• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.113-118
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to compare the ventilatory volume and airway pressure using Oxylator EM-100, MicroVenT CSI-3000, OXY-LIFE II. The data were obtained from February 13 in 2017 andanalyzed using the SPSS WIN 18.0 program. The results of theventilatory volume showed the Oxylator EM-100 551.44 ml (${\pm}18.70$), MicroVenT CSI-3000 527.26 ml (${\pm}17.98$), and OXY-LIFE II 369.46 ml (${\pm}12.30$). The airway pressure showed the Oxylator EM-100 $11.89cmH_2O$ (${\pm}.41$), MicroVenT CSI-3000 $11.66cmH_2O$ (${\pm}.34$), and OXY-LIFE II $8.02cmH_2O$ (${\pm}.25$). This study will provide the basic data for an appropriate ventilation method by an oxygen supply device including Oxylator EM-100, MicroVenT CSI-3000, and OXY-LIFE II.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.29 no.5
• /
• pp.104-109
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to compare the ventilatory volume and airway pressure of a facial mask, endotracheal intubation, King tube, and I-gel devices with an Oxylator EM-100 using a RespiTrainer. The data were obtained from July 20 to 21, 2015. Data were analyzed using SPSS WIN 18.0 software. The ventilatory volume for endotracheal intubation was 537 ml (95% CI 530~545 ml), that for the King tube was 502 ml (95% CI 499~506 ml), that for the I-gel was 88 ml (95% CI 485~491 ml), and that for the facial mask was 499 ml (95% CI 496~503 ml). The airway pressure for endotracheal intubation was $11.34cmH_2O$ (95% CI $11.21{\sim}11.41cmH_2O$), that for the King tube was $10.67cmH_2O$ (95% CI $10.60{\sim}10.75cmH_2O$), that for the I-gel was $10.42cmH_2O$ (95% CI $10.35{\sim}10.67cmH_2O$), and that for the facial mask was $10.61cmH_2O$ (95% CI $10.55{\sim}10.68cmH_2O$). As a result, we were able to identify the appropriate ventilatory volume using the Oxylator EM-100.