The Experts below are selected from a list of 10041 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

J S Moya - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • mechanical performance of a biocompatible biocide Soda Lime glass ceramic
    Journal of The Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2014
    Co-Authors: Sonia Lopezesteban, Ramón Torrecillas, Jose F Bartolome, L A Di, Leticia Estebantejeda, Catuxa Prado, R Lopezpiriz, J S Moya
    Abstract:

    Abstract A biocompatible Soda–Lime glass-ceramic in the SiO 2 –Na 2 O–Al 2 O 3 –CaO–B 2 O 3 system containing combeite and nepheline as crystalline phases, has been obtained at 750 °C by two different routes: (i) pressureless sintering and (ii) Spark Plasma Sintering. The SPS glass-ceramic showed a bending strength, Weibull modulus, and toughness similar values to the cortical human bone. This material had a fatigue limit slightly superior to cortical bone and at least two times higher than commercial dental glass-ceramics and dentine. The in vitro studies indicate that Soda–Lime glass-ceramic is fully biocompatible. The in vivo studies in beagle jaws showed that implanted SPS rods presented no inflammatory changes in soft tissues surrounding implants in any of the 10 different cases after four months implantation. The radiological analysis indicates no signs of osseointegration lack around implants. Moreover, the biocide activity of SPS glass-ceramic versus Escherichia coli , was found to be >4 log indicating that it prevents implant infections. Because of this, the SPS new glass-ceramic is particularly promising for dental applications (inlay, crowns, etc).

  • Mechanical performance of a biocompatible biocide Soda-Lime glass-ceramic
    Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 2014
    Co-Authors: Sonia López-esteban, Ramón Torrecillas, Jose F Bartolome, Catuxa Prado, Leticia Esteban-tejeda, R. López-piriz, J S Moya
    Abstract:

    Abstract A biocompatible Soda–Lime glass-ceramic in the SiO 2 –Na 2 O–Al 2 O 3 –CaO–B 2 O 3 system containing combeite and nepheline as crystalline phases, has been obtained at 750 °C by two different routes: (i) pressureless sintering and (ii) Spark Plasma Sintering. The SPS glass-ceramic showed a bending strength, Weibull modulus, and toughness similar values to the cortical human bone. This material had a fatigue limit slightly superior to cortical bone and at least two times higher than commercial dental glass-ceramics and dentine. The in vitro studies indicate that Soda–Lime glass-ceramic is fully biocompatible. The in vivo studies in beagle jaws showed that implanted SPS rods presented no inflammatory changes in soft tissues surrounding implants in any of the 10 different cases after four months implantation. The radiological analysis indicates no signs of osseointegration lack around implants. Moreover, the biocide activity of SPS glass-ceramic versus Escherichia coli , was found to be >4 log indicating that it prevents implant infections. Because of this, the SPS new glass-ceramic is particularly promising for dental applications (inlay, crowns, etc).

  • the antibacterial and antifungal activity of a Soda Lime glass containing silver nanoparticles
    Nanotechnology, 2009
    Co-Authors: Leticia Estebantejeda, Francisco Malpartida, Antonio Estebancubillo, Carlos Pecharroman, J S Moya
    Abstract:

    A low melting point Soda-Lime glass powder containing copper nanoparticles with high antibacterial (against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria) and antifungal activity has been obtained. Sepiolite fibres containing monodispersed copper nanoparticles (d50?30 ? 5?nm) were used as the source of the copper nanoparticles. The observed high activity of the obtained glass powder, particularly against yeast, has been explained by considering the inhibitory synergistic effect of the Ca2+ lixiviated from the glass on the growth of the colonies.

Edmond I Eger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the elimination of sodium and potassium hydroxides from desiccated Soda Lime diminishes degradation of desflurane to carbon monoxide and sevoflurane to compound a but does not compromise carbon dioxide absorption
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1999
    Co-Authors: Mireille A Neumann, M J Laster, R Dudziak, Richard B Weiskopf, Diane H Gong, H Forster, Edmond I Eger
    Abstract:

    Normal (hydrated) Soda Lime absorbent (approximately 95% calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2], the remaining 5% consisting of a mixture of sodium hydroxide [NaOH] and potassium hydroxide [KOH]) degrades sevoflurane to the nephrotoxin Compound A, and desiccated Soda Lime degrades desflurane, enflurane, and is

  • factors affecting production of compound a from the interaction of sevoflurane with baralyme and Soda Lime
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1996
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, M J Laster, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu, Edmond I Eger
    Abstract:

    Various alkali (e.g., Soda Lime) convert sevoflurane to CF2=C(CF3)OCH2F, a vinyl ether called "Compound A, " whose toxicity raises concerns regarding the safe administration of sevoflurane via rebreathing circuits. In the present investigation, we measured the sevoflurane degradation and output of Compound A caused by standard (13% water) Baralyme brand absorbent and standard (15% water) Soda Lime, and Baralyme and Soda Lime having various water contents (including no water). We used a flow-through system, applying a gas flow rate relative to absorbent volume that roughly equaled the rate/volume found in clinical practice. Both absorbents, at similar water contents, temperatures, and sevoflurane concentrations, produced roughly equal concentrations of Compound A. Dry and nearly dry absorbents produced less Compound A early in exposure to sevoflurane, and more later, than standard absorbents. Increases in temperature and sevoflurane concentration increased output of Compound A. Both absorbents, especially when dry, also destroyed Compound A, the concentration exiting from absorbent resulting from a complex sum of production and destruction. We conclude that the variability of concentrations of Compound A found in clinical practice may be largely explained by the inflow rate used (i.e., by rebreathing), sevoflurane concentration, and absorbent temperature and dryness. The effect of dryness is complex, with fresh dry absorbent destroying Compound A as it is made, and with dry absorbent that has been exposed to sevoflurane for a period of time providing a sometimes unusually high output of Compound A.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO). We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane > or = enflurane > isoflurane >> halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme and Baralyme with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme (13% water) do not generate CO.3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme Registered Trademark brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO).We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane >or=to enflurane > isoflurane much greater than halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme Registered Trademark and Baralyme Registered Trademark with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme Registered Trademark (13% water) do not generate CO. 3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme Registered Trademark produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme Registered Trademark with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out. (Anesth Analg 1995;80:1187-93)

  • the degradation absorption and solubility of volatile anesthetics in Soda Lime depend on water content
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1994
    Co-Authors: David P Strum, Edmond I Eger
    Abstract:

    Absorption of anesthetic into Soda Lime may delay induction of anesthesia and degradation by Soda Lime may produce toxic products. We determined whether the moisture content of Soda time influences the mechanisms underlying absorption (saturable uptake), degradation, and solubility (nonsaturable uptake). We placed liquid anesthetic (sevoflurane, isoflurane, halothane, enflurane, or desflurane) in 581-mL equilibration flasks containing Soda Lime of various water contents (0%-15.1 % H[2]O) and sampled the vapor concentrations repeatedly for 24-35 h. Loss of vapor from the gas phase was partitioned into absorption, degradation, and solubility factors by regression analyses. We also found that Soda Lime in absorbers may dry from H[2]O contents of 15% to 4%-8,5% in routine clinical use. Our observations suggest that during induction of anesthesia a portion of the delivered anesthetic may be lost to the Soda Lime, rather than delivered to the patient. In addition, the potential for production of toxic products may be increased when volatile anesthetics are used with dry Soda Lime.

Pompiliu Ionescu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • factors affecting production of compound a from the interaction of sevoflurane with baralyme and Soda Lime
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1996
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, M J Laster, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu, Edmond I Eger
    Abstract:

    Various alkali (e.g., Soda Lime) convert sevoflurane to CF2=C(CF3)OCH2F, a vinyl ether called "Compound A, " whose toxicity raises concerns regarding the safe administration of sevoflurane via rebreathing circuits. In the present investigation, we measured the sevoflurane degradation and output of Compound A caused by standard (13% water) Baralyme brand absorbent and standard (15% water) Soda Lime, and Baralyme and Soda Lime having various water contents (including no water). We used a flow-through system, applying a gas flow rate relative to absorbent volume that roughly equaled the rate/volume found in clinical practice. Both absorbents, at similar water contents, temperatures, and sevoflurane concentrations, produced roughly equal concentrations of Compound A. Dry and nearly dry absorbents produced less Compound A early in exposure to sevoflurane, and more later, than standard absorbents. Increases in temperature and sevoflurane concentration increased output of Compound A. Both absorbents, especially when dry, also destroyed Compound A, the concentration exiting from absorbent resulting from a complex sum of production and destruction. We conclude that the variability of concentrations of Compound A found in clinical practice may be largely explained by the inflow rate used (i.e., by rebreathing), sevoflurane concentration, and absorbent temperature and dryness. The effect of dryness is complex, with fresh dry absorbent destroying Compound A as it is made, and with dry absorbent that has been exposed to sevoflurane for a period of time providing a sometimes unusually high output of Compound A.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO). We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane > or = enflurane > isoflurane >> halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme and Baralyme with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme (13% water) do not generate CO.3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme Registered Trademark brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO).We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane >or=to enflurane > isoflurane much greater than halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme Registered Trademark and Baralyme Registered Trademark with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme Registered Trademark (13% water) do not generate CO. 3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme Registered Trademark produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme Registered Trademark with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out. (Anesth Analg 1995;80:1187-93)

Zexu Fang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • factors affecting production of compound a from the interaction of sevoflurane with baralyme and Soda Lime
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1996
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, M J Laster, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu, Edmond I Eger
    Abstract:

    Various alkali (e.g., Soda Lime) convert sevoflurane to CF2=C(CF3)OCH2F, a vinyl ether called "Compound A, " whose toxicity raises concerns regarding the safe administration of sevoflurane via rebreathing circuits. In the present investigation, we measured the sevoflurane degradation and output of Compound A caused by standard (13% water) Baralyme brand absorbent and standard (15% water) Soda Lime, and Baralyme and Soda Lime having various water contents (including no water). We used a flow-through system, applying a gas flow rate relative to absorbent volume that roughly equaled the rate/volume found in clinical practice. Both absorbents, at similar water contents, temperatures, and sevoflurane concentrations, produced roughly equal concentrations of Compound A. Dry and nearly dry absorbents produced less Compound A early in exposure to sevoflurane, and more later, than standard absorbents. Increases in temperature and sevoflurane concentration increased output of Compound A. Both absorbents, especially when dry, also destroyed Compound A, the concentration exiting from absorbent resulting from a complex sum of production and destruction. We conclude that the variability of concentrations of Compound A found in clinical practice may be largely explained by the inflow rate used (i.e., by rebreathing), sevoflurane concentration, and absorbent temperature and dryness. The effect of dryness is complex, with fresh dry absorbent destroying Compound A as it is made, and with dry absorbent that has been exposed to sevoflurane for a period of time providing a sometimes unusually high output of Compound A.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO). We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane > or = enflurane > isoflurane >> halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme and Baralyme with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme (13% water) do not generate CO.3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme Registered Trademark brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO).We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane >or=to enflurane > isoflurane much greater than halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme Registered Trademark and Baralyme Registered Trademark with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme Registered Trademark (13% water) do not generate CO. 3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme Registered Trademark produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme Registered Trademark with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out. (Anesth Analg 1995;80:1187-93)

M J Laster - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the elimination of sodium and potassium hydroxides from desiccated Soda Lime diminishes degradation of desflurane to carbon monoxide and sevoflurane to compound a but does not compromise carbon dioxide absorption
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1999
    Co-Authors: Mireille A Neumann, M J Laster, R Dudziak, Richard B Weiskopf, Diane H Gong, H Forster, Edmond I Eger
    Abstract:

    Normal (hydrated) Soda Lime absorbent (approximately 95% calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2], the remaining 5% consisting of a mixture of sodium hydroxide [NaOH] and potassium hydroxide [KOH]) degrades sevoflurane to the nephrotoxin Compound A, and desiccated Soda Lime degrades desflurane, enflurane, and is

  • factors affecting production of compound a from the interaction of sevoflurane with baralyme and Soda Lime
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1996
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, M J Laster, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu, Edmond I Eger
    Abstract:

    Various alkali (e.g., Soda Lime) convert sevoflurane to CF2=C(CF3)OCH2F, a vinyl ether called "Compound A, " whose toxicity raises concerns regarding the safe administration of sevoflurane via rebreathing circuits. In the present investigation, we measured the sevoflurane degradation and output of Compound A caused by standard (13% water) Baralyme brand absorbent and standard (15% water) Soda Lime, and Baralyme and Soda Lime having various water contents (including no water). We used a flow-through system, applying a gas flow rate relative to absorbent volume that roughly equaled the rate/volume found in clinical practice. Both absorbents, at similar water contents, temperatures, and sevoflurane concentrations, produced roughly equal concentrations of Compound A. Dry and nearly dry absorbents produced less Compound A early in exposure to sevoflurane, and more later, than standard absorbents. Increases in temperature and sevoflurane concentration increased output of Compound A. Both absorbents, especially when dry, also destroyed Compound A, the concentration exiting from absorbent resulting from a complex sum of production and destruction. We conclude that the variability of concentrations of Compound A found in clinical practice may be largely explained by the inflow rate used (i.e., by rebreathing), sevoflurane concentration, and absorbent temperature and dryness. The effect of dryness is complex, with fresh dry absorbent destroying Compound A as it is made, and with dry absorbent that has been exposed to sevoflurane for a period of time providing a sometimes unusually high output of Compound A.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO). We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane > or = enflurane > isoflurane >> halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme and Baralyme with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme (13% water) do not generate CO.3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out.

  • carbon monoxide production from degradation of desflurane enflurane isoflurane halothane and sevoflurane by Soda Lime and baralyme
    Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1995
    Co-Authors: Zexu Fang, Edmond I Eger, M J Laster, Ben S Chortkoff, L Kandel, Pompiliu Ionescu
    Abstract:

    Anecdotal reports suggest that Soda Lime and Baralyme Registered Trademark brand absorbent can degrade inhaled anesthetics to carbon monoxide (CO).We examined the factors that govern CO production and found that these include: 1) The anesthetic used: for a given minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC)-multiple, the magnitude of CO production (greatest to least) is desflurane >or=to enflurane > isoflurane much greater than halothane = sevoflurane. 2) The absorbent dryness: completely dry Soda Lime produces much more CO than absorbent with just 1.4% water content, and Soda Lime containing 4.8% or more water (standard Soda Lime contains 15% water) generates no CO. In contrast, both completely dry Baralyme Registered Trademark and Baralyme Registered Trademark with 1.6% water produce high concentrations of CO, and Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 4.7% water produces concentrations equaling those produced by Soda Lime containing 1.4% water. Baralyme Registered Trademark containing 9.7% or more water and standard Baralyme Registered Trademark (13% water) do not generate CO. 3) The type of absorbent: at a given water content, Baralyme Registered Trademark produces more CO than does Soda Lime. 4) The temperature: an increased temperature increases CO production. 5) The anesthetic concentration: more CO is produced from higher anesthetic concentrations. These results suggest that CO generation can be avoided for all anesthetics by using Soda Lime with 4.8% (or more) water or Baralyme Registered Trademark with 9.7% (or more) water, and by using inflow rates of less than 2-3 L/min. Such inflow rates are low enough to ensure that the absorbent does not dry out. (Anesth Analg 1995;80:1187-93)