Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Contributions

Performance Comparison of Nebulizer Designs: Constant-Output, Breath-Enhanced, and Dosimetric

Joseph L Rau, Arzu Ari and Ruben D Restrepo
Respiratory Care February 2004, 49 (2) 174-179;
Joseph L Rau
Cardiopulmonary Care Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Arzu Ari
Cardiopulmonary Care Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruben D Restrepo
Cardiopulmonary Care Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Design differences among pneumatically powered, small-volume nebulizers affect drug disposition (percentage of the dose delivered to the patient, lost to deposition in the equipment, and lost via exhalation to ambient air) and thus affect drug availability and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate in vitro the dose disposition with 5 nebulizer models, of 3 types (constant-output, breath-enhanced, and dosimetric), using simulated normal, adult breathing.

METHODS: We compared 5 nebulizer models: 2 constant-output (Misty-Neb and SideStream), 1 breath-enhanced (Pari LCD), and 2 dosimetric (Circulaire and AeroEclipse). Each nebulizer was filled with a 3-mL unit-dose of albuterol sulfate and powered by oxygen at 8 L/min. The nebulizers were connected to an induction throat, connected to a breathing simulator. We measured (1) inhaled drug (subdivided into mass deposited in the induction throat and mass deposited in the filter at the distal end of the induction throat), (2) exhaled drug (lost to the ambient air), (3) drug lost to deposition in the apparatus, and (4) drug left in the unit-dose bottle. The duration of nebulization (until sputter) was measured with a stopwatch. All drug amounts were analyzed via spectrophotometry and expressed as a percentage of the total dose.

RESULTS: The mean ± SD inhaled drug percentages were: Misty-Neb 17.2 ± 0.4%, SideStream 15.8 ± 2.8%, Pari LCD 15.2 ± 4.2%, Circulaire 8.7 ± 1.0%, and AeroEclipse 38.7 ± 1.3%. The mean ± SD percentages of drug lost to the ambient air were: Misty-Neb 26.8 ± 0.7%, SideStream 17.3 ± 0.4%, Pari LCD 18.3 ± 0.8%, Circulaire 12.3 ± 0.8%, and AeroEclipse 6.6 ± 3.3%. The mean ± SD percentages of drug lost to deposition in the apparatus were: Misty-Neb 52.3 ± 0.6%, SideStream 63.4 ± 3.0%, Pari LCD 62.5 ± 4.0%, Circulaire 75.8 ± 0.5%, and AeroEclipse 51.0 ± 2.1%. Duration of nebulization was shortest with the Circulaire and longest with the AeroEclipse (p < 0.05 via 1-way analysis of variance).

CONCLUSIONS: The nebulizers we tested differ significantly in overall drug disposition. The dosimetric AeroEclipse provided the largest inhaled drug mass and the lowest loss to ambient air, with the test conditions we used.

  • nebulizers
  • aerosols
  • drug therapy
  • drug administration
  • inhalation
  • respiratory drug administration

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Joseph L Rau PhD RRT FAARC, Cardiopulmonary Care Sciences, MSC 8R0319, Georgia State University, 33 Gilmer Street SE, Unit 8, Atlanta GA 30303. E-mail: jrau{at}gsu.edu.
  • Copyright © 2004 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 49 (2)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 49, Issue 2
1 Feb 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Performance Comparison of Nebulizer Designs: Constant-Output, Breath-Enhanced, and Dosimetric
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Performance Comparison of Nebulizer Designs: Constant-Output, Breath-Enhanced, and Dosimetric
Joseph L Rau, Arzu Ari, Ruben D Restrepo
Respiratory Care Feb 2004, 49 (2) 174-179;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Performance Comparison of Nebulizer Designs: Constant-Output, Breath-Enhanced, and Dosimetric
Joseph L Rau, Arzu Ari, Ruben D Restrepo
Respiratory Care Feb 2004, 49 (2) 174-179;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • nebulizers
  • aerosols
  • drug therapy
  • drug administration
  • inhalation
  • respiratory drug administration

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire