• Erich Knolle, Georg Heinze, and Hermann Gilly.
• Department of Anesthesiology and General Intensive Care (B), University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. erich.knolle@univie.ac.at
• Anesth. Analg. 2002 Sep 1; 95 (3): 650-5, table of contents.

UnlabelledIn this study we sought to determine whether an absorbent in which little carbon monoxide (CO) forms has a correspondingly small capacity to absorb carbon dioxide (CO(2)). Completely dried samples (600 g) of Baralyme (A), Drägersorb 800 (B), Drägersorb 800 Plus (C), Intersorb (D), Spherasorb (E), LoFloSorb (F), Superia (G), and Amsorb (H) were exposed to a flow of 0.5% (A-H; n = 4-5) and 4% isoflurane (F-H; n = 3) in pure oxygen at 5 L/min for 60 min. Downstream CO concentration, temperature, and isoflurane concentration were recorded every 60 s to calculate CO formation and isoflurane loss. The CO(2) absorption capacity of each brand was determined by passing 5.1% CO(2) in oxygen (flow, 250 mL/min) through untreated samples (30 g; n = 5) until the outlet CO(2) concentration reached 0.5%. CO formation was largest in absorbents containing potassium hydroxide (A and B) and negligible in absorbents not containing any alkali hydroxide (F-H). The outlet temperature correlated with CO formation, but the isoflurane loss did not. The duration of CO(2) absorption also did not correlate with CO formation. We conclude that absorbents that allow only very little CO formation are not necessarily poor CO(2) absorbents.ImplicationsIn an in vitro study, carbon dioxide (CO(2)) absorption capacity and possible carbon monoxide (CO) formation were tested in different absorbent brands. Absorbents with very small CO formation are not necessarily poor CO(2) absorbents.

18 keywords...

hide…