I would and have. I also have gone below 216' on air many times and managed to survive. Amazing.
Likelihood of getting oxygen toxicity at 1.4 PPO
- Thread starter ystrout
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Messages
- 17,336
- Reaction score
- 13,748
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
Kevrumbo
Banned
- Messages
- 5,659
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Interesting too, that the victim OxTox-seizured not immediately, but after nearly an hour on a RB80 Rebreather inadvertently gas switched to a 21m/70' MOD tank (~50% Oxygen) at 7ATA, for a ppO2 range of anywhere from 2.0 to 3.5 atm max.
It's usually about how long your time exposure to elevated ppO2 values is, and more importantly -hyperpneic heavy breathing physical exertion and resultant CO2 retention levels present that increase the risk of Oxygen Toxicity Seizures. . .
Jack Hammer
Contributor
The guy on O2 took only about 10 minutes to tox getting to a max depth of 85'/26m. It can vary quite a bit.
Kevrumbo
Banned
- Messages
- 5,659
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Here"s another extreme example of an infamous tragic incident, as told by Dan Volker, in which the victim tragically & unknowingly was breathing a high ppO2 deco mix past MOD, and did not tox into seizures until after some minutes:
". . .Then, there was the Jane Orenstein death... In it, the tech instructor. . .had his buddy and a student with him on ascent from a 280 foot dive. He did not watch her switch gas from bottom mix to travel gas at 100 feet, and missed that she went to her O2 bottle. Jane breathed the O2 from 100 feet, through the 50 foot, 40 foot, and 30 foot stops....at the 30 foot stop, she signalled she was low on gas, and McNulty waved her up to the 20 foot stop direction--she ascended by herself, and then [the tech instructor] watched her stop ascending, and begin a plunge downward.....He just watched as she began falling, and the 2 tech students below saw her dropping at their 50 foot stop, and one tried to chase after her, but could not equlalize, and had to stop....The instructor later said that he could not follow her, because he did not have enough gas to go after her and to rescue her. . ."
Hello,
This is an interesting topic which is open to a huge amount of misunderstanding.
First, let me make one thing very clear: I am not proposing any change to the CNS limits as currently taught to technical divers. For a start I have no data to justify such a proposal, and any change would be replacing one set of limits that are largely data free with another set that are largely data free. What I was trying to do in the presentation was to put some context on the current NOAA limits from the perspective of expedition level technical diving where we are frequently forced to exceed them during long decompressions. Let me try to explain.
One of the most common questions I get asked at high-end technical diving shows is "how do I deal with the fact that my CNS% frequently exceeds 200 towards the end of a long decompression from deep dives. Am I going to tox, or are the limits wrong"? The truth is that many such dives have been done, and adverse outcomes (seizures) seem rare so where does this leave us? The current limits were originally proposed by brilliant diving scientist Chris Lambertson, and first published by NOAA. They have become known as the NOAA limits. As best we can tell, Lambertson based them on his experience and observations, rather than on a formally accumulated database of known outcomes. Morevoer, they probably reflect his experience of working exposures / or experiments in which physical activity was maintained at a fixed depth, rather than of dives or experiments with a short period of activity deep and a long tail of shallow exposure during rest (like a real technical dive).
This is where it gets interesting because activity status and depth have significant implications for risk of oxygen toxicity; largely because these factors influence the tendency to retain CO2, and CO2 retention in turn is a major risk factor for CNS oxygen toxicity. When we exercise at depth during breathing of a dense gas, there is a tendency (stronger in some people than others) to retain CO2. I have written at some length about this elswehere (the RF3 Proceedings freely available on line are a good place to start) and so I won't explain this in detail here. However, the increased work of breathing imposed by dense gas, the respiratory apparatus, and exercise blunts the normal increase in ventilation of the lungs which is how we get rid of CO2. If we don't ventilate the lungs enough, and therefore don't get rid of the CO2 we are producing, then body CO2 levels rise (CO2 retention). When CO2 levels rise, this markedly increases the circulation of blood through the brain, and therefore results in a higher delivery of oxygen to the brain tissue. Not surprisingly, this increases the toxicity of oxygen.
This brings me back to the question I am often asked at dive shows about high CNS percentages during decompression. The tendency to retain CO2 should be less when resting at shallow depths breathing a less dense gas. This would imply that the NOAA CNS limits are less likely to be strictly relevant to a diver resting on deco than a diver exercising at depth. On this basis, I have always been tempted to answer the question about risk during deco along those lines, and to suggest that having a CNS percent of "200" is probably not as significant in the resting deco phase of the dive as it would be if you were exercising at depth. Indeed, there is likely to be a substantial difference in risk between these two scenarios, even though the CNS% is the same. However, I was never confident in giving this answer simply because no one had ever checked for CO2 retention during resting decompression during long rebreather dives. In theory, it should be much less likely than at depth because the divers are at rest and not breathing a dense gas. But one or two of the risk factors for CO2 retention are still present during deco; not least of which is breathing through a device that does increase the work of breathing.
Thus, on a recent expedition to Bikini atoll we monitored 18 divers during two dives by measuring their end tidal CO2 immediately on arrival at the surface and before they left the water. Unfortunately there is currently no means of monitoring end tidal CO2 during the decompression itself which is why we chose this strategy. To cut a long story shortish, there was no obvious tendency for the divers to be retaining CO2 during resting shallow decompression. Their surfacing end tidal CO2 values were not different to control values made at rest on the boat 2 hours after the dive. One diver surfaced with a slightly higher than normal value after one dive.
This study suggests that there is no general trend to CO2 retention during shallow resting decompression, and this would support the notion that limits primarily targeted to oxygen exposure during activity at depth are probably not as relevant to the shallow resting decompression phase of the dive. This provides some reassurance that allowing the limits to exceed 100% during deco is not overtly irresponsible, but it does not of course, provide any guarantees that seizures will not occur under these circumstances. Clearly such events are still possible.
[Study Abstract: End tidal CO2 in recreational rebreather divers on surfacing after decompression dives. - PubMed - NCBI ]
Thus, my answer to the question "how do I deal with the fact that my CNS% frequently exceeds 200 towards the end of a long decompression from deep dives. Am I going to tox, or are the limits wrong" is now slightly more informed. I can say that there is evidence to believe that the limits are almost certainly less relevant to shallow resting decompression than they are to the deep working phase of a dive. That does not mean that divers are "tox proof" during decompression because they aren't. But this does provide some measure of reassurance that the high CNS percentages we see on deco do not have the same implications they would have if we were working at depth with the same percentages. I hope you can understand the subtleties of this.
We should continue to teach the currently limits because they have provided a useful benchmark, and entry level technical divers do need some guidelines. Moreover, the NOAA limits may well have sharper predictive power of problems during activity at depth. For example, you probably don't want to be exercising hard when breathing 1.3 ATA for more than 180 minutes (CNS 100%). But there is now reason to believe that the risk (for most people most of the time) of a problem at the same CNS% during resting shallow deco is probably less.
Hope this helps.
The paper has been accepted for publication in Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine. I will let you know when it is available.
Simon M
http://www.ccrexplorers.com/showthread.php?t=17617
--------
PPO2 Exceptional Exposure Table
We removed the Exceptional Exposure Oxygen tables from the NOAA diving manual 4th editon because there was fear that if the general public saw them printed that they might take it as an endorsement to use them.
The NOAA exceptional exposure limits are set for extreme emergencies only and are not for routine use. IE: should be used for life saving only.
These are for a working dive meaning with light exertion. Remember that there are a variety of factors that come into oxygen toxicity, and crossing the 1.6 atm 45min line does not guarantee convulsion, it also does not guarantee it won't.
NOAA OXYGEN
EXCEPTIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS
PO2/Minutes:
2.8 5
2.4 10
2.0 30
1.9 45
1.8 60
1.7 75
1.6 120
1.5 150
1.4 160
1.3 240
As you can see the exceptional times allow you a fairly large margin to use this method for an "escape." The table is NOT linear. Note that exceptional exposures are DANGEROUS and can only be done once in a day. . .
Joel Silverstein
------
". . .Then, there was the Jane Orenstein death... In it, the tech instructor. . .had his buddy and a student with him on ascent from a 280 foot dive. He did not watch her switch gas from bottom mix to travel gas at 100 feet, and missed that she went to her O2 bottle. Jane breathed the O2 from 100 feet, through the 50 foot, 40 foot, and 30 foot stops....at the 30 foot stop, she signalled she was low on gas, and McNulty waved her up to the 20 foot stop direction--she ascended by herself, and then [the tech instructor] watched her stop ascending, and begin a plunge downward.....He just watched as she began falling, and the 2 tech students below saw her dropping at their 50 foot stop, and one tried to chase after her, but could not equlalize, and had to stop....The instructor later said that he could not follow her, because he did not have enough gas to go after her and to rescue her. . ."
From @Dr Simon Mitchell ; quoted from CCR Explorer Board:
Hello,
This is an interesting topic which is open to a huge amount of misunderstanding.
First, let me make one thing very clear: I am not proposing any change to the CNS limits as currently taught to technical divers. For a start I have no data to justify such a proposal, and any change would be replacing one set of limits that are largely data free with another set that are largely data free. What I was trying to do in the presentation was to put some context on the current NOAA limits from the perspective of expedition level technical diving where we are frequently forced to exceed them during long decompressions. Let me try to explain.
One of the most common questions I get asked at high-end technical diving shows is "how do I deal with the fact that my CNS% frequently exceeds 200 towards the end of a long decompression from deep dives. Am I going to tox, or are the limits wrong"? The truth is that many such dives have been done, and adverse outcomes (seizures) seem rare so where does this leave us? The current limits were originally proposed by brilliant diving scientist Chris Lambertson, and first published by NOAA. They have become known as the NOAA limits. As best we can tell, Lambertson based them on his experience and observations, rather than on a formally accumulated database of known outcomes. Morevoer, they probably reflect his experience of working exposures / or experiments in which physical activity was maintained at a fixed depth, rather than of dives or experiments with a short period of activity deep and a long tail of shallow exposure during rest (like a real technical dive).
This is where it gets interesting because activity status and depth have significant implications for risk of oxygen toxicity; largely because these factors influence the tendency to retain CO2, and CO2 retention in turn is a major risk factor for CNS oxygen toxicity. When we exercise at depth during breathing of a dense gas, there is a tendency (stronger in some people than others) to retain CO2. I have written at some length about this elswehere (the RF3 Proceedings freely available on line are a good place to start) and so I won't explain this in detail here. However, the increased work of breathing imposed by dense gas, the respiratory apparatus, and exercise blunts the normal increase in ventilation of the lungs which is how we get rid of CO2. If we don't ventilate the lungs enough, and therefore don't get rid of the CO2 we are producing, then body CO2 levels rise (CO2 retention). When CO2 levels rise, this markedly increases the circulation of blood through the brain, and therefore results in a higher delivery of oxygen to the brain tissue. Not surprisingly, this increases the toxicity of oxygen.
This brings me back to the question I am often asked at dive shows about high CNS percentages during decompression. The tendency to retain CO2 should be less when resting at shallow depths breathing a less dense gas. This would imply that the NOAA CNS limits are less likely to be strictly relevant to a diver resting on deco than a diver exercising at depth. On this basis, I have always been tempted to answer the question about risk during deco along those lines, and to suggest that having a CNS percent of "200" is probably not as significant in the resting deco phase of the dive as it would be if you were exercising at depth. Indeed, there is likely to be a substantial difference in risk between these two scenarios, even though the CNS% is the same. However, I was never confident in giving this answer simply because no one had ever checked for CO2 retention during resting decompression during long rebreather dives. In theory, it should be much less likely than at depth because the divers are at rest and not breathing a dense gas. But one or two of the risk factors for CO2 retention are still present during deco; not least of which is breathing through a device that does increase the work of breathing.
Thus, on a recent expedition to Bikini atoll we monitored 18 divers during two dives by measuring their end tidal CO2 immediately on arrival at the surface and before they left the water. Unfortunately there is currently no means of monitoring end tidal CO2 during the decompression itself which is why we chose this strategy. To cut a long story shortish, there was no obvious tendency for the divers to be retaining CO2 during resting shallow decompression. Their surfacing end tidal CO2 values were not different to control values made at rest on the boat 2 hours after the dive. One diver surfaced with a slightly higher than normal value after one dive.
This study suggests that there is no general trend to CO2 retention during shallow resting decompression, and this would support the notion that limits primarily targeted to oxygen exposure during activity at depth are probably not as relevant to the shallow resting decompression phase of the dive. This provides some reassurance that allowing the limits to exceed 100% during deco is not overtly irresponsible, but it does not of course, provide any guarantees that seizures will not occur under these circumstances. Clearly such events are still possible.
[Study Abstract: End tidal CO2 in recreational rebreather divers on surfacing after decompression dives. - PubMed - NCBI ]
Thus, my answer to the question "how do I deal with the fact that my CNS% frequently exceeds 200 towards the end of a long decompression from deep dives. Am I going to tox, or are the limits wrong" is now slightly more informed. I can say that there is evidence to believe that the limits are almost certainly less relevant to shallow resting decompression than they are to the deep working phase of a dive. That does not mean that divers are "tox proof" during decompression because they aren't. But this does provide some measure of reassurance that the high CNS percentages we see on deco do not have the same implications they would have if we were working at depth with the same percentages. I hope you can understand the subtleties of this.
We should continue to teach the currently limits because they have provided a useful benchmark, and entry level technical divers do need some guidelines. Moreover, the NOAA limits may well have sharper predictive power of problems during activity at depth. For example, you probably don't want to be exercising hard when breathing 1.3 ATA for more than 180 minutes (CNS 100%). But there is now reason to believe that the risk (for most people most of the time) of a problem at the same CNS% during resting shallow deco is probably less.
Hope this helps.
The paper has been accepted for publication in Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine. I will let you know when it is available.
Simon M
http://www.ccrexplorers.com/showthread.php?t=17617
--------
PPO2 Exceptional Exposure Table
We removed the Exceptional Exposure Oxygen tables from the NOAA diving manual 4th editon because there was fear that if the general public saw them printed that they might take it as an endorsement to use them.
The NOAA exceptional exposure limits are set for extreme emergencies only and are not for routine use. IE: should be used for life saving only.
These are for a working dive meaning with light exertion. Remember that there are a variety of factors that come into oxygen toxicity, and crossing the 1.6 atm 45min line does not guarantee convulsion, it also does not guarantee it won't.
NOAA OXYGEN
EXCEPTIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS
PO2/Minutes:
2.8 5
2.4 10
2.0 30
1.9 45
1.8 60
1.7 75
1.6 120
1.5 150
1.4 160
1.3 240
As you can see the exceptional times allow you a fairly large margin to use this method for an "escape." The table is NOT linear. Note that exceptional exposures are DANGEROUS and can only be done once in a day. . .
Joel Silverstein
------
Sorry, looked up my old logbook. Nitrox was measuring 34% and there was a guy solo cave diving that didn't make it. Water levels were up. The next day gas measured 30%.
130 ft on EAN32 for a short time is not that problem. It is not only the 1.6 or 1.4 as max (deco or working), but it seems depth plays also a role, same with working or resting. And time of course.
The coughing because of oxygen or the oxygen induced myopia are not the worst problems. That will dissapear in a few days or less. But the convulsions under water you don't want to have. I had over 100% cns just by diving on 1.3 for a couple of hours. I had the OTU warnings after 4 days of intense diving on ccr. But no oxtox problems. The CNS warnings come doing the last decostop at 6m.
I do a cell check on my ccr regularly. So than I push the PO2 a little bit over 1.6 to see liniarity in the cells. Then flush the loop to bring the PO2 back below the 1.6. Normally I dive on 1.2 or 1.3 on working phase, deco manually 1.5-1.6. On oc I calculate the TOD at 1.3.
If you do deep air >60m/200 ft it is AND the narcoses, AND the PO2 AND the CO2. This means you have a PO2 over 1.4 (or higher than 1.6) in a workingphase with higher breathing resistance (CO2), and (some) narcoses. So you are working harder than expected (higher WOB means working too).
The coughing because of oxygen or the oxygen induced myopia are not the worst problems. That will dissapear in a few days or less. But the convulsions under water you don't want to have. I had over 100% cns just by diving on 1.3 for a couple of hours. I had the OTU warnings after 4 days of intense diving on ccr. But no oxtox problems. The CNS warnings come doing the last decostop at 6m.
I do a cell check on my ccr regularly. So than I push the PO2 a little bit over 1.6 to see liniarity in the cells. Then flush the loop to bring the PO2 back below the 1.6. Normally I dive on 1.2 or 1.3 on working phase, deco manually 1.5-1.6. On oc I calculate the TOD at 1.3.
If you do deep air >60m/200 ft it is AND the narcoses, AND the PO2 AND the CO2. This means you have a PO2 over 1.4 (or higher than 1.6) in a workingphase with higher breathing resistance (CO2), and (some) narcoses. So you are working harder than expected (higher WOB means working too).
Similar threads
