4.5 Article

Deposition of Inhaled Ultrafine Aerosols in Replicas of Nasal Airways of Infants

期刊

AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 44, 期 9, 页码 741-752

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2010.488256

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  2. Alberta Ingenuity Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimentally measured deposition of ultrafine particles, ranging from 13-100 nm in diameter, in nasal airway replicas of ten infants aged 3-18 months is presented. The replicas included the face, nostrils, and nasal airways including the upper trachea. A differential mobility analyzer (DMA) and a condensation particle counter (CPC) were used to quantify the nasal deposition by comparing the number of polydisperse sodium chloride particles, generated by evaporation from a Collison atomizer, at the inlet and outlet of the replicas. Particles were individually classified in size by DMA and subsequently were counted one size bin at a time by CPC upstream and downstream of each replica. Since in vivo data is not available for infants to compare to, we validated our experimental procedure instead by comparing deposition in nasal airway replicas of six adults with in vivo measurements reported in literature. In the infant replicas, tidal inhalation was simulated at two physiologically compatible flow rates and the effect of flow rate on deposition was found to be small. Deposition obtained at constant flow rates is lower than with tidal breathing, indicating the importance of unsteadiness, in contrast to similar data in adults where unsteadiness is known to be unimportant. An empirical equation, containing geometrical features of the nasal airways in the form of related non-dimensional dynamical parameters (Reynolds, Schmidt, and Womersley numbers), was best fitted to the infant data. This equation may be useful for a priori prediction of nasal deposition and intersubject variability during exposure of infants to ultrafine aerosols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据