submarine base, groton, conn

7« I It CH»^t T-JL J±

iS-->

NAVAL «OICAL RESEAR€tt ^ÄubfifATORY

SUBMARINE BASE, GROTON, CONN. REPORT NUMBER 876

EVALUATION OF PORTABLE RECOMPRESSION SYSTEM (PRS): Life Support, Schedule Adequacy, and Human Factors

by

W. L. Hunter, Jr., J. W. Parker, J. E. Jordan, R. J. Biersner, S. C. Gilman

and

K. R. Bondi

Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory Groton, Connecticut 06340

! !

S : j ; j i

i!

Released by:

R. L. SPHAR, CAPT MC USN Commanding Officer Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory

23 June 1978 ' !

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

EVALUATION OF PORTABLE RECOMPRESSION SYSTEM (PRS) : Life Support, Schedule Adequacy, and Human Factors

W. L. Hunter, Jr., J. W. Parker, J. E. Jordan, R. J. Biersner, S. C. Gilman, and K. E. Bondi

NAVAL SUBMARINE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

BOX 900 NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE NEW LONDON

GROTON, CONNECTICUT 06340

rPHAR, CAPT MC USN r Commanding Officer

Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory

23 June 1978

SUMMARY

The Portable Recompression System CPUS), a single-place treatment

chamber uncieX—consideration as a-primary recompression—«nit for diving

casualties, was evaluated in terms of its life-support adequacy, safety,

and'habitability. Thirty U- S. Navy divers were exposed to one of three

theoretical treatment scenarios, all involving use of modified or un-

modified Treatment Table I-A Schedules, singly or with.one replication

after a brief surface interval.

The data obtained indicated that the PRS unit functioned well,

providing adequate life support and reasonable patient comfort. The

various treatment scenarios appeared to be both safe and tolerable.

Experimental subjects uniformly expressed confidence in use of the PRS

in emergency situations.

Several problem areas were noted, which included a) need for

clearly-defined medical management procedures for use by diving personnel

in the absence of on-site medical expertise; b) inadequacies in the

PRS communication system in diver-to-topside mode; c) consistent

decreases in PRS oxygen percentages during treatments; and

d) temperature/humidity stress on subjects that could adversely affect

patient safety in tropical and sub-tropical environments.

Ill

INTRODUCTION

The Portable Recompression System has been designed for emergency

recompression treatment of a diver and, if feasible, for transportation

to a larger facility while the diver is undergoing recompression treatment.

The system is a small, single lock, one-man, air-operated chamber lacking

oxygen treatment capability and is, therefore, severely disadvantaged compared

to Navy double-lock treatment chambers- The advantage of the PRS is that it

can be located at remote dive sites or operations not supported by larger

on-board or shore-based chambers. Therefore, the compromised treatment

mode would be partially offset by immediate, on-site recompression treatment.

Because of the inability to administer oxygen and to gain access to

the injured diver once pressurized, it has been proposed that all diving

accidents treated with the PRS utilize the shortest air-only treatment

table available, Table 1A{1). Review of the past use of this table in other

situations indicates that its effectiveness is acceptable (2). Used in this

manner, the PRS would be intended to provide definitive initial treatment

and could serve to transport the injured diver, while undergoing treatment,

to a Navy double-lock recompression chaniber.

The purposes of these evaluations were a) to determine whether the

PRS would provide adequate life support and reasonable patient comfort for

the duration of the schedule (6 hrs., 20 mins.), b) to determine the

safety and feasibility of performing a surface-decompression procedure

(as might be required to transfer the patient from the PRS to a larger

chamber prior to completion of the treatment schedule), and c) to de-

termine the safety and feasibility of performing two complete treatment

schedules with a 30 min. surface interval between (as might be required

if the patient had residual or worsening symptoms).

EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS

All experimental subjects were qualified U. S. Navy divers. They

ranged in age from 20 to 43 years, with a mean of 29.5 (S.D. 6.87).

The group was composed of 24 enlisted personnel and 6 officers. Further

demographic information can be found in Table 1.

Because of the very limited confines of the PRS chamber, the

subjects were carefully measured using a variety of standard anthropo-

metric indices. Measurements of those indices selected as being most

meaningful are shown in Figs. 2-5.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The treatment schedule (Treatment Table I-A) selected for use in

conjunction with the PRS, although infrequently used, has enjoyed a

good success rate in the past (2). However, it had not been used in a

single-place chamber, and as a result, its safety under such conditions

was unknown. Additionally, because access to the PRS subject is limited,

it was decided to perform all PRS testing within a larger chamber

possessing prolonged saturation capability. By compressing the saturation

complex to PRS depth, test subjects could be removed from the PRS at any

time complications might develop.

