11 Aralık 2012 Salı

OXTOX from DAN website http://www.diversalertnetwork.org


OXTOX: If You Dive Nitrox You Should Know About OXTOX

Bookmark and Share
DAN discusses the dangers of oxygen toxicity when using nitrox as a breathing gas
By Dr. E.D. Thalmann, DAN Assistant Medical Director; Captain, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy (retired)
It's a fact: we need oxygen to live. It's because of the way our cells use oxygen that we are able to breathe, exercise, and even think. In each of our cells, structures called mitochondria take the oxygen which diffuses in from our blood, disassemble it into its two component atoms (remember, oxygen - O2 - is composed of two oxygen atoms), and then hook some available hydrogen nuclei to them to form water.
The process releases energy, which is used for all functions of life. The problem is that in disassembling the oxygen molecule, it involves a step in which an extra electron is hooked on. This forms an intermediate called a superoxide anion, and this is a bad actor. It is highly reactive, and it will make mincemeat out of most other molecules it comes in contact with.
These anions are like coals in a furnace: as long as they are contained, we get lots of safe chemical energy; if they get out we get a great deal of damage. The mitochondria are designed to contain these superoxide anions, but just in case some get loose, there are a host of protective chemical reactions designed to sop them up and prevent them from doing any damage.
Besides producing excessive amounts of the superoxide anion, elevated tissue oxygen levels also affect a variety of other biochemical reactions which may affect oxygen toxicity in ways that are only beginning to be understood. Tissue-protective mechanisms and biochemical reactions are tuned to life in an atmosphere containing 21 percent oxygen, or 0.21 atmospheres absolute (ata) oxygen partial pressure. (See sidebar: "Remember Partial Pressure?", page 34.) As the partial pressure increases above this comfortable 0.21 ata, protective mechanisms are slowly overwhelmed and biochemical reactions are affected. This may eventually result in "oxtox," or oxygen toxicity.
Oxtox - What Is It?
Oxygen toxicity is a time duration phenomenon: that is, both time and partial pressure play a role. If an oxygen partial pressure of 2 ata is breathed for a few minutes, there would probably not be any problem. But, breathing it for an hour, might cause problems. This is why oxygen exposure limits are given as partial pressure/time limits. As the partial pressure gets higher, the recommended exposure time gets shorter.
What kind of problems might breathing a high oxygen partial pressure cause? It is the lungs and the brain which are the target organs of major concern in diving oxygen toxicity. Oxygen toxicity in the lungs (pulmonary oxygen toxicity) is like getting a bad case of the flu, but it will rarely cause permanent damage. The most common situation in which pulmonary oxygen toxicity might occur is during very long recompression treatments.
Oxygen toxicity of the brain, commonly referred to as central nervous system (CNS) oxygen toxicity, is different. It can occur during actual diving, and when it does, it can ruin your day - and possibly more. Some symptoms of CNS oxygen toxicity include flashing lights in front of the eyes, tunnel vision, loud ringing or roaring in the ear (tinnitus), confusion, lethargy, a feeling of nausea or vertigo, areas of numbness or tingling, and muscular twitching, especially of the lips.
These CNS symptoms are inconvenient, and a warning to change to a breathing gas with a lower oxygen partial pressure as soon as possible, but do not put the diver at risk of injury at this point. The big daddy of CNS symptoms does, however. It is the full-blown grand mal convulsion. During a convulsion, a diver will thrash about, perhaps bang his head into something hard, or if underwater, may lose his mouthpiece. The result can be trauma or drowning.
The good news is that convulsions are rare; the bad news is that all the inconvenient CNS symptoms noted above do not always provide warning of an impending convulsion. In some cases, a convulsion may occur without any warning at all. One more piece of good news: the convulsion in and of itself is not harmful, so if you don't crack your head or drown, you should have no permanent damage.
By now you're probably asking where these dire descriptions are leading.
To a better understanding, we hope, of diving on nitrox. As air-breathing sport divers need to know about decompression sickness (DCS), divers using high oxygen in nitrogen mixtures (nitrox) need to know about oxygen toxicity. (To read more about nitrox, see Alert Diver, January/February 1996, p.32.)
Both decompression sickness and oxygen toxicity are rare occurrences; they can be made rarer with good diving practices. With DCS, it's using your table or computer conservatively and keeping the ascent rate down. With oxtox, it's paying attention to the partial pressure and the amount of exposure time.
The main thing we're discussing here is CNS oxygen toxicity, because this is the most dangerous kind. Lung oxygen toxicity is unlikely to be a problem for recreational divers, so it will be mentioned only in passing.
Remember Partial Pressure?
The partial pressure of a gas is a measure of the number of molecules in a given volume - the molecular concentration. The physiological effects of a gas are due mainly to its partial pressure, no matter what the total pressure is.
If a gas has only one component, say 100-percent oxygen, the partial pressure and the pressure are the same. If there is a gas mix, then the partial pressure is the gas fraction times the total pressure. A 50 percent oxygen-in-nitrogen mix has an oxygen partial pressure (pO2) of 1.0 atmosphere absolute (ata) at a depth of 33 feet / 10 meters where the total pressure is 2 ata.
At this depth the 50 percent oxygen would have the same physiological effect as 100 percent oxygen at the surface. Breathing a 100 percent oxygen mix at a depth of 33 feet / 10 meters (2 ata total pressure) would be equivalent to breathing the 50 percent mix at 132 feet / 40 meters (5 ata total pressure).
Royal Navy Studies
The grand old man of CNS oxygen toxicity is Professor Kenneth Donald, who cut his teeth on the problem during World War II in Great Britain. (Want to know more? Read Reference 1, page 40.) At that time the Royal Navy was under pressure to develop the technology used by the Italians to severely damage the battleships HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant in the harbor of the port city of Alexandria, Egypt, in 1941.
Italian divers wearing 100 percent oxygen rebreathers, drove a torpedo close into a ship. While submerged to avoid detection, they detached its warhead under the ship's hull, and beat a hasty retreat after a timer was set.
The Royal Navy soon began developing its own band of underwater divers called "Charioteers" to carry out similar missions. Dr. Donald was assigned as a Surgeon Lieutenant to provide medical care during training of the divers using the British 100 percent oxygen rebreathers. The accepted safe limits for breathing 100 percent oxygen at the time (2 hours at 50 feet / 15 meters, 30 minutes at 90 feet / 27 meters) produced enough convulsions that the British Admiralty decided some sort of studies were needed to define the scope of the problem and, hopefully, find a solution.
About to be transferred to the Shetland Islands, Dr. Donald had a change of fortune and proceeded instead to a facility just outside of London, where he found himself heading up a major research effort to get a handle on the problem of CNS oxygen toxicity.
Royal Navy Discoveries
Over the next three years, Dr. Donald's team conducted literally hundreds of exposures on human volunteers (remember, there was a war on). This series of studies formed the basis of what we know about CNS oxygen toxicity, namely:
  • There is a large individual variation in susceptibility and time of onset to symptoms. This is what is referred to as "oxygen tolerance."
  • Compared to dry exposures, immersion decreases oxygen tolerance a great deal, decreasing exposure times up to a factor of four or five.
  • Exercise decreases oxygen tolerance a lot, compared to rest.
  • Diving in very cold (<49°F / 9°C) or very warm (>88°F / 31°C) water seems to decrease oxygen tolerance.
    The goal of the research was to develop a set of oxygen exposure limits - that is, a table that indicated how long a diver could safely breathe 100 percent oxygen at various depths. The main obstacle toward developing a good set of exposure limits was the large individual variation in oxygen tolerance. Not only did the time of onset and severity of CNS symptoms vary considerably between divers, but in a given diver there was a large day-to-day variation. One stalwart individual made dives twice a week for over three months on exactly the same dive profile (70 feet / 21 meters, 65°F / 18°C, at rest, 100-percent oxygen) until signs of oxygen toxicity developed (again, a notable contribution to the war effort!). His symptom onset time was random and ranged from seven minutes to 148 minutes!
    As a result of these studies, the Royal Navy considered it unsafe to breathe 100 percent oxygen below a depth of 25 feet / 7.6 meters (an oxygen partial pressure of 1.76 ata). In fact 25 feet / 7.6 meters was the shallowest depth tested. No particular time limit was given for this exposure, but the longest time tested was two hours. The carbon dioxide absorbent canisters of the diving rigs of the day rarely lasted more than 90 minutes.
    The Royal Navy made deeper dives by using nitrogen-oxygen mixtures in the newly developed semi-closed circuit rebreathers. This was the beginning of so-called "mixed-gas diving," where the breathing gas is mixed from oxygen and nitrogen rather than simply being compressed from atmospheric air.
    U.S. Navy Studies
    In the 1950s, Dr. E.H. Lanphier, then a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps, undertook a series of studies at the Navy Experimental Diving Unit (NEDU), located at that time in Washington, D.C., to investigate whether oxygen exposure limits could be developed for 100 percent oxygen dives deeper than 25 feet / 7.6 meters. Table 1 (below) shows the limits that he recommended. The 100 percent oxygen exposure limits in Table 1 remained in use up to 1970 and with only slight modifications were used through 1991 when they were again changed.
    Dr. Lanphier was also charged with investigating how these limits should be applied to the oxygen partial pressures encountered in mixed-gas nitrox diving. During nitrox diving, oxygen partial pressures similar to those used in 100 percent oxygen diving may be encountered, but since nitrogen has been added, these partial pressures are reached at a greater depth and, therefore, at a greater breathing gas density.
    U.S. Findings
    From his studies, Dr. Lanphier concluded that the increased gas density encountered during mixed-gas nitrox diving required the exposure times at a given oxygen partial pressure to be shorter than for 100 percent oxygen rebreathers, which can be used only at shallow depths, and which result in a lower gas density. The reason for this decreased tolerance during nitrox diving was thought to be due to decreased carbon dioxide elimination at the greater depths, resulting in higher blood carbon dioxide levels. This would make the diver more sensitive to oxygen toxicity.
    These U.S. Navy nitrox mixed-gas nitrogen-oxygen exposure limits are shown in Table 2 (page 36). Notice that compared to those for 100 percent oxygen breathing in Table 1, these are quite a bit shorter for the same partial pressure. With the advent of closed-circuit oxygen rebreathers, the U.S. Navy no longer uses nitrox scuba and no longer publishes nitrox exposure limits in their official diving manual.
    The Conflict - and Some Good Advice
    The British disagreed with Dr. Lanphier's findings, and the Royal Navy set exposure limits for nitrox diving that were no different than for 100 percent oxygen diving. This area remains controversial - Dr. Donald's case for keeping the exposure limits the same for both 100 percent oxygen and nitrox diving has weaknesses and should not be accepted as proven.
    Dr. Lanphier's work is certainly compelling enough that divers should be very cautious before extrapolating oxygen exposure limits based on 100 percent oxygen rebreathing directly to nitrox diving at higher gas densities. Ideally, nitrox limits should be tested at the maximum gas density anticipated for their use.
    CO2 Retention
    Why would carbon dioxide (CO2) retention become a problem at increased gas densities? There have been many studies showing that as depth increases while breathing air, the high oxygen and increased gas density will normally slow the rate at which we breathe and thereby the rate at which we eliminate carbon dioxide. This will raise the blood levels of carbon dioxide. On top of this, however, is the fact that, because of individual variations, not all divers will slow their breathing in the same amounts.
    Dr. Lanphier investigated the problem of divers who tended to breathe more slowly during diving than would normally be expected - so-called "carbon dioxide retainers." He felt that these individuals would be at an especially high risk of CNS oxygen toxicity when breathing high oxygen in nitrogen gas mixtures. Should a nitrox diver be concerned about whether he is a carbon dioxide retainer? Unfortunately, there is no good test to reliably identify carbon dioxide retainers. The best strategy at present is to use conservative oxygen exposure limits.
    More U.S. Studies - Oxygen Exposure Limits
    In the late 1970s and early ?s, the Navy Experimental Diving Unit (NEDU) - now moved to Panama City, Fla.- conducted a series of studies to look at longer exposure times breathing 100 percent oxygen at shallow depths while exercising at levels typically encountered by combat swimmers while swimming long distances underwater. (Remember, exposure times developed using divers at rest may well cause problems for exercising divers, since exercise decreases oxygen tolerance.)
    The conclusion of the study was that four-hour exposures at 25 feet / 7.6 meters (1.76 ata) had a low probability of causing CNS symptoms but were not without hazard since a convulsion was reported at this depth after 72 minutes of exercise. Because of this hazard, it was recommended that routine exposures be carried no deeper than 20 feet / 6.1 meters (1.6 ata) for up to four hours, with a single excursion between 21 and 40 feet / 6.4 and 12 meters for 15 minutes, or between 41 and 50 feet / 12 and 15 meters for five minutes.
    Even this recommendation does not completely eliminate the possibility of a convulsion. One diver had a convulsion at 20 feet / 6.1 meters approximately 48 minutes after making a 15-minute excursion to 40 feet / 12 meters at the beginning of the dive. These studies had their share of oxygen convulsions and verified their unpredictability as observed by Dr. Donald some 40 years earlier. One feature of these convulsions that deserves mentioning is that they usually occurred with little or no warning.
    With the advent of nitrox diving it is wise to consider these studies. Dr. Andrea Harabin, a scientist at the Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI) in Bethesda, Md., analyzed the human oxygen exposures from the NEDU studies and used a mathematical model to predict the probability of CNS oxygen toxicity symptoms occurring. (See Reference 2, page 40 for details.)
    When she considered all symptoms which resulted in the diver stopping his dive, she found that the model had a threshold at 1.3 ata; that is, the probability of a CNS symptom occurring at or below this level should be essentially zero.
    Some of the CNS symptoms that caused dives to be halted could have been due to many other reasons besides oxygen toxicity and were classified as "Probable." In contrast, with "Convulsions" and "Definite Symptoms" (see Table 3, page 37), there is usually no question that oxygen toxicity is the culprit. When Dr. Harabin considered just the convulsions and definite symptoms, she found the thresholds to be 1.7 ata. This analysis again reflects the large degree of uncertainty inherent in these types of human exposures.
    USN 100 Percent Oxygen Rebreather Exposure Limits (1954)
    TABLE 1
    Normal Operations
    Depth (feet)
    10
    15
    20
    25
    Time (min)
    240
    120
    90
    65
    Exceptional Exposure Operations
    Depth (feet)
    30
    35
    40
    45
    Time (min)
    45
    34
    25
    15
    USN Oxygen Exposure Limits for Nitrogen-Oxygen Mixed-Gas Diving (1956)
    TABLE 2
    Normal Exposures
    Oxygen Partial Pressure (ata)
    1.6
    1.5
    1.4
    1.3
    1.2
    1.1
    1.0
    Time (min)
    30
    40
    50
    60
    80
    120
    240
    Exceptional Exposures
    Oxygen Partial Pressure (ata)
    2.0
    1.9
    1.8
    1.7
    1.6
    1.5
    1.4
    1.3
    Time (min)
    30
    40
    50
    60
    80
    120
    240
    What Oxygen Level Is Safe?
    So, what levels of oxygen can be breathed safely? Currently, the U.S. Navy is using 1.3 ata as the maximum limit in its closed-circuit rebreathers - the more conservative threshold found by Dr. Harabin for exercising divers. Using these closed-circuit rigs, exposures exceeding eight hours are possible, and at the 1.3 ata level the chance of CNS oxygen toxicity should be very rare.
    Very long exposures, however, may put the diver at risk for some lung toxicity symptoms. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) takes a slightly more conservative approach, recommending 180 minutes at 1.3 ata for normal exposures and 240 minutes only for exceptional exposures (see Table 4). This additional conservatism, according to NOAA, "take(s) operational safety considerations into consideration and are sufficient in duration for anticipated NOAA dives."
