Comparison of a respiratory suspension aerosolized by an air-jet and an ultrasonic nebulizer
- PMID: 9552308
- DOI: 10.3109/10837459609022594
Comparison of a respiratory suspension aerosolized by an air-jet and an ultrasonic nebulizer
Abstract
In the absence of USP standards and performance monographs, this research sought to determine if differences in the aerosolization mechanism (air-jet vs. ultrasonic) affected droplet and insoluble particle deposition of a nebulized model respiratory suspension. Five milliliters of a model suspension containing 0.1% w/v fluorescein (to estimate droplet deposition) and known quantities of 1, 3, and 6 microns latex spheres (representing insoluble drug particles) was aerosolized from an air-jet and an ultrasonic nebulizer. Nebulized output was collected in a modified Andersen impactor. Samples were analyzed spectrophotometrically (490.5 nm) and by a Coulter Counter to estimate droplet and sphere deposition, respectively. The distribution of droplets throughout the modified impactor for both nebulizers suggested that both the air-jet and the ultrasonic nebulizer produced droplets (0.4 to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter) large enough to incorporate 1, 3, and 6 microns insoluble spheres. However, Coulter Counter analysis of the sphere distribution revealed that while the air-jet nebulized output contained spheres of all sizes, this was not true for the ultrasonic nebulizer. In the ultrasonic nebulizer, 99% of the spheres (irrespective of size) were not aerosolized and were recovered from the nebulizer reservoir at the aerosolization end point. The results highlight the importance of evaluating performance of a respiratory suspension in combination with a specific nebulizer. When conducting in vitro inertial deposition testing of a respiratory suspension, it is inappropriate to assume that deposition trends of droplets will predict the deposition of the insoluble dispersed phase.
Similar articles
-
Physical properties of aerosols produced by several jet- and ultrasonic nebulizers.Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir. 1984 Jan-Feb;20(1):65-72. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir. 1984. PMID: 6704568
-
Formulations generated from ethanol-based proliposomes for delivery via medical nebulizers.J Pharm Pharmacol. 2006 Jul;58(7):887-94. doi: 10.1211/jpp.58.7.0002. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2006. PMID: 16805947
-
The effects of suspension particle size on the performance of air-jet, ultrasonic and vibrating-mesh nebulisers.Int J Pharm. 2014 Jan 30;461(1-2):234-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.11.022. Epub 2013 Nov 22. Int J Pharm. 2014. PMID: 24275450
-
Design principles of liquid nebulization devices currently in use.Respir Care. 2002 Nov;47(11):1257-75; discussion 1275-8. Respir Care. 2002. PMID: 12425742 Review.
-
Formulations and nebulizer performance.Respir Care. 2002 Nov;47(11):1305-12; discussion 1312-3. Respir Care. 2002. PMID: 12425745 Review.
Cited by
-
Dry powder inhaler design and particle technology in enhancing Pulmonary drug deposition: challenges and future strategies.Daru. 2024 Dec;32(2):761-779. doi: 10.1007/s40199-024-00520-3. Epub 2024 Jun 11. Daru. 2024. PMID: 38861247 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources