4.2 Article

Evaluation and comparison of nasal airway flow patterns among three subjects from Caucasian, Chinese and Indian ethnic groups using computational fluid dynamics simulation

Journal

RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY & NEUROBIOLOGY
Volume 175, Issue 1, Pages 62-69

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2010.09.008

Keywords

Ethnic group; Nasal cavity; Nasal index; Airflow; CFD

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Singapore [T208A3103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nasal airflow is one of the most important determinants for nasal physiology. During the long evolution of human beings, different races have developed their own attributes of nasal morphologies which result in variations of nasal airflow patterns and nasal functions. This study evaluated and compared the effects of differences of nasal morphology among three healthy male subjects from Caucasian, Chinese and Indian ethnic groups on nasal airflow patterns using computational fluid dynamics simulation. By examining the anterior nasal airway, the nasal indices and the nostril shapes of the three subjects were found to be similar to nasal cavities of respective ethnic groups. Computed tomography images of these three subjects were obtained to reconstruct 3-dimensional models of nasal cavities. To retain the flow characteristics around the nasal vestibules, a 40 mm-radius semi sphere was assembled around the human face for the prescription of zero ambient gauge pressure. The results show that more airflow tends to pass through the middle passage of the nasal airway in the Caucasian model, and through the inferior portion in the Indian model. The Indian model was found with extremely low flow flux flowing through the olfactory region. The sizes of vortexes near the anterior cavity were found to be correlated with the angles between the upper nasal valve wall and the anterior head of the nasal cavity. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available