    The NOAA limits shown in Table 4 are based on the results of the NEDU oxygen exposure limit studies done in the ?s, taking the increased gas densities encountered in nitrox diving into account. The "normal exposure limits" are longer than the nitrox limits proposed by Dr. Lanphier in Table 2 (page 36) but are quite a bit shorter than the 240 minutes, 1.6 ata exposure, currently allowed by the U.S. Navy for 100 percent oxygen diving. However, the "exceptional exposure limits" are virtually the same as originally recommended by Dr. Lanphier, showing that there has not been much change in opinion as to what is safe at these higher partial pressures.
    PADI, the Professional Association of Diving Instructors, has proposed a limit of 1.4 ata for open-circuit nitrox scuba diving. Because open-circuit scuba diving would not expose divers to this level continuously, in practice it should be as safe, or safer, than the 1.3 ata U.S. Navy limit for continuous exposures. (See sidebar "Continuous vs. Intermittent Exposures," page 40.) In fact, the shallow exposure times in the 1.3- to 1.4-ata range are mainly to avoid lung oxygen toxicity; the likelihood of CNS toxicity at these levels is very low and probably not much different over this range.
    Is it possible to breathe oxygen at a higher oxygen partial pressure (pO2)?
    The answer is yes, but! Dr. Harabin's analysis gave a threshold limit of 1.7 ata (23 feet / 7 meters) for an exercising diver when considering only "convulsions" and "definite" symptoms. This is uncomfortably close to the 25-foot / 7.6-meter (1.76 ata) depth where a convulsion was reported, so backing off to 20 feet / 6.1 meters(1.6 ata) gives a little more breathing room.
    Currently the U.S. Navy would allow an exercising exposure at this partial pressure for up to four hours, but that assumes breathing 100 percent oxygen at 25 feet / 7.6 meters by trained combat swimmers. A depth excursion of only 5 feet / 1.5 meters would put the diver in an area where convulsions have been reported, and divers who tend to retain carbon dioxide during exercise may be at increased risk.
    The NOAA limit for nitrox diving at 1.6 ata is 45 minutes for normal diving and 120 minutes for exceptional exposure diving. Again, some conservatism is built into these limits and consideration given to the fact that this partial pressure may be breathed at higher gas densities than would be encountered by the divers using 100 percent oxygen.
    During a nitrox dive done at Duke University's F.G. Hall Hypo/Hyperbaric Center at 100 feet / 30 meters, breathing 1.6 ata pO2 (oxygen partial pressure) during heavy exercise, a convulsion occurred after 40 minutes. Perhaps this would not have occurred had there been a lower level of exercise, but it does seem to indicate that the NOAA limit of 45 minutes for 1.6 ata nitrox diving is not overly conservative.
    Breathing 100 percent oxygen during the 20-foot / 6.1-meter decompression stop is common practice, and at this depth, the partial pressure will be about 1.6 ata. At this shallow depth, under conditions of rest, the chance of CNS oxygen toxicity should be very low. But, like most things in life, this is not certain, as evidenced by a recently reported oxygen convulsion at 20 feet / 6.1 meters during decompression by a technical diver after completing a dive on the Lusitania.
    TABLE 3
    Symptoms of CNS Oxygen Toxicity Encountered in NEDU Studies
    Convulsions: the most serious symptom and the one to avoid at all cost.
    Definite: muscle twitching, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), blurred or tunnel vision, disorientation, aphasia (inability to express oneself by speaking), nystagmus (rapid side-to-side motions of the eye), or incoordination.
    Probable: more equivocal signs which could be due to oxygen toxicity as well as other causes: light headdress apprehension, dysphoria ("just didn't feel right"), lethargy, and transient nausea.
    Recommendations
    One thing you should be impressed with by now is that oxygen toxicity is fickle; convulsions have occurred at shallow depths under conditions where most experts would not have expected them to occur.
    So, as an air sport diver, how should you view nitrox diving? The answer is: carefully.
    Experts rationalizing why particular oxygen exposure limits do or do not cause oxygen toxicity are like investment analysts rationalizing movements in the stock market - everyone has a reason, but know one really knows why!
    First, whenever a gas is breathed with an oxygen fraction above 21 percent, you should assume that oxygen toxicity is a possibility and have appropriate training. This not only means having a buddy clearly visible at all times but also knowing what action to take should oxygen toxicity occur. (See sidebar: "What do you do if oxygen toxicity or a convulsion happens?" )
    Second, using equipment designed to compress high oxygen mixtures can be hazardous in itself and requires special training.
    Third, what you get in your tank may not be what you expect. A method of analyzing the amount of oxygen in the tank independent of the filling station must be available.
    Fourth, if you are attracted to rebreathers, remember that they are complex pieces of life-support gear, requiring much more care and feeding than the good old scuba regulator. If you get into rebreathers, expect to get hit with good-sized training and maintenance costs.
    Finally, there is the matter of keeping the possibility of oxygen toxicity to a minimum.
    Moving Ahead
    For open-circuit scuba diving, consider the "green light" region any oxygen partial pressure of 1.4 ata or less (this is about 82 feet / 25 meters on a 40-percent oxygen mix.) As long as this level is never exceeded, other limitations of open-circuit scuba diving will limit the exposure time to lengths where CNS oxygen toxicity is unlikely to be encountered, even for exposures approaching four hours.
    Proceeding With Caution
    Between 1.4 ata and 1.6 ata (this is 99 feet / 30 meters on a 40-percent mix) is the "yellow light" region. The possibility of oxygen toxicity at 1.6 ata is low, but the margin of error is very slim compared to 1.4 ata. Individual variation, the likelihood of an unplanned depth excursion causing an increase in oxygen partial pressure, and the possibility of having to perform heavy exercise in an emergency put the possibility of oxygen toxicity at levels where caution should be exercised. Thus, levels of 1.5 to 1.6 ata should be reserved for conditions where the diver is completely at rest, such as during decompression. Again, as noted previously, the dive team must still be prepared for the possibility of an oxygen convulsion at these levels.
    Stop!
    Above 1.6 ata is the "red light" area. Just don't do it. Yes, there is evidence that short exposures at higher levels of pO2 (oxygen partial pressure) are possible but so are convulsions. At these levels, oxygen exposure depth/time limits must be adhered to. Even mild exercise may put divers breathing high-density nitrox mixes at increased risk; and even open-circuit scuba divers can achieve durations likely to get them into trouble at these levels. Diving using these high partial pressures of oxygen should be left to the trained professionals who can weigh the risks and benefits and who have the necessary training and support structure in place, if an oxygen convulsion occurs.
    Finally...
    Nitrox diving may extend bottom times or decrease the possibility of decompression sickness, depending on how it's used, but it adds to the risk of oxygen toxicity. Decompression sickness rarely occurs in the water and is rarely life-threatening. When it happens underwater, however, life support is usually not an issue - instead, attention is focused on getting to a treatment chamber. If an oxygen convulsion occurs, it almost always occurs underwater, greatly complicating treatment. So while the probability of a convulsion may be low, the possibility of severe injury or death is high if it does occur. Taken together this makes it a risky occurrence, and each diver needs to consider that risk whenever nitrox is used. Experience and good training are essential. This is an area that requires team diving, with the whole team full trained in nitrox diving.
    What do you do if oxygen toxicity or a convulsion happens?
    Editor's note: After reading the article on nitrox in the January/February 1996 Alert Diver, a DAN member asked what the recommended procedure was in the event of an underwater oxygen convulsion. An oxygen convulsion in the water is rare but potentially life-threatening. Like learning CPR, practicing the proper handling of an oxygen convulsion is maintaining a skill you hope you'll never use. The organization with the most experience with 100 percent oxygen diving is the United States Navy. Its recommendations for managing oxygen toxicity is as follows:
    According to the USN Dive Manual sections 14.9.1.1 and 14.9.1.2 the suggested procedure for dealing with seizures is:
    Management of Nonconvulsive Symptoms. The stricken diver should alert his dive buddy and make a controlled ascent to the surface. The victim's life preserver should be inflated (if necessary) with the dive buddy watching him closely for progression of symptoms.
    Management of Underwater Convulsion. The following steps should be taken when treating a convulsing diver:
    a. Assume a position behind the convulsing diver. Release the victim's weight belt unless he is wearing a drysuit, in which case the weight belt should be left in place to prevent the diver from assuming a face-down position on the surface.
    b. Leave the victim's mouthpiece in his mouth. If it is not in his mouth, do not attempt to replace it; however, if time permits, ensure that the mouthpiece is switched to the surface position.
    c. Grasp the victim around his chest above the underwater breathing apparatus (UBA) or between the UBA and his body. If difficulty is encountered in gaining control of the victim in this manner, the rescuer should use the best method possible to obtain control. The UBA waist or neck strap may be grasped if necessary.
    d. Make a controlled ascent to the surface, maintaining a slight pressure on the diver's chest to assist exhalation.(see commentary below)
    e. If additional buoyancy is required, activate the victim's life jacket. The rescuer should not release his own weight belt or inflate his own life jacket.
    f. Upon reaching the surface, inflate the victim's life jacket if not previously done.
    g. Remove the victim's mouthpiece and switch the valve to SURFACE to prevent the possibility of the rig flooding and weighing down the victim.
    h. Signal for emergency pick-up.
    i. Once the convulsion has subsided, open the victim's airway by tilting his head back slightly.
    j. Ensure the victim is breathing. Mouth-to-mouth breathing may be initiated if necessary.
    k. If an upward excursion occurred during the actual convulsion, transport to the nearest chamber and have the victim evaluated by an individual trained to recognize and treat diving-related illness.
    Deciding whether to ascend with a diver who is convulsing can be tricky. In section 8-2.4 of Volume 1 of the U.S. Navy diving manual it states:
    "If a diver convulses, the UBA should be ventilated immediately with a gas of lower oxygen content, if possible. If depth control is possible and gas supply is secure (helmet or full face mask), the diver's depth should be kept constant until the convulsion subsides. If an ascent must take place, it should be done as slowly as possible. If a diver surfaces unconscious because of an oxygen convulsion or to avoid drowning, the diver must be treated as if suffering from arterial gas embolism."
    Obviously, a full face mask is the best way to perform diving with high oxygen mixes because the diver can be kept at depth until the convulsion subsides. If the diver is breathing from a mouthpiece and it comes out of his mouth, there is no option but to surface the diver, since when the convulsion stops he will try to take a breath. Training and practice are the only ways to ensure that divers will know how to bring a convulsing diver to the surface, using a slow, controlled ascent, if that becomes necessary.
    In the section on the management of underwater convulsions, the reference to switching the mouthpiece to the surface position would refer only to rebreathers where an open mouthpiece which inadvertently becomes submerged can flood the UBA.
    Also, step g should be modified if the victim is breathing nitrox using open-circuit scuba. If someone is convulsing, you won't be able to remove the mouthpiece; and this should never be done by force. Once the convulsion subsides, if the mouthpiece is secure (or if the diver is wearing a full face mask) and if the diver is still in the water and breathing, then leave everything in place until you can get the injured diver out of the water. If he is not breathing, then remove the mouthpiece once on the surface and begin rescue breathing.
    The main goal while the injured diver is in the water is to keep him from drowning. Next is to ensure that his airway is open after the convulsion stops by keeping the neck extended.
    Finally, be on the lookout for foreign bodies in the trachea. It is possible to bite off the parts of the mouthpiece between the teeth during a convulsion, which can find their way into the trachea, blocking the airway. In these cases, the injured diver will begin coughing as he returns to consciousness, or he may try to breathe but not get any air into his lungs. Here you need to institute the standard procedures taught in CPR classes for foreign body obstruction of the trachea.
    Continuous vs. Intermittent Oxygen Exposures
    Remember that CNS oxygen toxicity symptoms are a time-duration phenomenon. They will not suddenly occur the minute a particular partial pressure is exceeded - it takes time. As you can see from the exposure limits in the tables (Table 4), as the inspired oxygen partial pressure increases, the exposure time decreases.
    The U.S. Navy limit of 1.3 ata for continuous exposures reflects their desire to keep the risk of CNS symptoms essentially zero, no matter how long the dive.
    In nitrox diving, however, divers breathe from open-circuit scuba with a fixed fraction of oxygen in the breathing mix. PADI has chosen 1.4 ata as the maximum open-circuit scuba limit; the limitations placed on duration by open-circuit scuba will ensure that the likelihood of CNS oxygen toxicity is no greater than would be experienced by the U.S. Navy closed-circuit divers.
    When using open-circuit scuba, the 1.4 ata maximum oxygen partial pressure is reached only at the maximum depth, and for the vast majority of recreation divers, the time spent at this maximum depth will be limited to times where CNS oxygen toxicity is unlikely to be encountered. At all shallower depths, the oxygen partial pressure will be lower, and the overall exposure during the entire dive is unlikely to have physiological effects significantly different than a continuous 1.3 ata exposure. Be careful when extending this analogy to higher partial pressures, however. Formulas are available for integrating the exposures at various depths to predict overall exposure times when looking only at lung oxygen toxicity. This concept does have some support research done at Dr. C.J. Lambertsen's laboratory at the Institute of Environmental Medicine in Philadelphia, Pa.
    The case for CNS oxygen toxicity is much more complicated. Research done at the Navy Experimental Diving Unit (NEDU) in 1986 specifically looked at how brief exposures to oxygen partial pressures of 2.0 ata or greater would impact the overall exposure time at 20 feet / 6.1 meters of sea water (fsw). The results were not clear, and it was obvious that no formula could be developed which would allow integration of oxygen exposures at various depths into a single indicator which would help the diver avoid CNS oxygen toxicity. The best that could be said is that a single 15-minute excursion to 40 fsw/12 msw, or for five minutes at 50 fsw/15 msw, probably had no significant effect. This formed the basis of the current U.S. Navy recommendations. No such research has yet been carried out for high oxygen nitrox diving, to my knowledge.
    Dr. E.D. Thalmann
    Oxygen Partial Pressure and Exposure Time Limits for Nitrogen-Oxygen Mixed-Gas Working Dives (from NOAA 1991 Diving Manual)
    TABLE 4
    Normal Operations
    Oxygen Partial Pressure (ata)
    1.6
    1.5
    1.4
    1.3
    1.2
    1.1
    1.0
    0.9
    0.8
    0.7
    0.6
    Maximum Duration for a Single Exposure (min.)
    45
    120
    150
    180
    210
    240
    300
    360
    450
    570
    720
    Maximum Total Duration for any 24-Hour Day (min.)
    150
    180
    180
    210
    240
    270
    300
    360
    450
    570
    720
    Exceptional Exposures
    Oxygen Partial Pressure (ata)
    2.0
    1.9
    1.8
    1.7
    1.6
    1.5
    1.4
    1.3
    Time (min)
    30
    45
    60
    75
    120
    150
    180
    240
    REFERENCES
    Donald KM. Oxygen and the Diver. England: Images, 1993. Available through Best Publishing Co., Flagstaff, Ariz. (This reference also covers all of the NEDU studies mentioned and gives full citations for them.)
    Harabin AL, Survanshi SS. A statistical analysis of recent Navy Experimental Diving Unit (NEDU) single-depth human exposures to 100-percent oxygen at pressure. Bethesda, M.D. Naval Medical Research Institute Report NMRI 93-59, 1993.
    Note: Both NEDU and NMRI Reports are available through: National Technical Information Service, 5385 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA 22161.
  • 30 Ekim 2012 Salı

    Sualtı Dünyası Dergisinin 127'nci sayısı yayında



    Sn. Ateş Evirgen, Sualtı Dünyası (Marine Photo) dergisinin 127'nci sayısında, benim  dördüncü makaleme de yer verdi.
    Derginin web sayfasından (http://www.sualtidunyasi.com.tr) ücretsiz üye olarak, bu ve bundan önceki sayıları online okuyabilirsiniz. (isterseniz acrobat reader formatında kayıtta edebiliyorsunuz)





     



    17 Eylül 2012 Pazartesi

    SCUBA REGULATOR INFORMATION by Paul Larrett 03 April 2001




    Few pieces of dive gear are as hotly debated by divers as the choice of regulator.
    Strangely enough, although frequently debated, few divers (or shop assistants for that
    matter) can actually explain in detailed, logical & technical terms the reason they bought
    what they use or what they recommend.
    For many people new to diving, the choice of regulator is influenced by any number of
    factors such as:
    • Shop recommendations
    • Instructor recommendations
    • Club recommendations

    “That’s what I used when I learned to dive”
    While most sources can be well meaning, the advice given is not always good and there
    may be ulterior motives, which you should be aware of. Dive shop assistants or owners
    are often the worst people to get advice from as their recommendations are often
    influenced by the margins that can be made on a particular product. Shop/Club
    equipment is often at the lower end of the market in terms of performance and durability
    due to cost constraints within the club. People will typically recommend what they use
    without necessarily even knowing the type of valve they are using (e.g. balanced vs
    unbalanced; piston vs diaphragm; upstream vs downstream). These three characteristics
    have an important bearing on the performance, reliability and failure mode of the valve.

    Some considerations when buying a regulator:

    A) The regulator is the single most important piece of equipment you will buy, as it is
    primary life support
    B) They cost a fair bit of money, the wrong choice will be costly (it is because of this that
    people are so adamant that what they bought is right, they don't want to admit that they
    were wrong and don't want to splash out on a new one). The most expensive are not
    always the best (in fact, the most expensive certainly isn’t the best).
    C) An educated choice will mean that it will not need replacing for a long, long time.
    Buy one that will "grow" with you and will still be useful if you ever get into more
    adventurous/technical diving. It should be suitable for both single tank diving and, if you
    ever wish to progress to it, twin set diving. Not all regulators are suitable for twin- sets as
    the ports are not arranged suitably.
    E) Avoid regulators with special fittings or non-standard parts. In the event of a problem,
    non-standard hoses or parts can be difficult to get hold of – especially if diving abroad.
    Some have unusual sized ports that make swapping things over difficult (e.g. a ½ inch LP
    port rather than the standard 3/8ths inch), others have the ports arranged so closely that it
    is very hard to get a spanner in to screw/unscrew them.
    F) You should have logical reasons for what you buy – the regulator should meet certain
    criteria - in short, you are looking at the following characteristics:
    1) Reliability & "pedigree" from a proven track record
    2) Performance (work of breathing & volume of as delivered at varying depths and
    tank pressures)
    3) Performance over time (some regulators perform well when brand new or just
    after servicing, but quickly lose "tune")
    4) Ease of hose routing (both for a single tank and for twin set)
    5) Simplicity of design & failure modes (does it fail shut or open)
    6) Servicing cost & ease of "in field" repairs or adjustments (e.g. being able to
    unscrew the cover of the 2nd stage without tools to remove any debris)
    7) Build quality
    8) Price

    Some Practical shopping Tips:

    1) Know exactly what you want BEFORE you go into the shop.
    2) Take little notice of the shop assistant’s advice (this may sound shocking at first
    as we normally expect advice from shop assistants when buying things, after all,
    isn’t that what they are paid for?) But consider that they may not have a broad
    base of experience. They may not have much experience or knowledge of
    regulators outside those they stock, they may not be a regulator technician, they
    may not have read around the subject, and they make have little real diving
    experience. What sort of diving have they done? Is their advice based on pooled
    knowledge, or is it just based on their individual experiences?
    3) You may be encouraged to buy the very latest model, but has this stood the test of
    time?
    4) Some models/brands have a higher profit margin and these may be “pushed” on
    you.
    5) You may be told that you should not mix different brands of 1st stage & 2nd stage.
    There are some brands which should not be mixed (e.g. Poseidon), but others
    actually work exceptionally well together (e.g. Apeks & Scubapro). If you wish
    to understand why this is the case see the more technical section later.
    6) Prices can vary from one shop to the next significantly.
    7) Buy a 1st stage that has the DIN connection and buy the A-clamp adaptor
    (between £20 and £35) for the DIN regulator if you regularly rent tanks (see
    section on DIN vs A-clamp later). Remember that a DIN can be converted to be
    used on a non-DIN tank in a few seconds by using the adapter, whereas, an AClamp
    regulator needs to be taken apart by a technician and needs new parts to be
    used with DIN.

    CHOICE OF 1ST STAGE

    Many 1st stages can be discounted simply because they do not allow for clean hose
    routing – whether you are going to using it on a single tank or a twin set. The 1st stage
    may not have enough ports for use with a dry suit, or they be arranged in such a way that
    hoses come out at all sorts of angles (usually radially). You need a minimum of 4 low
    pressure (LP) and 1 high pressure (HP) port.
    You want one that allows the hoses to be neatly arranged so that large loops of hose are
    not in your face or tempting entanglement. A large loop of hose can easily get hooked on
    a piece of wreckage and either damage the hose or pull the regulator from your mouth.
    Large loops of hose also create more drag in the water and can lead to jaw fatigue if
    swimming against the current or when scootering. Ideally, all hoses should point down
    thus minimising the risk of loops that will cause entanglements.
    Various manufacturers have introduced ultra-light first stages that should be avoided.
    These are made from aluminium and are prone to breaking and internal corrosion over
    time.
    The design of the 1st stage should be simple yet reliable. Experience has repeated shown
    that over-complicated deigns fail more frequently and go out of tune more readily. You
    are looking for quality of materials, workmanship & design.
    Which 1st stage should I go for then?
    There are few 1st stages that meet all the above requirements and the shortlist boils down
    to just two:

    The Apeks DS4 (with DIN fitting)

