ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ward, R.
Right arrow Articles by Walters, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ward, R.
Right arrow Articles by Walters, E.
Eur Respir J 1998; 11: 937-941
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1998


Original Articles

Nebulizer calibration using lithium chloride: an accurate, reproducible and user-friendly method

RJ Ward, DW Reid, RF Leonard, DP Johns, and EH Walters

Conventional gravimetric (weight loss) calibration of jet nebulizers overestimates their aerosol output by up to 80% due to unaccounted evaporative loss. We examined two methods of measuring true aerosol output from jet nebulizers. A new adaptation of a widely available clinical assay for lithium (determined by flame photometry, LiCl method) was compared to an existing electrochemical method based on fluoride detection (NaF method). The agreement between the two methods and the repeatability of each method were examined. Ten Mefar jet nebulizers were studied using a Mefar MK3 inhalation dosimeter. There was no significant difference between the two methods (p=0.76) with mean aerosol output of the 10 nebulizers being 7.40 mg x s(-1) (SD 1.06; range 5.86-9.36 mg x s(-1)) for the NaF method and 7.27 mg x s(-1) (SD 0.82; range 5.52-8.26 mg x s(-1)) for the LiCl method. The LiCl method had a coefficient of repeatability of 13 mg x s(-1) compared with 3.7 mg x s(-1) for the NaF method. The LiCl method accurately measured true aerosol output and was considerably easier to use. It was also more repeatable, and hence more precise, than the NaF method. Because the LiCl method uses an assay that is routinely available from hospital biochemistry laboratories, it is easy to use and, thus, can readily be adopted by busy respiratory function departments.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
R.J. Ward, C. Ward, D.P. Johns, B. Skoric, M. Abramson, and E.H. Walters
European Community Respiratory Health Survey calibration project of dosimeter driving pressures
Eur. Respir. J., February 1, 2002; 19(2): 252 - 256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
R. Crapo
Guidelines for Methacholine and Exercise Challenge Testing---1999 . THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY WAS ADOPTED BY THE ATS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, JULY 1999
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., January 1, 2000; 161(1): 309 - 329.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the European Respiratory Society.