PURPOSE: To quantify the amount of aerosol deposited in different parts of the airways with a commercially available nasal sonic jet nebulizer (NJN) using a sound effect, and to compare its performance with a new nasal mesh nebulizer (NMN). METHODS: Seven healthy non-smoking male volunteers aged 21-36 years with a mean weight of 77±10 kg were included in this single-center study. Both nebulizer systems were loaded with (99m)Tc-DTPA and scintigraphies were performed with a gamma camera. Particle size distribution of the aerosols produced by the two nebulizer systems was measured. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the two nebulizers in terms of fraction of particles smaller than 5 μm (44±4% vs 45±2%) (p>0.9). Aerosol deposition in the nasal region was 73±10% (% of aerosol deposited in airways) with the NJN, and 99±3% with the NMN (p=0.01). Total nasal deposition was 9.6±1.9% of the nebulizer charge with the NJN and 28.4±8.9% with the NMN (p=0.01). 0.5±0.3% of the nebulizer charge was deposited in the maxillary sinuses with the NJN, compared to 2.2±1.6% with the NMN (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Although the two nebulizers had the same particle size, NMN significantly improved aerosol deposition in nasal cavity and prevents deposition into the lungs.
PURPOSE: To quantify the amount of aerosol deposited in different parts of the airways with a commercially available nasal sonic jet nebulizer (NJN) using a sound effect, and to compare its performance with a new nasal mesh nebulizer (NMN). METHODS: Seven healthy non-smoking male volunteers aged 21-36 years with a mean weight of 77±10 kg were included in this single-center study. Both nebulizer systems were loaded with (99m)Tc-DTPA and scintigraphies were performed with a gamma camera. Particle size distribution of the aerosols produced by the two nebulizer systems was measured. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the two nebulizers in terms of fraction of particles smaller than 5 μm (44±4% vs 45±2%) (p>0.9). Aerosol deposition in the nasal region was 73±10% (% of aerosol deposited in airways) with the NJN, and 99±3% with the NMN (p=0.01). Total nasal deposition was 9.6±1.9% of the nebulizer charge with the NJN and 28.4±8.9% with the NMN (p=0.01). 0.5±0.3% of the nebulizer charge was deposited in the maxillary sinuses with the NJN, compared to 2.2±1.6% with the NMN (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Although the two nebulizers had the same particle size, NMN significantly improved aerosol deposition in nasal cavity and prevents deposition into the lungs.