Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Newman, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, S. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Newman, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, S. W.

Chest, Vol 92, 991-994, Copyright © 1987 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

In vitro comparison of DeVilbiss jet and ultrasonic nebulizers

SP Newman, PG Pellow and SW Clarke
Department of Thoracic Medicine, Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine, London, England.

Output, droplet size (by laser instrument), and nebulization time have been compared in vitro for eight individual ultrasonic nebulizers (DeVilbiss Pulmosonic) and eight individual jet nebulizers (DeVilbiss 646), the latter operated by compressed air at flows of 6 and 12 L/min. A solution of hypertonic (7 percent) saline was nebulized. The ultrasonic nebulizer retained a higher "dead" volume of solution on completion of nebulization (p less than 0.05), but the increase in saline concentration was less marked than for the jet (p less than 0.01). The mass of NaCl released as aerosol was similar for the ultrasonic and for the jet at 6 L/min but was increased for the jet at 12 L/min (p less than 0.05). There was a fivefold interindividual variation in output for the ultrasonic. Droplet mass median diameters for the ultrasonic (mean 5.4 micron) were slightly lower than those for the jet at 6 L/min (mean 6.0 micron, p less than 0.05) but were higher than those for the jet at 12 L/min (mean 3.7 micron, p less than 0.01). The ultrasonic emitted virtually no droplets less than 2 micron diameter and may be unsuitable for applications requiring high yields of fine particles for delivery to the peripheral lung regions.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1987 by the American College of Chest Physicians.