(searched for: doi:10.4236/wjnst.2016.61005)
Journal of Applied Physiology, Volume 127, pp 1215-1223; https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01118.2018
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of nasal valve area, valve stiffness, and turbinate region cross-sectional area on airflow rate, nasal resistance, flow limitation, and inspiratory “hysteresis” by the use of a mathematical model of nasal airflow. The model of O’Neill and Tolley ( Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 13: 273–277, 1988) describing the effects of valve area and stiffness on the nasal pressure-flow relationship was improved by the incorporation of additional terms involving 1) airflow through the turbinate region, 2) the dependence of the flow coefficients for the valve and turbinate region on the Reynolds number, and 3) effects of unsteady flow. The model was found to provide a good fit for normal values for nasal resistance and for pressure-flow curves reported in the literature for both congested and decongested states. Also, by showing the relative contribution of the nasal valve and turbinate region to nasal resistance, the model sheds light in explaining the generally poor correlation between nasal resistance measurements and the results from acoustic rhinometry. Furthermore, by proposing different flow conditions for the acceleration and deceleration phases of inspiration, the model produces an inspiratory loop (commonly referred to as hysteresis) consistent with those reported in the literature. With simulation of nasal flaring, the magnitude of the loop, the nasal resistance, and flow limitation all show change similar to that observed in the experimental results.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The present model provides considerable insight into some difficult conundrums in both clinical and technical aspects of nasal airflow. Also, the description of nasal airflow mechanics based on the Hagen–Poiseuille equation and Reynolds laminar-turbulent transition in long straight tubes, which has figured prominently in medical textbooks and journal articles for many years, is shown to be seriously in error at a fundamental level.
Published: 1 January 2017
by Elsevier BV
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.