- OU

cores ede

0.025

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-ll

9.016

9.01

n n rn n

38 46 6 7 6 F HU wD 3 MH

— Upper Visor ~~ Lower Visor

A-7


Appendix A

Page

Number Description

A-2* Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subjects M-1 and M-2

A-3* Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subjects M-3 and M-4

A-4k Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground [2vel for Subjects M-5 and M-6

A-5* Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (S¥6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subjects M-7 and M-8

A-6* Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subjects M-9 and M-10

A-7* Grpahs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subject M-1]

A-8* Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subject F-2 and F-3

A-9* Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period

at Ground Level for Subjects F-4 and F-5

A- 10% Grapiis of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subjects F-6 and F-7

A-11* Graphs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subjects F-8 and F-9

4-12* Grpahs of Contaminant Leakage (SF6 levels) During the Test Period
at Ground Level for Subject F-i0

A-13 Graphs of Interna. Hood Temperature at Both Ground Level and 8,000
Ft Altitude for Subjects M-3 and M-11

A-14 Graphs of Percent Carbon Dioxide Levels at both Ground Level and
8,000 Ft Altitude for Subjects M-3 and M-11

A-15 Graphs of Carbon Dioxide Levels in mmHg at both Ground Level and
8,000 Ft Altitude for Subjects M-3 and M-il

*SF6 levels are presented as the concentration within the hoods. To determine
the percentage of the 1 % chamber concentration, multiply the concentration by
100.


SUBJECT F-8

CONTAMINANT L

aa 2

=

2

s

ms

x

oa

“8

se

»

wo

77

”

oe

.

arr 570°
22333 3 3
MMO « sama

+ Lower Viscr

— Upper Visor

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F-9

4.

3

=
3

Miho «

—
$3

AB nt Oo

23465 67 8 7 HERB KE

H

9

TIME

-~* Upper Visor —+~ Lower Visor

Anil


TABLE I

Physical Characteristics of Test Subject Population

Subject Age Height Weight Neck Circ.

(no.) (yrs) Cins.) (1bs.) (ins.)
M-1 24 71.25 187.00 16.07
M-2 25 68.00 150.25 N/A
M-3 33 70.00 150.50 N/A
MW4 24 74.50 189.00 14.72
u-5 33 69.00 163.75 12.68
M-6 22 74.25 156.50 14.53
M-7 20 69.00 145.75 15.52
M-8 31 73.00 227.00 16.62
M-9 26 T1L.590 127.50 14.26
M-10 26 71.00 169.25 14,53
M-11 34 68.00 146.75 15.24
F-2 38 61.50 122.25 12.68
F-3 35 65.12 104.75 11.58
F-4 29 63.00 153.25 14.02
F-5 29 63.36 107.50 12.40
F-6 35 69.75 128.00 12.68
¥-7 20 66.690 135.25 12.17
F-8 35 69.36 141.25 12.68
F-9 24 66.50 111.50 11.81
F-10 29 64.00 109.50 N/A

N/A indicates that the measurement was not available

percent (1%) of the test chamber volume. At this time the subject
was told to pull the pin to start the internal flow of oxygen
within the CPBE and begin pedalling the bicycle ergometer at the
beginning workload level. Ounce this was accomplished, the external
air supply to the CPBE was interdicted and the test begun. The
test continued for the next 15 minutes at the workload prescribed
in Action Notice A-8150.2, i.e.:

to 05 minutes at 0.33 watts/1b body weight
to 07 minutes at 0.66 watts/1b body weight
to 12 minutes at 0.50 watts/1bd body weight
to 14 minutes at 0.66 watts/ilb body weight
to 15 minutes at 0.33 watts/ib body weight

ied
NIMS

In an effort to create head movements and talking as directed by
TSO C-99, subjects moved their heads slowly from side to side (as


. ome

OE re

* oMm

arma

S14

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT Fx2

rn 1 rn 2 L n 1 nN

465 6 7 8 9 0 BD i818 M15
TIME

~
eof
wk

~® Upper Visor —+— Lower Visor

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F-3

1 ‘ L 4 1 Lane 1

7
Hy

23456782 9 OBB HEB
TIME

—* Upper Visor —+~ Lower Visor

A-8


BNO ABH weT

WOO AAO we"

CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL
SUBJECT M-3

nl 1 1 1 es nl n L 4

4656 6 7 8 9 0 H BS M4
TIME

—®- GROUND -—+~ 8,006 FT ALTITUDE

CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL
SUBSECT M-li

FS a YO SO

34 5 6 7 8 § 0 UY BHU MO
TIME

—S GROUND + 8,000 PT ALTITUDE

A-14


CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F~6

mo ©

AROS alee

23453567 86 9 WUBS HM SE

TIME

—- Upper Visor + Lower Visor

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F-7

23456 76 FMWHERBH ES

TIME

—~ Lower Viror

~* Upper Visor

4-10


- ome

cre os edet

. OW

meres cee

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-7

0.012
0.01 aa |
0.008 +
0.006 F
0.604;
2.002
Fy er an SO
9 23465 67 & § OURS MB
TIME
—S Upper Vigor + Lower Visor
CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-8
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0 Pa a OT Sr OT SS
0 234667 8 § DUBRIES ME
TIME ,

~-SUpper Visor —+— Lower Visor

A-5


The contaminant leakage problema for persons with smeller neck
sizes indicated that « general reduction in the size of the CPBE
neck opening might prove beneficiel, although the male subject for
which the CPBE failed reported that at epproximately the time of
failure he had shrugged his shoulders and felt a rush of cool air
on the right side of his face. This suggests 4 problem with the
ability of the neck seal to return to its original size and shape
after the neck seal is stretched when donning the CPBE, further
suggesting that the neck seal material was not pliable enough-

These considerations led Scott Aviation to redesign the CPBE,
incorporating changes in neck seal material and opening size, to
overcome the contaminant leakage problems.

PHASE II - Tests of the Redesigned Portable Protective Breathing
Device

Introduction: It was determined in Phase 1 testing that the Scott
Aviation Crewmember Portable Protective Breathing (CPBE) Device
(PN 892300-11) did not provide adequate protection egainst inward
contaminant leakage for individuals with small neck circumferences
(eight of nine female and one of eleven male test subjects). At
the request of Scott Aviation, we conducted another test of the
same device, modified only by the installetion of a new neck seal;
this modification changed the Scott part number (PN 802300-14).
After concurrence with the FAA Aircraft Certification office in
New York, only a limited number of devices were tested, using
subjects with small neck circumferences similar to those who
failed with the criginal neck seal. Scott Aviatien also requested
that we test, in the presence of their project engineer, two
devices with the original neck seal to assure them that the device
was, in fact, ineffective because of inward contaminant leakage
around the neck seal.

Subjects: All subjects were medically screened and informed about
the procedures and purposes of the research prior to the tests in
a manner identicai to that for the Phase I tests. At that time
they executed informed consent. Again, those who could not pass
either the physical exam or the exercise stress test were not
allowed to participate in the actual tests of the CPBE. After the
screening, each subject was then scheduled for the experimental
tests on a subsequent day. The physical and respiratory
characteristics of the subjects who participated in this phase of
the study are sho~n in Table Y.

Test Procedures: Tests of the devices for contaminant leaks,
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, inhalation/exhalation pressure,
and inhalation temperature were conducted in the CAMI test chamber
at the duration and workload profile prescribed by FAA Action
Notice 4-8150.2 in a manner identical to that used for phase Te.



oun

eresoses

+ OMe

esc

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-2

Qh
o'23 466789 WHE BI MH
TIME
2.8-INCH NECK SEAL

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F~4

0.025

9.037

QOlsr

0.005 F

2.6 INCH NECK SEAL

B-5


o One

rescence

= ona

ees

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE

—_—_——- SUBJECT M-i

0.012

0.019—0—8 6-96-98 8-9-6 9--9-08—6-—-

0.008}

0.006

0.004}

0.002}
FT
012346867 8 F ON BI Me 6

TIME
2.76 INCH NBCK SEAL
CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE.
SUBJECT F-1

0.026
0,02

0.026

o.o1t

0.005:

Fy a a
Pet2346 678 9WH BB MB
TIME

2.75 INCE NECK SZAL

B-2



TABLE If

Percent Carbon Dioxide for Ground Level Tests

Minute Subject No.

1 0.90 1.24 1,04 1.39 0.93 1.16 0.81 0.75 0.88 0.99
2 0.98 1.22 1.09 2.23 1.13 1.40 0.83 0.81 0.96 1.04
3 1.01 1.24 1.05 2.48 1.91 1.55 9.93 0.91 1.27 1.16
4 2.24 1.35 1.98 2.53 1.31 1.46 0.91 1.05 1.07 0.98
5 1.64 1.38 1.06 2.49 1.11 1.44 0.86 -88 0.88 1.24
6 1.63 1.48 1.25 2.28 1.54 1.61 - 1.14 0.95 1.34
7 1.74 1.70 1.55 2.51 2.10 1.63 1.28 0.96 1.56
8 1.89 1.89 1.30 2.75 2.14 1.63 1.39 1.03 1.69
9 2.08 1.90 1.25 2.63 1.64 1.94 1.32 0.98 1.46
10 1.76 1.71 1.29 2.25 2.46 2.46 ---- 1.18 0.98 1.39
qi 1.88 2.03 1.41 2.26 2.10 2.48 0.93 1.21 1.00 1.41
12 1,80 1.86 1.16 2.24 3.70 2.78 0.94 1.20 1.04 1.44
13 2.14 1.82 1.52 2.45 2.03 3.08 0.96 1.21 1.16 1.20
14 2.48 1.98 1.78 3.15 2.55 3.00 0.86 1.64 1.64 2.08
15 2.75 1.84 1.79 3.30 2.50 3.09 1.32 1.74 1.44 2.87