Physical Arrangement;

Two complete PBS systems were mounted within the NSMBL Chamber #1,

which is a 1500 ft3 double-lock chamber with a pressure capability of 350

FSW and a life-support system capable of handling at least four men for

indefinite periods. (See Fig. 1) . Hatches remained open but ready to be

closed if pressurization was necessary. Testing was performed with both

PBS chambers simultaneously. Although placed within the saturation complex,

the two PBS chambers were supplied with compressed air from adjacent scuba

cylinders (twin 72 ft3 tanks for PBS #1, twin 90 ft3 tanks for PBS #2),

rather than from other available air sources. This enabled an estimation of

gas consumption to be expected in the normal operating mode. o

Dive procedures;

Three basic dive procedures were tested. Protocol A) First, an unin-

terrupted Treatment Table I-A (PBS Table) was conduced on ten men. Protocol

B) A second ten men were exposed to a protocol in which the PBS table was

completed through the 40 ft. stop; the PBS was then brought to the surface,

the subject was removed and transferred to the NSMBL No. 2 chamber, placed

on 100% oxygen, and that chamber was compressed to 60 FSW. The interval

between leaving 40 FSW in the PBS and reaching 60 FSW in the No. 2 chamber

was less than 5 minutes in all cases. After reaching 60 FSW, the subject

continued to breathe 100% oxygen and was decompressed to the surface on a

Treatment Table 5 (1). Protocol C) A third ten men were exposed to an

uninterrupted PBS Table (6 hrs., 20 min.). Thirty minutes after surfacing,

those men reentered the PBS for a second PBS Table.

Because of changes seen in oxygen levels during Protocols A) and B)

mentioned above, it was decided to assess the effect of venting the PRS

during treatment. Therefore, during protocol C), five of the subjects

received one of two arbitrary venting schedules, (Protocol C,), while a

second five men received the other (Protocol C2). These vents were

performed only—in-the second-of the twe^-PRS exposures, so that the

initial exposure for a subject could serve as a reference for his

expected oxygen and carbon dioxide levels.

Environmental Evaluations:

Ambient temperature surrounding the PRS chambers was maintained at

78-80° F. Ambient temperatures within each PRS were measured using a

YSI Series 400 Model 15-176-30 air temperature probe and a YSI Model

42-SF Tele Thermometer (Yellow Spring Instruments, Yellow Springs, OH) -

Ambient humidity within the PRS chambers was not measured. Oxygen and

carbon dioxide were measured on a Medspect II medical mass spectrometer

(Chemitron, St. Louis, MO), which alternately sampled for 20 seconds

from each PRS chamber. The mass spectrometer sampling tubes were fixed

at a point directly above the subject's forehead in the exhaust stream

of the CO2 scrubber system. This point was felt to be representative

of the gas mixture being respired by the subject.

Human Factors Evaluations:

A questionnaire was developed that addressed a variety of factors

dealing with habitability of the PRS. Each subject completed this

questionnaire at the completion of his exposure(s). Figure 6 is a

sample of that questionnaire.

Physiological and psychological evaluation of stress:

In order-to deteaaaine whether—or not-exposure in—the-PBS presented

undue stress, we measured each subject's pulse rate and blood pressure

prior to and immediately following the exposure. These values were

compared to baseline values obtained on previous days. Similar comparisons

were made for parotid fluid a-araylase secretion. All three measures

reflect general autonomic nervous system activity and are related to real

or perceived stress(3). In addition, subjects completed several standard

questionnaires regarding mood and anxiety/arousal. These were also

administered in the baseline, pre-dive, and post-dive periods.

RESULTS

Life support system:

Oxygen

Figures 7 through 10 present respiratory gas measurements obtained

during PBS dives. Figures 7, 8, 9a, and 10a show data obtained during

unmodified PBS table exposures. The data show that ambient oxygen

levels fell steadily at approximately 1% per hour during the first two

hours of the dive. After that time, oxygen levels stabilized between

18.5% and 19.0% and remained relatively constant. These data demonstrate

that the life support system can provide more than adequate oxygen to the

subject, for the time required, since even at the lowest oxygen percentage

(18.5%) the partial pressure of oxygen would be 0.24 ATA (182 mm Hg) at the

10 ft. stop.

Carbon dioxide:

Again referring to Figs. 7, 8, 9a and 10a, carbon dioxide levels

were—maintained-within acceptable ranges^, generally—0.10 to-0-rt5% —

( < 5 mm Hg at 100 FSW). This is well below the "1% surface equivalent"

maximum set for Navy diving operations.

Temperature:

Ambient temperatures recorded in the PKS during normal- operation

ranged from 81.0° to 84.0 P. with a mean of 82.7 F. The maximum upon

reaching the bottom was 86.0° F. Fig. 11 is a graphic representation of

observed temperatures and indicates a gradual increase as the dives

progressed.

Humidity:

Although humidity could not be measured, comments from the subjects

and frequent clouding of the ports (without increased C02)t suggested

that the PKS atmosphere was totally saturated with water, or very nearly

so. Therefore, for human factors and safety purposes it would be reason-

able to assume a humidity of 95-100%.

Gas consumption:

PPS No. 1 was supplied by twin sets of 72 ft3 steel scuba cylinders

charged to 2250 psi. PRS No. 2 was supplied by twin sets of 90 ft3 aluminum

scuba cylinders charged to 3000 psi. During complete uninterrupted PKS

Tables, total gas consumption averaged approximately 240 ft , indicating

that under these conditions the entire procedure could be conducted with

two fully-charged sets of 90 ft3 cylinders or three fully charged sets of

72 ft3 cylinders.

Venting procedures:

As noted above, oxygen levels were observed to fall progressively

-*o 18.5-19-%-during -tate-course-of—these expo&ures. Although ther-e—was no

question about adequate oxygen supply, the investigators felt that the

efficiency of the treatment might be decreased. As the oxygen level

fell, there would necessarily be a concomitant increase in nitrogen

levels, from approximately 79% to 81-81.5%, decreasing the outward gradient

favoring nitrogen elimination. Whether this would affect a real treatment

remains conjecture, but in order to test practical methods of maintaining

normal oxygen levels (therefore normal nitrogen levels), two arbitrary

schedules of venting with air were devised. These venting schedules were

tested in the second of the back-to-back PPS table exposures, so that the

first exposure could serve as a reference for each man. The schedule for

the first vent protocol (designated C.) was as follows:

Upon reaching 30 FSW 2 min



1 hr. after reaching 10 FSW 2 min

The schedule for the second vent protocol (designated C2) was as follows:

Upon reaching 60 FSW - 1 min






1 hr. after reaching 10 FSW - 2 min

Each of the one minute vents at 60, 50, and 40 FSW supplied an average of

17.7 ft3 of fresh air, while the two minute vents at 30, 20 and 10 FSW

supplied an average of 19.4 ft3 each. Incorporating either venting schedule.

total gas supply needed rose from two sets of twin 90's to three, and from

three sets of 72's to four.

The effect of Protocol C-^ on O2 and C02 ^s shown in Fig 9b (Fig 9a

shows the same subjects with no vents). Each vent increased the oxygen by

1/2-3/4%, and even though levels continued to fall after each vent, oxygen

was maintained at significantly higher levels than were observed without

vents (Fig 9a). Fig. 10b shows the effect of Protocol C2 on 02 and C02

(Fig. 10b shows the same subjects without vents). Again, each vent in-

creased oxygen levels significantly, with the net result of oxygen

averaging 1% or more above that seen without vents, even in the latter

part of the dive.

Figs. 9b and 10b show another interesting finding. Carbon dioxide

levels increased after each vent and, in general, remained at higher levels

during the vented dives. One plausible explanation is that the vents were

causing better mixing of the chamber atmosphere and eliminating "pocketing"

of gas, especially in areas beneath the cot. It should be emphasized,

however, that even these increased C02 levels were still well within

acceptable ranges.

Fig. 12 shows the effect of the venting procedures on PBS ambient

temperature. Temperature averaged 0.7° F. less than was observed in

dives without vents. In addition, there was no tendency toward increasing

temperature as the dives progressed.

Human Factors Evaluation

Figure 13 presents a summary of the subjects' responses on the human

factors questionnaire_(Eig. 6.).. The scores—£©r each question were—averaged-

to obtain the histograms shown. Although most factors received positive

ratings, the data indicate several areas that the subjects felt to be less

than satisfactory. Only factors receiving an average score less than 3.0

(satisfactory) will be discussed.

Communications:

Subjects reported no difficulty in understanding communications from

outside operators, but were often requested to repeat what they had said.

This indicates that the in-chamber microphone is not adequate for diver-

to-operator communications. Whether this was a defect in design of the

microphone, its poor functioning in these warm, humid conditions, or in

its location within the PBS was not clear.

Temperature and Humidity;

Most subjects commented on one or both of these factors, some saying

that the combination of the two was very uncomfortable. No effort was made

to cool the PRS in any way, and under those (probably ideal) conditions PRS

temperatures were generally 4-5° F. above temperatures outside. The venting

procedures tested in Protocol C, although reported to be beneficial by the

subjects, only resulted in an average fall of 0.7° F. (Figs. 11 and 12).

Therefore, their subjective impressions may have been more related to de-

creased humidity and/or psychological effects. In view of the absence of

provisions for controlling these two parameters, use of this system may be

limited in extreme environments, especially tropical climates. For example

if the ambient environmental temperature was 95° F. (not unusual in the

tropics, PRS temperature might be expected to be 4-5 F. higher, as seen in

these dives. Because the PRS

atmosphere is saturated with water vapor (or nearly so), normal physiologic

mechanisms for maintaining thermal homeostatis (e.g. sweating) would be in-

effective. Available data indicate that the maximum tolerance time for ex-

posure to 100% humidity and 95-100° F. temperatures is in the range of two

to four hours (3), which is far short of the 6 hr. 20 min PRS Treatment

Schedule.

Lighting:

Lighting within the PRS was judged slightly less than satisfactory.

However, roost of the lower scores came from men in the lower chamber (see

Fig. 1), and because of its location, less light was available. The in-

vestigators did not feel that light levels presented a significant problem.

Front-to-Back Movement;

All subjects reported turning over at least twice during their exposure.

There was considerable variation in the ease with which they accomplished the

maneuver, but no subject was unable to perform it. It is felt that the

restrictions of movement are not sufficient to warrant increased PRS shell

diameter, since this would require not only a major redesign effort but also

.increased air supply.

Comfort of Cot;

Subjects rated the PRS cot as providing slightly less than desirable

comfort in view of the relatively long time they had to spend on it. Most

responses indicated that there was insufficient cushioning on the aluminum

sheeting forming the bottom surface. Also noted was the inflexibility of

the cot, resulting in a lack of "give" for heavier parts of the body.

Urination:

Subjects were provided with a condom catheter attached to a flexible

polyethylene tube leading to a standard one-liter urine collection bag.

10

This system was chosen in order to minimize accumulation of ammonia and

hydrocarbons from an open collector such as a urinal. Most men chose not

to position the catheter prior to the dive, but instead waited until

urination was necessary. The restrictions of movement and inability to

visualize positioning once inside led to incomplete seals and significant

urine leakage in some cases. Therefore, lower scores were obtained.

However, the investigators felt that had the condom catheters been applied

prior to the dive, the system would have been adequate.

Defecation;

Responses to this question were not obtained from all subjects. Only

those who felt the need to defecate commented, and, since there was no

provision made for this, the lower scores are understandable. In view of

the 6 hr. 20 min. duration of the PPS table, major modifications along

these lines would not seem warranted.

Two additional questions were asked dealing with sleep and hunger.

Average reported sleep times were: Protocol A: 2.23 hours; Protocol B:

0.4 hours; Protocol C: 4.70 hours. Sixty percent of the subjects reported

hunger during their exposure.

Evaluation of Induced Stress

Mood and anxiety questionnaires were administered several days before

(pre-dive 1) and immediately before (pre-dive 2) the PRS dives, as well as

immediately after (post-dive 1) and several days after(post-dive 2) these

dives. The data show that neither self-reported moods nor self-reported

anxiety varied significantly across these test periods either for the 30

divers as a group or for any of the three separate groups (Protocols A,B,C,

and C2)- The moods of activity and happiness (general satisfaction) were

. 11

found to be at moderate levels, while the moods of anger, depression,

fear, and fatigue were extremely low. (The results for fatigue are

interesting in view of the long exposure experienced by the divers in

Protocol C). Self-reported anxiety was at a level typical of other

groups which are not experiencing unusual stress. Substantial variability

was found among the divers for these measures, which indicates that they

were completing the questionnaires in an unbiased manner. In addition,

substantial overall differences were found between the three groups, but

none of these differences could be attributed to the dives. These

differences more than likely represent sampling error which happened to

place the moxt anxious and moody divers into a single group. Again, the

divers in this group differed from divers in the other two groups across

the four testing sessions, not just immediately before or after the dive.

Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) measurements were also taken

during these four testing sessions. The most consistent findings are for

heart rate, which rose significantly for each of the three groups

immediately prior to the dive, and then fell to normal levels immediately

after the dive. For subjects in Protocols A and C, both systolic and

diastolic BP rose before the dive, with systolic BP returning to normal

levels immediately after the dive. Diastolic BP remained elevated im-

mediately after the dive for both groups, returning to pre-dive levels only

for subjects in Protocol A several days later. Diastolic BP for the

Protocol C groups was still at elevated levels during post-dive 2 testing.

In Protocol B, systolic and diastolic BP remained normal or fell slightly

just before and after the dive. These data appear to indicate that the

three groups did experience some pre-dive anticipatory stress (as shown

12

by the elevated heart rates)» The extent of this anticipatory stress,

however, may have varied across the three groups because of the type of

dive that was~being made, as well-as some underlying psychological:

differences between the groups. This latter interpretation is indicated

by the variable diastolic and systolic BP measurements found across the

three groups, as well as the mood and anxiety differences previously

described.

In the subjects on Protocol A, pre-exposure parotid fluid a-amylase

levels were significantly higher than post-dive levels (F=10.75; df 1,9;

p < .01) . The pre-dive increase in a-amylase secretion suggests increased

autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity attributable to psychological

factors (e.g. anticipation). The post-exposure decrease suggests that

the 6 hr. 20 min. PRS exposure did not produce a significant physical

stress effect. No significant physical stress effect. No significant

difference was found in pre- and post-exposure a-amylase level in the

"surface decompression" group (Protocol B). (F=0.92; df=l,9: p >.l).

This suggests that minimal ANS activation occurred in the group. In the

groups exposed to two PRS Tables (Protocols C and C2), the post-exposure

amylase level was higher than the pre-exposure value although the

difference was not significant (F=3.10; df=l, 7; p >.05).

These results also may be interpreted as indicating that the elevation

in amylase secretion in the subjects on Protocol A was related to anti-

cipatory stress from being the initial group exposed to these novel

hyperbaric conditions. Other data for blood pressure (BP) and heart rate

(HR) at least partially confirm this interpretation. The BP and HR data,

13

however, show more anticipatory stress among the other two groups

(elevated pr.e-dive responses.) ... Perhaps some psychological-or situational

(being the initial group) characteristic differed between Group I and

•Groups II and III which mediated the ANS component of anticipatory

stress among the members of Group I.

Overall, these psychologic and physiologic measurements, indicate

that the dives were not physically stressful, nor was the psychological

stress sufficient to impair normal psychological defenses (as shown

by the consistent mood and anxiety scores across pre- and post-dive

conditions).

Statistical analyses

Pearson product-moment correlational analyses were performed on

variables most likely to have some logical relationship. The variables

subjected to these analyses are shown in Table 2. No statistically

significant correlations, could be demonstrated, indicating that

differences seen could not be attributed to body size, induced stress,

or psychological factors.

14

DISCUSSION

The data obtained during these evaluations demonstrated that when

used under these (somewhat ideal) conditions, the PRS functioned very

well. It did provide adequate life support and reasonable patient comfort

for the duration of the schedule. Its use in performing a surface-

decompression chamber transfer maneuver appeared to be both feasible

and safe. Performing two complete PRS schedules separated by a brief

(30 min.) surface interval appeared to be feasible, safe, and tolerable

for the subject. Although the subjects recognized certain deficiencies

in the system, they uniformly stated that they would have no reservations

regarding its use as a treatment mode were they, themselves, involved in

a casualty that required recompression therapy. ■

However, the investigators recognized several problem areas

associated with use of the PRS which must be addressed prior to Fleet-wide

recommendation:

A. Patient access. All single-man chambers limit access to the

patient once treatment has begun. Oftiis precludes the use of even

basic resuscitative measures or ancillary therapies (e.g. intra-

venous fluids, pharmacologic agents, oxygen administration, and

so forth) that might be required in serious cases. In addition,

operators may not have access to Medical Department personnel and

may be quite unsophisticated at patient evaluation or monitoring.

The ability to rapidly institute recompression therapy partially

offsets these inadequacies. However,

15

careful attention should be given to writing a PRS medical manual

which wou!cTTspecify' steps to be taken in case of emergencies. This ~~

PRS medical manual should be written in clear, non-technical language

and should enable diving personnel and supervisors to manage casualty

treatment in the PRS in the absence of medical personnel. For example,

what should be done if the subject loses consciousness, or vomits, or

has a seizure, or panics? What specific questions could be asked of

the patient or steps be taken by outside operators that would give

information regarding his status and the progress of the treatment?

B. Communications system. The current system does not appear to provide

satisfactory communications from the diver to the outside operator.

Reasons for this were not clear, but possibilities considered were mal-

positioning of the in-chamber microphone, defective microphone manufacture/

design, or decreased microphone performance due to environmental conditions

(excess heat and humidity). In order to give the system maximum

reliability and eliminate dependence on a battery power source, sound

powered systems should be considered.

C. Oxygen levels. Äs currently designed, the PRS was unable to

maintain oxygen levels above 19% unless periodic vents were inserted into

the treatment schedule. The decreases seen could not be related either

to body dimensions or to physiological and psychological measurements

of anxiety and stress. The effect of the decreased oxygen (therefore

increased nitrogen) levels on the efficacy of Treatment Table I-A in a

casualty situation is unknown, but its significance should be

investigated.

16

C. Thermal stress. As noted previously, with outside air temperature

of^f8-80°-F., -the—PRS was-unable to-maintain temperature/humidity —

profiles that were comfortable for the subject. The investigators

felt that this was, by far, the most serious problem seen. The

subject provides a continuous source of heat and humidity, and these

evaluations indicated that PRS temperatures 4-5 F. above ambient

and humidities approaching 100% could be expected. Available data

(3) indicate that use of the PRS without cooling or dehumidifying

capability in tropical climates (85-95° F.) could be extremely

hazardous. A diver could be subjected to a thermal stress much more

dangerous than a delay in recompression therapy for his diving-

related casualty. Although the venting protocols (C, and C2)

subjectively ameliorated this problem, objective changes were

minimal, and the divers' comments may have been more related to

psychology than physiology. At any rate, this problem requires

considerable attention before the PRS can be approved for unlimited

Fleet use.

17

REFERENCES

~~1 • U. ~Sr-"Navy DivThg~~Bänüal, Vol. 1. "Publication No'.~NRVSEA ~

0994-LP-001-9010, Navy Department (Washington, D.C), 1975,

2. Spaur, William H. Personal communication, 1978.

3. Parker, J. P., Jr. and V. R. West (eds.)- Bioastronautics

Data Handbook, 2nd edition. Publication No. NASA SP-3006,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Washington,

D.C.), 1973.

4. Speirs, R. L., J. Herring, W. D. Cooper, C. C. Hardy, and

C.R.K. Hind. The influence of sympathetic activity and

isoprenaline on the secretion of amylase from the human

parotid gland. Arch. Oral Biol. 19: 747-752, 1974.

18

TABLE 1

Demographic Characteristics of Subjects

AGE # MEN RANK/RATE # MEN DUTY STATION # MEN

*

43

40

37

36

1

2

2

4

CDR (MC)

LCDR (MSC)

LCDR

LT (MC)

1

1

1

1

Navy Experimental Diving Onit

Escape Training Dept-, NavSubScol,NLon

Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory

5

10

4

35 1 LT (MSC) 1 USS FULTON (AS-11) 7

34 2 LT 1 USS SUNBIRD (ASR-15) 2

30

29

28

1

1

1

HTCS

BMC

HMC

1

1

1

Submarine Support Facility, NLon 2

30

27 3 HTC 1 •

j 26 1 MMC 2

25 2 BM1 2

24 2 MM1 2

23 1 MR1 1

22 2 SW1 1

21 2 BM2 1

20 2 EN2 1

- 30 HM2 1

RANGE: 20-43 HT2 2

. MEAN: 29.5 years MM2 3

! S.D.: 6.87 HT3 3

• SM3 1

19

TABLE 2

CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON PRS DATA

Mean 0~ percentage vs-

Mean C02 percentage vs.

Anthro indices (ht.,wt.,shld.,bd.,abd.cir.)

Body surface area

Psychological indices (pre & post)

Systolic BP (pre & post)

Diastolic BP (pre & post)

Pulse pressure (pre s post)

Heart rate (pre & post)

Parotid a-amylase (pre & post)

Head movement vs.

Leg movement vs.

Arm movement vs.

Front to back movement vs.

Comfort of cot vs.

Height

Weight

4 Shoulder breadth

Abdominal circumference

Body surface area

Parotid a-airylase (pre) vs.

Parotid a-amylase (post) vs.

Systolic BP (pre & post)

Diastolic BP (pre & post)

Pulse pressure (pre & post)

Heart rate (pre S post)

20

ID U m

! Ä U

g P4

ft 0 +J ß a)

ß iß U u (0

« Ü

•H 01 • SH X A «J

<H & 0 o o ß 0 C

-rl O +» -r» IÖ 4->

■P (0

a) * H w ft 4) iJ w g

to $

I- X e> Lü X

ö CD 3 O

U. « O z

/ z o

CD

CO bJ X o z \ > < -

or to oi ii

Q X <s LÜ X \

z < ÜJ

2 /

1 i I I I 1 i 1 1 i \

fl iq •ft r- ■33

4J

ro Ü

O •n

■9 w

M-l 0

0) CD CO

c 0

-H -P

LU 3 X ■H

D> a u N-' z •p

CD *- ä H X W r- o <U

CD ÜJ Ü

3 X c

•H

0 CD ■H

»o -P CD 1

a <<*• B <* 5 CD ä

CM <N

IO 4 CD 0i

•H

O C\J CD

O) 00 CD IO fO <SI —

sioarans JO aaawnN

w +J ja Ö>

■H 0)

-p Ü

H-l o c o

■H +J

.Q •H •P w

-O

w Q> U

■H T> C

■H

U ■H n

■p

I o u

to <\J —

sioarans JO uaewoN

iq

CVJ

-j Z>

h o CD ^ — CO

to

«

(0

*> <2) o V CM r-t

«0 ro -p O u CM _ Q)

CO UJ ■8

n 0> X

o 0 ^~ c *""* o I

IO 1- " 3 o Ä

0) < -H

ÜJ ■P or W

CD 3 —; cr *• o

o n at ü

G -r4

O •H u

■p

a s

tn El

00)<8S(OIO^(ON-

si03P8ns JO y39wnN

CO

UJ CO UJ X o

U_ z 2

*•

O ^r oc ro ~^— n- O

/ x H

\

1^

to

2 w X

Q S 0) 3 10 UI o ^ til K a: to ui

3 O

CO

id

IO JE O

^ s M < IO

IO

m o> CM

w o ß

2

u ■H

<0

■8 ■3 -P O a; •n

<4H O

ß 0

<H -P 3

-P (0

W 0) Ü

•H >o B

■H

U •H IM +J

I I ß

CD

sioarans JO uaawnN

o Ü c

■P

-5* p o

MH e o o co

-H

o a» u

> a> tn CO T)

O •a

o

ft w

5 &1 o P ** Ü

>! (rt u IM o (ft P •P Ü P <fl IÖ

un w tn

-P >i ■P r-t rt 0) 0] P C m P ffl

p (3

P O

HH a) ^-' O i~H

• w • e ü 41 ■O 0> c u 0 O c -P Ö 0 •p 

(11 01 0 c > tn > •P r> c C C p o 0

rH 0 0) a

Ü ft -P a g "N

-H P -rt tn P "S O N. C P p S. -P O o P ■O P rH 4H 0 C 0 §

 ,ri m 0) -o -a (ft Q> ^H

II II

a ■p p

4H 0

(ft •o 0

pi trf 0 c p ■H o Ti (0 a IP (Ö (ft -p

•p (0 p ■p m 3 w Ü

0) p

01 ß

p MH 0) (0 ä a) H p Ü a n 4> o o o

TS (ft c p Ö -H ft

p Ü a> p p o o o p

ft H 0) X!

rH •P

CO P c 01

o u

•g id

ui p 01

(ft c

(ft Tl ft •0 • o p -p •p P nj a> p P £.3 Q> o ft X! 0 <D P o X!

•ft 5 -p

W ü <ö C p (0 (0

0> - P

JJ <6 oi € 01 ft a -p o x: x: » p P p 3 o o >. >i

>i q rH -P ß

» 0) P CO 41 •i-p- 0)

Is 01 ft

tn c

•H P

5

(ft P

s Ü

-H P

Qi ■a «H

-H >1 (ft rH

A; 0 ü <o 41 XI

•H 0 (ft p P

3 — ^^ p c ° j3 01

p 9 o cu r It) -M-- p ip 51 3

0* U x; o

^ fl> 0) a e e > TJ 0 0 Q (0 j] p P £ CO [ (p tp

MH P 01

0) CO

• tn »O O P 3 c <D m c r.

-H P C 5 •H P > (0 0 CO (D (0 Q P -H 10 N. 41 tn ai 2 (fl -P 0 co H >i ""-^ CO a o p P 3

P 01 -H e <a P O TO P (0 P 0 01 O >i P a p •Ü XI r- c tn co c tn 2 & 92 c 0> 0 e p e 01 ■H P o •H 01 ■a tn & X! cu N p c

Vt P XI 0) p s •H <a ft 3 — t£J o rH s a> x!

ft 3 Ü JS (0 01

S >^ -p ^-l 3 MH rH 4J

3 G U m a O* O (ft tu oi "0 0 0) c o c 0 0) tn > o P B -H 0 ■p 5" x; _^ o ja 5 a> P •rt p <4H O 3 s t C -P p p flj 0 Q 3 0

a> •P 0 o ITS Ü 3 6 >, -O rH g tw fi Ip c a> 0> G1

(0 o ß e •H (*-i (ft 01 S t? 01 XI •H

> 8% 6 p 0) a < O P a o

p o

ft 0>

5

co c o •H p •p t) c o Ü

p p o ft 3 (ft 01

<4H •H

0) MH

(ft P O

P c 41 E p (0 0) u p

tn c

•H >

-H H

P 3 O

■s

P •P 0) r* •H rH

0 0 P

0) P 0) 01 rH

fl (ft P O 01

Ö s ^ g E c

tn ai oi G > > ^

•p Q Q -P g s

a) -H

id 5 0> tn E x:

•H o> P PI h4 < 3^

O >, >i _

s 82

Pig. 6: Human factors questionnaire completed by each subject after exposure(s).

z0d lN33cd3d TTT »o CM ^

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J I 1 CM

w O ox — O Ü HI- o' A — 2 z ! 1 w w n x O O 7 * _ o: Q: ! / UJ UJ OX

CO Ü. a. • / x O 6x

_J ! \ ÜJ > >"° \ —

UJ X o O X _ -J

/ UJ Q, Y — Q < V _ i O x —

— UJ Q -J -J

: / -

_ OGQ S O <

x o \ !

CA

RB

C

PRO

TO

IGH

T T o

II

z x a I * * >

-

Q uj S i ,**' 2 -s c x Qf

/ \ " Q W, x „O —

Z UJ x QT

>- J ^0 X o y o / !

-

x O —

/ : x O —

y ä „x p — •

X oC. _

/ X

\ ? i

X o —

_. I 1 1 1

q CM

o d CM

O

00 co to

CM IT) to

CD to ro

CO CO CM

o to

CM

CM CD tf) CM

o CM

co o CM

CD O

O CD

CD

CO ■<r

CM to

JCO

CO «D

Z3 C

CM g>

co üJ

o CD

CO CM

CM o UJ



u u <D

4-> C

-H C 3

O u o 4->

2

c •H

3-

5? 5 a

I- g Q 0)

Id 3

CO CO

a. a» < S

- 108 HOd

- 3Aia-3dd

o CD

(0

o 4J

u ■H ft « Si as

pi •rH

z0 !N3DH3d

20D lN33d3d "BT 2: "° CM — O o O o

«o- o

—tf5- o

- i i i 1 1 1 1 T" ~r -r~ —T~ CO

CM <o • CM O ro

O Ü

S £ LÜ UJ

CM If) to

o

X PERC

0 PERC

o10

CM

o

o u

1 1 z •o H 1 1 1

c O

o CO CO UJ

UJ Q

0- O

<n

> </> LU QC a.

o 24 256 2

240 272

c

i-l

•s m

0 Ü 0 ■p 0

X g CD

u. o UJ o

<

CO o CM

CM UJ

Pi

Q z

_J O o p o QC 0.

X u. 3

0)

(0 1- o CO

< Ü

3 o or

O

ii

dOlS 1003-0*

- o

CO

Q Ul GO Q. <

UJ

3 c

U

z <

UJ >

 \5 CD

0>

O CO

(0

UJ CD > X

—I CD

X

/ X

/

i i

o' iratory

t. stop

o / X

•

6 i

A.

CD M-

CM

ft <M

<y 0

♦ 4

.. > > 00

- y -* ^-

?o CD

■H

X o£-~ 108 H0U fe m / *™ "• — - ^ ^

X

I 1 1 |

3AIQ- ■aad

o o O O — Ö CO 00

CM CM — 30 ±N30d3d

200 JLN30H3d j r- <o IO_ «r io (M — a en co h- cc IO 1 1 © o o o o

1 i T* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r

1

CM

o 8 £ ü UJ UJ

9 X

/ X

/ X

-

CO (0 to

(VI to to

to lO

u

1 0)

• u o cc cc UJ UJ a. a. x O

iß \

IO o CM

o

H

■P n

CO i i N

X /

X

ro CO CO

•H «4-1

_l i X A CM *-" 1 Id >

i < o

X O

CM u j > /

X

\

CM rH

. LU

< > 1

(0 IO CM

o a>

0 o o ■p

'

bJ Q

X o Q

Ü

-1

H

UJ -I 03 <

CO $- z UJ >

•

X

1

I 1

CM

CM

CO o CM

CM

1

UJ

o CM

c -H H

o 1- o <* X 0> 5

e o Ü o x: z 1

ID / to H

CD cc < O o <

«- o cc a.

>

8 CD t

o 1-

t

a

z a: C0 or ii.

N z

*»» \ -

CO to

CO CM

CM

Q LU CO Q. < -J UJ

espiratory ga

s measurem

ninterrupted).

Ixl o >- X

< CD

oC\ x

(O Oi

O CO

-

o -

CO

CO

CM

id en

*

x- L

^0-X

X ? i

Ox

** ^

_

ro

<£

108 H3H

•H fa

- : X 9 3Aia-3«d

1 1 1 1 o o o o — o CD CO 04 CM ""• —

30 lN3DH3d

PERCENT 02

-PRE-DiVE

RCH BOT.

(fl

Oi H H- (U O ft £U O

£3 • B>

(A

> 05 -a c n CO

m 3 19 o 3 ft H to

a s c m ^ H- 3 '**,,,,'

^a 3 ^ 3 0 . ft o o

C ST (A

o *—'

o

to

3 d rt

w

«* m f»

o SD OJ H- OJ ii en ä

CM cn

3 ru rt OJ 0) O)

o b b b ÜI O) S 03

PERCENT C02

PERCENT 08

PRE-DIVEA

RCH BOT.

H-

o

3 (D H- M 3 'O ft p. a H h (i) fi ft c o *a n ct ►< (D

• W

3 a> a c

n> 3 tt w

& c X H- 3 ifl

H 0 n- o o o

o

Hi H- H (n ft

H !

ID

CM l\>

0»

<J>

OD O

0>

IS)

m £ r- «. > *

a» ö T

5© o ro 9 o

"T o

/

m o> o w_

o> 2 <o m

o ^^ 09 3 ro 3* ♦ C ro

* «► O 0» ro

8 r ro o» o>

ro ro

o»

oi ro O

oi

ro

oi

8

OI 0» 0»

J L

« *

\

x

I y

c/ I I

/

/

/

CO

o X -< a m

>

/ x

I I X

\

} X x O* *"*

i

M

d

* ? < 3 A m

c BJ 3 ? 81 OHO

>

CD O

> r- o < CD 2 r- o z PI a> H

.»o

O X o m

m < m r~ 0)

.o'

i i j j J J i

o

i i i o m m S 2 5 m

J 1 1 i i . ; ; ■ * ■ -■t-

s8'8o-S.«5«55^

PERCENT C02

PERCENT 02

U3

O

H- fi>

< H- (D HI 3 (U n- r+ 01 o

0) «^ n P- pj 3 m

H- g O CD tu 0) rt oi CD C Q. H <—• ft • 8

3

c >■( H1- 3

<S

^ O

ff n o H

O

& to

I ftl

CD

b Ö

ro p o b

-PRE-DIVE

RCH BOT.

5> CM

09

CD

CD o 10 CD

N

m S r _ > *,

t7) — <n CD

m

—I o>

E ■• o

~- CD

E*. ro

§■ 2 CO o V* IM "-* Ol

cn ro ro

M co CD

CM O

CM*

o CM CM cn

CM Ol h ro

CM cn h oo

1 MIN. VENT (60 FSW)

1 MIN. VENT (50FSW)




2 MIN. VENT HO FSW)

2 MIN. VENT (I0FSW)

J 1 1 1 L O Q b « « s

J L J I L

co «5 o — ro CM A o» cn -^

PERCENT C02

TEMPERATURE (DEGREES F.)

m H

•s o *G DJ (Ü

CO

H O rt O O o

ft rt

fl> w

s: H-

H- 3

> CD

ft T3

a to TJ O « jr 0 a,

a ro 0 K (-* 0)

O Cu c

r> n. o H«

3

ii to o .. • ft

&

H I

00 CL

00 00 oo (X

00 4k

00

2-0 S3

37 09

m f- >

CO m o

m

x CO

i\> -

OJ -

■4> -

Ol -

o> -

-J -

■M 1 T 1 r 1 ' ® - , bi ^"^r —

■

• \

•

\ •

• \ • \

\ •

•\ Z

PR

S A

U

NIN

T

- CO f- o

o < m

MB

IE

ER

Rl \ • xi m LC z ~o z \ • H H It H -H H

"

0.0

4

32.7

00 ro 0)

z II

TEM

ED

P

»

• \ • \

• \ • \

•

o

PE

RA

TUR

E

RS SC

HE

DU

LE

-

TEMPERATURE ( DEGREES F.)

*ri

to

I en m «

13

3 a rt - (T>

If a

*

00 o 00 00

ro oo oo

4> 00 en

2-0

3) 03

O H- m O H- > O 3 "D H

off CO m

I-1 (D o a> w S.8 H

»9- S 0 DJ m ff» O (D 0 H x H 01

•JO o o. CO HS *•—■*

r> H- O 3

§■*

ro h

w h

■*■ h

o> K

o>k

->i h

->l - 1 1 1 1 —1 - 00 •—^v

bo ^>^~

• f*

• • • •

- • ■o "0 • 70 ;o

• to

CO CO

• f- CO > - • o

-a O X m o

s •

•

ximcj= ii ii ii

00 00 ro oro

ro m

• Ö b- i~ H

— i > o m , > OI H ■

^ m •

• H X m

-

• •

• •

•

< m H CO

33

C 33 m

-

5 tu

< M

ft) tn

0 Hi

W »0 o § 01 M

ff H- ft (D

O 3

Ml P> O ft 0 H m

g fl» w ft H- O 3

0» H- H CD

Method of entry/exit-

Inside noise

x > 33 o

>

m

> co T3 m o H CO

Outside noise-

Communications-

Temperature

Humidity

Ventilation

CD o o •<

5- < m

■5 T3 m

Lighting • —

View through ports-

Head movement

CO

CO

o

■<

^^^^^^

^

Leg movement

Arm movement

Front-to-back movement-

i<

33 CO O

o o

o 33 H

Comfort of cot-

Urination

Defecation

Ease of equalizing-

Adequacy of bottle-

N. Confinement-

CO > H coco

^^ o rn ~-tn- o-<

~C

ro —I—

CO > H CO

2 o

-<

-I-

^

^^$^^

^^^^^

^^^^1

^^^^^

^^^^^^

o c H CO H > o

O

H

33 m CO c q in

O -n

c

>

5

CO

O c m to H o

33

submarine base, groton, conn

Documents