Comparison of numerical simulations to experiments for atomization in a jet nebulizer
The development of jet nebulizers for medical purposes is an important challenge of aerosol therapy. The performance of a nebulizer is characterized by its output rate of droplets with a diameter under 5 µm. However the optimization of this parameter through experiments has reached a plateau. The pu...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2013-11, Vol.8 (11), p.e78659-e78659 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e78659 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | e78659 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 8 |
| creator | Lelong, Nicolas Vecellio, Laurent Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann Tanguy, Christian Diot, Patrice Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra |
| description | The development of jet nebulizers for medical purposes is an important challenge of aerosol therapy. The performance of a nebulizer is characterized by its output rate of droplets with a diameter under 5 µm. However the optimization of this parameter through experiments has reached a plateau. The purpose of this study is to design a numerical model simulating the nebulization process and to compare it with experimental data. Such a model could provide a better understanding of the atomization process and the parameters influencing the nebulizer output. A model based on the Updraft nebulizer (Hudson) was designed with ANSYS Workbench. Boundary conditions were set with experimental data then transient 3D calculations were run on a 4 µm mesh with ANSYS Fluent. Two air flow rate (2 L/min and 8 L/min, limits of the operating range) were considered to account for different turbulence regimes. Numerical and experimental results were compared according to phenomenology and droplet size. The behavior of the liquid was compared to images acquired through shadowgraphy with a CCD Camera. Three experimental methods, laser diffractometry, phase Doppler anemometry (PDA) and shadowgraphy were used to characterize the droplet size distributions. Camera images showed similar patterns as numerical results. Droplet sizes obtained numerically are overestimated in relation to PDA and diffractometry, which only consider spherical droplets. However, at both flow rates, size distributions extracted from numerical image processing were similar to distributions obtained from shadowgraphy image processing. The simulation then provides a good understanding and prediction of the phenomena involved in the fragmentation of droplets over 10 µm. The laws of dynamics apply to droplets down to 1 µm, so we can assume the continuity of the distribution and extrapolate the results for droplets between 1 and 10 µm. So, this model could help predicting nebulizer output with defined geometrical and physical parameters. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0078659 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1450016354</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A478321590</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c619a0cb97a54e9e9aba5bf47455470b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A478321590</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5d91a8eacde23ee1bb16a5356f31f86bb65b47738ccb03f3c3ae0a6c9420096f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2L00AUhoMo7lr9B6IBQfSidSbzkcyNsBQ_CgsL6no7nJmetFMmmZpJZN1f77TNLq3sheQiYc5z3jPnzZtlLymZUVbSD5swdC342Ta0OCOkrKRQj7JzqlgxlQVhj4--z7JnMW4IEayS8ml2VvCCc8b4eXY9D80WOhdDm4c6b4cGO2fB59E1g4fehTbmfcjxZpsKDbZ9zOvQ5dCHxt3u67lrc8g32OctmsG7W-yeZ09q8BFfjO9Jdv3504_51-nl1ZfF_OJyaqUq-qlYKgoVgl1iwRCpMVSCYELWjNaVNEYKw8uSVdYawmpmGSABaRUvCFGJmmSvD7pbH6IeHYmackEIlUzwRCwOxDLARm_TCtD90QGc3h-EbqWh6531qK2kCog1qgTBUaECA8LUvORC8JKYpPVxnDaYBpc2mdGBPxE9rbRurVfht2ZVwark9yR7Nwp04deAsdeNixa9hxbDsL-3EiLNqxL65h_04e1GagVpAdfWIc21O1F9wcuKFVQokqjZA1R6ltg4m-JTu3R-0vD-pCExPd70Kxhi1Ivv3_6fvfp5yr49YtcIvl_H4Id9yk5BfgBtF2LssL43mRK9S_-dG3qXfj2mP7W9Ov5B9013cWd_Ae7PAFA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1450016354</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of numerical simulations to experiments for atomization in a jet nebulizer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Lelong, Nicolas ; Vecellio, Laurent ; Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann ; Tanguy, Christian ; Diot, Patrice ; Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra</creator><contributor>Yousfi, Mohammed</contributor><creatorcontrib>Lelong, Nicolas ; Vecellio, Laurent ; Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann ; Tanguy, Christian ; Diot, Patrice ; Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra ; Yousfi, Mohammed</creatorcontrib><description>The development of jet nebulizers for medical purposes is an important challenge of aerosol therapy. The performance of a nebulizer is characterized by its output rate of droplets with a diameter under 5 µm. However the optimization of this parameter through experiments has reached a plateau. The purpose of this study is to design a numerical model simulating the nebulization process and to compare it with experimental data. Such a model could provide a better understanding of the atomization process and the parameters influencing the nebulizer output. A model based on the Updraft nebulizer (Hudson) was designed with ANSYS Workbench. Boundary conditions were set with experimental data then transient 3D calculations were run on a 4 µm mesh with ANSYS Fluent. Two air flow rate (2 L/min and 8 L/min, limits of the operating range) were considered to account for different turbulence regimes. Numerical and experimental results were compared according to phenomenology and droplet size. The behavior of the liquid was compared to images acquired through shadowgraphy with a CCD Camera. Three experimental methods, laser diffractometry, phase Doppler anemometry (PDA) and shadowgraphy were used to characterize the droplet size distributions. Camera images showed similar patterns as numerical results. Droplet sizes obtained numerically are overestimated in relation to PDA and diffractometry, which only consider spherical droplets. However, at both flow rates, size distributions extracted from numerical image processing were similar to distributions obtained from shadowgraphy image processing. The simulation then provides a good understanding and prediction of the phenomena involved in the fragmentation of droplets over 10 µm. The laws of dynamics apply to droplets down to 1 µm, so we can assume the continuity of the distribution and extrapolate the results for droplets between 1 and 10 µm. So, this model could help predicting nebulizer output with defined geometrical and physical parameters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078659</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24244334</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aerodynamics ; Aerosols - chemistry ; Air flow ; Atomizing ; Boundary conditions ; Cameras ; Comparative analysis ; Computational fluid dynamics ; Computer simulation ; Design ; Digital cameras ; Droplets ; Drug dosages ; Experimental data ; Experimental methods ; Experiments ; Finite element method ; Flow rates ; Flow velocity ; Image acquisition ; Image processing ; Inhalers ; Mathematical models ; Models, Theoretical ; Nebulizers and Vaporizers ; Numerical analysis ; Numerical models ; Numerical simulations ; Optimization ; Particle Size ; Phenomenology ; Physical properties ; Predictions ; Process parameters ; Simulation ; Turbulence ; Turbulence models ; Turbulent flow ; Updraft ; Velocity measurement</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2013-11, Vol.8 (11), p.e78659-e78659</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2013 Lelong et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2013 Lelong et al 2013 Lelong et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5d91a8eacde23ee1bb16a5356f31f86bb65b47738ccb03f3c3ae0a6c9420096f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5d91a8eacde23ee1bb16a5356f31f86bb65b47738ccb03f3c3ae0a6c9420096f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823843/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823843/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79472,79473</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24244334$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Yousfi, Mohammed</contributor><creatorcontrib>Lelong, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vecellio, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanguy, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diot, Patrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of numerical simulations to experiments for atomization in a jet nebulizer</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The development of jet nebulizers for medical purposes is an important challenge of aerosol therapy. The performance of a nebulizer is characterized by its output rate of droplets with a diameter under 5 µm. However the optimization of this parameter through experiments has reached a plateau. The purpose of this study is to design a numerical model simulating the nebulization process and to compare it with experimental data. Such a model could provide a better understanding of the atomization process and the parameters influencing the nebulizer output. A model based on the Updraft nebulizer (Hudson) was designed with ANSYS Workbench. Boundary conditions were set with experimental data then transient 3D calculations were run on a 4 µm mesh with ANSYS Fluent. Two air flow rate (2 L/min and 8 L/min, limits of the operating range) were considered to account for different turbulence regimes. Numerical and experimental results were compared according to phenomenology and droplet size. The behavior of the liquid was compared to images acquired through shadowgraphy with a CCD Camera. Three experimental methods, laser diffractometry, phase Doppler anemometry (PDA) and shadowgraphy were used to characterize the droplet size distributions. Camera images showed similar patterns as numerical results. Droplet sizes obtained numerically are overestimated in relation to PDA and diffractometry, which only consider spherical droplets. However, at both flow rates, size distributions extracted from numerical image processing were similar to distributions obtained from shadowgraphy image processing. The simulation then provides a good understanding and prediction of the phenomena involved in the fragmentation of droplets over 10 µm. The laws of dynamics apply to droplets down to 1 µm, so we can assume the continuity of the distribution and extrapolate the results for droplets between 1 and 10 µm. So, this model could help predicting nebulizer output with defined geometrical and physical parameters.</description><subject>Aerodynamics</subject><subject>Aerosols - chemistry</subject><subject>Air flow</subject><subject>Atomizing</subject><subject>Boundary conditions</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Computational fluid dynamics</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Digital cameras</subject><subject>Droplets</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Experimental data</subject><subject>Experimental methods</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Finite element method</subject><subject>Flow rates</subject><subject>Flow velocity</subject><subject>Image acquisition</subject><subject>Image processing</subject><subject>Inhalers</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Nebulizers and Vaporizers</subject><subject>Numerical analysis</subject><subject>Numerical models</subject><subject>Numerical simulations</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Particle Size</subject><subject>Phenomenology</subject><subject>Physical properties</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Process parameters</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Turbulence</subject><subject>Turbulence models</subject><subject>Turbulent flow</subject><subject>Updraft</subject><subject>Velocity measurement</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2L00AUhoMo7lr9B6IBQfSidSbzkcyNsBQ_CgsL6no7nJmetFMmmZpJZN1f77TNLq3sheQiYc5z3jPnzZtlLymZUVbSD5swdC342Ta0OCOkrKRQj7JzqlgxlQVhj4--z7JnMW4IEayS8ml2VvCCc8b4eXY9D80WOhdDm4c6b4cGO2fB59E1g4fehTbmfcjxZpsKDbZ9zOvQ5dCHxt3u67lrc8g32OctmsG7W-yeZ09q8BFfjO9Jdv3504_51-nl1ZfF_OJyaqUq-qlYKgoVgl1iwRCpMVSCYELWjNaVNEYKw8uSVdYawmpmGSABaRUvCFGJmmSvD7pbH6IeHYmackEIlUzwRCwOxDLARm_TCtD90QGc3h-EbqWh6531qK2kCog1qgTBUaECA8LUvORC8JKYpPVxnDaYBpc2mdGBPxE9rbRurVfht2ZVwark9yR7Nwp04deAsdeNixa9hxbDsL-3EiLNqxL65h_04e1GagVpAdfWIc21O1F9wcuKFVQokqjZA1R6ltg4m-JTu3R-0vD-pCExPd70Kxhi1Ivv3_6fvfp5yr49YtcIvl_H4Id9yk5BfgBtF2LssL43mRK9S_-dG3qXfj2mP7W9Ov5B9013cWd_Ae7PAFA</recordid><startdate>20131111</startdate><enddate>20131111</enddate><creator>Lelong, Nicolas</creator><creator>Vecellio, Laurent</creator><creator>Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann</creator><creator>Tanguy, Christian</creator><creator>Diot, Patrice</creator><creator>Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131111</creationdate><title>Comparison of numerical simulations to experiments for atomization in a jet nebulizer</title><author>Lelong, Nicolas ; Vecellio, Laurent ; Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann ; Tanguy, Christian ; Diot, Patrice ; Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5d91a8eacde23ee1bb16a5356f31f86bb65b47738ccb03f3c3ae0a6c9420096f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Aerodynamics</topic><topic>Aerosols - chemistry</topic><topic>Air flow</topic><topic>Atomizing</topic><topic>Boundary conditions</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Computational fluid dynamics</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Digital cameras</topic><topic>Droplets</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Experimental data</topic><topic>Experimental methods</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Finite element method</topic><topic>Flow rates</topic><topic>Flow velocity</topic><topic>Image acquisition</topic><topic>Image processing</topic><topic>Inhalers</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Nebulizers and Vaporizers</topic><topic>Numerical analysis</topic><topic>Numerical models</topic><topic>Numerical simulations</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Particle Size</topic><topic>Phenomenology</topic><topic>Physical properties</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Process parameters</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Turbulence</topic><topic>Turbulence models</topic><topic>Turbulent flow</topic><topic>Updraft</topic><topic>Velocity measurement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lelong, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vecellio, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanguy, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diot, Patrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lelong, Nicolas</au><au>Vecellio, Laurent</au><au>Sommer de Gélicourt, Yann</au><au>Tanguy, Christian</au><au>Diot, Patrice</au><au>Junqua-Moullet, Alexandra</au><au>Yousfi, Mohammed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of numerical simulations to experiments for atomization in a jet nebulizer</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2013-11-11</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e78659</spage><epage>e78659</epage><pages>e78659-e78659</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The development of jet nebulizers for medical purposes is an important challenge of aerosol therapy. The performance of a nebulizer is characterized by its output rate of droplets with a diameter under 5 µm. However the optimization of this parameter through experiments has reached a plateau. The purpose of this study is to design a numerical model simulating the nebulization process and to compare it with experimental data. Such a model could provide a better understanding of the atomization process and the parameters influencing the nebulizer output. A model based on the Updraft nebulizer (Hudson) was designed with ANSYS Workbench. Boundary conditions were set with experimental data then transient 3D calculations were run on a 4 µm mesh with ANSYS Fluent. Two air flow rate (2 L/min and 8 L/min, limits of the operating range) were considered to account for different turbulence regimes. Numerical and experimental results were compared according to phenomenology and droplet size. The behavior of the liquid was compared to images acquired through shadowgraphy with a CCD Camera. Three experimental methods, laser diffractometry, phase Doppler anemometry (PDA) and shadowgraphy were used to characterize the droplet size distributions. Camera images showed similar patterns as numerical results. Droplet sizes obtained numerically are overestimated in relation to PDA and diffractometry, which only consider spherical droplets. However, at both flow rates, size distributions extracted from numerical image processing were similar to distributions obtained from shadowgraphy image processing. The simulation then provides a good understanding and prediction of the phenomena involved in the fragmentation of droplets over 10 µm. The laws of dynamics apply to droplets down to 1 µm, so we can assume the continuity of the distribution and extrapolate the results for droplets between 1 and 10 µm. So, this model could help predicting nebulizer output with defined geometrical and physical parameters.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>24244334</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0078659</doi><tpages>e78659</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2013-11, Vol.8 (11), p.e78659-e78659 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1450016354 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Aerodynamics Aerosols - chemistry Air flow Atomizing Boundary conditions Cameras Comparative analysis Computational fluid dynamics Computer simulation Design Digital cameras Droplets Drug dosages Experimental data Experimental methods Experiments Finite element method Flow rates Flow velocity Image acquisition Image processing Inhalers Mathematical models Models, Theoretical Nebulizers and Vaporizers Numerical analysis Numerical models Numerical simulations Optimization Particle Size Phenomenology Physical properties Predictions Process parameters Simulation Turbulence Turbulence models Turbulent flow Updraft Velocity measurement |
| title | Comparison of numerical simulations to experiments for atomization in a jet nebulizer |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T04%3A44%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20numerical%20simulations%20to%20experiments%20for%20atomization%20in%20a%20jet%20nebulizer&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Lelong,%20Nicolas&rft.date=2013-11-11&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e78659&rft.epage=e78659&rft.pages=e78659-e78659&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0078659&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA478321590%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1450016354&rft_id=info:pmid/24244334&rft_galeid=A478321590&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c619a0cb97a54e9e9aba5bf47455470b&rfr_iscdi=true |