Comparison of Nebulized Particle Size Distribution with Malvern Laser Diffraction Analyzer Versus Andersen Cascade Impactor and Low-Flow Marple Personal Cascade Impactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particle size of nebulized aerosols can be measured directly using laser diffraction or by evaluating aerodynamic properties by cascade impaction. As of today, there are no generally accepted standards for measuring particle size distribution from nebulizers. Laser diffraction has been questioned because of potential evaporative losses of the small particles at the edge of the plume, causing an apparent shift in the particle size distribution and thus a larger mass median diameter (MMD). When particle-sizing wet aerosols, cascade impaction may give rise to an apparent shift in the distribution, resulting in a smaller mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) due to evaporative losses of aerosol droplets as they enter the impactor at ambient temperature. The modified low-flow Marple 296 Personal Cascade Impactor (MPCI) is currently being proposed as the European standard for wet aerosol analysis to minimize evaporative losses during sampling. The present study compared the particle size distribution of salbutamol and sodium cromoglycate aerosols nebulized by the Pari LC Star, using laser diffraction (Malvern Mastersizer X; MMX) and cascade impaction (Andersen Cascade Impactor [ACI] and the commercially available MPCI), which was either at ambient temperature or cooled to the nebulized aerosol temperature (10 degrees C). MMDs obtained with the MMX were virtually identical to the MMADs measured with both impactors when cooled with no significant differences in geometric standard deviation (sigma(g)). When the impactors were operated at ambient temperature, MMADs were smaller (18 to 30%) with a significantly larger sigma(g) (p < 0.05) compared to the MMX. These findings suggest that droplet distribution data for wet aerosol where evaporation process has not been minimized must be viewed with caution. There was no evidence suggesting a significant evaporative loss of small droplets from the edge of the plume during laser particle sizing. The MPCI does not minimize evaporative losses of aerosol particles during sampling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".