JOURNAL OF AEROSOL MEDICINE AND PULMONARY DRUG DELIVERY

Volume 22, Number 2, 2009

© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Pp. 139–155
DOI: 10.1089/jamp.2008.0713

Interindividual Variability in Nasal Filtration as a Function

of Nasal Cavity Geometry

Guilherme J.M. Garcia, Ph.D., Earl W. Tewksbury, B.A., Brian A. Wong, Ph.D., and Julia S. Kimbell, Ph.D.

Abstract

Background: Interindividual variability in nasal filtration is significant due to interindividual differences in

nasal anatomy and breathing rate. Two important consequences arise from this variation among humans. First,
devices for nasal drug delivery may furnish quite different doses in the nasal passages of different individu-
als, leading to different responses to therapeutic treatment. Second, people with poor nasal filtration may be
more susceptible to adverse health effects when exposed to airborne particulate matter (PM) due to greater
lung deposition. Although interindividual variability of nasal filtration has been reported by several authors,
a relationship for predicting filtration efficiency from nasal anatomy and ventilation is still lacking. Such a re-
lationship is needed to (1) devise nasal drug delivery systems and (2) define limits of exposure to PM that are
effective for the human population at large.
Methods: Anatomically correct nasal replicas of five adults (four healthy individuals and one atrophic rhinitis
patient) were used in aerosol experiments to measure nasal deposition of 1–12-m particles. The dependence
of nasal filtration on nasal anatomy and breathing rate was investigated using various definitions of the Stokes
number as well as phenomenological Impaction Parameters proposed in the literature.
Results: Interindividual variability among the healthy adults was nearly eliminated when nasal filtration was
plotted against a specific definition of the Stokes number or against a pressure-based Impaction Parameter.
Nasal filtration in the atrophic rhinitis patient was lower than in the healthy subjects.
Conclusions: The new definition of the Stokes number introduced in this study, which is based on a new def-
inition of the characteristic diameter of the nasal passages, nearly eliminated interindividual differences in nasal
filtration. Our results suggest that it is possible to estimate nasal filtering efficiency using measurements of
transnasal pressure drop.

Key words: nasal replica cast, nasal mold, aerosol experiments, particle deposition efficiency, nasal drug de-
livery, risk assessment, interhuman variability.

Introduction widespread use of sprays and nebulizers to deliver thera-

10,000 liters/day of air that
A N ADULT HUMAN BREATHES
may contain dust, microorganisms, photochemical
smog, and other irritants. As the portal of entry to the res-
piratory tract, the nose is responsible for protecting the lungs
by scrubbing inhaled air of potentially toxic material. Expo-
sure to airborne irritants can also harm the nasal epithelium
itself, leading to nasal cancer, impaired mucociliary clear-
ance, and other nasal diseases.(1–4) Therefore, characterizing
nasal filtration is essential to quantify the doses of airborne
material to various regions of the respiratory tract.(5–7) An-
other motivation for understanding nasal filtration is the
peutic compounds. To be effective, these devices must have
plume properties (droplet size and velocity) such that the
desired dose of the medical compound is delivered to its tar-
get site (e.g., the nasal turbinates, the olfactory epithelium,
or the paranasal sinuses). A quantitative description of nasal
filtration is therefore imperative to assess both the health
risks and the therapeutic effectiveness of inhaled particles.
There have been a myriad of investigations of nasal fil-
tration in the last 50 years, including in vivo measure-
ments,(8–18) in vitro studies using nasal replicas,(19–25) semi-
empirical theoretical analyses,(26–29) and more recently,
computer simulations.(30–40) These studies established that

The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

139
140
FIG. 1. Nasal replicas produced by stereolithography. (Left) Four healthy adults. (Right) Atrophic rhinitis patient. Note:
plaster filling was used in the atrophic nasal mold to fill the space between the external Plexiglas box and the face of the
plastic replica. This approach prevented air circulation in the Plexiglas box, making the entrance to the nostrils consistent
with the other models.
the nose filters most particles with aerodynamic diameter
(da) larger than 10 m. Nasal filtration efficiency falls sharply
as particle size decreases from 10 to 1 m, so that nasal fil-
tration is almost zero for 1-m particles. Nasal deposition
increases sharply again for particles smaller than 10 nm,
achieving approximately 80% deposition for 1-nm particles
(flow rate  15 L/min(27)). The spatial distribution of de-
posited particles has also been investigated.(17,19,21,30) In the
inertial regime (da  1 m), most particles deposit in the an-
terior nose, and the percentage of particles deposited in the
anterior nose increases as particle size increases. This means
that medical aerosols must have droplet sizes small enough
to traverse the vestibule and nasal valve region; otherwise,
the medicine will not penetrate beyond the anterior third of
the nasal cavity, and therefore will not reach target tissues,
such as the turbinates or the paranasal sinuses.(30,40) Another
major site of deposition is the anterior portion of the middle
turbinate, where particles have been observed to accumulate
in woodworkers in the furniture industry.(19,41)
Although the general features of nasal filtration have
been described, it is still unknown how nasal filtration de-
pends on age, ethnicity, and the presence or absence of
nasal deformities. Also, it is unknown to what extent nasal
filtration varies among individuals in a given population
subset (e.g., healthy Caucasian adults). In vivo investiga-
tions report significant interindividual variability in nasal
filtration among different age groups,(8–10) among different
GARCIA ET AL.
ethnicities,(18) and within population subsets.(6,14,15,22) This
is expected, given that nasal deposition is a function of
nasal geometry and ventilation, both of which vary across
the population.(42–45) The long-term goal of the current
study is the mathematical description of interindividual
differences in nasal filtration and the identification of pop-
ulation subsets that may be more susceptible to adverse ef-
fects when exposed to air pollutants.
In theory, the dependence of nasal filtration on anatomy,
ventilation, and particle size can be put into a functional form
that explains interindividual differences in nasal filtration in
terms of differences in anatomy and ventilation. As dis-
cussed in the next section, a number of attempts to define
such relationship have been made,(8,11,12,14–16,18,20,22,26–28) but
a universal relationship is still lacking. In vitro measurement
of nasal deposition in plastic nasal replicas is a powerful
technique that allows for systematic investigation of the de-
pendence of nasal filtration on ventilation, anatomy, and par-
ticle size. Such systematic investigation is difficult in in vivo
studies due to limitations on the number of particle sizes and
flow rates that can be studied. Here we report deposition
measurements of micron-sized particles in nasal replica casts
of four healthy individuals and one atrophic rhinitis patient.
We use our data to investigate how filtration efficiency re-
lates to nasal geometry. We propose a new, simple method
to compute a characteristic diameter of the nasal geometry
that collapses the data of different individuals onto a single
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION 141

TABLE 1. ANTHROPOLOGIC AND GEOMETRIC DATA FOR THE FIVE ADULT HUMANS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY

Healthy Healthy Healthy Healthy Atrophic

Subject nose 1 nose 2 nose 3 nose 4 nose

Gender Male Female Male Female Male

Age 53 years — — — 26 years
Ethnicity Caucasian — — — Caucasian
Body mass (kg) 73 55.7 74 61.2 —
SA of nasal cavitya (mm2) 20,085 16,683 23,219 20,688 13,350
Volume of nasal cavitya (ml) 18.0 15.4 26.5 23.8 34.5
SAVR of nasal cavitya (mm1) 1.12 1.09 0.88 0.87 0.39
SA of nasal cavity  nasopharynx (mm2) 24,327 21,968 27,994 24,243 16,496
Volume of nasal cavity  nasopharynx (ml) 33.3 26.8 46.5 35.9 45.1
Length from nostrils to end of septum (mm) 60.7 55.0 70.1 66.6 58.5

SA  surface area; SAVR  surface-area-to-volume ratio.

aThe nasal cavity is defined as the region between the nostrils and the posterior end of the septum.

curve when deposition efficiency is plotted against the
Stokes number.
Materials and Methods
Nasal replicas
Plastic replicas of the nasal airways of four healthy indi-
viduals and one atrophic rhinitis patient were created as fol-
lows. The diagnosis of healthy versus pathologic nose was
determined by ear–nose–throat physicians. The nasal geome-
tries of the healthy volunteers were captured by magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) scans of 3-mm spacing. The air-
way outlines on the scans were digitized and used to create
three-dimensional hexahedral meshes of the nasal passages
as described in detail elsewhere.(46,47) Healthy Nose 1 is the
same individual used in our previous investigation of nasal
filtration.(23,24) Healthy Noses 2, 3, and 4 were carefully se-
lected from a sample of scans of 15 healthy volunteers to rep-
resent complete nasal passages and a range of surface area
to volume ratios in order to maximize anatomical variabil-
ity.(43,47)
The atrophic rhinitis nose was included in this study to
represent an individual with abnormally wide nasal pas-
sages and potentially higher susceptibility to airborne par-
ticulate matter due to greater lung deposition (low nasal
filtration). Atrophic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic disease char-
acterized by atrophy of the nasal turbinates, which leads to
an enlarged nasal space; it is sometimes referred to as “empty
nose syndrome” when the disease develops after excessive
surgical removal of the turbinates.(48,49) The geometry of the
AR nose was captured by computed tomography (CT) scans
of 0.6-mm spacing.(48) Medical imaging software (Mimics®,
Materialise, Ann Arbor, MI) was used to delimit the nasal
geometry and reconstruct the anatomy in three dimensions.
The computer reconstructions of the nasal airways of the
AR patient and the healthy volunteers were used to produce
hard-plastic nasal replicas using stereolithography (Fig. 1).
All nasal replicas were made using 0.051-mm build layers, a
laser spot diameter of 0.075 mm, and Somos WaterShed
11120 material. All nasal replicas included both the left and
right sides of the nose and extended from the nostrils to the
nasopharynx. Because the MRI scans of Healthy Noses 2, 3,
and 4 did not include the whole nasopharynx, the three-di-
mensional computer reconstructions were computationally
extended at the nasopharynx by a few centimeters (as de-
scribed in Ref.(47) prior to printing the nasal replicas by stere-
olithography. Addition of the artificial extension of the naso-
pharynx in these three individuals was expected to have a
minor effect on deposition measurements because the cross-
sectional area of the nasopharynx is much larger than the
cross-sectional area of the nasal chamber. The paranasal si-
nuses were not included in the nasal replicas, so that this pa-
per focuses on nasal deposition alone. The replicas of the
normal individuals did not include the exterior nose, while
the replica of the AR nose had an exterior nose. To make the
inhalation conditions of the AR replica consistent with that
of the other models, a Plexiglas box was mounted in front
of the face of the replica and filled with plaster (Fig. 1), so
that air was provided directly to the nostrils.
The surface area and volumes of the nasal replicas are
given in Table 1. These geometric attributes were measured
in ICEM-CFD® (Ansys, Canonsburg, PA) using the three-di-
mensional computer reconstructions. Age, sex, and ethnicity
for the five individuals, when available, are also provided in
Table 1.
Deposition measurements
The experimental setup was described in detail in an ear-
lier report,(24) and will be outlined here briefly. A Vibrating
Orifice Aerosol Generator (Model 3450, TSI Incorporated,
Shoreview, MN) was used to produce monodisperse drop-
lets of Di-2-ethylhexyl Sebacate (DEHS; density  914 kg/
m3) with aerodynamic diameters ranging from 1 to 12 m.
A source of dry, filtered air and a vacuum source provided
a constant airflow rate that was adjusted to 10, 20, and 30
L/min. Data for 40 L/min were collected for the atrophic
nose and were also available from our earlier study on
Healthy Nose 1.(24) These airflow rates are characteristic of
nasal breathing at rest.(5) It should be highlighted that oral
breathing and oronasal breathing, which are typical of phys-
ical exercise, lead to different deposition patterns.(27)
Instead of using realistic cyclic breathing in our experi-
ments, constant airflow was adopted to reduce the number
of variables in the system and to focus on the role of nasal
anatomy. The role of nasal anatomy on deposition efficiency
is still poorly understood, even for steady airflow. Therefore,
this study is a first step toward describing interhuman vari-
142 GARCIA ET AL.

ability in nasal filtration, with the goal of identifying how

nasal geometry affects deposition efficiency at steady flow.
The next steps, which should be pursued by future studies,
will be (1) to test whether the role of anatomy described here
for steady airflow remains valid for unsteady airflow, and
(2) to incorporate interindividual variability in breathing pat-
terns in the description of interindividual variability in nasal
filtration.(44,45) Thus, the reader should keep in mind that the
constant airflow rates used here correspond to average in-
spiratory airflow, so that our deposition measurements are
an approximation of the average deposition during the in-
spiratory phase of the breathing cycle.
The aerosol concentration in air was measured before and
after the nasal replica using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer
FIG. 2. Comparison of the simplified version of the Stokes
(Model 3321, TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, MN). Nasal fil-
number Stk1  0da2U/18dc, valid for Re0  1.0, with the
tration efficiency () was calculated as   [(inlet concen-
more general expression Stk2  (pdp/gdc)[Re01/3  6 arc-
tration)  (outlet concentration)] / (inlet concentration). At
tan(Re01/3/6)], valid for Re0  1500. Although the differ-
least three measurements were performed for each flow rate ence between the two formulas increases with flow rate and
and particle size and were subsequently averaged. particle size, the two expressions are within 25% for all flow
rates and particle sizes used in this study.
Calculation of the Stokes Number
Mathematical description of nasal deposition
For our experimental conditions, we estimate that Re0  0.8,
Aerosol theory predicts that particle motion is dominated 1.6, 2.4, and 3.2 for the air flow rates Q  10, 20, 30, and 40
by diffusion for small particle sizes and by inertial impaction L/min, respectively. These estimates are based on da 
for large particle sizes. In the regime dominated by inertia [1, 12]m and on literature results showing that U 1.5
(particle diameter 1 m), deposition efficiency is charac- m/sec for Q  15 L/min.(46,51) Equation (3) is therefore mar-
terized by a dimensionless number called the Stokes num- ginally valid for the particle sizes and air flow rates used in
ber (Stk):(50) this study. However, the Stokes numbers provided by Equa-
tions (3) and (4) differ by less than 25% for all particle sizes
U
Stk 
, (1) and airflow rates used in this study (Fig. 2). Thus, we opted
dc
to use Equation (3), because it is much simpler than Equa-
where  is the relaxation time of the particle, U is the char- tion (4). This approach has been broadly used in the litera-
acteristic velocity of the flow, and dc is the characteristic di- ture, and it is justified by the good description of the exper-
ameter of the geometry. The Stokes number can be inter- imental data it provides.(24,25,27)
preted as the ratio of the time  a particle takes to adjust to Substituting the characteristic velocity by the airflow rate
changes in the flow field to the time dc /U available for ad- (U  Q/kdc2, where k is a constant) in Equation (3) and drop-
justment. Therefore, if Stk  1, particles continue to move ping out the constants, we can redefine the Stokes num-
in a straight line when the fluid changes direction. On the ber as
other hand, particles follow the streamlines almost perfectly
d2a Q
when Stk  1. Stk 
. (5)
The particle relaxation time () is d3c

pdp2 0d2a Thus, aerosol theory predicts that experimental data for dif-
 

, (2) ferent individuals and different airflow rates should collapse
18 18
onto a single curve in a plot  versus da2Q/d3c. This predic-
where  p  914 kg/m3 is the particle density, dp is the par- tion assumes that the nasal airways of different individuals
ticle geometric diameter, 0  1000 kg/m3 is the density of have the same overall shape. Individuals with anatomical
water, da  dp/0 p is the particle aerodynamic diameter, abnormalities, such as septal perforations or atrophic rhini-
and   1.8  105 kg/m sec is the air dynamic viscosity. tis, may not fall on the same curve as healthy subjects.
Substituting this expression for  in Equation (1), the Stokes In most previous studies of nasal deposition, a single nasal
number becomes geometry was investigated, so that dc was a constant. In such
cases, the Stokes number can be further simplified and is
0 d2aU
Stk1 

. (3) then usually called the Impaction Parameter (IP):
18 dc
This definition of the Stokes number is accurate for Re0  IP  d2aQ. (6)
1.0, where Re0  gdpU/ is the Reynolds number based on
particle diameter.(50) Here, g  1.20 kg/m3 is the air den- In vitro studies using nasal replicas of a single individual
sity. A more general expression is available for Re0  1500, have shown that the curves for different airflow rates col-
namely(50) lapse onto a single curve when nasal deposition efficiency is

  
plotted as a function of the Impaction Parameter.(24,25,27)
pdp Re01/3
Stk2 
 arctan

Re01/3  6 . (4) These observations validate the view that nasal deposition
gdc 6 of 1–12 m particles is governed by inertial impaction.
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION 143

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ALL PARAMETERS SUGGESTED IN THE LITERATURE AND TESTED IN THIS STUDY AS CANDIDATES TO
REDUCE INTERINDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION EFFICIENCY

Parameter Comments Reference

d2a Q Impaction Parameter Aerosol theory (Hinds, 1999)

d2a p Modified-Impaction Parameter Hounam et al. (1971)
d2a p2/3 Modified-Impaction Parameter Heyder and Rudolf (1977)
(da)k1(Amin)k2(E)k3 Modified-Impaction Parameter Kesavanathan et al. (1998)
(da)k4(R)k5 Modified-Impaction Parameter Kesavanathan et al. (1998)
d2a Q/Amin Modified-Impaction Parameter Rasmussen et al. (2000)
d2a Q/(dc)3 Stokes number Cheng (2003)
dc  (Amin/)1/2
Re0.37 d2a Q/(dc)3 Modified-Stokes number Grgic et al. (2004a,b)
dc  2V/L

d2a Q/(dc)3 Stokes number This study
dc  (0.181Lnose/Rnose)4/19
dc  dhydraulic
dc  (4Acoronal
min /)1/2
dc  SAVR1

da  particle aerodynamic diameter; Q  airflow rate; p  transnasal pressure drop; Amin  minimum cross-sectional area obtained by
acoustic rhinometry; E  ellipticity of the nostrils (ratio of the long to the short axis of the nostril); R  nasal resistance obtained by rhino-
manometry; ki  exponents determined by fitting equations to the experimental data; dc  characteristic diameter of the nasal geometry; Re
 Reynolds number; Stk  Stokes number; V  volume of the geometry; L  centerline path length; Lnose  linear distance from the nostrils
to the end of the septum; Rnose nasal resistance defined by Equation (8a); dhydraulic  hydraulic diameter of the nostrils; Acoronal
min  minimum
coronal cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity; SAVR  surface-area-to-volume ratio of the nasal cavity.

Interindividual variability in nasal A new definition for the characteristic diameter dc

deposition—literature review
We introduce here a novel strategy to define the Stokes
Many researchers have observed significant interindivid- number by using measurements of transnasal pressure drop
ual variability in nasal filtration, probably due to differences to compute the characteristic diameter of the nasal geome-
in nasal anatomy and breathing patterns.(8–11,15,18) These re- try (dc). As shown in the Results section, this definition of
searchers found that the data from different individuals fol- the Stokes number reduced the interindividual variability in
low different curves on a  versus IP plot, as expected, be- our data to a greater extent than Stokes numbers based on
cause IP does not include anatomical information. After an
extensive literature review, we summarize in Table 2 all the
parameters that have been proposed by previous investiga-
tors as candidates to reduce interindividual variability. Var-
ious authors introduced phenomenological modified-Im-
paction Parameters, such as da2p2/3, where p is the
transnasal pressure drop, as a means to reduce intersubject
variability.(12,15,16,22) Other authors chose to use Stk or a mod-
ified Stk to reduce variability.(27,52,53) Generally speaking, in-
terindividual variability was reduced, but not eliminated, in
all these studies. The only exception is the study by
Cheng,(27) where the deposition efficiency of a 53-year-old
male and a 6-week-old infant, measured through nasal repli-
cas, collapsed onto a single curve in a plot of  versus Stk.
Cheng(27) defined the characteristic diameter of the nasal pas-
sages as dc  (Amin/)1/2, where Amin is the minimum cross-
sectional area obtained via acoustic rhinometry. In the Re- FIG. 3. Pressure drop (p) as a function of air flow rate (Q)
sults section, we use our dataset to test whether any of the in the four healthy noses and the atrophic nose. The data
parameters given in Table 2 eliminates interindividual vari- points are the actual experimental measurements, while the
ability in nasal filtration in our dataset. lines are curve fittings [see Equation (8a) and Table 3].
144 GARCIA ET AL.

TABLE 3. THE PRESSURE DROP (p, Pa) VERSUS AIR FLOW RATE (Q, m3/s) DATA WERE
FITTED WITH THE CURVE p  aQb, Q  [30, 75] L/MIN, YIELDING THE CONSTANTS A AND B
AND THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT r2 BELOW

Subject a b r2

Healthy nose 1 (4.59 0.57)  107 1.79 0.02 0.9994

Healthy nose 2 (6.58 0.58)  107 1.78 0.01 0.9997
Healthy nose 3 (1.87 0.20)  107 1.76 0.02 0.9996
Healthy nose 4 (6.27 0.48)  107 1.85 0.01 0.9998
Atrophic nose (3.55 0.47)  107 1.87 0.02 0.9994

alternative definitions of dc. We measured the transnasal elled by air in the nasal cavity. Because the nasopharynx con-
pressure drop p in our five nasal replicas for inspiratory
airflow rates ranging from 0 to 75 L/min (Fig. 3). The pres-
sure drop was measured with a VelociCalc® Plus Air Ve-
locity Meter Model 8386 (TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, MN),
while the air flow rate was measured with a Mass Flowme-
ter Model 4040 (TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, MN).
tributes little to the transnasal pressure drop, we defined
Lnose as the linear distance from the nostrils to the end of the
septum (Table 4). The value of the constant k is unknown.
However, k does not affect the ratio (dc)i/(dc)j of the charac-
teristic diameters of subjects i and j and, therefore, k also does
not affect the ratio (Stk)i/(Stk)j. Given this freedom to select
We defined the characteristic diameter dc by fitting the p
versus Q data as follows. Experimental studies of the nasal
airflow patterns(54,55) have observed turbulence when the air-
flow per nostril exceeds 200 mL/sec (24 L/min for both nos-
trils). For turbulent flow, the pressure drop in a circular pipe
of diameter d and length L is given by:(56)
a value for k, we chose to use k  0.2413/41/4  0.0181
kg/[(m10/4) (sec1/4)]. Thus, the characteristic diameter dc
was given by
dc  (0.0181Lnose/Rnose)4/19. (9)
The characteristic diameters obtained via Equation (9) are
given in Table 4. It was observed that almost identical esti-
p  0.241L3/41/4d19/4 Q1.75, (7)
mates were obtained when all flow rates were used to fit
where all variables are in SI units. By fitting the p versus Equation (8a), instead of limiting Q to the interval [30, 75]
Q data for each nasal replica with the curve p  aQb, where L/min. In addition, it was observed that Rnose varied more
a and b are constants and Q  [30, 75] L/min to ensure tur- than Lnose, so that the characteristic diameter dc was primar-
bulence, we obtained b in the range 1.76 to 1.85 for the four ily a function of the nasal resistance Rnose.
healthy noses, while an exponent of 1.87 was found for the The characteristic diameter defined by Equation (9) re-
atrophic nose (Table 3). All curve fits were made in
SigmaPlot™ 9.0 (Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA). The
similarity between these experimental estimates of the ex-
ponent b and the theoretical value of 1.75 gave us confidence
that Equation (7) was valid for the nasal geometry, even
though the constant 0.241 was expected to be specific to the
cylindrical geometry.
The characteristic diameter dc was therefore determined
quires measurements of p and Q for turbulent flow [Equa-
tion (8a)]. The characteristic diameter, however, is a geo-
metric attribute that does not depend on whether the flow
is laminar or turbulent. For instance, the characteristic di-
ameter of a cylinder is its diameter (or radius) irrespective
of the flow regime. Therefore, the definition given by Equa-
tion (9) should be interpreted as simply a method to mea-
sure the characteristic diameter of the nasal geometry. Al-
by fitting the p versus Q data with the equation though data from the turbulent regime is used to calculate
dc, in theory this characteristic diameter describes the nasal
p  Rnose Q1.75, (8a)
geometry for both laminar and turbulent flows.
where the nasal resistance (Rnose) is Finally, we must note that our definition of nasal resis-
tance in Equation (8a) is different from the convention in rhi-
Rnose  k Lnose dc19/4. (8b)
nomanometry studies. We defined nasal resistance by fitting
Here, k is a constant and Lnose is the average distance trav- a range of pressure drops and airflow rates with Equation

TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTIC DIAMETER (dc) OF THE NASAL CAVITY CALCULATED VIA EQUATION
(9) AND LENGTH FROM THE NOSTRILS TO THE END OF THE SEPTUM (Lnose).

Subject dc (mm) Lnose (cm) Rnose [107 Pa/(m3/sec)1.75] r2

Healthy nose 1 6.17 6.07 3.45 0.01 0.9991

Healthy nose 2 5.47 5.50 5.55 0.02 0.9996
Healthy nose 3 7.32 7.01 1.76 0.01 0.9996
Healthy nose 4 6.39 6.66 3.19 0.02 0.9979
Atrophic nose 7.18 5.85 1.61 0.01 0.9968

The nasal resistance (Rnose) was calculated fitting the pressure drop versus flow rate data with
Equation (8a). r2 is the correlation coefficient of the fitting.
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION 145

TABLE 5. GEOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS OF THE NASAL ANATOMY USED TO DEFINE VARIOUS

ALTERNATIVES OF THE CHARACTERISTIC DIAMETER (dc)

Amin Acoronal
min dhydraulic SAVR
Subject (cm2) (cm2) (mm) (mm1)

Healthy nose 1 1.71 1.50 6.08 1.12

Healthy nose 2 1.59 1.69 8.31 1.09
Healthy nose 3 2.09 1.97 7.94 0.88
Healthy nose 4 1.56 2.21 5.80 0.87
Atrophic nose 1.81 3.06 10.90 0.39

Amin  minimum cross-sectional area; Acoronal

min  minimum coronal cross-sectional area; dhyraulic 
hydraulic diameter of the nostrils; SAVR  surface-area-to-volume ratio of the nose from the nostrils to
the end of the septum. All variables refer to the left and right cavities combined. Acoustic rhinometry
was employed to obtain Amin, while the remaining parameters were measured from the three-dimen-
sional computational reconstructions used to produce the nasal replicas.

(8a), while in rhinomanometry studies nasal resistance is de- nasal cavities combined (Table 5). Table 2 summarizes all pa-
fined as the ratio p/Q for a transnasal pressure drop of 150 rameters tested in this study as candidates to describe how
Pa.(57,58)  depends on nasal anatomy.

Other definitions for the characteristic diameter dc Results

We also investigated how other definitions of the charac-
teristic diameter dc affected the data collapse in the  versus
Stk plot. To test whether Cheng’s definition dc  (Amin/)1/2,
which leads to Stk  da2Q/(Amin)3/2, collapsed the data for
our four healthy noses, we measured the minimum cross-
sectional area Amin of our plastic nasal replicas using acoustic
rhinometry (Table 5). In addition, we also studied the fol-
lowing alternative definitions of the characteristic diameter:
dc  dhydraulic, where dhydraulic is the hydraulic diameter of
the nostrils; dc  (4Amin
coronal/)1/2, where Acoronal is the mini-
min
mum coronal cross-sectional area of the nose; and dc 
(SAVR)1, where SAVR is the surface-area-to-volume ratio
of the nasal cavity from the nostrils to the end of the sep-
tum. The hydraulic diameter of the nostrils was calculated
as dhydraulic  4Anostrils/Pnostrils, where Anostrils is the cross-
sectional area of the nostrils and Pnostrils is the perimeter of
the nostrils. The measurements of Anostrils, Pnostrils, Amin coronal,
and SAVR were made in ICEM-CFD® using the computa-
tional reconstructions of the nasal airways. All variables
coronal, and SAVR) refer to the left and right
(Amin, dhydraulic, Amin
A typical plot of nasal deposition versus particle size is
shown in Figure 4A. Individual measurements are shown
before averaging for each particle size and air flow rate to
provide a sense of the experimental variability. A rapid in-
crease in nasal deposition was observed as particle size in-
creased from 1 to 12 m. For instance, for Q  30 L/min,
nasal deposition increased from 0% to 100% in this particle
size range. In agreement with previous investigations, nasal
filtering efficiency was significantly affected by ventilation
rate.
The effect of ventilation was reduced substantially when
deposition efficiency was plotted versus Impaction Parame-
ter (Fig. 4B). The data for 20 L/min, 30 L/min, and 40 L/min
(when available) collapsed onto a single curve. In contrast,
the 10 L/min data displayed an abnormal behavior. The 10
L/min data fell above the curve defined by the other flow
rates (see Fig. 4B) for all nasal replicas, except for the Healthy
Nose 2 replica, in which the 10 L/min data fell under the
curve defined by the other flow rates. This spurious behav-
ior of the 10 L/min data was unexpected, and it is examined

A B

FIG. 4. Deposition efficiency of micron-sized particles in the nasal cavity of a healthy individual (Healthy Nose 3) as a
function of (A) the particle aerodynamic diameter and (B) the Impaction Parameter.
146 GARCIA ET AL.

FIG. 5. Deposition efficiency in the four healthy subjects and the atrophic rhinitis patient as a function of (A) the Impaction
Parameter da2Q, (B) the modified-Impaction Parameter da2Q/Amin proposed by Rasmussen and collaborators,(22) (C) the mod-
ified-Impaction Parameter da2p proposed by Hounam and coworkers,(16) and (D) the modified-Impaction Parameter da2p2/3
proposed by Heyder and Rudolf.(12)
in detail in the Discussion and in Appendix A. In order to
simplify visualization and focus on interindividual variabil-
ity, which is the main goal of this study, only the data for
20, 30, and 40 L/min are plotted in the figures in the fol-
lowing discussion.
Significant interhuman variability was observed among
the four healthy individuals when nasal deposition efficiency
was plotted versus Impaction Parameter (Fig. 5A). For IP 
1000 m2L/min, nasal filtration ranged from approximately
40% to 90% among the four healthy subjects. The AR patient
cavity (Table 5 and Ref.(48)). For IP  1000 m2L/min, only
15% of the inhaled particles were filtered by the atrophic
nose in contrast to the 90% filtration efficiency of Healthy
Nose 2.
We tested whether the various modified-Impaction Pa-
rameters proposed in the literature (see Table 2) reduced in-
terindividual variability. For most modified-Impaction Pa-
rameters, interindividual variability was reduced only
slightly. Figures 5B and 5C illustrate the persistent in-
terindividual variability when  is plotted versus da2Q/Amin
demonstrated poor nasal filtration compared to the healthy and da2p, respectively. In contrast, interindividual variabil-
subjects, which is consistent with his abnormally wide nasal ity was significantly reduced when deposition efficiency was
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION 147

FIG. 5. Continued.

plotted as a function of da2p2/3 (Fig. 5D). The data for the
healthy individuals virtually collapsed onto a single curve,
while the data for the atrophic nose was described by a curve
slightly shifted towards lower deposition. This difference be-
tween the AR patient and the healthy subjects may be due
to the smaller surface roughness of the AR nasal replica com-
pared to the replicas of the healthy noses (see Discussion).
Despite the good data collapse provided by the modified-
Cheng,(27) interindividual variability was reduced but not
eliminated (Fig. 6A). Definitions of dc based on other geo-
metrical measurements (minimum coronal cross-sectional
area, surface-area-to-volume ratio, hydraulic diameter of the
nostrils; Table 2) were also attempted, but provided results
similar to those displayed on Figure 6A, namely, reduced in-
terhuman variability, but not a perfect collapse. Using the
modified-Stokes number Re0.37 Stk proposed by Grgic and
Impaction Parameter da2p2/3, this is only a phenomenologi-
cal parameter, which is not based on theoretical grounds.
Aerosol theory predicts that nasal deposition of micron-sized
particles is a function of the Stokes number (see Methods).
We experimented with various strategies (summarized in
Table 2) to define the characteristic diameter dc of the nasal
cavity. When dc was defined as dc  (Amin/)1/2, following
colleagues(52,53) also did not collapse the data for different
subjects (Fig. 6B). The best collapse of the data for the four
healthy individuals was obtained when the characteristic di-
ameter of the nasal geometry was based on pressure-flow
measurements [Equation (9)]. This definition of the Stokes
number led to an excellent data collapse, as shown in Fig-
ure 6C.
148 GARCIA ET AL.

FIG. 6. Deposition efficiency as a function of (A) the Stokes number Stk  da2Q/(Amin)3/2 defined by Cheng,(27) (B) the
modified-Stokes number Re0.37 Stk proposed by Grgic and colleagues,(52,53) and (C) the Stokes number Stk  da2Q/dc3, where
dc is calculated from the pressure-flow curve using Equation (9).
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION 149

Discussion larity in the descriptions provided by the modified-Im-

paction Parameter da2p2/3 and the Stokes number da2Q/dc3.
Aerosol theory predicts that nasal deposition is a function
The description of interindividual variability in nasal fil-
of the Stokes number; therefore, it is not surprising that most
tration obtained in the present study may be useful for op-
modified-Impaction Parameters did not eliminate interindi-
timizing nebulizers for nasal drug delivery. Assessment of
vidual variability. However, it was unexpected that Cheng’s
interindividual variability is important to devise drug de-
Stokes number Stk  da2Q/(Amin)3/2 did not eliminate inter-
livery devices that are effective for the population at large.
human variability. Inhaled particles in the 1–12-m range
Because interhuman variability in nasal filtration due to age,
deposit mostly in the anterior nose;(19,21,30) thus, Cheng’s def-
gender, and ethnicity is mostly unknown, the nasal dose de-
inition dc  (Amin/)1/2 is logical because the narrowest
livered by nebulizers is currently calculated for a small num-
cross-section of the nasal passages (Amin) is representative of
ber of individuals who are assumed representative of the hu-
the anterior nose geometry. The poor performance of this
man population.(40,59) A similar scenario is observed in risk
definition in eliminating interindividual variation in the cur-
assessment of inhaled particles, where safety guidelines rely
rent study might be due to experimental error in our acoustic
on a theoretical factor of 10 to account for interhuman vari-
rhinometry measurements. The nasal replicas are made of
ation.(60) Our results suggest the possibility of estimating in-
hard plastic; thus, a perfect fit between the tip of the acoustic
terhuman variability in nasal filtration by measuring inter-
rhinometer and the nostrils was not possible. Measurements
human variability in transnasal pressure drop. Our data are
were repeated several times to give an average value and
described by (see Fig. 7)
minimize experimental uncertainty. However, any experi-
mental error was amplified by the power 3/2 in Cheng’s def-   1  exp((1 da2p2/3)1) (11a)
inition of Stokes number, so that even a small experimental
or
error may have caused large differences among subjects in
the  versus Stk plot.   1  exp((2 Stk)2) (11b)
Stokes numbers based on some other definitions of dc (dc 
coronal/)1/2, d  (SAVR)1; Table 2) also where 1  (2.14 0.01)  103, 1  2.21 0.04, 2 
dhydraulic, dc  (4Amin c
(2.41 0.02)  104, 2  2.20 0.06 are constants deter-
did not collapse the data for different individuals. Compar-
coronal, and SAVR (Table mined using SigmaPlot™ 9.0; the correlation coefficients are
ing the values of Amin, dhydraulic, Amin
r1  0.997 and r2  0.994, respectively. Here p is the pres-
5), one observes that there is no clear correlation between
sure drop for a constant ventilation rate and Stk is the Stokes
these measurements. This observation highlights the chal-
number based on dc calculated from Equation (9). If these re-
lenge of defining a meaningful characteristic dimension of a
lationships hold true for larger datasets that include various
geometry as complex as the nasal airways. Using the rescal-
ethnicities and children of different ages, nasal filtration may
ing factor Re0.37 suggested by Grgic and colleagues(52,53) did
be estimated from in vivo measurements of transnasal pres-
not collapse the data either. Grgic and colleagues suggested
sure drop using rhinomanometry.(58) Such measurements are
this rescaling factor after their data for 30 and 90 L/min
easy to perform, even in children. Therefore, the equations
failed to fall onto the same curve in the  versus Stk plot. Be-
above may become a noninvasive and cost-effective strategy
cause a single mouth and throat geometry was investigated
to characterize interindividual variability in nasal filtration
in their first study,(53) it is not surprising that a rescaling fac-
by measuring variability in transnasal pressure drop.
tor could be found that collapsed the curves for these two
A few comments should be made about applying Equa-
flow rates; this rescaling factor was written as a function of
tion (11) to estimate nasal filtration in vivo. In our experi-
the Reynolds number as Re0.37. In their later study of seven
ments, the nasal replicas of the healthy individuals had no
mouth and throat geometries,(52) these authors applied the
exterior nose and the particles were delivered directly to the
same rescaling factor. Interindividual variability was re-
nostril surfaces by plastic tubing. In contrast, the amount of
duced, but not eliminated, which is consistent with our find-
particles inhaled in vivo differs from the atmospheric con-
ings (Fig. 6B).
centration because large particles may impact on the exte-
Among all parameters tested in this study, only two were
rior nose or settle before being inhaled. Thus, the particle
effective in eliminating interindividual variability in nasal
mass filtered by a human nose in vivo is proportional to the
filtration: the modified-Impaction Parameter da2p2/3 and the
product of inhalability and nasal filtering efficiency. Equa-
Stokes number da2Q/dc3, where dc is calculated from the pres-
tions for inhalability as a function of particle size have been
sure-flow data according to Equation (9). The similarity be-
reported by other investigators,(61,62) and must be taken into
tween the descriptions provided by these two parameters
account when using Equation (11) to estimate nasal filtration
can be explained as follows. Using Equations (8a) and (8b),
in vivo. These inhalability effects may partially explain why
we have that
previous investigators found a correlation between nostril
Q7/6 k4L4noseQ shape and nasal filtration.(15,18) For instance, Bennett and Ze-
da2p2/3  d2a(kLnose)2/3

dc 19/6 
 Stk

dc  1/6 (10) man(18) found lower nasal filtration in African Americans

than in Caucasians, which was shown to be statistically cor-
Thus, da2p2/3 differs from our definition of the Stokes num-
ber only by the quantity (k4L4noseQ/dc)1/6, which can be bro-
ken up into a flow rate contribution (k4Q)1/6 and a geome-
4
try contribution (Lnose /dc)1/6. Using data from Table 4, we
4
find that (Lnose/dc)1/6 varies only from 0.34 meter0.5 to 0.39
meter0.5 among our five humans, thus explaining the simi-
related to the broader nostrils of African Americans.
A second possible source of discrepancy between Equa-
tion (11) and in vivo measurements is that airflow was steady
in this study, while in reality airflow is cyclic. Therefore,
Equation (11) provides an average for the deposition effi-
ciency during the inspiratory phase of the breathing cycle.
150 GARCIA ET AL.

FIG. 7. Curve fittings for nasal deposition efficiency () as a function (A) the modified-Impaction Parameter da2p2/3 and
(B) the Stokes number Stk  da2Q/d 3c, where dc was calculated from the pressure-flow data using Equation (9). r is the cor-
relation coefficient of the fit.

In theory, nasal deposition for cyclic flow can be estimated
by dividing the inspiratory phase in a large number of in-
finitesimal time intervals and then using Equation (11) to cal-
culate the deposition efficiency for each interval. This ap-
proach is supported because the Strouhal number for nasal
airflow at rest is small. The Strouhal number (Sr  fL/U,
where f is the frequency of oscillation, L is the axial length
of the geometry, and U is the characteristic velocity) is a mea-
surement of the importance of time-dependent flow fea-
tures.(63) When Sr  1, the flow is quasi-steady, and at any
moment of time, the flow patterns are the same as those of
flow at steady state for the same flow rate. For nasal breath-
ing at rest, f 0.25 Hz (15 breaths/min), L 7 cm and U
1.5 m/sec, so that Sr 0.01. Therefore, time-dependent ef-
fects are expected to be secondary and, in theory, measure-
ments of nasal deposition at steady flows can be used to es-
timate nasal deposition at cyclic breathing. This approach,
however, still needs experimental validation. To the best of
our knowledge, Haußermann and collaborators(64) made the
only attempt to validate this approach. In their study, nasal
deposition measurements for cyclic flow were lower than the
corresponding estimates based on steady-state measure-
ments. In contrast to other studies,(24,25,27) however, their
data points for different airflow rates did not collapse onto
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION
a single curve in a  versus IP plot. Therefore, more studies
are necessary to clarify the relationship between nasal de-
position for steady and unsteady flows.
Another possible source of deviation between nasal filtra-
tion in vivo and our in vitro measurements is the finite
anatomical resolution of the plastic nasal replicas. Kelly and
collaborators(24) established that surface roughness in nasal
replicas enhances particle deposition. By comparing two
nasal models built from MRI scans of the same individual,
but with different stereolithography techniques, these au-
thors showed that deposition is larger when surface rough-
ness is larger. Because the nasal mucosa is smooth in a real
person, in vitro measurements tend to overpredict deposi-
tion. We attempted to minimize such effects by using high-
resolution stereolithography. In addition, it should be ac-
knowledged that the geometry of the nasal replicas was not
compared to the MRI scans of the healthy volunteers nor to
the CT scans of the AR patient. Despite the high precision of
the imaging software and stereolithography technique em-
ployed to construct the models, it is possible that the nasal
replicas did not reproduce the nasal anatomy perfectly.
Given the narrowness of the nasal geometry, even small im-
perfections in the reconstructed geometry can affect the de-
position measurements. These considerations mean that
Equation (11) should be used with caution as a surrogate for
nasal filtration in vivo. Future studies should investigate the
importance of surface roughness and finite anatomical reso-
lution by comparing in vitro measurements in nasal replicas
to in vivo measurements performed in the same subject.
Other limitations of this research need to be acknowl-
edged. First, the nasal replica of the atrophic nose was built
from CT scans of 0.6 mm spacing, while the nasal replicas
of the healthy noses were built from MRI scans of 3-mm spac-
ing. The higher resolution of the images of the AR nose pro-
vided a nasal replica with smoother internal surface, which
partially explains the decreased air filtration in the AR
replica compared to the nasal replicas of the normal indi-
viduals. It is possible that the differences between the AR
151
whether the abnormal behavior of the 10 L/min data in our
study was due to sedimentation effects or due to the sim-
plification of the definition of Stk [Equation (4)], but these
attempts were not successful (see Appendix A). The fact that
the behavior of the 10 L/min data was not consistent among
all subjects, falling below the curve for the other flow rates
in one subject and above it for the other subjects (see Re-
sults), suggests that the spurious behavior of the 10 L/min
data was caused by a problem in the experimental setup.
However, at this time, it is unclear what this problem might
have been. It is also possible that the spurious behavior of
the 10 L/min data is a Reynolds number effect that was not
considered in our analysis.
Finally, another limitation of this study is the small size
of our cohort. The new definition of the characteristic diam-
eter of the nasal passage [Equation (9)] and the curve fits
[Equation (11)] reported here must be tested in larger cohorts
to determine whether these remain valid when different eth-
nicities and different age groups are included.
Conclusions
It is unknown to what extent nasal filtration varies among
humans. Factors such as ethnicity, age, body size, and health
status modify nasal anatomy and breathing rate, thereby
leading to interindividual variability in filtration efficiency.
The description of interindividual differences in nasal filtra-
tion is important to devise nasal spray devices and risk as-
sessment guidelines that are effective for the population at
large. In this study we quantified the filtration of 1–12-m
particles in nasal replicas of five adults (four healthy volun-
teers and one atrophic rhinitis patient). The wide nasal pas-
sages of the atrophic rhinitis patient led to a reduction in
nasal filtration efficiency compared to the four healthy indi-
viduals. This finding is consistent with the expectation that
nasal filtration decreases as the characteristic diameter of the
nasal passages increases. If confirmed for larger cohorts, this
finding would mean that people with wide nasal passages
nose and the healthy individuals in the  versus da2p2/3 plot
and  versus Stk plot (Figs. 5D and 6C) are fully explained
by these differences in surface roughness. However, the re-
markable anatomic differences between the AR nose and the
normal nasal anatomy (Table 5 and Ref.(48)) imply that dy-
namic similarity is not perfect; therefore, aerosol theory does
not require that data points of the AR nose and healthy noses
collapse onto the same curve. Future studies should build all
nasal replicas using the same methodology to avoid differ-
ences in surface roughness, and thus clarify whether patho-
logic noses follow the same curve as normal noses.
A second limitation of the present manuscript is the ab-
normal behavior of the 10 L/min data. According to the
may receive greater lung doses of inhaled aerosols, and
therefore be at greater risk when exposed to airborne pollu-
tants. This reasoning is in agreement with the findings of
Lehman,(6) who observed increased incidence of silicosis in
workers with poor nasal filtration in a cohort of miners and
industry workers exposed to silica-containing rock dust.
We proposed in the present study a new method to cal-
culate a characteristic diameter of the nasal cavity based on
pressure-flow measurements. This characteristic diameter
led to a definition of the Stokes number that nearly elimi-
nated interindividual variability in nasal deposition effi-
ciency among the healthy noses studied. We also observed
a significant reduction in interhuman variability when the
Buckingham Pi theorem,(56) particle deposition for steady modified-Impaction Parameter da2p2/3 was used. However,
flows is a function of two nondimensional variables: the
Stokes number Stk and the Reynolds number Re. We ob-
tained a good collapse of data for 20, 30, and 40 L/min by
plotting  versus Stk (or  versus IP; Fig. 4B). In addition,
Swift(25) also measured particle deposition in nasal replicas
and observed a collapse of the data for 7, 15, 30, and 50 L/min
in a  versus IP plot. This suggests that particle deposition
in the nose is governed primarily by Stk, with Re playing
only a secondary role because a good data collapse was ob-
tained for different airflow rates (different Re). We tested
Stk should be favored over da2p2/3 because the latter is a phe-
nomenological parameter, while aerosol theory predicts that
particle deposition is a function of the Stokes number.(50)
Currently, only a limited number of individual nasal
anatomies can be investigated through in vitro experiments
due to the high-cost and labor-intensive nature of such ex-
periments. In vivo measurements of nasal filtration are like-
wise problematic due to ethical concerns. In contrast, in vivo
measurements of transnasal pressure drop are much easier
and cheaper to perform. Therefore, the method introduced
152 GARCIA ET AL.

FIG. A-1. (A) Deposition efficiency by sedimentation ((SED)) in a straight horizontal tube that has the same length and
characteristic diameter as the nasal cavity of Healthy Nose 3. (B) Experimental deposition efficiency ((EXP)) in the nasal
replica of Healthy Nose 3 subtracted by the contribution of sedimentation ((SED)) as a function of the Impaction Parameter.

here is an appealing possibility. If this methodology remains
accurate for larger cohorts, it may be used as a noninvasive
and cost-effective technique to investigate interindividual
differences in nasal filtration among different age groups and
ethnicities.
Appendix A
A potential explanation for the higher-than-expected de-
position of the 10 L/min data in three out of four subjects
for which these measurements were available (no measure-
ments were made for Healthy Nose 1) is that our experi-
ments lie in the range of Reynolds numbers for which the
definition Stk1  da2Q/d3c ceases to be valid (see Methods). To
test whether the more general definition of the Stokes num-
ber [Equation (4)] collapsed all data onto a single curve, we
plotted  versus Stk2. However, the 10 L/min data still did
not collapse with the other flow rates.
Another potential explanation for the abnormal behavior
of the 10 L/min data is the effect of sedimentation. To test
this hypothesis, we estimated the contribution of sedimen-
tation for nasal deposition of micron-sized particles by treat-
ing the nasal airway as an effective cylinder (see below). Our
calculation suggested that less than 2% of 1–12-m particles
deposit in the nose by sedimentation for air flow rates of 20
and 30 L/min (Fig. A-1). Sedimentation was predicted to be
more relevant for 10 L/min with up to 4% of the particles
depositing due to gravity, but this effect was too small to ac-
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION
count for the differences between the 10 L/min data and the
other flow rates in the  versus IP plot (Fig. A-1).
Estimating the contribution of sedimentation
to nasal deposition
The fraction of particles depositing by sedimentation for
laminar flow in a horizontal, circular tube of diameter d and
length L is given by:(65)
2
(SED) 
[(2  1/3)1
 2/3
  arcsin 1/3]
 5. Annals of the ICRP 24. ICRP (International Commission on Ra-
where

