부산대학교 도서관

BACKGROUND: Fugitive aerosol concentrations generated by different nebulizers and interfaces in vivo and mitigation of aerosol dispersion into the environment with various commercially available devices are not known. METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers were given 3 mL saline with a small-volume nebulizer (SVN) or vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) with a mouthpiece, a mouthpiece with an exhalation filter, an aerosol mask with open ports for SVN and a valved face mask for VMN, and a face mask with a scavenger (Exhalo) in random order. Five of the participants received treatments using a face tent scavenger (Vapotherm) and a mask with exhalation filter with SVN and VMN in a random order. Treatments were performed in an ICU room with 2 particle counters positioned 1 and 3 ft from participants measuring aerosol concentrations at sizes of 0.3-10.0 lm at baseline, before, during, and after each treatment. RESULTS: Fugitive aerosol concentrations were higher with SVN than VMN and higher with a face mask than a mouthpiece. Adding an exhalation filter to a mouthpiece reduced aerosol concentrations of 0.3-1.0 lm in size for VMN and 0.3-3.0 lm for SVN (all P < .05). An Exhalo scavenger over the mask reduced 0.5-3.0 lm sized particle concentrations for SVN (all P < .05) but not VMN. Vapotherm scavenger and filter face mask reduced fugitive aerosol concentrations regardless of the nebulizer type. CONCLUSIONS: SVN produced higher fugitive aerosol concentrations than VMN, whereas face masks generated higher aerosol concentrations than mouthpieces. Adding an exhalation filter to the mouthpiece or a scavenger to the face mask reduced aerosol concentrations for both SVN and VMN. Vapotherm scavenger and filter face mask reduced fugitive aerosols as effectively as a mouthpiece with an exhalation filter. This study provides guidance for reducing fugitive aerosol emissions from nebulizers in clinical practice.