振动筛网雾化器与压力射流雾化器在雾化时间和雾化后残余量中的差异研究

Difference Study of the Atomization Time and Residue Amount after Atomization between the Vibrating-mesh Atomizer and Pressure Jet Atomizer

背景雾化吸入器依据装置工作原理的不同分为压力射流雾化器、超声雾化器和振动筛网雾化器。振动筛网雾化器近年在国内逐渐发展,但目前对振动筛网雾化器研究较少。目的比较振动筛网雾化器与压力射流雾化器雾化时间和雾化后残余量的差异。方法2019-05-19至2019-06-19,分别选择三种品牌压力射流雾化器与对应的振动筛网雾化器(分别记为A、B、C),采用平行队列分析法,比较三种品牌压力射流雾化器与相对应的振动筛网雾化器在雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液时所需的雾化时间及雾化后残余量;并比较三种品牌振动筛网雾化器在雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液时所需的雾化时间和雾化后残余量。结果A、B、C品牌压力射流雾化器雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液所需的雾化时间长于振动筛网雾化器,雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液后残余量多于振动筛网雾化器(P<0.05);三种品牌压力射流雾化器雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液所需的平均雾化时间〔(21.35±2.26)min〕长于振动筛网雾化器〔(13.55±2.92)min〕(Z=-6.42,P<0.05)。三种品牌压力射流雾化器雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液后平均残余量〔(0.47±0.05)ml〕多于振动筛网雾化器〔(0.03±0.02)ml〕(Z=-6.67,P<0.05)。B、C品牌振动筛网雾化器雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液所需的雾化时间均短于A品牌振动筛网雾化器(P<0.05);B品牌振动筛网雾化器雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液后的残余量多于A品牌振动筛网雾化器,C品牌振动筛网雾化器雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液后的残余量少于A品牌振动筛网雾化器(P<0.05)。结论雾化6 ml 0.9%氯化钠溶液时,振动筛网雾化器雾化所需的雾化时间及雾化后残余量均少于压力射流雾化器,值得在临床和家庭推广使用。

Background Nebulizers can be divided into pressure jet atomizer,ultrasonic nebulizer and vibratingmesh atomizer according to their working principle.China has witnessed a recent development in the vibrating-mesh atomizer,but related domestic studies are still rare.Objective To compare the difference of the atomization time and residue amount after atomization between the vibrating-mesh atomizer and pressure jet atomizer.Methods From May 19 to June 19,2019,three brands of pressure jet atomizers(named as A,B,and C,respectively)and brand-matched vibrating-mesh atomizers(also named as A,B,and C,respectively)were selected,and were compared in parallel queues in terms of atomizing 6 ml 0.9%sodium chloride solution and residual amount after the atomization.The atomization time and residual amount after atomizing were further compared in the three brands of vibrating-mesh atomizers.Results Each of the three brands of pressure jet atomizers used longer time to atomize 6 ml 0.9%sodium chloride solution and had more residual amount compared with the same brand of vibrating-mesh atomizer(P<0.05).Pressure jet atomizers required more time to atomize 6 ml 0.9%sodium chloride solution on average〔(21.35±2.26)min vs(13.55±2.92)min〕(Z=-6.42,P<0.05)and had more average residue amount after atomization〔(0.47±0.05)ml vs(0.03±0.02)ml〕(Z=-6.67,P<0.05)compared with vibrating-mesh atomizers.Brand A vibrating-mesh atomizer used shorter atomization time compared with other two brands of vibrating-mesh atomizers(P<0.05).Compared with brand A vibrating-mesh atomizer,brand B vibrating-mesh atomizer had more residue amount after atomization while band C vibrating-mesh atomizer had less(P<0.05).Conclusion The vibrating-mesh atomizer required shorter time to atomize 6 ml 0.9%sodium chloride solution and had less residue amount,indicating that its clinical and family applications are worth promoting.