    This is a “balanced” diaphragm 1st stage with four 3/8th inch LP ports and 1 HP port (see
    Background section below for differences between diaphragm & piston 1st stages).
    The “DS” stands for “Dry Sealed” as the 1st stage is completely environmentally sealed.
    There is no turret and so the LP ports do not swivel. This still allows proper hose routing
    and has one important advantage – it removes a failure point (the O-ring that is in the joint 
    between the swivel section and the rest of the first stage). If the turret fails on any
    regulator the result is a catastrophic loss of gas.
    The Apeks 1st stages are some of the very highest performing on the market.
    Apeks also make the DST first stage. The “DST” stands for “Dry Sealed Turret”. This is
    the one that normally comes with a TX50 or TX40 second stage. They both have the
    same performance and internals except that the DS4 has no turret and so is safer &
    cheaper too. The DST also has a single stupid ½ inch LP port that causes compatibility
    problems with hoses (the others are the standard 3/8th inch).
    Note that the DS4 is NOT the one that normally comes with an Apeks TX50 or TX40.
    You have to ask for it specially. The Apeks DS4 currently can be bought for between
    £90 and £100. This is cheaper than the DST, which sells for around £110.
    Stay clear of the Apeks DS1 as it only has one LP port and 1 HP port and so is only good
    as an argon suit inflator regulator. The new Apeks first stage that comes with the TX100
    may be all right but it has yet to pass the test of time.

    The Scubapro Mark 20 (with DIN fitting)

    Unlike the Apeks, the Scubapro is a piston 1st stage (see Background section for more
    detail). The Mark 20 has 5 LP ports and 2 HP ports. The big advantage that the Mk20
    has here is that there is a port at the end of the regulator thus facilitating a wide variety of
    hose routings. The Mark 20 is also very high performing and the design is very robust.
    They do have a swivel turret and so they do have an extra failure point than the DS4.
    That said, their record is good and they are the preferred choice for stage and
    decompression bottles. This is because a piston design can better withstand any water
    accidentally getting into the HP chamber than a diaphragm design. Water may get into
    the HP side either if you left the cylinder for a long time under water and the regulator
    got depressurised (e.g. left in a cave for a “set-up stage dive”), or if you had to unscrew
    and swap the 1st stages over underwater.
    Avoid the Ultra-Light Version (Scubapro Mk20 UL) as this is made of aluminium and is
    more brittle than the normal brass ones and some have been known to corrode internally.
    I, and many other people in my diving groups, have opted for the Apeks DS4 for
    cylinders that are back-mounted (benefit of no turret & sealed) but retain the Scubapro
    Mark 20’s for cylinders that are side-mounted (simple robust piston design).


    Which 2nd stages should I go for then?

    Whether you are single tank diving or twin set diving, you will need two 2nd stages, one
    as a primary (the one you breathe) and one as a backup (the one you don’t normally
    breathe).
    The requirements of the backup and primary are quite different and so the characteristics
    you want are also different.
    The Primary second stage
    For the primary you want a reliable but high performance regulator. The Work of
    Breathing (WOB) should be low (inhalation & exhalation effort) so as to prevent
    respiratory stress and prevent CO2 retention. It should ideally be adjustable such that the
    cracking pressure can be adjusted to be harder or easier to suit conditions. For example,
    in a head down position whilst static in a flow, there is a tendency for the 2nd stage to leak
    a small stream of bubbles. In this situation you might increase the cracking pressure. On
    the other hand, when swimming hard against the flow/current, you want the breathing
    resistance & cracking pressure low.
    Poor performance can lead to Co2 build up in your lungs and body. Co2 worsens nitrogen
    narcosis, heightens oxygen toxicity, is contributory to DCI and gives a headache, just to
    mention a few. High work of breathing actually increases gas consumption.
    In order to get a high performing 2nd stage, it ideally needs to be “balanced” (I
    recommend reading the section later on balancing of 2nd stages). 2nd stages, such as the
    Scubapro G250 or Apeks TX50, where the cracking pressure is adjustable are of the “airtube”
    design and are “balanced”. These two 2nd stages have an extremely low WOB and
    have been extensively field tested over he last 8 or so years. The more recent Scubapro
    G500 and G600’s may have slightly better WOB but they have both been subject to
    product recalls (as do many other brands) and the fronts do not unscrew easily. They also
    have fewer metal parts, which might reduce their cold water suitability.
    Poseidon 2nd stages are “upstream” (see later section) and if the LP seat or spring fails
    they fail closed – this is shear stupidity when it comes to 2nd stages. There popularity
    among die-hards harks back to the days when they were a relatively good performer, alas,
    the rest of the world has overtaken them with higher performing & more reliable
    regulators.
    It is also important that you are able to unscrew the front of the 2nd stage off, should
    debris get trapped in either the diaphragm or exhaust valve (mushroom valve). 2nd stages
    such as the Mares do not allow one to do this, nor is their breathing resistance adjustable.


    The back-up second stage

    You do not want a very high performance, sensitive regulator that is not in your mouth
    because it will be more likely to freeflow.
    You therefore want a simple “unbalanced” 2nd stage for the back up. Because it is
    unbalanced you won't get into that positive feedback loop whereby the air gushing out
    assists in opening the valve, and so the freeflow continues. When descending a shot line
    in a current (or diving in any current for that matter), the water flowing over the 2nd stage
    can trigger a reduction in pressure in the 2nd stage thus opening the valve causing a
    freeflow. The cracking pressure for the back-up should therefore be higher than your
    primary.
    When considering all the contenders in the market, there aren’t actually that many that
    are unbalanced, have the simple so-called “classic downstream” design, are compact and
    have a front which you can unscrew.
    The Scubapro R380 does meet these criteria and being compact goes under the chin well
    without getting in the way. It has been extensively field-tested. It sells for around £80.
    The R380, G250, TX50 and TX40 all run off the same Intermediate Pressure (between
    9.0 to 9.6 Bar). The Mark 20 and Apeks 1st stages also operate in this range (but can be
    detuned – see later). They are therefore interchangeable and so you can have an R380 off
    of an Apeks 1st stage for example.

    Summary Recommendation

    The two systems that seem to fulfil all the above are therefore as follows:
    1) Apeks DS4 1st stage with TX50 primary 2nd stage and Scubapro R380 back-up,
    or;
    2) Scubapro Mark 20 1st stage with G250 primary 2nd stage and Scubapro R380
    back-up

    Preventing Freeflows

    Freeflows are the most likely regulator problem an inexperienced diver will encounter.
    They result from a combination of bad technique, regulator set-up and regulator choice.
    Fortunately there are some easy steps to avoid them:
    1) ALWAYS pass a regulator to someone else with the mouth-piece facing DOWN.
    2) Avoid repeated purging and breathing from regulator whilst either the 1st stage or
    2nd stage is in the air (air temperature is usually lower than water).
    3) Test the regulator once early on in the kitting up process and then leave it until
    you are submerged.
    4) Lower the Intermediate Pressure (IP) to 8 Bar (120 psi). This makes the 2nd stage
    slightly less sensitive but will ensure that the force that the spring in the 2nd stage
    is working against is less and so the valve is closed more easily. This is certainly
    recommended for the backup regulator on the left post if using a twin-set.
    5) Buy a regulator that is cold water protected. This might be the Thermal Insulation
    System (TIS) that Scubapro uses (cover parts with Teflon to prevent ice crystals
    forming), or better still, totally sealing the 1st stage off from the water. Note that
    if the 1st stage is fully sealed but the 2nd stage is set to be too sensitive, or the user
    keeps purging the 2nd stage before use, the regulator can still freeflow from the 2nd
    stage.
    6) Keep your regulator serviced but check it out in the pool before using it in cold
    water.
    7) Avoid taking a breath at the same time as either inflating your suit or stab
    jacket/wing (this causes less gas to rush from the 1st stage - as this gas expands it
    cools).
    Explanation for 1) above: the difference in the water pressure from the diaphragm to the
    top of the mouthpiece (despite only being about 2cm to 3cm apart) is sufficient to open
    the valve.
    So, if you pass a regulator with the mouth piece up, the pressure will be greater at the
    diaphragm than at the mouth piece and the valve will easily open as it is being assisted by
    the water pressure - possibly leading to a free-flow.
    Whereas, if you pass a regulator with the mouth piece down, the pressure will be less at
    the diaphragm than the mouth piece and the valve will not open so easily because it is
    working against this pressure and thus less likely to free-flow.

    Submersible Pressure Gauge (SPG) vs Console

    When buying the regulator you will need to buy a contents gauge (Submersible Pressure
    Gauge - SPG). Most divers around the world use one of those large consoles that contain
    the SPG, a compass & perhaps a computer or depth gauge as well. Whilst this seems a
    good idea superficially (keep all those handy things in one place), it does have some
    serious drawbacks:
    1) They are necessarily large and get in the way and drag along the bottom or catch
    on wrecks. How often have you seen a console get dragged along or clonk
    things? Diving in silty overhead environments with such consoles stirs up silt.
    2) The computer is better suited to being on the wrist where it can easily be read
    whilst reeling in a DSMB on the ascent for example. The face & contacts of a
    computer are reasonable delicate and could do without being regularly clonked!
    3) The rubber boot of the console covers the connection between the HP hose and
    the actual SPG. This has three distinct disadvantages :–
    · Firstly, the rubber prevents grit, dirt and saltwater being properly washed off
    when the console is cleaned. Even a good soak in warm water fails to get rid of
    all this salt and grit as an inspection under the boot will bear testament. The little
    swivel pin that sits in the joint between the HP hose and SPG, has two small Orings
    at either end, this will wear down faster if not cleaned properly as grit acts
    as grinding surface. With no rubber console it is easy to thoroughly clean.
    · Secondly, should a small leak occur in this area, it would not be immediately
    obvious from exactly where it is coming. It takes time for the small bubbles to
    find their way out of the console and during this time you are descending deeper.
    With no rubber console any leaks are immediately visible and it is clear to see
    where they are coming from.
    · Thirdly, should there be a more dramatic leak from the HP hose whilst on the
    boat/shore it is very easy to get access to the joint with a spanner when there is no
    rubber console and so the problem can very often be fixed there & then without
    missing the dive. With the rubber console in place this job takes much longer and
    may be impossible with cold hands.

    What sort of SPG do I need then?

    All you need is the SPG itself, the compass is better on the wrist or stowed in a pocket
    until needed. The depth gauge is part of your computer and should also be wrist-mounted.
    The SPG to try & get is the UWATEC "Master Diver Pressure Gauge" shown in website
    below.
    http://www.uwatec.com/english/framem04.htm
    To quote website:
    "The Master Diver is also anti-magnetic with a chrome-plated, solid brass case, highly
    luminous dial face and a scratch resistant, chemically hardened, mineral glass lens. The
    spiral bourdon tube measurement system is accurate within +/-5 bar from 0 - 300 bar.
    Also available in 5000 psi."
    Note that the "Uwatec Submersible Pressure Gauge" (one below on the website) has a
    plastic face. Plastic is not as good as on deep dives as they flex & make the needle stick.
    Now you won't be diving to a 100m for a while but the glass face doesn't scratch like
    plastic and it is clearer to read. Furthermore, a brass case resists the water pressure at all
    depths better and so the gauge tends to be more accurate than the plastic cased SPG’s.
    Unfortunately, the above SPG is now very hard to get so you must look for alternatives.
    Try to find one with clear numbering, a brass case and, if possible, a mineral glass face.
    The HP that you normally see in shops is in the region of 36 inches long. This is
    excessive as can be seen from all those holiday brochure photos, where it dangles down
    too far. Ideally the HP hose should be 24 inches long and clipped off to the left near the
    left hip using a large stainless steel piston clip. Here the SPG & HP hose is streamlined,
    it won’t dangle and it is protected. Practice is needed so that you can quickly unclip it
    when needed. The piston clip should be held by a cable-tie and O-ring which provides a
    quick break-away if needed or should the HP hose accidentally get caught (will prevent
    excessive strain on HP hose).

    BACKGROUND

    The task of the regulator 1st stage is to deliver a constant Intermediate Pressure (IP) above
    ambient pressure regardless of depth and regardless of tank pressure (in the case a
    balanced 1st stage). In a non-balanced 1st stage the IP will either drop (as with
    “downstream” designs) or increase (as with “upstream” designs) as tank pressure drops.
    In an “upstream” valve the seat (rubber/plastic surface that forms the seal) mechanism is
    upstream of the orifice that it is closing (can apply to both HP seat in 1st stage and LP seat
    in “2nd stage). If the valve fails it will generally fail closed.
    In a “downstream” valve the seat (rubber/plastic surface that forms the seal) mechanism
    is downstream of the orifice that it is closing. If the valve fails it will generally fail open.

    There are broadly two types of 1st stage mechanism:

    Piston first stages

    Here the water pressure and air pressure act on a piston that transmits the pressure to
    open & close the valve. If the piston is orientated perpendicular to the incoming airflow
    of the tank, then the tank pressure has little bearing on the force on the piston – this is
    how a piston 1st stage is “balanced”. Pistons allow a large volume of air to be delivered
    and are simple and robust in design.
    Because the piston has to be exposed directly to the water, you will always find little
    holes in the 1st stage allowing the water to act on the piston. These holes are the telltale
    sign that the 1st stage is of the piston type. Because this chamber is exposed to water, for
    diving in very cold water, the 1st stage has to be cold water protected in some way. For
    pistons this is achieved by either filling this space with silicone grease or by covering the
    moving parts with a non-stick compound to prevent ice crystals building up. Scubapro
    call this latter system TIS and use Teflon to coat the parts (as in the Mark 20).
    Scubapro have specialised in the design of piston 1st stages since the early 1960’s and
    have patented many of their clever design features. As a result, other manufacturers of
    piston regulators have struggled to achieve the same performance with the piston design.
    It will therefore come as no surprise to learn that the pinnacle of piston 1st stage design is
    the Scubapro Mark 20. It definitely has a long pedigree.
    Piston regulators are almost without exception “downstream” in design and so, unless
    they are “balanced”, the IP drops as tank pressure drops (when the tank pressure is high it
    has a tendency to assist opening the valve and so it takes a higher pressure in the LP
    chamber to close the valve to overcome this. When the tank pressure is low the spring
    closing the valve has an easier job as the pressure of the gas it is opposing has dropped
    and so the valve closes at a lower IP – easier to understand with a diagram!).
    More importantly, because they are “downstream” in design, if the high pressure O-ring
    fails, the valve will be forced open and so HP air is allowed into the LP chamber and into
    your hoses and 2nd stage. This can cause a LP hose to rupture (they are designed for 10
    bar not 200 bar!).
    The disadvantage of the piston design is that for very cold water, or polluted water, it is
    nice to completely “environmentally seal” the 1st stage thereby allowing no water to the
    internals. A diaphragm design 1st stage can do this, a piston cannot.

