Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditor's Choice

In Vitro–In Silico Comparison of Pulsed Oxygen Delivery From Portable Oxygen Concentrators Versus Continuous Flow Oxygen Delivery

John Z Chen, Ira M Katz, Marine Pichelin, Kaixian Zhu, Georges Caillibotte, Warren H Finlay and Andrew R Martin
Respiratory Care February 2019, 64 (2) 117-129; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.06359
John Z Chen
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Ira M Katz
Medical R&D, Air Liquide Santé International, Centre de Recherche Paris-Saclay, Les Loges-en-Josas, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marine Pichelin
Medical R&D, Air Liquide Santé International, Centre de Recherche Paris-Saclay, Les Loges-en-Josas, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kaixian Zhu
Centre Explor!, Air Liquide Healthcare, Gentilly, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georges Caillibotte
Medical R&D, Air Liquide Santé International, Centre de Recherche Paris-Saclay, Les Loges-en-Josas, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Warren H Finlay
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew R Martin
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Comparison of volume-averaged FIO2 by using Subject MRI2, with a mean volume-averaged FIO2 across 15 airway replicas. Data for both pulse deliveries from a SimplyGo portable oxygen concentrator and continuous flow oxygen from a stationary source of compressed oxygen are included. Error bars indicate ±1 SD.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Commercial portable oxygen concentrators tested in this study.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Schematic of apparatus used in experiments that involve airway replicas. Arrows indicate direction of oxygen flow. From Reference 10, with permission.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Sample flow and oxygen fraction waveforms generated by the experimental apparatus for pulsed delivery of oxygen. From Reference 10, with permission.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    Volume-averaged FIO2 and pulse characteristics for each of the tested portable oxygen concentrators and continuous flow oxygen across 3 breathing patterns. FIO2 values were averaged over 5 consecutive breaths. Other pulse characteristics averaged >20 consecutive breaths. Error bars indicate ±1 SD.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    Pulse flow curves generated by the O2 Conserver Testing System for each portable oxygen concentrators (POC) at setting 2 for each device and breathing frequency of 17 breaths/min.

  • Fig. 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7.

    Comparisons of volume-averaged FIO2 measured in airway experiments with volume-averaged FIO2 predicted by using pulse characteristics. Vertical error bars indicate ±1 SD of FIO2 determined from airway experiments over 5 consecutive breaths. Horizontal error bars indicate ±1 SD of FIO2, determined by using pulse characteristics over 20 consecutive breaths. Identity line shown for comparison.

  • Fig. 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 8.

    Sample output of MATLAB simulation (SimplyGo Mini, exercise breathing pattern, device setting 5). The trachea line represents oxygen concentration passing the trachea over time determined by the in vitro experiments. Oxygen passing generation 14 enters the gas exchange regions of the lung.

  • Fig. 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 9.

    Volumes of oxygen passing through the trachea, passing into the alveolar region, and the ratio of these 2 numbers (ie, a measure of the fraction of the oxygen passing the trachea that reaches the alveolar region) for all tested portable oxygen concentrators and continuous flow oxygen.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
  • Table 1.
  • Table 2.
  • Table 3.
  • Table 4.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Online data supplement

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Online data supplement
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 64 (2)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 64, Issue 2
1 Feb 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
In Vitro–In Silico Comparison of Pulsed Oxygen Delivery From Portable Oxygen Concentrators Versus Continuous Flow Oxygen Delivery
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
In Vitro–In Silico Comparison of Pulsed Oxygen Delivery From Portable Oxygen Concentrators Versus Continuous Flow Oxygen Delivery
John Z Chen, Ira M Katz, Marine Pichelin, Kaixian Zhu, Georges Caillibotte, Warren H Finlay, Andrew R Martin
Respiratory Care Feb 2019, 64 (2) 117-129; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06359

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
In Vitro–In Silico Comparison of Pulsed Oxygen Delivery From Portable Oxygen Concentrators Versus Continuous Flow Oxygen Delivery
John Z Chen, Ira M Katz, Marine Pichelin, Kaixian Zhu, Georges Caillibotte, Warren H Finlay, Andrew R Martin
Respiratory Care Feb 2019, 64 (2) 117-129; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06359
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methodology
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT)
  • ambulatory oxygen
  • portable oxygen concentrator (POC)
  • lung simulator
  • nasal cannula
  • chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  • oxygen therapy
  • lung model
  • trumpet model
  • pulse

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire