1989
DOI: 10.1016/0021-8502(89)90039-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the relationship between experimental data for total deposition and model calculations—Part I: Effect of instrumental dead space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(31) The calculated DF was corrected for particle losses in the instrument between inhaled and exhaled sampling points and for mouthpiece dead space. (34,35) Estimations of the surface area and mass of the deposited particles were based on the measured mobility number size distribution and measurements of the particle effective densities, according to principles previously outlined by Löndahl et al (22) and Rissler et al (23) Characterization of the effective density was carried out by an aerosol particle mass analyzer (APM, model 3600, Kanomax, Japan) as described by McMurry et al (36) and more specifically by Rissler et al (37) Based on these data, particles < 60 nm in diameter were assumed to have a near spherical shape and a particle effective density of *1.2 g cm -3 . Particles larger than 60 nm were of agglomerate shape, and thus the density decreased with increasing size.…”
Section: Deposition Fraction and Dose Ratementioning
confidence: 98%
“…(31) The calculated DF was corrected for particle losses in the instrument between inhaled and exhaled sampling points and for mouthpiece dead space. (34,35) Estimations of the surface area and mass of the deposited particles were based on the measured mobility number size distribution and measurements of the particle effective densities, according to principles previously outlined by Löndahl et al (22) and Rissler et al (23) Characterization of the effective density was carried out by an aerosol particle mass analyzer (APM, model 3600, Kanomax, Japan) as described by McMurry et al (36) and more specifically by Rissler et al (37) Based on these data, particles < 60 nm in diameter were assumed to have a near spherical shape and a particle effective density of *1.2 g cm -3 . Particles larger than 60 nm were of agglomerate shape, and thus the density decreased with increasing size.…”
Section: Deposition Fraction and Dose Ratementioning
confidence: 98%
“…To estimate the true size-resolved deposited fraction (DF(d me )), corrections to DF meas were made for (i) instrumental particle losses, DF equip , (Löndahl et al, 2006), and (ii) instrumental dead space, V D , (Gebhart et al, 1989;Löndahl et al, 2007). These corrections were made individually for each subject and each session as they depend on the breathing pattern according to…”
Section: Particle Respiratory Tract Deposition Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of this the DF was adjusted positively with a magnitude of 0.09 ± 0.03 at 20 nm and less than 0.01 for particles above 50 nm in diameter. Also, a modification was made for the "dead volume" in the mouthpiece, which was 18 cm 3 , and 31 cm 3 where the smaller was used during relaxed breathing (Gebhart et al, 1989). The corrections were made for each subject depending on individual breathing flow and measured temperature.…”
Section: Calculationsmentioning
confidence: 99%