    Diaphragm 1st stage

    Here the HP valve seat is pushed forwards or backwards to close or open the valve via a
    small rod connected to a flexible diaphragm. This means that there is no need to have
    holes in the 1st stage and so these valves can be completely sealed making them ideal for
    polluted water or very cold water. All diaphragm 1st stages are “upstream” in design and
    so they fail closed.
    Like the piston they can be “unbalanced” or “balanced”. Unlike the piston 1st stage, the
    diaphragm 1st stage is balanced by allowing air to both sides of the HP seat. The IP of an
    unbalanced diaphragm will gradually increase as tank pressure drops (at high tank
    pressures the air assists in closing the valve, as the tank pressure drops the valve is held
    open longer and the IP creeps up). Note that this is opposite to piston 1st stages.
    With diaphragm 1st stages you are looking for simplicity and regulators like the Apeks
    range, tend to have a static orifice and a moving seat (in theory you can have a moving
    orifice and a static seat and both types are common). The Apeks is robust in design and
    has some neat but simple solutions, such as the way in which they are balanced. They are
    also very easy to dismantle and adjusting the IP is a piece of cake. Apeks service kits are
    also cheaper than many other brands, yet their reliability & performance is probably the
    best of the diaphragms.
    The above diagram shows an Apeks DST 1st stage (with swivel turret & A-clamp
    unfortunately!)
    Note that the air is allowed on both sides of the HP valve in the above diagram, so tank
    pressure has no bearing on Intermediate Pressure.

    Common 1st stage Problems

    Most 1st stage problems relate to a “creeping” IP that causes the 2nd stage to eventually
    start dribbling bubbles. This is caused by the HP seat not quite seating properly and so
    HP air can leak into the LP chamber. The IP thus creeps up until it is too much for the 2nd
    stage LP seat to hold back and so a stream of bubbles results.
    Apeks have a “forgiving” seat, that I, or any member of the email list, have never heard
    of leaking, other brands such as Poseidon have notoriously poor HP seats and commonly
    suffer from creep. The Poseidons I had from 1993 to 1995 crept on 3 separate occasions
    even with annual servicing.

    “Balanced” vs “Unbalanced”

    To get high performance out of a regulator, the 2nd stage has to be sensitive. That means
    the spring pressure that closes the valve (pushes low pressure seat onto a crown/orifice)
    has to be weak or assisted.
    Balancing in the 2nd stage is whereby the pressure of air coming from the 1st stage
    (around 9.0 to 9.4 Bar) is used to assist in opening the 2nd stage valve. Air BOTH sides
    of the actual LP seat (where the seal is formed) is at this intermediate pressure and so the
    spring only has to be strong enough to reliable close the valve (because the gas on the
    downstream side of the LP seat is assisting with closing the valve). The spring can be
    therefore be weak. Because the spring is weak the inhalation effort is small, thus high
    performance. The diagram below of a TX50 2ns stage will aid explanation; Apeks call it
    “pneumatically balanced”.


    With an unbalanced 2nd stage, the spring has to be stronger as it does not have the
    assistance of the 9 Bar of air behind it. The spring has to be strong enough to close the
    valve against the interstage/intermediate pressure without the assistance of this gas
    pressure behind it. This stronger spring means that performance is poorer.
    Balanced is therefore desirable for your primary regulator (the one in your mouth) as it is
    higher performance due to the sensitivity of a weaker spring. This is the case with the
    G250 or TX50. The TX40 is also balanced but you cannot adjust the spring pressure as
    you can with the TX50 or G250.
    The balanced type will more likely stay in free-flow should one occur. This is because the
    spring will be stronger on an unbalanced 2nd stage (unless you swap out the normal
    spring on a balanced 2nd stage for a stronger one) than a balanced 2nd stage.

    Advice on DIN fittings and A-Clamps.

    Before outlining all the benefits of DIN fittings, I would like to dispel some myths:

    Myth number 1: “If you buy DIN fitting regulators you won’t be able to use them
    abroad”.
    I have dived using DIN fitted regulators since 1989 in the following Countries without
    EVER being unable to use my regulators (UK, Bahamas, Barbados, Australia, Egypt,
    Jordan, Maldives, Spain and the USA). People I know have had no problems in many
    others.
    The reason is that the vast majority of cylinders manufactured since the mid 1980’s have
    an insert in the pillar valve that can easily be unscrewed using a hexagonal alum key so
    that the DIN fitting can be screwed in. This takes about 5 seconds. In the couple of
    instances where this has not been possible (e.g. Maldives), I have simply used a yoke
    adapter (A-Clamp) that simply screws onto my DIN fitting. Also a 5-second job. The
    point is that, DIN is very quickly adapted to an A-Clamp but an A-Clamp not so easily
    adapted to a DIN (but can be done for about £30 – 40 by a dive shop).
    In the UK (where I do most of my diving) I have my cylinders set up permanently for
    DIN.

    Myth number 2: “DIN fittings are hard to undo”.
    This was the case with some Poseidon regulators (until you learnt the knack) but is not
    the case with other brands of regulator (Scubapro, Spiro, Apeks, Oceanic, Sherwood,
    Mares etc).

    Myth number 3: “DIN fittings are more expensive”.
    This is simply not the case. The price of a DIN and A-Clamp regulator are the same
    bought from new.

    Myth number 4: “DIN fittings are only for “tekkies” and they offer no advantages to
    the recreational sports diver”.

    After reading the various benefits that follow ask yourself this again:
    1) The first advantage that a DIN fitting has over an A-Clamp is that it is a more 
    secure and positive connection. If the first stage or pillar valve is knocked 
    (against wreck/cave/on boat) the connection is much less likely to fail. If an AClamp 
    is knocked with reasonable force the seal can be broken between the 
    regulator 1st stage and the cylinder pillar valve.
    Most experienced divers would have seen at least one occasion where, on 
    pressurising the regulator, a hiss was heard as gas escaped out of the tank between 
    the O-ring and regulator 1st stage when using an A-Clamp. 
    This is usually put right on the boat/shore, but how much confidence does this 
    give you about the strength/integrity of the seal? About the A-Clamp - “It might 
    simply take a few goes to get it to seal right”. What sort of confidence does this 
    give you!! 
    2) The O-ring on a DIN fitting is trapped and cannot burst out. Similar comments 
    as 1) above apply. Again, many an experienced diver has seen the O-ring burst 
    out the side of an A-Clamp. 
    3) For the above reasons DIN fittings can be rated to 300 Bar, A-Clamps can only 
    rated to 232 Bar. What does this tell you? 
    4) The O-ring on a DIN fitting is part of the regulator not part of the tank. It 
    therefore gets looked after better and is kept out of the sun and salt water. Sun & 
    salt water cause O-rings to harden, crack and thus form a less good seal. Whilst
    on your Red Sea live-aboard, you may check the O-ring on the tank each time you 
    select a new tank, but what is the betting that you will still use an O-ring that
    “looks OK” but is actually past its best. Is your buddy as thorough? This is a 
    major failure point and not fun with a single tank! 
    5) The DIN fitting is more compact and does not have a knob at the back. The
    knob at the back of an A-Clamp is a great place for line to entangle. The worst 
    place to be entangled is behind you. With a single tank configuration the pillar 
    valve is hard to reach, never mind untangle line from. 
    When you consider the above points together you have to ask the question: “What are the
    benefits of an A-Clamp?” because there are certainly some very serious disadvantages.
    So much so that some training agencies ban A-Clamps on back mounted cylinders whilst
    in any overhead environment (i.e. wreck, cavern or cave). Frankly, I can’t think of any
    advantages to using an A-Clamp and would be interested in hearing any from other
    people.