Performance of a Contact-Triggered Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer: A Comparison to Traditional Mesh Nebulizer

Chen Hsiang Sang


Knowing and understanding the performance of vibrating mesh nebulizers is critical since it is related to the efficacy of inhalation drug delivery. Cleaning process to avoid cross-contamination of different drugs and mesh clogging are two disadvantages mostly being recognized among vibrating mesh nebulizers. The present study compared the Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter (MMAD), Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD), Fine Particle Fraction percent less than 5 μm (FPF (<5 μm)), and vibration modal pattern during nebulization among two types of polymer-based MicroBase Technology (MBTC) Pocket Air® nebulizers, newly launched contact-triggered vibrating mesh (CTVM) and commercially available Portable Nebulizer (NEB); these were compared with Aerogen® Solo; PARI VELOX® and PARI eFlow® rapid (The 5 nebulizers are shown below).

  • Contact-triggered vibrating mesh (CTVM, Microbase Technology Pocket Air®)
  • Portable nebulizer (NEB, Microbase Technology Pocket Air®)
  • Solo (Aerogen®)
  • eFlow® Rapid (PARI)

A similarity of MMAD and GSD results for the above nebulizers were tested (each 3 devices in 1 repeat) and revealed in a sequence as 4.60±0.07 μm, 4.52±0.23 μm, 4.94±0.14 μm, 4.41±0.05 μm, and 4.35±0.08 μm, respectively. Nevertheless, 61.2±3.5 % FPF from CTVM is shown for Ipratropium bromide (0.5mg/2mL) which is approximately 1.2 times greater than Aerogen® Solo (49.5±1.5 %) but analogous to that of NEB, PARI VELOX® and PARI eFlow® rapid (57.1±1.3 %, 59.3±0.5 % and 58.5±1.2 %). Moreover, these nebulizers showed comparable modal pattern during operations as well as their resonant frequency given for CTVM, NEB, Aerogen® Solo, and PARI eFlow® rapid (108.6 kHz, 125.9 kHz, 128.2 kHz and 117.0 kHz, respectively), which differed from PARI VELOX® (160.0 kHz). Continuous pursuit of board spectrum application in aerosol technology via contact-triggered vibrating mesh nebulizer is to be implemented for further studies along with assessment of inhalation drug delivery.


Key Message

In this study, a performance comparison was conducted on the contact-triggered vibrating mesh (CTVM) nebulizer with commercially available NEB, Aerogen (Aerogen® Solo) and PARI (PARI VELOX® and PARI eFlow® rapid). It is demonstrated that the contact-triggered vibrating mesh (CTVM) nebulizer could present a comparable performance to traditional vibrating-mesh nebulizers, through the MMAD, GSD, FPF (<5 μm) and vibrational modal pattern. A disposable medicine cup nebulizer was developed.

Join today to view and download the full abstract/presentation