Talk:Nebulizer

message: This article needs a section on the technology. How exactly does it work? I came here because we have a compressor-driven home nebulizer. It's a very interesting-looking device. I'm curious how it does what it does.--Srleffler 02:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology

message: Though it's not the intended use of a nebulizer, perhaps this article would benefit from a section covering the use of the device in drinking culture.  It's fairly common to put liquor in a nebulizer and inhale it in order to get drunk without putting the liquid into your stomach.  A section on the benefits, risks, etc. should probably be written. --Lord Galen 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That probably should not be added unless there are citations to support it.--Srleffler (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol 

message: Is vaporizer seriously in the "see also" section of this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsage (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaporizer?

message: After reading a few articles about the history of nebulizers, I got inspired to write and upload a short history chapter for the wikipedia article. In this new chapter, I also chose to mention the pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler (pMDI) that were invented and sold for the first time in March 1956. Eventhough pMDI is not a nebulizer in technical terms, I found it appropriate also to briefly mention this product, as being the most significant competitor against the use of nebulizers. Some other relevant info, that I now hope some of you can find and add to the history chapter, would be how big a market share the competing medical inhalers (pMDI/nebulizers/vaporizers/dry powder inhalers/combustible inhalers), had for some of the specific epochs during the last 200 years.
So far I havent succeeded to find a source to show/explain the general historic market shares. The kind of "market shares" I am looking for, are some quantitative/qualitative shares for either a "special medicine"/"treament of disease" (i.e Asthma). One idea could perhaps also be, to present this info outside the history chapter, in the form of a short list to show "current usage" for each type of inhaler (to show in which categories of medicines/treatments they currently dominate). For the "history chapter", it would be good enough just to write some short lines to mention the specific medicines/treatments, where the nebulizers historicaly were used (and prefered compared to the other type of inhalers).
When having a look at the historic market shares, its of course important to remember that "combustible inhalers" (to convert a solid substance into smoke) and vaporizers (to convert a liquid into inhalable aerosols) both have been known and used for as long as minimum 3500 years. While the 4 other competing type of inhalers are relatively new inventions. The first "gas inhaler" (or breathing apparatus) was invented and designed by James Watt in 1793. The first nebulizer was invented and designed by Sales-Girons in 1858. The first dry powder inhaler was invented by Newton in 1864. And finaly the pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler (pMDI) only was launched in March 1956 as the last type of inhaler. For the treatment of asthma all the 6 type of inhalers have historicaly been used (at least to some extent). In the treatment of asthma, the use of gas inhalers were in the form of "Oxygen therapy", and the use of combustible inhalers were in the form of "asthma cigarettes" (launched in 1890s). If we only look at the historic market shares for the treatment of Asthma, then it would most likely turn out, that we have a prehistoric epoch dominated by vaporizers, which were followed by an epoch dominated by nebulizers, and then the current epoch starting from 1956 with pMDI's being dominant. But of course we now need a good reliable source, before any such speculations can be added for the wikipedia article. 
If some of you can dig up some sourced info about "historic market share for nebulizers", it would definately add some extra value to the chapter. Other history related questions, that also could be interesting to find an answer for are:
* "Historic use of nebulizers by hospitals": In the introduction of the Wikipedia article it has been mentioned that jet nebulizers are still prefered to be used at hospitals, in those cases where patients are not able to use an pMDI by their own. It would be interesting to learn, if hospitals today also use nebulizers in other situations than to treat a "pacified" patient? And to what extend the hospitals historic use of nebulizers has changed?
* "Technological improvement of nebulizers": How did the invention of new improved nebulizer technologies impact on the historic use of nebulizers? In particular to what extend the more portable "Ultrasonic Wave nebulizer" invented in 1964, improved the market position of nebulizers? And how big the impact on the market position was, with the newest type of impoved "Soft Mist Inhalers" (launched for sale in Jan.2004) and "Vibrating Mesh nebulizers" (launched for sale in 2005)? 
Danish Expert (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The entire paragraph mentioning the electronic cigarette does not belong here.
The paragraph diverts from the subject of the Nebulizer page and goes into some detail about how eCigs work.
A Brief mention that Nebulizer technology was used in the first eCigs is all that is necessary with a link to an eCig page.
The Paragraph should be moved to a page more suited to it's Nature.
BuBuSpidecky (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HISTORY - Electronic Cigarette 

message: Because this article primary deals with the medical use of a Nebulizer I really think connecting bicycle pumps to bottles and adding non specific volatile liquids could give people silly ideas and they may think it's a medicinal solution rather than simply an example of the basic principle. Sterility is a major concern also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.201.161 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the entire "Homemade" subsection, not out of safety concerns but for poor sourcing.  It was originally added on 07:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety of Home Made Apparatus  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Nebulizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527080759/http://www.respimat.com/com/Main/functions/howitworks/index.jsp to http://www.respimat.com/com/Main/functions/howitworks/index.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114085152/http://www.airwin-luftbefeuchter.de/html/en/operating_principle.html to http://www.airwin-luftbefeuchter.de/html/en/operating_principle.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328172026/http://www.paripharma.com/technologies1.htm to http://www.paripharma.com/technologies1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100804054557/http://ineb.respironics.com/AADHow.asp to http://ineb.respironics.com/AADHow.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100203152617/http://aerogen.com/technology.html to http://aerogen.com/technology.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130103081752/http://www.inhalatorium.com/page148.html to http://www.inhalatorium.com/page148.html
*Added  tag to http://www.inhalatorium.com/page113.html
*Added  tag to http://www.inhalatorium.com/page131.html
*Added  tag to http://www.inhalatorium.com/page90.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The last paragraph which references in 1966 study seems to say that particles of the lower size would in fact be absorbed at the depths of the lungs where is the previous paragraph States the contrary. Perhaps that last paragraph should be separated or under a heading or a separate section entitled contrary or contradictory findings
Tapalmer99 (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of first paragraph statement about 1966 study