Breathe easy? Green inhalers are good for the environment, but are they good for asthma sufferers?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Good news and bad news for asthma patients who use inhalers: You won't be expelling Earth-warming chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) into the atmosphere  with every puff, but you will pay six times as much for your green medical device.

Until now, inhalers have been powered by CFCs, which destroy the ozone layer. On Dec. 31, all albuterol inhalers will be propelled by hydrofluoroalkane (HFA), which is better for the environment, the Associated Press reports. But it will cost you: $30 to $60, compared  with $5 to $10 now.

Albuterol is used on an emergency basis to open the airways of asthma patients suffering from severe wheezing. They take other, daily meds to control their asthma.

There are three green albuterol inhalers: GlaxoSmithKline's Ventolin HFA, Schering Plough's Proventil HFA and Teva Specialty Pharmaceuticals' ProAir HFA. Another, Sepracor's Xopenex HFA, contains a similar medication called levalbuterol.

Critics have questioned the need for the change, arguing that the steeper cost will hurt the disproportionately poor patients who need inhalers and that they are harder to use than the old kind. Users feel a softer puff, rather than the cold blast of the CFC-powered inhalers, and they need to cleaned (but not soaked) weekly to prevent clogging according to the AP.

"There's still significant confusion," pediatric allergist Harvey Leo of the University of Michigan's C.S. Mott Children's Hospital told the AP. "Patients will tell you, 'I don't feel the puff anymore."'
Image by iStockphoto/RMAX

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe