Talk:Breathing gas

Language

"It was much used in frogmen's rebreathers."

This needs to be fixed with whatever the proper meaning is - commonly used? often used? once used? TheHYPO 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

scuba

"Breathing gas" seems to be a pretty generic concept - why is this article all about the term in the context of scuba diving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.74.65 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two of the three listed "essential features" of a safe breathing gas seem to be contradictory. The first implies that oxygen must be included ("it must contain sufficient oxygen...") but the third seems to imply that oxygen shouldn't be included ("it must not become toxic … high pressure ... Oxygen and nitrogen ... become toxic under pressure).

It's called the Three Bears Effect. The first dish of porridge Goldilocks tried was too hot, the second too cold, and the third was just right. With oxygen, the human body doesn't like oxygen partial pressure less than about 0.15 bar (hypoxia), and it doesn't like oxygen above about 1.6 bar (oxygen toxicity). But the range in between is "just right". --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Carbon Dioxide

CO_2 is described as a toxin in the article & I feel that's somewhat oversimplified or inaccurate (take your pick), considering the bohr effect http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bohr_effect on hemoglobin. . . I do believe that including CO_2 is avoided in most breathing gasses, it's inaccurate to say CO_2 is toxic. (One could argue that too much CO2 is indeed toxic, but the same can be said about Oxygen, Nitrogen, and even water, so that argument would be hypocritical. =) ) 65.26.29.42 (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. Carbon dioxide is not described as toxic in the article, other than in a reference (Christian Lambertsen's paper Carbon Dioxide Tolerance and Toxicity). The article only refers to the condition carbon dioxide poisoning (or hypercapnia). That article is also well-referenced. The effect of excess CO2 is primarily to increase breathing and heart rates, which is dangerous for a diver; the effect of decreasing the oxygen affinity of haemoglobin is minor in comparison. This article actually does mention oxygen and nitrogen as "examples of gases that become toxic under pressure". Nevertheless, we don't rely on our own opinions, we use whatever is found in reliable sources. I have no doubt that the sources are accurately reflected here. --RexxS (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Deep Sea Creature Neuron Structure

Perhaps some insight into the specific actions of various breathing gases on the brain could be gained by examining the neurons of deep sea creatures and transient (air breathing) deep sea visitors.

What lipids are they using for their cell membranes? Are there special chemicals (like myelin in humans) that are used to assist transmission? How does the density of neuroreceptors in a synapse change with similar species living at different depths?

Might make for some interesting projects for oceanography students... 24.8.102.25 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitch or timbre

With reference to my revert: There is a description of the debate around the effect of helium on the human voice at Talk:Helium#Correction to Biological Effects where the consensus seems to be that helium does not alter the pitch of the voice, only its timbre. The gist of the argument is that the vocal chords will vibrate at approximately the same frequency, so the fundamental note is unaffected, although the pitch of the resonances will change in helium, which produces a shift in the relative overtones (i.e. the timbre). I suppose you could ask whether playing middle 'C' on a piano in a helium-rich atmosphere would produce a note other than middle 'C'? In my humble opinion, it wouldn't. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide: asphyxiant or toxic

The edit "though more properly, carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas. It is relatively inert. High concentrations in breathing air--by displacing oxygen--can cause dizziness and even death through suffication." is disputed, and has been reverted[1]. See hypocapnia Hypercapnia. Any gas mixture is asphyxiant if it does not contain sufficient oxygen, not all of these are toxic. The asphyxiant qualities of carbon dioxide are unimportant in this context as the toxic effects manifest at order of magnitude lower concentrations. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Peter. Carbon dioxide is anything but inert as it reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. I think you might have intended hypercapnia to describe the symptoms of breathing high concentrations of CO₂, but I agree wholeheartedly that for CO₂ the system described at Respiratory acidosis#Physiological response is of far more significance to the composition of a breathing gas than asphyxiation would be. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Replace 10% of your breathing mix with any asphyxiant gas like nitrogen, argon, even a brominated Halon, and you'll never know it. That much Halon will keep your matches from lighting and fires from burning, but you'll breathe it and feel fine. However, do that with CO2 and you're soon dead, dead, dead. SBHarris 20:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, Hypercapnia is what it should have been. "Never mind what I say, listen to what I mean." Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

