某型闭式呼吸器常压无人试验与常压有人试验结果分析

评价潜水呼吸器的性能通常可以采用2种方法,即无人试验和有人试验[1].无人试验,是采用人工肺代替潜水员进行试验;有人试验,是由潜水员佩戴呼吸器进行试验,根据潜水员吸入气体中的氧浓度和二氧化碳浓度及潜水员主观感觉,来评价呼吸器的性能.笔者针对某型闭式呼吸器进行了常压无人试验和常压有人试验,对2种试验的结果进行比较,为以后的研究、设计积累经验.     

模拟480m氦氧饱和-493m巡回潜水实验研究的设备保障

目的 保障模拟480 m氦氧饱和-493 m巡回潜水实验的顺利进行,检验饱和潜水设备保障方案.方法 4名潜水员利用500 m饱和潜水系统和KMB18(B)潜水装具,在实验室进行模拟大深度饱和-巡回潜水.实验前通过维修、调试设备,使其处于备便状态.实验中按照设备保障方案,控制舱内环境压力、氧(O2)分压、二氧化碳( CO2)分压及温湿度参数,保障潜水员完成水下巡潜作业及日常饮食起居,确保潜水员按时、顺利、安全出舱.结果 经过82 h加压后,达到的饱和深度为480 m,4名潜水员在此深度下停留49.6h,达到巡潜最大深度493m;减压时间约302.4 h,高压暴露总时间为434 h.加压过程和饱和逗留期间维持O2分压35 ～45 kPa,减压时维持O2分压48～52 kPa,减压至12 m后,维持O2浓度21％ ～23％;CO2分压一般限制在0.5 kPa以内.相对湿度60％～80％;居住舱内温度29～32℃.结论 潜水员出舱后身体状况良好,感觉舱内环境控制比较舒适,设备保障结果与预想方案吻合,设备保障方案成功.     

氢氧化锂吸收剂用于清除闭式/半闭式潜水呼吸器二氧化碳的实验研究

Objective To investigate the applicability of lithium hydroxide ( LiOH) absorbent in closed/semi-closed diving apparatus. Methods One LiOH absorbent and 2 classical sodium lime absorbents ( sodium lime 1 and sodium lime 2) were chosen to carry out unmanned experiments by using the manual lung and a closed breathing apparatus. Temperature in the canister and CO2 level at the outlet of the canister were timely monitored and recorded. When CO2 level in the inhaled gas exceeded 1.5%, the experiment was terminated, and the time when CO2 levels reached at 0. 5% and 1. 5% was recorded. The amounts of absorbents filled, temperatures and the time when CO2 levels reached at 0. 5% and 1.5% were recorded. Results The weight of the LiOH absorbent was minimal (1113. 5 g), which was obviously less than the classical absorbent, sodium lime 1 and sodium lime 2( 1845.0 g and 1855.5 g),which was a disadvantage to the positive buoyancy of the diving apparatus. With the LiOH absorbent, the time for CO2 to reach 0.5% (T0.5) and 1.5% (T1.5) was 86.00 ± 1. 63 min and 119. 00 ± 2. 94 min respectively. While for sodium lime 1, the time for T0.5 and T1.5 were 55. 00 ±0. 82min and 62. 00 ± 1. 63min and for sodium lime 2, the time for T0.5 and T1.5 were 57. 00 ± 2.45min and 65. 00 ± 1. 63min respectively. The T1.5 and T1.5 of the LiOH absorber were obviously longer than those of sodium lime 1 and sodium lime 2 (P＜0. 05). The maximum temperature in the LiOH canister was 191. 5℃,which was 2. 56 times greater than that of sodium lime 1 (74. 8℃) ,and 2. 29 times greater than that of sodium lime 2 (83. 6 ℃ ). Conclusions This kind of LiOH absorber might not be suitable to closed/semi-closed diving apparatus.     

三种潜水全面罩的水下性能试验比较

目的研究三种潜水全面罩M48、MKⅡ和新研制的全面罩样机（HY001型）在水下的性能。方法 4名潜水员着开放式呼吸器,分别采用3种全面罩,进入海军医学研究所30 m水池进行潜水试验。期间体会全面罩的密封性能、舒适性、鼓鼻性能、面窗失真程度、面窗起雾程度以及全面罩的排水性能等,并体会在水下的总体感觉。潜水员出水后完成问卷,采用单因素评价方法对3种全面罩进行综合打分。结果 M48型全面罩综合分为85.686分,MKⅡ型全面罩综合分为81.526分,HY001型全面罩综合分为90.575分。结论 HY001型全面罩综合分数最高,与国外的2种全面罩比较,更适合我国潜水员使用。     

模拟153 m深度快速上浮脱险的医学保障研究

目的　研究大深度快速上浮脱险时对机体的影响 ,制订、验证脱险方案和保障措施。方法　 7名潜艇艇员着加装应急呼吸装置的脱险服 ,在模拟脱险舱内进行快速上浮模拟脱险。实验分 7种深度 ,即分别为 3,10 ,6 0 ,80 ,10 0 ,12 0和 15 3m,最后完成 15 3m上浮脱险。按 PT=P0 × 2 t/n要求增压 ,n值分别为 2 0 ,15 ,12 ,8和 7,减压按 (2 .5～ 3.0 ) m/ s速率线性减压至水面。在实验前、后监测心前区血流中的 Doppler气泡音、脑电图、心电图、动态心电图、肺功能、尿液神经肽含量、临床医学观察和心理学测定。结果　 3～ 80 m每个深度各 7人次 ,10 0 m 5人次 ,12 0 m 4人次 ,15 3m 3人次 ,实验共进行 4 0人次。实验中出现 4人次的单侧鼓膜轻微充血 ;1人次 15 3m时出现 ECG的 ST段下移 1.6 m V,7h后 ST段仍下移 1.0 m V ,2 4 h后基本恢复。其它指标中有的指标变化差异有显著性 (P<0 .0 5或 P<0 .0 1) ,但仍属正常生理学变化范围。医学观察 1个月未发现任何临床改变 ,但实验时心理应激导致的指标改变应引起足够的重视。结论　制订的脱险方案、保障措施安全 ,切实可行 ,可操作性强。     

氢氧化锂吸收剂用于清除闭式/半闭式潜水呼吸器二氧化碳的实验研究

目的 探讨氢氧化锂吸收剂清除闭式/半闭式潜水呼吸器二氧化碳(CO2)的适用性.方法 选择1种氧氧化锂吸收剂和2种经典的钠石灰吸收剂(钠石灰1、钠石灰2),采用人工肺与国产某闭式潜水呼吸器进行无人实验.定时记录吸收剂罐内的温度及吸收剂罐出EI端气体中CO2 浓度,当CO2 浓度超过1.5%时停止试验,并记录CO2浓度达到0.5%和1.5%的准确时间(T0.5、T1.5).比较填充量、温度、CO2:达到0.5%和1.5%的时间.结果 相同吸收剂罐,氢氧化锂吸收剂的填充质量最小,为1113.5 g,明显低于经典钠石灰吸收剂的填充质量(1845.0 g和1855.5 g),对于克服呼吸器的正浮力是不利的;使用氢氧化锂吸收剂时,吸收剂罐出口端气体中CO2的T0.5和T1.5分别为(86.00±1.63)min和(119.00±2.94)min,钠石灰1的T0.5和T15分别为(55.00±0.82)min和(62.00±1.63)min,钠石灰2的T0.5和T1.5分别为(57.00±2.45)min和(65.00±1.63)min,氢氧化锂吸收剂的使用时间显著长于经典钠石灰吸收剂(P＜0.05),吸收效率好;使用氢氧化锂吸收剂时,吸收剂罐内的温度最高达到191.5℃,是钠石灰1(74.8℃)的2.56倍,是钠石灰2(83.6℃)的2.29倍.结论 本研究采用的氢氧化锂吸收剂可能不适合用作闭式/半闭式潜水呼吸器的CO2吸收剂.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the applicability of lithium hydroxide ( LiOH) absorbent in closed/semi-closed diving apparatus. Methods One LiOH absorbent and 2 classical sodium lime absorbents ( sodium lime 1 and sodium lime 2) were chosen to carry out unmanned experiments by using the manual lung and a closed breathing apparatus. Temperature in the canister and CO2 level at the outlet of the canister were timely monitored and recorded. When CO2 level in the inhaled gas exceeded 1.5%, the experiment was terminated, and the time when CO2 levels reached at 0. 5% and 1. 5% was recorded. The amounts of absorbents filled, temperatures and the time when CO2 levels reached at 0. 5% and 1.5% were recorded. Results The weight of the LiOH absorbent was minimal (1113. 5 g), which was obviously less than the classical absorbent, sodium lime 1 and sodium lime 2( 1845.0 g and 1855.5 g),which was a disadvantage to the positive buoyancy of the diving apparatus. With the LiOH absorbent, the time for CO2 to reach 0.5% (T0.5) and 1.5% (T1.5) was 86.00 ± 1. 63 min and 119. 00 ± 2. 94 min respectively. While for sodium lime 1, the time for T0.5 and T1.5 were 55. 00 ±0. 82min and 62. 00 ± 1. 63min and for sodium lime 2, the time for T0.5 and T1.5 were 57. 00 ± 2.45min and 65. 00 ± 1. 63min respectively. The T1.5 and T1.5 of the LiOH absorber were obviously longer than those of sodium lime 1 and sodium lime 2 (P＜0. 05). The maximum temperature in the LiOH canister was 191. 5℃,which was 2. 56 times greater than that of sodium lime 1 (74. 8℃) ,and 2. 29 times greater than that of sodium lime 2 (83. 6 ℃ ). Conclusions This kind of LiOH absorber might not be suitable to closed/semi-closed diving apparatus.     

模拟快速上浮脱险对潜艇艇员咽鼓管通气功能的影响

目的 测试模拟快速上浮脱险中潜艇艇员咽鼓管开放功能的变化,为潜艇艇员快速上浮脱险提供合理的医学保障和依据.方法 应用ET-100咽鼓管开放功能测试仪测试5名潜艇艇员在3、10 m水加压前后,10、30 m(分别以t/30、t/20速率)气加压前后,50、60 m以t/20速率气加压前后,分别检测艇员吞咽时咽鼓管(eustachian tube,ET)开放功能,并作统计学处理.结果 3、10 m水加压后ET平均开放度下降8.09%、9.79%(P>0.05);以t/30、t/20速率,10 m气加压后ET平均开放度下降11.51%,6.89%(P>0.05),30 m气加压后ET平均开放度下降58.3%、92.8%(P<0.01);以t/20加压速率进行的50、60 m气加压后ET平均开放度下降14.51%、7.56%(P>0.05).结论 各深度快速加减压对潜艇艇员咽鼓管开放功能影响差别不大,不会由于加压方式、加压速率不同而导致咽鼓管开放等级产生显著变化;快速加减压的耐受性越强,ET主动开放通气度越大.     

吸收剂罐结构对CO2吸收剂吸收效率的影响

目的:探讨吸收剂罐结构对CO2吸收剂吸收效率的影响.方法:常压下,将人工肺与呼吸器连接,分别采用3种不同结构的吸收剂罐.以0.85 L/min的CO2输出量通入吸收剂罐,定时记录吸收剂罐出121端气体中032浓度,当002浓度超过2%时停止试验,并记录CO2浓度达到0.5%和2%的准确时间.用CO2吸收剂分析仪分析使用过的CO2吸收剂,并计算吸收效率.结果:采用3种不同吸收剂罐,CO2吸收剂的吸收效率分别为62.59%、92.26%和92.90%.结论:吸收剂罐的结构对吸收剂的吸收效率有重要影响.