Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 10147075

Basic nebulizer function.

Abstract

The main function of a jet nebulizer is to aerosolize the contained liquid. The primary generation point is the orifice where the compressed air expands and increases in velocity. At this point the expanding air induces an underpressure and liquid is sucked up to the air orifice where it meets the rapidly expanding air. Droplets from the liquid surface are carried away with the airstream towards the baffle system. After cut-off by impaction on the baffle surface, secondary generation occurs on the baffle as droplets are produced due to high air velocity. Several different designs of nebulizer are available. The differences cause variation in the output characteristics; for example, in the liquid output and droplet size distribution. There is also disparity between individual nebulizers of the same brand. This is due to manufacturing errors. Repeated use of a single nebulizer over time causes ageing. This, in turn, causes the critical points of droplet generation to change. The most significant changes are the small increases in the diameter of the air orifice. This may be due to mechanical wear from the compressed air source or to extensive cleaning procedures. The effect of the increasing diameter, as seen by the user, is decreased driving pressure at a constant rate of air flow. There is also an effect on the output characteristic of the nebulizer. With decreasing driving pressure the air velocity decreases. This in turn, increases the droplet size generated at the air orifice.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

O Nerbrink, M Dahlbäck. 1994. Basic nebulizer function.. https://doi.org/10.1089/jam.1994.7.suppl_1.s-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Abutment region dosimetry for serial tomotherapy.

PURPOSE: A commercial intensity modulated radiation therapy system (Corvus, NOMOS Corp.) is presently used in our clinic to generate optimized dose distributions delivered using a proprietary dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) (MIMiC) composed of 20 opposed leaf pairs. On our accelerator (Clinac 600C/D, Varian Associates, Inc.) each MIMiC leaf projects to either 1.00 x 0.84 or 1.00 x 1.70 cm2 (depending on the treatment plan and termed 1 cm or 2 cm mode, respectively). The MIMiC is used to deliver serial (axial) tomotherapy treatment plans, in which the beam is delivered to a nearly cylindrical volume as the DMLC is rotated about the patient. For longer targets, the patient is moved (indexed) between treatments a distance corresponding to the projected leaf width. The treatment relies on precise indexing and a method was developed to measure the precision of indexing devices. A treatment planning study of the dosimetric effects of incorrect patient indexing and concluded that a dose heterogeneity of 10% mm(-1) resulted. Because the results may be sensitive to the dose model accuracy, we conducted a measurement-based investigation of the consequences of incorrect indexing using our accelerator. Although the indexing provides an accurate field abutment along the isocenter, due to beam divergence, hot and cold spots will be produced below and above isocenter, respectively, when less than 300 degree arcs were used. A preliminary study recently determined that for a 290 degree rotation in 1 cm mode, 15% cold and 7% hot spots were delivered to 7 cm above and below isocenter, respectively. This study completes the earlier work by investigating the dose heterogeneity as a function of position relative to the axis of rotation, arc length, and leaf width. The influence of random daily patient positioning errors is also investigated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment plans were generated using 8.0 cm diameter cylindrical target volumes within a homogeneous rectilinear film phantom. The plans included both 1 and 2 cm mode, optimized for 300 degrees, 240 degrees, and 180 degrees gantry rotations. Coronal-oriented films were irradiated throughout the target volumes and scanned using a laser film digitizer. The central target irradiated in 1 cm mode was also used to investigate the effects of incorrect couch indexing. RESULTS: The dose error as a function of couch index error was 25% mm(-1), significantly greater than previously reported. The clinically provided indexing system yielded 0.10 mm indexing precision. The intrinsic dose distributions indicated that more heterogeneous dose distributions resulted from the use of smaller gantry angle ranges and larger leaf projections. Using 300 degrees gantry angle and 1 cm mode yielded 7% hot and 15% cold spots 7 cm below and above isocenter, respectively. When a 180 degree gantry angle was used, the values changed to 22% hot and 27% cold spots for the same locations. The heterogeneities for the 2 cm mode were 70% greater than the corresponding 1 cm values. CONCLUSIONS: While serial tomotherapy is used to deliver highly conformal dose distributions, significant dosimetric factors must be considered before treatment. The patient must be immobilized during treatment to avoid dose heterogeneities caused by incorrect indexing due to patient movement. Even under ideal conditions, beam divergence can cause significant abutment-region dose heterogeneities. The use of larger gantry angle ranges, smaller leaf widths, and appropriate locations of the gantry rotation axis can minimize these effects.

Equipment Design