Delivering warm, humidified gas to patients is important during mechanical ventilation. Heated humidifiers are effective and popular. The humidifying efficiency is influenced not only by performance and settings of the devices but the settings of ventilator. We compared the efficiency of humidifying devices with a heated wire and servo-controlled function under a variety of ventilator settings. A bench study was done with a TTL model lung. The study took place in the laboratory of the University Hospital, Osaka, Japan. Four devices (MR290 with MR730, MR310 with MR730; both Fisher & Paykel, ConchaTherm IV; Hudson RCI, and HummaxII; METRAN) were tested. Hummax II has been developed recently, and it consists of a heated wire and polyethylene microporous hollow fiber. Both wire and fiber were put inside of an inspiratory circuit, and water vapor is delivered throughout the circuit. The Servo 300 was connected to the TTL with a standard ventilator circuit. The ventilator settings were as follows; minute ventilation (V(E)) 5, 10, and 15 L/min, a respiratory rate of 10 breaths/min, I:E ratio 1:1, 1:2, and 1:4, and no applied PEEP. Humidifying devices were set to maintain the temperature of airway opening at 32 degrees C and 37 degrees C. The greater V(E) the lower the humidity with all devices except Hummax II. Hummax II delivered 100% relative humidity at all ventilator and humidifier settings. When airway temperature control of the devices was set at 32 degrees C, the ConchaTherm IV did not deliver 30 mg/L of vapor, which is the value recommended by American National Standards at all V(E) settings. At 10 and 15 L/min of V(E) settings MR310 with MR730 did not deliver recommended vapor, either. In conclusion, airway temperature setting of the humidifying devices influenced the humidity of inspiratory gas greatly. Ventilatory settings also influenced the humidity of inspiratory gas. The Hummax II delivered sufficient water vapor under a variety of minute ventilation.