Differences in tissue heating rates between ultrasound transducers have been well documented; however, comparative analysis between ultrasound fields to determine why tissue heating rates may differ is lacking. We selected three transducers from the same manufacturer with similar effective radiating area, output power, effective intensity and beam nonuniformity ratio [as defined by the FDA, 21 CFR Chap. 1, part 1,050 (10)], but markedly different Schlieren images. Each transducer was utilized to heat tissue with a standardized ultrasound application to determine whether Schlieren analysis may be useful in understanding variability in tissue heating rates. Thermocouples were inserted into the left triceps surae of 12 volunteers at a depth of 1.5 cm below one half the measured skin fold thickness (estimated average depth of the thermocouple was 1.99 +/- 0.27 cm). Each subject received one treatment from each transducer in a single session (n = 3); 3 MHz at 1.2 W/cm(2) for 8 min with a 100% duty cycle. Each transducer increased the IM temperature over time (p < 0.0001). IM temperatures were not significantly different between transducers from time zero to the fourth minute of treatment. After the fourth min, transducers B and C generated significantly higher tissue temperatures (p < 0.01). Transducer A, B and C increased IM temperature from 34.9 +/- 0.5 to 41.2 +/- 1.3 degrees C, 34.9 +/- 0.6 to 42.5 +/- 1.4 degrees C and 34.9 +/- 0.5 to 42.7 +/- 1.7 degrees C, respectively. Interestingly, transducer C emitted 22% lower output power but heated 24% higher than transducer A and our Schlieren images demonstrate that transducers B and C produced a more concentrated field compared with transducer A. The data we present here supports the general contention that a more concentrated field will heat to a higher temperature than a more disperse field, however, technical challenges in estimating output power, ERA and Schlieren analysis remain an issue.