4.5 Article

Effects of differences in nasal anatomy on airflow distribution: A comparison of four individuals at rest

Journal

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 36, Issue 11, Pages 1870-1882

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-008-9556-2

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics; Nasal airflow simulation; Flow experiments; Flow visualization; Human; Inspiratory airflow

Funding

  1. American Chemistry Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Differences in nasal anatomy among human subjects may cause significant differences in respiratory airflow patterns and subsequent dosimetry of inhaled gases and particles in the respiratory tract. This study used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to study inter-individual differences in nasal airflow among four healthy individuals. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were digitized and nasal-surface-area-to-volume ratios (SAVR) were calculated for 15 adults. Two males and two females, representative of the range of SAVR values, were selected for flow analysis. Nasal CFD models were constructed for each subject by a semi-automated process that provided input to a commercial mesh generator to generate structured hexahedral meshes (Gambit, Fluent, Inc., Lebanon, NH, USA). Steady-state inspiratory laminar airflow at 15 L/min was calculated using commercial CFD software (FIDAP, Fluent, Inc., Lebanon, NH, USA). Streamline patterns, velocities, and helicity values were compared. In all subjects, the majority of flow passed through the middle and ventral regions of the nasal passages; however, the amount and location of swirling flow differed among individuals. Cross-sectional flow allocation analysis also indicated inter-individual differences. Laboratory water-dye experiments confirmed streamlines and velocity magnitudes predicted by the computational model. These results suggest that significant inter-individual differences exist in bulk airflow patterns in the nose.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available