 
3L
VS
4dU
is a nondimensional parameter. Here, U is the mean veloc-
ity of the flow and VS is the settling velocity of the particle.
For a particle with aerodynamic diameter da, the settling ve-
locity is given by:(50)
pda2g
VS 
, 8. Becquemin MH, Swift DL, Bouchikhi A, Roy M, and Teillac
18
where p  1000 kg/m3 is the particle density, g  9.81 m2/s
is the acceleration of gravity, and   1.8  105 kg/m sec
is the air dynamic viscosity.
To estimate the role of sedimentation on particle deposi-
tion in the nasal cavity, we approximated the nasal airway
as an effective cylinder. We estimated the mean velocity in
the nasal airway as U  Q/Amin. The tube diameter d and
length L were approximated as dc and Lnose taken from Table
4. The deposition efficiency by sedimentation (SED) calcu-
lated by this procedure is shown in Figure A-1 for air flow
rates of 10, 20, and 30 L/min.
We should note here that treating the nasal airways as an
effective cylinder is a dramatic approximation. Although the
diameters dc calculated from Equation (9) range from 5.5 to
7.3 mm (Table 4), the nasal airways resemble more a slit with
a thickness of approximately 1–2 mm than a cylinder. De-
creasing the diameter of the effective cylinder in the equa-
tions above would increase sedimentation. Therefore, it is
possible that our estimate underpredicts the contribution of
sedimentation to nasal deposition of micron-sized particles.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge contributions to this
research by Jeffry Schroeter (The Hamner), Bahman As-
gharian (The Hamner), Andy Howard (The Hamner), Darin
Kalisak (The Hamner), William Bennett (UNC-Chapel Hill,
USA), and Dário Martins (Santa Casa, Belo Horizonte,
Brazil). Funding for this work was provided by the Ameri-
can Chemistry Council (USA) and CNPq (Brazil).
Author Disclosure Statement
The authors have no conflict of interest in the research pre-
sented in this manuscript.
References
1. Acheson ED, Winter PD, Hadfield E, and Macbeth RG: Is
nasal adenocarcinoma in the Buckinghamshire furniture in-
dustry declining? Nature. 1982;299:263–265.
153
2. Black A, Evans JC, Hadfield EH, Macbeth RG, Morgan A,
and Walsh M: Impairment of nasal mucociliary clearance in
woodworkers in the furniture industry. Br J Ind Med. 1974;
31:10–17.
3. Virtue JA: The relationship between the refining of nickel
and cancer of the nasal cavity. Can J Otolaryngol. 1972;1:
37–42.
4. Mickiewicz L, Mikulski T, Kuzna-Grygiel W, and Swiech Z:
Assessment of the nasal mucosa in workers exposed to the
prolonged effect of phosphorite and apatite dusts. Pol J Oc-
cup Med Environ Health. 1993;6:277–285.
diological Protection) Publication 66. Human Respiratory Tract
Model for Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press, Oxford;
1994.
6. Lehmann G: The dust filtering efficiency of the human nose
and its significance in the causation of silicosis. J Indust Hy-
giene. 1935;17:37–40.
7. Asgharian B, Menache MG, and Miller FJ: Modeling age-re-
lated particle deposition in humans. J Aerosol Med Deposit
Clearance Effects Lung. 2004;17:213–224.
A: Particle deposition and resistance in the noses of adults
and children. Eur Respir J. 1991;4:694–702.
9. Schiller-Scotland CF, Hlawa R, and Gebhart J: Experimental
data for total deposition in the respiratory tract of children.
Toxicol Lett. 1994;72:137–144.
10. Bennett WD, and Zeman KL: Effect of body size on breath-
ing pattern and fine-particle deposition in children. J Appl
Physiol. 2004;97:821–826.
11. Kesavan J, Bascom R, Laube B, and Swift DL: The relation-
ship between particle deposition in the anterior nasal pas-
sage and nasal passage characteristics. J Aerosol Med. 2000;
13:17–23.
12. Heyder J, and Rudolf G. Deposition of aerosol particles in
the human nose. In: Walton WH (ed). Inhaled Particles IV.
Pergamon Press, Oxford; 107–125, 1977.
13. Giacomelli-Maltoni G, Melandri C, Prodi V, and Tarroni G:
Deposition efficiency of monodisperse particles in human
respiratory tract. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1972;33:603–610.
14. Cheng KH, Cheng YS, Yeh HC, Guilmette RA, Simpson SQ,
Yang YH, and Swift DL: In vivo measurements of nasal air-
way dimensions and ultrafine aerosol deposition in the hu-
man nasal and oral airways. J Aerosol Sci. 1996;27:785–801.
15. Kesavanathan J, Bascom R, and Swift DL: The effect of nasal
passage characteristics on particle deposition. J Aerosol Med
Deposit Clearance Effects Lung. 1998;11:27–39.
16. Hounam RF, Black A, and Walsh M: The deposition of aero-
sol particles in the nasopharyngeal region of the human res-
piratory tract. Aerosol Sci. 1971;2:47–61.
17. Fry FA, and Black A: Regional deposition and clearance of
particles in the human nose. J Aerosol Sci. 1973;4:113–124.
18. Bennett WD, and Zeman KL: Effect of race on fine particle
deposition for oral and nasal breathing. Inhal Toxicol. 2005;
17:641–648.
19. Itoh H, Smaldone GC, Swift DL, and Wagner HN: Mecha-
nisms of aerosol deposition in a nasal model. J Aerosol Sci.
1985;16:529–534.
20. Phalen RF, Oldham MJ, and Mautz WJ: Aerosol deposition
in the nose as a function of body size. Health Phys. 1989;57
(Suppl 1):299–305.
21. Zwartz GJ, and Guilmette RA: Effect of flow rate on parti-
cle deposition in a replica of a human nasal airway. Inhal
Toxicol. 2001;13:109–127.
154
22. Rasmussen TR, Andersen A, and Pedersen OF: Particle de-
position in the nose related to nasal cavity geometry. Rhi-
nology. 2000;38:102–107.
23. Kelly JT, Asgharian B, Kimbell JS, and Wong BA: Particle
deposition in human nasal airway replicas manufactured by
different methods. Part II: ultrafine particles. Aerosol Sci
Technol. 2004;38:1072–1079.
24. Kelly JT, Asgharian B, Kimbell JS, and Wong BA: Particle
deposition in human nasal airway replicas manufactured by
different methods. Part I: inertial regime particles. Aerosol
Sci Technol. 2004;38:1063–1071.
25. Swift DL: Inspiratory inertial deposition of aerosols in hu-
man nasal airway replicate casts: implication for the pro-
posed NCRP lung model. Radiat Protect Dosimetr. 1991;38:
29–34.
26. Swift DL: Age-related scaling for aerosol and vapor deposi-
tion in the upper airways of humans. Health Phys. 1989;57
(Suppl 1):293–297.
27. Cheng YS: Aerosol deposition in the extrathoracic region.
Aerosol Sci Technol. 2003;37:659–671.
28. Mercer TT: The deposition model of the Task Group on Lung
Dynamics: a comparison with recent experimental data.
Health Phys. 1975;29:673–680.
29. Xu GB, and Yu CP: Effects of age on deposition of inhaled
aerosols in the human-lung. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1986;5:349–
357.
30. Schroeter JD, Kimbell JS, and Asgharian B: Analysis of par-
ticle deposition in the turbinate and olfactory regions using
a human nasal computational fluid dynamics model. J Aero-
sol Med. 2006;19:301–313.
31. Zamankhan P, Ahmadi G, Wang ZC, Hopke PK, Cheng YS,
Su WC, and Leonard D: Airflow and deposition of nano-
particles in a human nasal cavity. Aerosol Sci Technol.
2006;40:463–476.
32. Inthavong K, Tian ZF, Li HF, Tu JY, Yang W, Xue CL, and
Li CG: A numerical study of spray particle deposition in a
human nasal cavity. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2006;40:U1034–
U1033.
33. Kleven M, MeLaaen MC, Reimers M, Rotnes JS, Aurdal L,
and Djupesland PG: Using computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) to improve the bi-directional nasal drug delivery con-
cept. Food Bioprod Process. 2005;83:107–117.
34. Liu Y, Matida EA, Gu J, and Johnson MR: Numerical simu-
lation of aerosol deposition in a 3-D human nasal cavity us-
ing RANS, RANS/EIM, and LES. J Aerosol Sci. 2007;38:683–
700.
35. Martonen TB, Zhang ZQ, Yue G, and Musante CJ: Fine par-
ticle deposition within human nasal airways. Inhal Toxicol.
2003;15:283–303.
36. Moskal A, Makowski L, Sosnowski TR, and Gradon L: De-
position of fractal-like aerosol aggregates in a model of hu-
man nasal cavity. Inhal Toxicol. 2006;18:725–731.
37. Sarangapani R, and Wexler AS: Modeling particle deposi-
tion in extrathoracic airways. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2000;32:
72–89.
38. Shi HA, Kleinstreuer C, and Zhang Z: Modeling of inertial
particle transport and deposition in human nasal cavities
with wall roughness. J Aerosol Sci. 2007;38:398–419.
39. Tian ZF, Inthavong K, and Tu JY: Deposition of inhaled
wood dust in the nasal cavity. Inhala Toxicol. 2007;19:1155–
1165.
40. Kimbell JS, Segal RA, Asgharian B, Wong BA, Schroeter JD,
Southall JP, Dickens CJ, Brace G, and Miller FJ: Characteri-
zation of deposition from nasal spray devices using a com-
GARCIA ET AL.
putational fluid dynamics model of the human nasal pas-
sages. J Aerosol Med. 2007;20:59–74.
41. Hadfield EH, and Macbeth RG: Adenocarcinoma of eth-
moids in furniture workers. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.
1971;80:699–703.
42. Yokley TR. The Functional and Adaptive Significance of Anatom-
ical Variation in Recent and Fossil Human Nasal Passages. Duke
University, Durham, NC; 2006.
43. Guilmette RA, Cheng YS, and Griffith WC: Characterising
the variability in adult human nasal airway dimensions. Ann
Occup Hyg. 1997;41:491–496.
44. Arcus-Arth A, and Blaisdell RJ: Statistical distributions of
daily breathing rates for narrow age groups of infants and
children. Risk Anal. 2007;27:97–110.
45. Brochu P, DucrÇ-Robitaille J-F, and Brodeur J: Physiologi-
cal daily inhalation rates for free-living individuals aged 1
month to 96 years, using data from doubly labeled water
measurements: a proposal for air quality criteria, standard
calculations and health risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk As-
sess. 2006;12:675–701.
46. Subramaniam RP, Richardson RB, Morgan KT, Kimbell JS,
and Guilmette RA: Computational fluid dynamics simula-
tions of inspiratory airflow in the human nose and na-
sopharynx. Inhal Toxicol. 1998;10:91–120.
47. Segal RA, Kepler GM, and Kimbell JS: Effect of differences
in nasal anatomy on airflow distribution: a comparison of
four individuals at rest. Ann Biomed Eng. 2008;36:1870–1882.
48. Garcia GJM, Bailie N, Martins DA, and Kimbell JS: Atrophic
rhinitis: A CFD study of air conditioning in the nasal cav-
ity. J Appl Physiol. 2007;103:1082–1092.
49. Moore EJ, and Kern EB: Atrophic rhinitis: a review of 242
cases. Am J Rhinol. 2001;15:355–361.
50. Hinds WC. Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Mea-
surement of Airborne Particles. Wiley-Interscience, New York;
1999.
51. Keyhani K, Scherer PW, and Mozell MM: Numerical simu-
lation of airflow in the human nasal cavity. J Biomech Eng.
1995;117:429–441.
52. Grgic B, Finlay WH, Burnell PKP, and Heenan AF: In vitro
intersubject and intrasubject deposition measurements in
realistic mouth-throat geometries. J Aerosol Sci. 2004;35:
1025–1040.
53. Grgic B, Finlay WH, and Heenan AF: Regional aerosol de-
position and flow measurements in an idealized mouth and
throat. J Aerosol Sci. 2004;35:21–32.
54. Hahn I, Scherer PW, and Mozell MM: Velocity profiles mea-
sured for air-flow through a large-scale model of the human
nasal cavity. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75:2273–2287.
55. Schreck S, Sullivan KJ, Ho CM, and Chang HK: Correlations
between flow resistance and geometry in a model of the hu-
man nose. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75:1767–1775.
56. White FM. Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
New York; 2008.
57. Calhoun KH, House W, Hokanson JA, and Quinn FB: Nor-
mal nasal airway-resistance in noses of different sizes and
shapes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;103:605–609.
58. Cole P: Nasal airflow resistance: a survey of 2500 assess-
ments. Am J Rhinol. 1997;11:415–420.
59. Laube BL: Devices for aerosol delivery to treat sinusitis. J
Aerosol Med. 2007;20:S5–S18.
60. U.S. E.P.A. Methods for Derivation of Inhaled Reference Con-
centrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. Environ-
mental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/8-
INTERHUMAN VARIABILITY IN NASAL FILTRATION 155

90/066F: Available from the National Technical Information Received on July 11, 2008
Service, Springfield, VA, PB2000-500023, and online at in final form, November 29, 2008
http://www.epa.gov/ncea, 1994.
61. Hsu DJ, and Swift DL: The measurements of human inhal- Reviewed by:
ability of ultralarge aerosols in calm air using mannikins. J Warren Finlay
Aerosol Sci. 1999;30:1331–1343. Beth Laube
62. Liden G, and Harper M: The need for an international sam-
pling convention for inhalable dust in calm air. J Occupat
Environ Hygiene. 2006;3:D94–D101.
63. Çengel YA, and Cimbala JM. Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals
and Applications. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York; Address reprint requests to:
2006. Dr. Julia S. Kimbell
64. Haubermann S, Bailey AG, Bailey MR, Etherington G, and The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences
Youngman M: The influence of breathing patterns on parti- 6 Davis Drive
cle deposition in a nasal replicate cast. Aerosol Sci. 2002;33: P.O. Box 12137
923–933. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
65. Pich J: Theory of gravitational deposition of particles from
laminar flows in channels. Aerosol Sci. 1972;3:351–361. E-mail: kimbell@thehamner.org