Premium
Performance of four carbon dioxide absorbents in experimental and clinical settings
Author(s) -
Yamakage M.,
Takahashi K.,
Takahashi M.,
Satoh J.I.,
Namiki A.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
anaesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.839
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2044
pISSN - 0003-2409
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05759.x
Subject(s) - carbon dioxide , medicine , soda lime , in vivo , absorption (acoustics) , nuclear chemistry , organic chemistry , composite material , microbiology and biotechnology , materials science , chemistry , biology
Summary To evaluate the performance of four kinds of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) absorbents (Medisorb ® GE Healthcare, Amsorb ® Plus Armstrong Medical, YabashiLime ® Yabashi Industries, and Sodasorb ® LF Grace Performance Chemicals), we measured their dust production, acceptability of colour indicator, and CO 2 absorption capacity in in vitro experimental settings and the concentration of compound A in an inspired anaesthetic circuit during in vivo clinical practice. In vitro, the order of the dust amount was Sodasorb LF > Medisorb > Amsorb Plus = YabashiLime both before and after shaking. The order of the color acceptability was similar: Sodasorb LF > Amsorb Plus = Medisorb > YabashiLime both initially and 16 h after CO 2 exhaustion. During exposure to 200 ml.min −1 CO 2 in vitro, the period until 1 kg of fresh soda lime allowed inspired CO 2 to increase to 0.7 kPa (as a mark of utilisation of the absorbent) was longer with Medisorb (1978 min) than with the other absorbents (1270–1375 min). In vivo, compound A (1.0% inspired sevoflurane) was detected only when using Medisorb. While Medisorb has the best ability to absorb CO 2 , it alone produces compound A.