Phys Med Biol. 1976;21(2):263-71.
16. Khait I, Sharon R, Perelman R, Boonman A, Yovel Y, Hadany L. The sounds of plants - Plants emit remotely detectable ultrasounds that can reveal plant stress. Dec. 28, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1101/507590.
17. Kratovalieva S, Srbinoska M, Popsimonova G, Selamovska A, Meglic V, Andelkovic V. Ultrasound influence on coleoptile length at Poaceae seedlings as valuable criteria in prebreeding and breeding processes. Genetika. 2012;44(3):561–70.
18. Laschimke R, Burger M, Vallen H. Acoustic emission analysis and experiments with physical model systems reveal a peculiar nature of the xylem tension. J Plant Physiol. 2006;163:996–1007.
19. Lee IC, Fadera S, Liu HL. Strategy of differentiation therapy: effect of dual-frequency ultrasound on the induction of liver cancer stem-like cells on a HA-based multilayer film system. J Mater Chem B. 2019;7(35):5401-11. doi: 10.1039/c9tb01120j.
20. Liu Y, Yang H, Sakanishi A. Ultrasound: mechanical gene transfer into plant cells by sonoporation. Biotechnol Adv. 2006;24(1):1-16.
21. Lu H, Qin L, Lee K, Cheung W, Chan K, Leung K. Identification of genes responsive to low-intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulations. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009;378(3):569-73. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008. 11.074.
22. Miller MW, Ciaravino V, Allen D, Jensen S. Effect of 2 MHz Ultrasound on DNA, RNA and Protein Synthesis in Pisum Sativum Root Meristem Cells. Internat J Radiation Biol Related Studies Physics, Chemistry & Medicine. 1976a;30(3):217–22.
23. Miller MW, Kaufman GE. Effects of short-duration exposures to 2MHz ultrasound on growth and mitotic index of Pisum sativum roots. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 1977;3(1):27–9.
24. Miller MW, Voorhees SM, Carstensen EL, Kaufman GE. The Effect of 2 MHz Ultrasound Irradiation on Pisum sativum Roots. Radiation Research. 1976b;65(3):451-7.
25. Muratova SA, Papikhin RV. The Effect of Ultrasound Irradiation on Induction of Callus Formation and Morphogenesis from the Leaf Discs of Apple Clonal Rootstocks. J Pharm Sci & Res. 2018;10(10):2592–6.
26. Nakano R, Takanashi T, Fujii T, Skals N, Surlykke A, Ishikawa Y. Moths are not silent, but whisper ultrasonic courtship songs. J Exp Biol. 2009;212(Pt 24):4072-8. doi: 10.1242/jeb.032466.
27. Noriega S, Hasanova G, Subramanian A. The effect of ultrasound stimulation on the cytoskeletal organization of chondrocytes seeded in three-dimensional matrices. Cells Tissues Organs. 2013;197(1):14-26. doi: 10.1159/000339772.
28. Palumbo P, Cinque B, Miconi G, La Torre C, Zoccali G, Vrentzos N, et al. Biological effects of low frequency high intensity ultrasound application on ex vivo human adipose tissue. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(2):411-22.
29. Pena J, Grace J. Water relations and ultrasound emissions of Pinus sylvestris L. before, during and after a period of water stress. New Phytologist. 1986;103(3):515–24.
30. Perelman ME, Rubinstein GM. Ultrasound vibrations of plant cells membranes: water lift in trees, electrical phenomena. 2006; http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611133.
31. Perks MP, Irvine J, Grace J. Xylem acoustic signals from mature Pinus sylvestris during an extended drought. Annals of Forest Science. 2004;61(1):1–8. doi:10.1051/forest:2003079.
32. Qin YC, Lee WC, Choi YC, Kim TW. Biochemical and physiological changes in plants as a result of different sonic exposures. Ultrasonics. 2003;41(5):407-11.
33. Ramsier MA, Cunningham AJ, Moritz GL, Finneran JJ, Williams CV, Ong PS, Gursky-Doyen SL, Dominy NJ. Primate communication in the pure ultrasound. Biol Lett. 2012;8(4):508-11. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.1149
34. Sahu N, Budhiraja G, Subramanian A. Preconditioning of mesenchymal stromal cells with low-intensity ultrasound: influence on chondrogenesis and directed SOX9 signaling pathways. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11(1):6. doi:10.1186/s13287-019-1532-2
35. Saliev T, Begimbetova D, Baiskhanova D, Abetov D, Kairov U, Gilman CP, et al. Apoptotic and genotoxic effects of low-intensity ultrasound on healthy and leukemic human peripheral mononuclear blood cells. J Med Ultrason. 2018;45(1):31-9. doi:10.1007/s10396-017-0805-6.
36. Seffer D, Schwarting RK, Wohr M. Pro-social ultrasonic communication in rats: insights from playback studies. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;234:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.01.023.
37. Song L, Wang X, Zhang W, Ye L, Feng X. Low-intensity ultrasound promotes the horizontal transfer of resistance genes mediated by plasmids in E. coli. 3 Biotech. 2018;8(5):224. doi: 10.1007/s13205-018-1247-6.
38. Sun CX, Ma YJ, Wang JW. Enhanced production of hypocrellin A by ultrasound stimulation in submerged cultures of Shiraia bambusicola. Ultrason Sonochem. 2017;38:214-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.03.020.
39. Udroiu I, Marinaccio J, Bedini A, Giliberti C, Palomba R, Sgura A. Genomic damage induced by 1-MHz ultrasound in vitro. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2018;59(1):60-8. doi: 10.1002/em.22124.
40. Wang B, Shao J, Li B, Lian J, Duan C. Soundwave stimulation triggers the content change of the endogenous hormone of the Chrysanthemum mature callus. Coll Surf B Biointerfaces. 2004;37:107–12.
41. Wang X, Liu Q, Wang Z, Wang P, Hao Q, Li C. Bioeffects of low-energy continuous ultrasound on isolated sarcoma 180 cells. Chemotherapy. 2009;55(4):253-61. doi: 10.1159/000220246.
42. Wei M, Yang C-Y, Wei S-H. Enhancement of the differentiation of protocorm-like bodies of Dendrobium officinale to shoots by ultrasound treatment. J Plant Physiol. 2012;169(8): 770–4.
43. Weinberger P, Anderson P, Donovan LS. Change in production, yield, and chemical composition of corn (Zea maize) after ultrasound treatment of seeds. Rad Environ Biophys. 1979; 16:81–8.
44. Weinberger P, Das G. The effect of an audible and low ultrasound frequency on the growth of synchronized cultures of Scenedesmus obtusiculus. Can J Bot. 1972;50:361–6.
45. Xia B, Zou Y, Xu Z, Lv Y. Gene expression profiling analysis of the effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural crest stem cells. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2017;64(6):927-37. doi:10.1002/bab.1554.
46. Yang Q, Nanayakkara GK, Drummer C, Sun Y, Johnson C, Cueto R, et al. Low-Intensity Ultrasound-Induced Anti-inflammatory Effects Are Mediated by Several New Mechanisms Including Gene Induction, Immunosuppressor Cell Promotion, and Enhancement of Exosome Biogenesis and Docking. Front Physiol. 2017;8:818. doi:10.3389/fphys. 2017.00818.
47. Zhang YY, Wu KL, Zhang JX, Deng RF, Duan J, Teixeira da Silva JA, et al. Embryo development in association with asymbiotic seed germination in vitro of Paphiopedilum armeniacum S. C. Chen et F. Y. Liu. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16356. doi: 10.1038/srep16356.
48. Zweifel R, Zeugin F. Ultrasonic acoustic emissions in drought-stressed trees – more than signals from cavitation? New Phytologist. 2008;179:1070–9.