0
Articles |

Measuring Nebulizer Output : Aerosol Production vs Gravimetric Analysis

Ravi Tandon; Michael McPeck; Gerald C. Smaldone
Author and Funding Information

Affiliations: From the Department of Medicine, Pulmonary/Critical Care Division, State University of New York at Stony Brook,  From the Department of Respiratory Care, State University of New York at Stony Brook

Affiliations: From the Department of Medicine, Pulmonary/Critical Care Division, State University of New York at Stony Brook,  From the Department of Respiratory Care, State University of New York at Stony Brook


1997 by the American College of Chest Physicians


Chest. 1997;111(5):1361-1365. doi:10.1378/chest.111.5.1361
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

Study objectives: The function of jet nebulizers has been measured traditionally by gravimetric methods, ie, by weighing nebulizers before and after nebulization. Newer techniques measure aerosol output directly by analyzing aerosolized drug or tracer, ie, radioactive 99mTc. Because of evaporation, the equivalence of these methods is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine if the gravimetric method is an accurate measure of aerosol production under different conditions of aerosol generation (ie, nebulizer type, flow rate, pressure, volume fill, and concentration of solution used to nebulize a drug).

Methods: In the first phase of the study, we measured the aerosol output of nine commercially available jet nebulizers (AvaNeb; Up-Draft-Hudson RCI; Cirrus-Intersurgical Inc; DeVilbiss 646-DeVilbiss; Powermist-Hospitak, Inc; Respirgard II-Marquest Medical Products; Seamless-Seamless/Dart Respiratory; Salter; Salter Labs; Airlife-Baxter Health Care) run under commonly used conditions (2.5 mL volume fill, 2.0 mL normal saline solvent, 0.5 mL albuterol, flow of 6 L/min, and pressures averaging 15.0±2.3 [mean±SD] pounds per square inch [on the] gauge [psig] provided by a DeVilbiss PulmoAide compressor) with simultaneously measured gravimetrics and filtered radioactivity. Each nebulizer was run to dryness with data acquired every 2 min. The change in the weight of the nebulizer and radioactivity captured on the filter were expressed as percentages of the total in the nebulizer solution. In the second phase of the study, the experiments were repeated using the same nebulizers with a volume fill of 5 mL (diluted to half normal saline solution plus albuterol), flow of 10 L/min, and pressures of 35.6±8.8 psig.

Results: The cumulative (sum of all 2-min runs) weight loss for each individual nebulizer ranged from 25.00 to 64.55% and cumulative aerosol captured varied from 12.63 to 38.76%. While different, the weight loss and aerosol captured were closely correlated (y=−0.62+0.62x; r=0.961, p<0.0001). Changing volume fill and concentration of solvent did not affect this correlation (p=0.921 and 0.373, respectively). However, changing flow from 6 L/min to 10 L/min significantly (p=0.02) affected the relationship (y=−3.80+0.83x; r=0.969, p<0.001).

Conclusions: When compared with direct methods such as filtering generated particles, the gravimetric method of assessing nebulizer function overestimates aerosol output by 1.8±0.18 times, presumably because of the loss of solvent during nebulization. However, the relationship between methods is predictable and appears unaffected by changing the type of nebulizer, volume fill, and concentration of solvent. Changes in nebulizer flow and pressure significantly affected the correlation. Gravimetric methods can be used as simple and convenient screening techniques for comparing jet nebulizers under a wide range of experimental conditions.


Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Topics

aerosols

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543