The Importance of Nonelectrostatic Materials in Holding Chambers for Delivery of Hydrofluoroalkane Albuterol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electrostatic attraction of aerosolized particles to the inner walls of an aerosol holding chamber (HC) made from a nonconducting material can reduce medication delivery, particularly if there is a delay between actuation and inhalation. OBJECTIVE: Compare total emitted mass and fine-particle mass (mass of particles < 4.7 microm) of hydrofluoroalkane-propelled albuterol from similar-sized HCs manufactured from conductive material (Vortex), charge-dissipative material (AeroChamber Max), and nonconductive material (OptiChamber Advantage, ProChamber, Breathrite, PocketChamber, and ACE), with and without wash/rinse pretreatment of the HC interior with ionic detergent, and with 2-s and 5-s delays between actuation and inhalation. METHODS: All the HCs were evaluated (1) directly from their packaging (with no wash/rinse pretreatment) and (2) after washing with ionic detergent and rinsing and drip-drying. We used an apparatus that interfaced between the HC mouthpiece and the induction port of an 8-stage Andersen cascade impactor to simulate a poorly coordinated patient, with delays of 2 s and 5 s between actuation and inhalation/sampling, at 28.3 L/min. RESULTS: With the 2-s delay, the delivered fine-particle mass per actuation, before and after (respectively) wash/rinse pretreatment was: AeroChamber Max: 23.8 +/- 4.8 microg, 21.5 +/- 3.2 microg; Vortex: 16.2 +/- 1.7 microg, 15.5 +/- 2.0 microg; OptiChamber Advantage: 2.6 +/- 1.2 microg, 6.7 +/- 2.3 microg; ProChamber: 1.6 +/- 0.4 microg, 5.1 +/- 2.5 microg; Breathrite: 2.0 +/- 0.9 microg, 3.2 +/- 1.8 microg; PocketChamber: 3.4 +/- 1.6 microg, 1.7 +/- 1.6 microg; ACE: 4.5 +/- 0.9 microg, 5.4 +/- 2.9 microg. Similar trends, but greater reduction in aerosol delivery, were observed with the 5-s delay. Significantly greater fine-particle mass was delivered from HCs made from conducting or charge-dissipative materials than from those made from nonconductive polymers, even after wash/rinse pretreatment (p < 0.01). The fine-particle mass was also significantly greater from the AeroChamber Max than from the Vortex, irrespective of wash/rinse pretreatment or delay interval (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: HCs made from electrically conductive materials emit significantly greater fine-particle mass, with either a 2-s or 5-s delay, than do HCs made from nonconducting materials, even with wash/rinse pretreatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".