4.7 Article

Low re-inhalation of the exhaled flow during normal nasal breathing in a pediatric airway replica

Journal

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 97, Issue -, Pages 40-47

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.12.011

Keywords

Normal nasal breathing; Re-inhalation of exhaled airflow; Food-dye visualization; Laser-particle quantitative visualization; Thermal plume

Funding

  1. RGC [HKU7142/12]
  2. NSFC [51278440]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To estimate the fraction of the exhaled airflow that is re-inhaled during normal nasal breathing, experiments were carried out in a water tank with an anatomically accurate respiratory tract model of a 4 year-old child. The velocity of respiratory flow was scaled using similarity laws between air and water. Breath simulation was performed via a computer-controlled piston-cylinder system. Food-dye visualization allows a qualitative analysis of the re-inhaled fraction of this exhaled flow. For the quantitative analysis, neutrally buoyant particles were added to the water medium, and illuminated by the laser which illuminates the whole breathing region of the respiratory model, such that the trajectory and quantity of the re-inhaled particles can be recorded and counted. The experimental results in the pediatric airway replica show that a negligible fraction (<0.06%) of the exhaled airflow is re-inhaled during normal nasal breathing in the absence of the rising thermal plume. The artificial plume generated by a heated aluminium brick at the tank bottom increases the re-inhalation ratio by 4 times under the investigated case (albeit still at a very low value of 0.15%). Our results thus reveal that during normal nasal breathing in the present pediatric subject, the vast majority of human exhaled airflow escapes from the inhalation zone and is not re-inhaled. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available