Comprehensive Physiology Wiley Online Library
For Librarians For Authors Editors About

Expiratory Flow Limitation

Ole F. Pedersen, James P. Butler

10.1002/cphy.c100025

Source: Volume 1, Issue 4, October 2011

Published online: October 2011

Full Article on Wiley Online Library



Abstract

Expiratory flow limitation occurs when flow ceases to increase with increasing expiratory effort. The equal pressure point concept has been largely successful in providing intuitive understanding of the phenomenon, wherein maximal flows are determined by lung recoil and resistance upstream of the site where bronchial transmural pressure is zero (the EPP). Subsequent work on the fluid dynamical foundations led to the wave‐speed theory of flow limitation, where flow is limited at a site when the local gas velocity is equal to speed of propagation of pressure waves. Each is a local theory; full predictions require knowledge of both density‐dependent Bernoulli pressure drops and viscosity‐dependent pressure losses due to dissipation. The former is dominant at mid to high lung volumes, whereas the latter is more important at low lung volumes as the flow‐limiting site moves peripherally. The observation of relative effort independence of the maximal flow versus volume curves is important clinically insofar as such maneuvers, when carefully performed, offer a unique window into the mechanics of the lung itself, with little confounding effects. In particular, the important contributions of lung recoil and airways resistance can often be assessed, with implications and applications to diagnosis and management of pulmonary disease. © 2011 American Physiological Society. Compr Physiol 1:1861‐1882, 2011.

Comprehensive Physiology offers downloadable PowerPoint presentations of figures for non-profit, educational use, provided the content is not modified and full credit is given to the author and publication.

Download a PowerPoint presentation of all images


Figure 1. Figure 1.

Left: Flow versus volume plot for normal subject. values are plotted against their corresponding volume at A, B, and C, and define the maximum expiratory flow versus volume (MEFV) curve (solid line). Right: Three isovolume pressure flow curves from the same subject. Curves A, B, and C were measured at volumes of 0.8, 2.3, and 3.0 liters from total lung capacity (TLC), respectively. Transpulmonary pressure is the difference between pleural pressure (estimated by an esophageal balloon) and mouth pressure. Adapted, with permission, from reference 41.
Figure 2. Figure 2.

Expiratory flow and alveolar pressure (Palv) versus expired box volume from TLC. Palv is calculated as the sum of the esophageal pressure measured during the maneuver and the static elastic recoil pressure measured immediately before. The alveolar pressure continues to increase after peak flow is reached. (Pompilio et al. unpublished observations).
Figure 3. Figure 3.

Graphical representation of the equal pressure point concept.
Figure 4. Figure 4.

Diagram linking together the pressures and pressure differences in the airway. It describes a monoalveolar lung with a Pitot‐static tube inserted in the airway.

Palv: Alveolar pressure.

Pca = Pressure used for convective acceleration .

Pel: Static elastic recoil pressure = Palv – Ppl.

Pfr: Frictional pressure loss from the alveoli to the flow‐limiting site (the choke point, CP) = Palv – Ptot.

Ppl: Pressure surrounding the lung and the airway.

J: Pressure head at the CP = Ptot – Ppl.

Ptot: Impaction or stagnation pressure at the end hole of the Pitot‐static tube.

Plat: Pressure at the side hole of the probe.

Ptm: Transmural pressure = Plat – Ppl

Pd: Pressure drop from the side hole to the mouth (Plat − Pmouth).

: Expiratory flow.

: Gas density.
Figure 5. Figure 5.

Thin curves: Iso‐J flow versus transmural pressure (Ptm) curves for a mechanical model with a Pitot‐static probe at three different positions (A, B, and C) for J‐values ranging between 0.1 and −1.3 kPa. The iso‐J curves were calculated from the A versus Ptm curves, and based on Eqs. (5) or (9). Interrupted heavy curves: maximal flows calculated from the A versus Ptm curves [Eq. (8)]. They pass through the maxima of the iso‐J curves. Heavy continuous curves: actual flows. The same effort was applied at all positions. Panel A: The theoretical maximum flow calculated from Eq. (8), is considerably larger than the measured flow. The velocity is below wave‐speed (subcritical). The Pitot‐static probe is in the subcritical region upstream of the CP. Panel B: The actual flow follows closely the flow through the maxima of the iso‐J curves. Flows on the two flow versus Ptm curves are almost identical. The Pitot‐static probe is close to CP. Panel C: The flow is initially submaximal (measured flow is less than the calculated maximum), and the velocity subcritical. Flow then tracks the theoretical maximum over a region, but at lower transmural pressures, the actual flow is larger than the theoretical maximum. In this region, the velocity is supercritical (and the Pitot‐static probe is downstream of the CP); the observation that the volume flow exceeds the computed maximum implies the existence of important contributions to flow that have been neglected in the simple theory.
Figure 6. Figure 6.

Calculation of the relationship between the A versus Ptm curve on the one hand and the versus J curve (MFJ curve) on the other. If Pfr is zero, then the MFJ curve becomes the maximum flow versus static recoil curve (MFSR curve). Caw is the slope of the A versus Ptm curve, G is the slope of the MFJ curve.
Figure 7. Figure 7.

