Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 6/2019

01-12-2019 | Original Research

In vitro efficiency of 16 different Ca(OH)2 based CO2 absorbent brands

Authors: Yan Jiang, Mohammed K. Bashraheel, Hongliang Liu, Jan Poelaert, Marc Van de Velde, Geert Vandenbroucke, Rik Carette, Andre M. De Wolf, Jan F. A. Hendrickx

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 6/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Data directly comparing CO2 absorbents tested in identical and clinically relevant conditions are scarce or non-existent. We therefore tested and compared the efficiency of 16 different brands of Ca(OH)2 based CO2 absorbents used as loose fill or a cartridge in a refillable canister under identical low flow conditions. CO2 absorbents efficiency was tested by flowing 160 mL/min CO2 into the tip of a 2 L balloon that was ventilated with an ADU anesthesia machine (GE, Madison, WI, USA) with a tidal volume of 500 mL and a respiratory rate of 10/min while running an O2/air FGF of 300 mL/min. After the 1020 mL refillable container was filled with a known volume of CO2 absorbent (derived from weighing the initial canister content and the product’s density), the time for the inspired CO2 concentration (FICO2) to rise to 0.5% was measured. This test was repeated 4 times for each product. Because the two SpiraLith Ca® products (one with and one without indicator) are delivered as a cartridge, they had to be tested using their proprietary canister. The time (min) for FICO2 to reach 0.5% was normalized to 100 mL of product, and defined as the efficiency, which was compared amongst the different brands using ANOVA. Efficiency ranged from 50 to 100 min per 100 mL of product, and increased with increasing NaOH content (a catalyst), the exception being SpiraLith Ca® cartridge with color indicator (performing as well as the most efficient granular products) and the SpiraLith Ca® cartridge without color indicator (outperforming all others). Results indicated a spherical or bullet shape is less efficient in absorbing CO2 than broken fragments or cylinders, which in turn is less efficient than a hemispherical (disc) shape, which is in turn less efficient than a solid cartridge with a molded channel geometry. The efficiency of Ca(OH)2 based CO2 absorbent differs up to 100% on a volume basis. Macroscopic arrangement (cylindrical wrap with preformed channels versus granules), chemical composition (NaOH content), and granular shape all affect efficiency per volume of product. The data can be used to compare costs of the different products.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hendrickx JFA, Van Zundert AAJ, De Wolf AM. Inhaled anesthetics. Chapter 14. In: Hardman JG, Hopkins PM, Struys MMRF editors. Oxford textbook of anaesthesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. Hendrickx JFA, Van Zundert AAJ, De Wolf AM. Inhaled anesthetics. Chapter 14. In: Hardman JG, Hopkins PM, Struys MMRF editors. Oxford textbook of anaesthesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
2.
go back to reference Hendrickx JF, De Ridder SP, Dehouwer A, Carette R, De Cooman S, De Wolf AM. In vitro efficiency of prefilled CO2 absorbers with the Aisys®. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:193–202.CrossRef Hendrickx JF, De Ridder SP, Dehouwer A, Carette R, De Cooman S, De Wolf AM. In vitro efficiency of prefilled CO2 absorbers with the Aisys®. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:193–202.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Mazze RI. Composition of CO2 Absorbents. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:1356 (letter).CrossRef Mazze RI. Composition of CO2 Absorbents. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:1356 (letter).CrossRef
Metadata
Title
In vitro efficiency of 16 different Ca(OH)2 based CO2 absorbent brands
Authors
Yan Jiang
Mohammed K. Bashraheel
Hongliang Liu
Jan Poelaert
Marc Van de Velde
Geert Vandenbroucke
Rik Carette
Andre M. De Wolf
Jan F. A. Hendrickx
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-00248-x

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 6/2019 Go to the issue