High concentration of carbon di-oxide, as seen in Cold drinks and Soda water, is quite heavily pungent, cause burning sensation. So it might have toxic effect in higher concentrations 2405:204:4421:E901:25D0:2F5D:179A:B58B (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) A relevant content: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/62342/what-constituents-in-soft-drinks-are-the-cause-their-strong-pungent-smell 2405:204:4421:E901:25D0:2F5D:179A:B58B (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Assessment for B-class

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. There are a few uncited items, but not controversial. Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article focuses on breathing gases for diving, which are covered in reasonable detail, Other applications are mentioned in the lead, but not adequately covered in the body. Production is not covered very well either. More breadth of coverage required.Added some content on hypobaric and medical aspects. Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Article structure and layout looks logical and amenable to expansion to cover missing matter. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Prose is adequate and clear. Some sentences could be consolidated into larger paragraphs, but good enough as it is. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Would be improved by a few more images.Added a few more images. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK to me. Y

Not there yet, mainly due to lack of breadth of content. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK now. Promoting to B-class. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breathing gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914174633/http://www.techdiver.ws/exotic_gases.shtml to http://www.techdiver.ws/exotic_gases.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Helium - This sentence doesn't make sense

"Helium is not very suitable for dry suit inflation owing to its poor thermal insulation properties – helium is a very good conductor of heat (compared to air which is a rather poor, making it more of an insulator).[1][3]"

Helium can't be "a very good conductor of heat" and an insulator at the same time. One could insert the word "not" to fix this, but I don't know enough about the topic to want to do this. Would someone knowledgeable make the needed revision. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janice Margaret Vian: The terms "insulator" and "conductor" for a substance only have meaning relative to another substance, as a vacuum is the only perfect insulator for thermal conductivity; everything else is a conductor to some degree. Helium is quite a good conductor relative to air or argon, but still an insulator relative to a metal like copper, or even relative to water. Here are those thermal conductivities (at 25 °C, 1 atmosphere) for comparison:

Selected thermal conductivities in milliWatts/metre-Kelvin

Material	Conductivity
Argon	16
Air	24
Helium	142
Water	580
Copper	401,000

I've amended the article text in an attempt to make it clearer. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breathing gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.altitude.org/oxgyen_levels.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724075651/http://www.westfalengassen.nl/technischegassen/divox/divox.pdf to http://www.westfalengassen.nl/technischegassen/divox/divox.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Improve medical usage

• What are the problems for which 100% pure O2 is commonly not used as breathing gas?
• Is there any conditions or medical indications which require 100% pure oxygen (O2) as breathing gas?
• Is there any indications about when "not 100% pure", but very high concentration (say 70%, 80%, 90% or higher) of oxygen is used as breathing gas?

Kindly mention their answers in the Wikipedia article, along with more detailed information about practical emergency/ critical medical care and toxicology care.

Kindly mention more details about medical usage in drowning treatment, asthma treatment, heart and cardiovascular treatment, trauma care and all other usage; preferably in table format; such as following columns:

1. Breathing Mixture name/ id (if any) 2. Oxygen Percentage 3. Other Gas percentage. 4. Usage 5.Other specific condition (Pressure/ speed/ temperature etc if any) for usage 6.Anything else.

Thanks in advance

2405:204:4421:E901:25D0:2F5D:179A:B58B (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

These are covered in some detail in other articles, such as Oxygen therapy, Hyperbaric medicine, Oxygen toxicity, probably others.

100% oxygen (at surface pressure) is standard first aid treatment for diving accidents where there is a possibility of decompression illness.

100% oxygen at pressures up to 2.8bar is definitive treatment for decompression sickness.

Very high concentrations of oxygen lower than 100% are advocated by some technical diving agencies for in-water decompression gas. 80% Nitrox is used by IANTD if I remember correctly. I can help with any diving related questions, but I think they are covered reasonably well already.

For medical information, try asking at the WikiProject Medicine talk page. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ Pbsouthwood comments above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nitrogen is narcotic?

Nitrogen Gas is narcotic? How? what is the mechanism of this narcosis? 2405:204:4421:E901:25D0:2F5D:179A:B58B (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a whole article Nitrogen narcosis dedicated to this effect. It only occurs at partial pressures significantly higher than at normal atmospheric pressure. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)