Pressure (top) and area (bottom) as functions of axial position in a compliant tube for each flow rate. For limiting or critical flow (), two branches of the solution of the governing equations are shown downstream of the critical point. The branch is determined by the level of effort, here equivalent to pressure boundary condition at the downstream outlet. At high efforts, the lower branch obtains, and a region of supercritical flow ends with a dissipative hydraulic jump to subcritical flow. Adapted, with permission, from reference 119.
Figure 8. Figure 8.

Schematic drawing, adapted with permission, from Wiggs et al. 116 showing buckling of a two‐layer tube with a thin (A) and a thick (B) layer. Because of the lesser fold patterns in B, the tube can narrow to a greater extent than in A before folds push against one another, causing an increase in airway stiffness. In the extreme case shown, tube in B narrows to zero luminal area (LA) at a load corresponding to maximum effective pressure exerted by smooth muscle (P*). P, smooth muscle pressure.
Figure 9. Figure 9.

Panel A: A versus Ptm curves for bronchial generations (z = 1‐16) were calculated from data of Lambert et al. 56, and were transformed into versus J curves by the equations given in Figure 6. Pfr was assumed to be zero. The CP is in the airway which, at the given value of J, gives the smallest maximal flow. It is seen that the CP moves toward the periphery with decreasing J. Panel B: The upper curve taken from Lambert et al. shows which airway generation contains the choke point at different elastic recoil pressures when viscous pressure loss and viscous flow limitation is taken into account. The lower curve is in accordance with panel A, where Pfr is assumed to be zero and Pel = J.
Figure 10. Figure 10.

Previously unpublished flow versus volume curves with reproducible configuration findings (the arrows) in a healthy subject.
Figure 11. Figure 11.

The first figure describes maximum flow versus static recoil (MFSR) curves on air and He/O2. If density dependence is less than , density corrected flows on He/O2 will be smaller than on air, as shown in the second figure. If the A versus Ptm curve is not affected by the gas, the two points in the second figure will now be on the same curve, as in the third figure, but separated due to Pfr. Because there is a unique relationship between the MFcJ curve describing density corrected versus J and the A versus Ptm curve, two separate points on the MFcJ curve will also give two separate points on the single valued A versus Ptm curve, as in the fourth figure.
Figure 12. Figure 12.

Maximum expiratory flow versus volume curves with different efforts. Three of the peaks reach wave speed (the heavy curves), but at different thoracic gas volumes. For the broken curve, the peak is not at wave‐speed flow. Modified, with permission, from reference 75.
Figure 13. Figure 13.

Lung resistance at three different lung volumes. Rapid, shallow respirations were produced (1) near maximum inspiration; (2) at normal resting mid position; and (3) near maximal expiration. At the lowest lung volume, the expiratory part of the resistance curve forms a loop. The maximum expiratory flow decreases, while the expiratory pressure continues to increase. This suggests flow is limited near RV. Adapted, with permission, from Mead and Whittenberger 65.
Figure 14. Figure 14.

Panel A: A tidal flow volume loop during which negative pressure negative expiratory pressure (NEP) was applied over the middle part of the expiration (between 2 arrows) in a seated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patient at rest together with preceding control loops. Note the sustained increase of flow during NEP, indicating that flow was not limited during the control expiration. Panel B: Similar loops in another seated COPD patient at rest. Application of a NEP pulse caused only a transient increase of flow during NEP, indicating flow limitation during control.

Reproduced, with permission, from reference 52.
Figure 15. Figure 15.

Mead and Whittenberger graphs (A and C) obtained by plotting airway opening flow versus the resistive pressure drop (Pfr) during a single breath. Data from a non flow‐limited COPD patient (A and B) and a flow‐limited patient (C and D). The lower graphs (B and D) show the time course of resistive pressure (Pfr) and reactance Xrs for the two subjects. In patient AB, there is no open respiratory loop, and the reactance is almost the same during in and expiration. In patient CD, there is evidence of flow limitation in the resistance loop (see Figure 13), and expiratory reactance is considerably more negative than inspiratory reactance. Modified, with permission, from reference 19.


Figure 1.

Left: Flow versus volume plot for normal subject. values are plotted against their corresponding volume at A, B, and C, and define the maximum expiratory flow versus volume (MEFV) curve (solid line). Right: Three isovolume pressure flow curves from the same subject. Curves A, B, and C were measured at volumes of 0.8, 2.3, and 3.0 liters from total lung capacity (TLC), respectively. Transpulmonary pressure is the difference between pleural pressure (estimated by an esophageal balloon) and mouth pressure. Adapted, with permission, from reference 41.



Figure 2.

Expiratory flow and alveolar pressure (Palv) versus expired box volume from TLC. Palv is calculated as the sum of the esophageal pressure measured during the maneuver and the static elastic recoil pressure measured immediately before. The alveolar pressure continues to increase after peak flow is reached. (Pompilio et al. unpublished observations).



Figure 3.

Graphical representation of the equal pressure point concept.



Figure 4.

Diagram linking together the pressures and pressure differences in the airway. It describes a monoalveolar lung with a Pitot‐static tube inserted in the airway.

Palv: Alveolar pressure.

Pca = Pressure used for convective acceleration .

Pel: Static elastic recoil pressure = Palv – Ppl.

Pfr: Frictional pressure loss from the alveoli to the flow‐limiting site (the choke point, CP) = Palv – Ptot.

Ppl: Pressure surrounding the lung and the airway.

J: Pressure head at the CP = Ptot – Ppl.

Ptot: Impaction or stagnation pressure at the end hole of the Pitot‐static tube.

Plat: Pressure at the side hole of the probe.

Ptm: Transmural pressure = Plat – Ppl

Pd: Pressure drop from the side hole to the mouth (Plat − Pmouth).

: Expiratory flow.

: Gas density.



Figure 5.

Thin curves: Iso‐J flow versus transmural pressure (Ptm) curves for a mechanical model with a Pitot‐static probe at three different positions (A, B, and C) for J‐values ranging between 0.1 and −1.3 kPa. The iso‐J curves were calculated from the A versus Ptm curves, and based on Eqs. (5) or (9). Interrupted heavy curves: maximal flows calculated from the A versus Ptm curves [Eq. (8)]. They pass through the maxima of the iso‐J curves. Heavy continuous curves: actual flows. The same effort was applied at all positions. Panel A: The theoretical maximum flow calculated from Eq. (8), is considerably larger than the measured flow. The velocity is below wave‐speed (subcritical). The Pitot‐static probe is in the subcritical region upstream of the CP. Panel B: The actual flow follows closely the flow through the maxima of the iso‐J curves. Flows on the two flow versus Ptm curves are almost identical. The Pitot‐static probe is close to CP. Panel C: The flow is initially submaximal (measured flow is less than the calculated maximum), and the velocity subcritical. Flow then tracks the theoretical maximum over a region, but at lower transmural pressures, the actual flow is larger than the theoretical maximum. In this region, the velocity is supercritical (and the Pitot‐static probe is downstream of the CP); the observation that the volume flow exceeds the computed maximum implies the existence of important contributions to flow that have been neglected in the simple theory.



Figure 6.

Calculation of the relationship between the A versus Ptm curve on the one hand and the versus J curve (MFJ curve) on the other. If Pfr is zero, then the MFJ curve becomes the maximum flow versus static recoil curve (MFSR curve). Caw is the slope of the A versus Ptm curve, G is the slope of the MFJ curve.



Figure 7.

Pressure (top) and area (bottom) as functions of axial position in a compliant tube for each flow rate. For limiting or critical flow (), two branches of the solution of the governing equations are shown downstream of the critical point. The branch is determined by the level of effort, here equivalent to pressure boundary condition at the downstream outlet. At high efforts, the lower branch obtains, and a region of supercritical flow ends with a dissipative hydraulic jump to subcritical flow. Adapted, with permission, from reference 119.



Figure 8.

Schematic drawing, adapted with permission, from Wiggs et al. 116 showing buckling of a two‐layer tube with a thin (A) and a thick (B) layer. Because of the lesser fold patterns in B, the tube can narrow to a greater extent than in A before folds push against one another, causing an increase in airway stiffness. In the extreme case shown, tube in B narrows to zero luminal area (LA) at a load corresponding to maximum effective pressure exerted by smooth muscle (P*). P, smooth muscle pressure.



Figure 9.

Panel A: A versus Ptm curves for bronchial generations (z = 1‐16) were calculated from data of Lambert et al. 56, and were transformed into versus J curves by the equations given in Figure 6. Pfr was assumed to be zero. The CP is in the airway which, at the given value of J, gives the smallest maximal flow. It is seen that the CP moves toward the periphery with decreasing J. Panel B: The upper curve taken from Lambert et al. shows which airway generation contains the choke point at different elastic recoil pressures when viscous pressure loss and viscous flow limitation is taken into account. The lower curve is in accordance with panel A, where Pfr is assumed to be zero and Pel = J.



Figure 10.

Previously unpublished flow versus volume curves with reproducible configuration findings (the arrows) in a healthy subject.



Figure 11.

The first figure describes maximum flow versus static recoil (MFSR) curves on air and He/O2. If density dependence is less than , density corrected flows on He/O2 will be smaller than on air, as shown in the second figure. If the A versus Ptm curve is not affected by the gas, the two points in the second figure will now be on the same curve, as in the third figure, but separated due to Pfr. Because there is a unique relationship between the MFcJ curve describing density corrected versus J and the A versus Ptm curve, two separate points on the MFcJ curve will also give two separate points on the single valued A versus Ptm curve, as in the fourth figure.



Figure 12.

Maximum expiratory flow versus volume curves with different efforts. Three of the peaks reach wave speed (the heavy curves), but at different thoracic gas volumes. For the broken curve, the peak is not at wave‐speed flow. Modified, with permission, from reference 75.



Figure 13.

Lung resistance at three different lung volumes. Rapid, shallow respirations were produced (1) near maximum inspiration; (2) at normal resting mid position; and (3) near maximal expiration. At the lowest lung volume, the expiratory part of the resistance curve forms a loop. The maximum expiratory flow decreases, while the expiratory pressure continues to increase. This suggests flow is limited near RV. Adapted, with permission, from Mead and Whittenberger 65.



Figure 14.

Panel A: A tidal flow volume loop during which negative pressure negative expiratory pressure (NEP) was applied over the middle part of the expiration (between 2 arrows) in a seated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patient at rest together with preceding control loops. Note the sustained increase of flow during NEP, indicating that flow was not limited during the control expiration. Panel B: Similar loops in another seated COPD patient at rest. Application of a NEP pulse caused only a transient increase of flow during NEP, indicating flow limitation during control.

Reproduced, with permission, from reference 52.


Figure 15.

Mead and Whittenberger graphs (A and C) obtained by plotting airway opening flow versus the resistive pressure drop (Pfr) during a single breath. Data from a non flow‐limited COPD patient (A and B) and a flow‐limited patient (C and D). The lower graphs (B and D) show the time course of resistive pressure (Pfr) and reactance Xrs for the two subjects. In patient AB, there is no open respiratory loop, and the reactance is almost the same during in and expiration. In patient CD, there is evidence of flow limitation in the resistance loop (see Figure 13), and expiratory reactance is considerably more negative than inspiratory reactance. Modified, with permission, from reference 19.

References
 1. Adler SM, Wohl ME. Flow volume relationship at low lung volumes in healthy term newborn infants. Pediaterics 61: 636‐640, 1978.
 2. Allen JL, Castile RG, Mead J. Positive effort dependence of maximal expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 62: 718‐724, 1987.
 3. Bates JTH, Lauzon A‐M, Dechman GS, Maksym GN, Schuessler TF. Temporal dynamics of pulmonary response to intravenous histamine in dogs: Effects of dose and lung volume. J Appl Physiol 76: 616‐626, 1994.
 4. Baydur A, Wilkinson L, Mehdial R, Bains B, Milic‐Emili J. Extrathoracic flow limitation in obesity and obstructive and restrictive disorders: Effects of increasing negative expiratory pressure Chest 125: 98‐105, 2004.
 5. Beardsmore CS, Wimpress SP, Thomson AH, Patel HR, Goodenough P, Simpson H. Maximum voluntary cough: An indication of airway function. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 23: 465‐472, 1987.
 6. Berry RB, Pal UP, Fairshter RD. Effect of age on changes in flow rates and airway conductance after a deep breath. J Appl Physiol 68: 635‐643, 1990.
 7. Brackel HJL, Pedersen OF, Mulder PGH, Overbeek SE, Kerrebijn KF, Bogaard JM. Central airways behave more stiffly during forced expirations in patients with Asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162: 896‐904 2000.
 8. Brown RH, Mitzner W. Understanding airway pathophysiology with computed tomography. J Appl Physiol 95: 854‐862, 2003.
 9. Brusasco V, Pellegrino R. Complexity of factors modeling airway narrowing in vivo: Relevance to assess airway hyperresponsiveness. J Appl Physiol 95: 1305‐1313, 2003.
 10. Castile R, Mead J, Jackson A, Wohl ME, Sokes D. Effect of posture on flow‐volume curve configuration in normal humans. J Appl Physiol 53: 1175‐1183, 1982.
 11. Corsico A, Milanese M, Baraldo S, Casoni GL, Papi A, Riccio AM, Cerveri I, Saetta M, Brusasco V. Small airway morphology and lung function in the transition from normality to chronic airway obstruction. J Appl Physiol 95: 441‐447, 2003.
 12. D'Angelo E, Carnelli V, D'Angelo E, Milic‐Emili J. Performance of forced expiratory manoeuvre in children. Eur Respir J 16: 1070‐1074, 2000.
 13. D'Angelo E, Prandi E, Milic‐Emili J. Dependence of maximal flow‐volume curves on time course of preceding inspiration. J Appl Physiol 75: 1155‐1159, 1993.
 14. Davis C, Campbell EMJ, Openshaw P, Pride NB, Woodroof G. Importance of airway closure in limiting maximal expiration in normal man. Appl Physiol 48: 695‐701, 1970.
 15. Dawson SV, Elliott EA. Wave‐speed limitation on expiratory flow—a unifying concept. J Appl Physiol 43: 498‐515, 1977.
 16. Dayman H. Mechanics of airflow in health and in emphysema. Clin Invest 30: 1175‐1190, 1951.
 17. Dehnert C, Luks AM, Schendler G, Menold E, Berger MM, Mairbäuri H, Faoro V, Bailey DM, Castell C, Hahn G, Vock P, Swenson ER, Bärtsch P. No evidence for interstitial oedema by extensive pulmonary function testing at 4559 m. Eur Respir J 35: 812‐820, 2010.
 18. Delaccá RL, Duffy N, Pompilio PP, Aliverti A, Koulouris NG, Pedotti A, Calverley PMA. Expiratory flow limitation detected by forced oscillation and negative expiratory pressure. Eur Respir J 29: 363‐374, 2007.
 19. Dellacá RL, Santus P, Aliverti A, Stevenson N, Centanni S, Macklem PT, Pedotti A, Calverley PMA. Detection of flow limitation in COPD using the forced oscillation technique. Eur Respir J 23: 232‐240, 2004.
 20. Dosman J, Bode F, Urbanetti J, Martin R, Macklem PT. The use of a helium‐oxygen mixture during maximum expiratory flow to demonstrate obstruction in small airways in smokers. J Clin Invest 55: 1090‐1099, 1975.
 21. Drazen J, Loring SH, Ingram Jr RH. Distribution of pulmonary resistance: Effects of gas density, viscosity, and flow rate. J Appl Physiol 41: 388‐395, 1976.
 22. Elad D, Kamm RD, Shapiro AH. Tube law for the intrapulmonary airway. J Appl Physiol 65: 7‐13, 1988a.
 23. Elad D, Kamm RD, Shapiro AH. Mathematical simulation of forced expiration. J Appl Physiol 65: 14‐25, 1988b.
 24. Elliott EA, Dawson SV. Test of wave‐speed theory of flow limitation in elastic tubes. J Appl Physiol 43: 516‐522, 1977.
 25. Fairshter RD. Effect of a deep inspiration on expiratory flow in normals and patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir. 22: 119‐125, 1986.
 26. Fairshter RD, Berry RB, Wilson AF, Brideshead T, Mukai D. Effect of thoracic gas compression on maximal and partial flow‐volume maneuvers. J Appl Physiol 67: 780‐785, 1989.
 27. Fernandes DJ, Mitchell RW, Lakser O, Dowell M, Stewart AG, Solway J. Do inflammatory mediators contribute to airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma. J Appl Physiol 95: 844‐853, 2003.
 28. Ferretti A, Giampiccolo P, Cavalli A, Milic‐Emili J, Tantucci C. Expiratory flow limitation and orthopnea in massively obese subjects. Chest 19: 1401‐1408, 2001.
 29. Forey P, Giroux‐Metges MA, Sarni D, Goetghebeur D, Thirion S, Milic‐Emili J, Bellet M. Evaluation of a new method for obstructive disease in children asthma: The negative expiratory pressure (NEP). Arch Pediatr 12: 1338‐1343, 2005.
 30. Froeb HF, Mead J. Relative hysteresis of the dead space and lung in vivo. J Appl Physiol 25: 244‐248, 1988.
