Performance of emergency underwater breathing systems in cool (25 degrees C) and cold (12 degrees C) water

Aviat Space Environ Med. 2010 Nov;81(11):1002-7. doi: 10.3357/asem.2831.2010.

Abstract

Introduction: The shortfall between breath-hold time on cold-water immersion and the time required to make an underwater escape from a helicopter provides the rationale for emergency underwater breathing systems (EUBS) for passengers flying over cold water. This study compared three types of EUBS: a compressed gas system (CG); a rebreather system (RB); and a hybrid system (H).

Methods: Each EUBS was examined during water deployment (W(dep)) and over 90 s in cool (25 degrees C) and cold water (12 degrees C) immersion to the neck (Imm) and submersion (Subm). Subjects wore standardized clothing, including dry suit. Measures included: W(dep) time, stay time (Imm and Subm), dyspnea rating, O2 and CO2 remaining in rebreather bags [H and RB (partial pressure mmHg)], and gas volume used (CG).

Results: Mean data show W(dep) was slowest in the H (17.7 s) compared to the RB (10.0 s) and CG (8.1 s). Stay time was greatest in the H (90.0 s) compared to the RB (68.3 s) and CG (87.0 s); stay time in CG was also greater than RB. Dyspnea ratings were greater in RB trials (6.5 cm) compared to the CG (2.4 cm) and H (1.9 cm). Across devices, stay time in cold water was shorter during submersion than immersion (85.9 s vs. 70.1 s). During submersion stay time was shorter in cold compared to cool water (12 degrees C: 62.8 s; 25 degrees C: 77.5 s).

Discussion: The data suggest that the CG and H devices outperformed the RB device, but the H device required longer to deploy.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Cold Temperature*
  • Diving*
  • Equipment Design*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Immersion*
  • Male
  • Protective Devices*
  • Respiration, Artificial / instrumentation*
  • Survival
  • Young Adult