The aerosol ALI patent application cites Murakami et al. (n=16) <A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12576969&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&l...</A> but the application itself references n=24: <A HREF="http://v3.espacenet.com/textdes?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP1713500&F=0&QPN=EP1713500" target="_blank">http://v3.espacenet.com/textdes?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP1713500&F=0&QPN=EP1713500</A> so maybe these are disjoint studies at UTMB. The instilled pathogen's name is apparently omitted from the Murakami abstract--I suppose it the same (P. aeruginosa) as specified in the application. It may be a blind alley but the prospect of provisioning a lot of field kits recurrently is attractive. Also a military need might cut some regulatory red tape just as with Fvii.