 31. Fry DL. Theoretical considerations of the bronchial pressure‐flow‐volume relationships with particular reference to the maximum expiratory flow‐volume curve. Phys Med Biol 3: 174‐194, 1958.
 32. Fry DL. A preliminary lung model for simulating the aerodynamics of the bronchial tree. Comput Biomed Res 2: 111‐34, 1968.
 33. Fry DL, Ebert RV, Stead WW, Brown CC. The mechanics of pulmonary ventilation in normal subjects and in patients with emphysema. Am J Med 16: 80‐97, 1954.
 34. Fry DL, Hyatt RE. Pulmonary mechanics. A unified analysis of the relationship between pressure, volume and gasflow in the lungs of normal and diseased human subjects. Am J Med 29: 672‐689, 1960.
 35. Gavriely N, Palti Y, Alroy G, Grotberg JG. Measurement and theory of wheezing and breath sounds. J Appl Physiol 57: 481‐492, 1984.
 36. Godfrey S, Bar‐Yishay E, Arad I, Landau LI, Taussig LM. Flow‐volume curves in infants with lung disease. Pediatrics 72: 617‐52, 1983.
 37. Green M, Mead J. Time dependence of flow‐volume curves. J Appl Physiol 37: 793‐797, 1974.
 38. Grimby G, Stiksa J. Flow‐volume curves and breathing patterns during exercise in patients with obstructive lung disease. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 25: 303‐313, 1970.
 39. Hanrahan J, Tager IB, Castile RG, Segal MR, Weiss ST, Speizer FE. Pulmonary function measurements in healthy infants. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1341: 1127‐1135, 1990.
 40. Hyatt RE. The interrelationships of pressure, flow and volume during various respiratory maneuvers in normal and emphysematous subjects. Am Rev Respir Dis 83: 676‐683, 1961.
 41. Hyatt RE. Forced expiration. In: Fishman AP, Macklem PT, Mead J, Geiger S, editors. Handbook of Physiology, Respiration, Volume III: Mechanics of Breathing. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society, 1986, sect. 3, pt. I, chapt. 19, pp. 295‐314.
 42. Hyatt RE, Schilder DP, Fry DL. Relationship between maximum expiratory flow and degree of lung inflation. J Appl Physiol 13: 331‐336, 1958.
 43. Hyatt RE, Wilson TA, Bar‐Yishay E. Prediction of maximal expiratory flow in excised human lungs. J Appl Physiol 48: 991‐998, 1980.
 44. Ingram RH Jr. Deep breaths and airway obstruction in asthma. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 98: 80‐85, 1987.
 45. Ingram RH Jr. Physiological assessment of inflammation in the peripheral lung of asthmatic patients. Lung 169, Suppl: s29‐s39, 1989.
 46. Ingram RH Jr. Relationship among airway parenchymal interactions, lung responsiveness and inflammation in asthma. Chest 107 Suppl: 148S‐152S, 1995.
 47. Ingram RH Jr, Schilder DP. Effect of gas compression on pulmonary pressure, flow, and volume relationship. J Appl Physiol. 21: 1821‐1826, 1966.
 48. Kamm RD. Airway wall mechanics. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 01: 47‐72, 1999.
 49. Kjaergaard SK, Pedersen OF, Miller MR, Rasmussen TR, Hansen JC, Mølhave L. Ozone exposure decreases the effect of a deep inhalation on forced expiratory flow in normal subjects. J Appl Physiol 96: 1651‐1657, 2004.
 50. Knudson RJ, Knudson DE. Pressure‐flow relationships in the isolated canine trachea. J Appl Physiol 35: 804‐812, 1973.
 51. Knudson RJ, Mead J, Knudson DE. Contribution of airway collapse to supramaximal expiratory flows. J Appl Physiol 36: 653‐667, 1974.
 52. Koulouris NG, Valta P, Lavois A, Corbeil C, Chassé M, Braidy J, Milic‐Emili J. A simple method to detect expiratory flow limitation during spontaneous breathing. Eur Respir J 8: 306‐313, 1995.
 53. Krowka MJ, Enright PL, Rodarte JR, Hyatt RE Effect of effort on measurement of forced expiratory flow in one second. Am Rev Respir Dis 136: 829‐833, 1987.
 54. Lambert RK, Codd SL, Alley MR, Pack RJ. Physical determinants of bronchial mucosal folding. J Appl Physiol 77: 1206‐1216, 1994.
 55. Lambert RK, Wilson TA. A model for the elastic properties of the lung and their effect on expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 34: 34‐48, 1973.
 56. Lambert RK, Wilson TA, Hyatt RE, Rodarte JR. A computational model for expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 52: 44‐56, 1982.
 57. Leith DE, Mead J. Mechanisms determining residual volume of the lungs in normal subjects. J Appl Physiol 23: 221‐227, 1967.
 58. Macklem PT, Mead J. Factors determining maximum expiratory flow in dogs. J Appl Physiol 25: 159‐169, 1968.
 59. Macklem PT, Wilson NJ. Measurement of intrabronchial pressure in man. J Appl Physiol 20: 653‐663, 1965.
 60. Mead J. Analysis of the configuration of maximum expiratory flow‐volume curves. J Appl Physiol 44: 156‐165, 1978.
 61. Mead J. Expiratory flow limitation: A physiologist's point of view. Federation Proc 39: 2771‐2775, 1980.
 62. Mead J, McIlroy MB, Selverstone NJ, Kriete BC. Measurement of intraesophageal pressure. J Appl Physiol 7: 491‐495, 1955.
 63. Mead J, Takishima T, Leith D. Stress distribution in lungs: A model of pulmonary elasticity. J Appl Physiol 28: 596‐608, 1970.
 64. Mead J, Turner JM, Macklem PT, Little JB. Significance of the relationship between lung recoil and maximum expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 22: 95‐108, 1967.
 65. Mead J, Whittenberger JL. Physical properties of human lungs measured during spontaneous respiration. J Appl Physiol 5: 779‐796, 1953.
 66. Melissinos CG, Mead J. Maximum expiratory flow changes induced by longitudinal tension on trachea in normal subjects J Appl Physiol 43: 537‐544, 1977.
 67. Melissinos CG, Webster P, Tien Y‐K, Mead J. Time dependence of maximum flow as an index of nonuniform emptying. J. Appl Physiol 47: 1043‐1050, 1979.
 68. Milic‐Emili J, Mead J, Turner JM, Glauser M. Improved technique for estimating pleural pressure from esophageal balloons. J Appl Physiol 19, 207‐211, 1964.
 69. Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, Crapo R, Enright P, van der Grinten CPM, Gustafson P, Jensen R, Johnson DC, Mackintyre N, McKay R, Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Wanger J. Standardization of spirometry. Series ATS/ERS Task force. Eur Respir J 26: 319‐338, 2005.
 70. Mota S, Casan P, Drobnic F, Giner J, Ruiz O, Sanchis J, Milic‐Emili J. Expiratory flow limitation during exercise in competition cyclists. J Appl Physiol 86: 611‐616, 1999.
 71. Nadel JA, Tierney DF. Effect of a previous deep inspiration on airway resistance in man. J Appl Physiol 16: 717‐719, 1961.
 72. Ninane V, LeDuc D, Kafi SA, Nasser M, Houa M, Sergysels R. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 163: 1326‐1330, 2001.
 73. Noble PB, McFawn PK, Mitchell HW. Responsiveness of isolated airway during simulated deep inspirations: Effect of airway smooth muscle stiffness and strain. J Appl Physiol 103: 787‐795, 2007.
 74. Pardaens J, van de Woestijne KP, Clement J. A physical model of expiration. J Appl Physiol 33: 479‐490, 1972.
 75. Pedersen OF. The peak flow working group: Physiological determinants of peak expiratory flow. Eur Respir J 10: Suppl 24, 11s‐16s, 1997.
 76. Pedersen OF, Brackel HJL, Bogaard JM, Kerrebijn KF. Wave‐speed determined flow limitation at peak flow in normal and asthmatic subjects. J Appl Physiol 83: 1721‐1732, 1997.
 77. Pedersen OF, Castile RG, Drazen JM, Ingram RH Jr. Density dependence of the maximum expiratory flow in the dog. J Appl Physiol 53: 397‐404, 1982.
 78. Pedersen OF, Lyager S, Ingram Jr RH. Airway dynamics in the transition between peak and maximal expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 59: 1733‐1746, 1985.
 79. Pedersen OF, Nielsen TM. The critical transmural pressure of the airway. Acta Physiol Scand 97: 426‐446, 1976.
 80. Pedersen OF, Nielsen TM. The compliance curve for the flow limiting segments of the airway. I. Model studies. Acta Physiol Scand 99: 385‐398, 1977a.
 81. Pedersen OF, Nielsen TM. The compliance curve for the flow limiting segments of the airway. II Experiments with human subjects. Acta Physiol Scand 100: 139‐153, 1977b.
 82. Pedersen OF, Pedersen TF, Miller MR. Gas compression in lungs decreases peak expiratory flow depending on the resistance of the peak flowmeter. J Appl Physiol 83: 1517‐1521, 1997.
 83. Pedersen OF, Thiessen B, Lyager S. Airway compliance and flow limitation during forced expiration in dogs. J Appl Physiol 52: 357‐369, 1982.
 84. Pellegrino R, Pompilio P, Quaranta M, Alliverti A, Kayser B, Miserocchi G, Fasano V, Cogo A, Milanese M, Cornara G, Brusasco V, Dellacà R. Airway responses to methacholine and exercise at high altitude in healthy lowlanders. J Appl Physiol 108: 256‐265, 2010.
 85. Peslin R, Farré R, Rotger M, Navajas D. Effect of expiratory flow limitation on respiratory mechanical impedance: A model study. J Appl Physiol 81: 2399‐2406, 1996.
 86. Peslin R, Felicio da Silva J, Duvivier C, Begin C. Respiratory mechanics studied by forced oscillations during artificial ventilation. Eur Respir J 6: 772‐884, 1993.
 87. Pierce AD, Luterman K, Laudermilk J, Blomqvist G, Johnson RL Jr. Exercise ventilatory patterns in normal subjects and patients with airway obstruction. J Appl Physiol 25: 249‐254, 1968.
 88. Pratt PC. Intrapulmonary radial traction: Measurement, magnitude, and mechanics. In: Bouhuys A, editor Airway Dynamics‐ Physiology and Pathology. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1970, p. 109‐122.
 89. Pride NB, Permutt S, Riley RL, Bromberger‐Barnea B. Determinants of maximal expiratory flow from the lungs. J Appl Physiol 23: 646‐662, 1967.
 90. Ranganathan SA, Hoo F, Lum SY, Goetz I, Castle RA, Stocks J. Exploring the relationship between forced maximal flow at functional residual capacity and parameters of forced expiration from raised lung volume in healthy infants. Pediatr Pulmonol 33: 419‐428, 2002.
 91. Rohrer F. Der Strömungswiederstand in den menchlischen Atemwegen und der Einfluss der unregelmässigen Verzweigung der Bronchialsystems auf dem Atmungsverlauf in verschidenen Lungenbezirken. Arch Ges Physiol 162: 225‐299, 1915.
 92. Sala H, Galindez F, Badolati A, Rodenstein D. Relationships between supramaximal flow and flow‐limiting mechanisms. Eur Respir J 9, 512‐516, 1996.
 93. Schilder DP, Roberts A, Fry DL. Effect of gas density and viscosity on the maximal expiratory flow volume relationships. J. Clin. Invest. 42: 1705‐1713, 1963.
 94. Seltzer J, Bigby BG, Stulbarg M, Holtzman MJ, Nadel JA, Ueki IF, Leikauf GD, Goetzl EJ, Boushey HA. O3 induced change in bronchial reactivity to methacholine and airway inflammation in humans. J Appl Physiol 60: 1321‐1326, 1986.
