<i>In Vitro</i> Monodisperse Aerosol Deposition in a Mouth and Throat with Six Different Inhalation Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were performed to determine the effect of different pharmaceutical aerosol inhalation devices on the deposition of monodisperse aerosols in an idealized mouth and throat geometry. The devices included two dry powder inhalers (Diskus and Turbuhaler), two nebulizers (Pari LC STAR and Hudson T-Updraft), and a metered dose inhaler with attached holding chamber (Aerochamber), in addition to a straight tube (1.7 cm inner diameter). Aerosol particles (DL-alpha tocopheryl acetate) of diameters of 2.5, 5, and 7 microm generated by a vibrating orifice generator were inhaled at steady air flow rates of Q = 5-90 L/min through the devices and into the mouth-throat. Deposition in the mouth-throat and after-filter were determined by ultraviolet (UV) spectrophotometric assay. The amount of deposition in the mouth and throat region was found to depend on the type of device that the aerosol entered through. Deposition in the extrathoracic region with the two types of jet nebulizers did not differ significantly (p > 0.1) from that of a straight tube or each other over their entire tested range of 590 > or = pd2Q > or = 11,375, where p is particle density (in g/cm3), d is particle diameter (in microm), and Q is flow rate (in cm3/s). The metered dose inhaler with attached holding chamber was found to differ from the straight tube only at two intermediate values of pd2Q = 5,145 and 16,033. The deposition occurring for the dry powder inhalers was found to be significantly greater than for the straight tube for all values of pd2Q > or = 10,954 for the Diskus and pd2Q > or = 9,435 for the Turbuhaler. Deposition with the dry powder inhalers was found to be up to 14 times greater than that with the straight tube. Thus, the inhaler geometry that the aerosol passes through prior to entering the mouth and throat region can greatly affect the deposition in the mouth-throat.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".