 95. Shabtai‐Musih Y, Grotberg JB, Gavriely N. Spectral content of forced expiratory wheezes during air, He, and SF6 breathing in normal humans J Appl Physiol 72: 629‐635, 1992.
 96. Shapiro AH. Steady flow in collapsible tubes. J Biomech Eng 99: 126‐147, 1977.
 97. Silverman MA, Prendiville A, Green S. Partial expiratory flow‐volume curves in infants: Technical aspects. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 22: 257‐262, 1986.
 98. Slats AM, Janssen K, van Schadewijk A, van der Plas DT, Schot R, van den Aardweg JG, de Jongste JC, Hiemstra PS, Mauad T, Rabe KF, Sterk P. Bronchial inflammation and airway responses to deep inspiration in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary lungs disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 176: 121‐128, 2007.
 99. Solway J. Properties of steady maximal expiratory flow within excised canine central airways. J Appl Physiol 62: 2013‐2025, 1987.
 100. Solway J, Fredberg JJ, Ingram RH Jr, Pedersen OF, Drazen JM. Interdependent regional lung emptying during forced expiration: A transistor model. J Appl Physiol 62: 2013‐2025, 1987.
 101. Staats BA, Wilson TA, Lai‐Fook SJ, Rodarte J, Hyatt RE. Viscosity and density dependence in maximal flow in man. J Appl Physiol 48: 313‐319, 1980.
 102. Takishima T, Grimby G, Graham W, Knudson R, Macklem PT, Mead J. Flow volume curves during quiet breathing, maximum voluntary ventilation, and forced vital capacities in patients with obstructive lung diseases. Scand J Resp Dis 48: 384‐393, 1967.
 103. Takishima T, Sasaki H, Sasaki T. Influence of lung parenchyma on collapsibility of dog bronchi. J Appl Physiol 38: 875‐881, 1975.
 104. Tantucci C, Duguet A, Ferretti A, Mehiri S, Arnulf I, Zelter M, Similowski T, Derenne JP, Milic‐Emili J. Effect of negative expiratory pressure on respiratory flow resistance in awake snorers and non‐snorers. J Appl Physiol 87: 969‐976, 1999.
 105. Taussig LM, Landau LI, Godfrey S, Arad I. Determinants of forced expiratory flows in newborn infants. J Appl Physiol 53: 1220‐1227, 1982.
 106. Tepper RS, Morgan WJ, Kota K, Taussig LM. Physiologic growth and development of the lung during the first year of life. Am Rev Respir Dis 134: 513‐519, 1986.
 107. Tetzlaff K, Thorsen E. Breathing at depth: Physiologic and clinical aspects of diving while breathing compressed gas. Clin Chest Med 26: 355‐380, 2005.
 108. Tien Y‐K, Elliott EA, Mead J. Variability of the configuration of maximum expiratory flow‐volume curves. J Appl Physiol 46: 565‐570, 1979.
 109. Turner DJ, Stick SM, LeSeuf KL, Sly PD, LeSeuf PN. A new technique to generate and assess forced expiration from raised lung volume in infants. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151; 1441‐1450, 1995.
 110. Valta P, Corbeil C, Lavoie A, Cambodonico R, Kolouris N, Chassé M, Braidy J, Milic‐Emili J. Detection of expiratory flow limitation during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 150: 1311‐1317, 1994.
 111. Van de Woestijne KP, Zapletal A. The maximum expiratory flow‐volume curve: Peak flow and effort independent portion. In: Bouhuys A, editor. Airway Dynamics‐Physiology and Pharmacology, Springfield, IL: Thomas 1970, p. 61‐83,
 112. Volta CA, Ploysongsang Y, Eltayara L, Sulc J, Milic‐Emili J. A simple way to monitor performance of forced vital capacity. J Appl Physiol 80: 693‐698, 1996.
 113. Webster PM, Loring SH, Butler JP, Hoppin Jr FG. Lung recoil during rapid vital capacity expirations simulated by gas compression. J App Physiol 49: 142‐149, 1980.
 114. Webster PM, Sawatsky RP, Hoffstein V, Leblanc R, Hinchey J, Sullivan PA. Wall motion in expiratory flow limitation: Choke and flutter. J Appl Physiol 59: 1304‐1312, 1985.
 115. Weibel ER. Morphometry of the Human Lung. Berlin: Springer‐Verlag, 1963, p. 110‐143.
 116. Wiggs BR, Hrousis CA, Drazen JM, Kamm RD. On the mechanism of mucosal folding in normal and asthmatic airway J Appl Physiol 83: 1814‐1821, 1997.
 117. Wilson TA. Modeling the effect of axial bronchial tension on expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 45: 659‐665, 1978.
 118. Wilson TA, Fredberg JJ, Rodarte JR, Hyatt RE. Interdependence of regional expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 59: 1924‐1928, 1984.
 119. Wilson TA, Rodarte JR, Butler JP. Wave‐speed and viscous flow limitation. In: Fishman AP, Macklem PT, Mead J, Geiger S, editors. Handbook of Physiology, Respiration, Volume III: Mechanics of Breathing Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society, 1986, sect. 3, pt. 1, chapt. 5, pp. 55‐61.
 120. Wood LDH, Bryan AC. Effect of increased ambient pressure on flow‐volume curve of the lung. J Appl Physiol 27: 4‐8, 1969.
 121. Zamel N, Jones JG, Bach SM Jr, Newberg L. Analog computation of alveolar pressure and airway resistance during maximum expiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 36: 240‐245, 1974.

Contact Editor

Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Expiratory Flow Limitation
 

How to Cite

Ole F. Pedersen, James P. Butler. Expiratory Flow Limitation. Compr Physiol 2011, 1: 1861-1882. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c100025