M-11 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 F-9

1 1.130 1.14 +74 1.00 1.63 1.65 0.81 1.51 0.84
2 1.33 1.04 0.80 1.61 2.15 1.19 0.90
3 1.25 1.21 0.86 1.23 0.95
4 1.11 1.25 0.88 1.23 0.98
5 0.82 - 1.06 1.09
6 0.81 - 1.29

7 1.03 - 1.51

8 1.53 - 1.58

9 1.23 - 1.66

10 1.30 - 1.71

il 1.25 - 1.73

12 1.04 - 1.80

13 1.23 - 1.55
14 1.38 - 2.00
15 1.63 eee cee 2.230 ----



though scanning instruments) during the seventh minute, moved
theix heads ur and down during the tenth minute, and recited the
English alphabet aloud during the 13th minute of the test.

Heart rate and EKG were monitored continuously, and blood pressure
periodically, for subject safety. Air from inside the CPBE was
sampled at six sites on the visor via tubes attached by "Swage-
lok" connectors. Rubber gaskets sealed these connections on both
the inside and outside of the visor, On the left side of the CPBE
visor, one sample tube was placed near the top and one near the
bottom for sampling SF6 within the CPBE. In the center near the
nose and mouth were three sampling sites; the top site held a
probe for measuring internal oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, the
bottom site had a transducer for measuring inhalation-exhalation
pressures, and the center site housed a copper-constantan thermo-
couple used to measure temperature. There was no measure of
relative humidity; therefore, only dry bulb temperatures were
obtained.

Two Perkin-Eimer Medical Gas Analyzers (MGA/mass spectrometers)
were used to measure the SF6, oxygen, and carbon dioxide levels.
One was used to monitor SF6 concentrations; the test chamber SF6
level was monitored during the first 45 seconds of each minute,
then upper visor, outside laboratory, and lower visor samples were
obtained for 5 seconds each during the final 15 seconds of each
minute. The oxygen and carbon dioxide levels within the CPBE were
measured continuously using the second Perkin-Elmer MGA.

Results: Initiz? tests of the CPBE proved successful for 16 of 1l
male subjects; the CPBE on subject M-5 failed the test by
exceeding the 5% contaminant leak testing criterion. However, as
shown in Table I, subject M-5 had the smallest neck size of all
the male subjects. In addition, for only one of the nine females,
subject F-8, did the CPBE pass the contaminant leak test. Except
for subject F-4, the females all had neck sizes as smali ae M-5
(see Table I), thus, the size of the CPBE neck opening proved to
be the most significant factor in the leak tests. These results
prevented the CPBE from attaining the overall success required for
certification. The graphs of individual CPBE SF6 leakage levels
are presented in Appendix A, pages A-2 through A-12.

The oxygen levels within the CPBE were greater than the 21%
ambient air concentration during the first minute of the test and
increased thereafter. These data are available, but are not
presented, because all of the values exceeded the requirement
substantially.

The carbon dioxide levels within the CPBE were also consistently
within the prescribed limits. Although these data were more
varieble than those for oxygen, the required 15-minute ground-
level mean of 4%, and the 5% maximum for no more than 2 minutes,
were not exceeded. The results of the carbon dioxide measurements
are provided in Table II as percentages, and for two subjects,
graphs are also presented which show the carbon dioxide values in
both percent (page A-14), and partial pressure (page A-15).



CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-9

°2 83 46567 8 9 WH BIS M16
TIME

i

— Upper Visor -—+~ Lower Visor

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-i0

2345678 9 BURBS MB

TIME

—S Upper Visor —+- Lower Visor

a6


TABLE IV

Internal CPBEZ Temperature (deg C)

Minute Subject No. .

M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5 M-6 M-7 M-8 u-9 N-10

0 23.6 31.2 27.0 28.2 27.6 27.0 28.4 29.6 29.0 27.6
1 28.6 31.2 27.6 29.2 27.8 27.6 28.6 29.6 29.6 28.0
2 31.2 32.8 29.0 30.4 29.2 28.8 30.2 32.0 30.8 29.0
3 33.4 35.0 31.4 32.4 30.6 29.8 31.8 33.6 32.2 29.6
4 36.0 35.8 33.4 34.8 31.6 32.4 33.0 36.0 34.0 31.8
5 38.2 37.0 35.2 36.6 33.0 34.8 34.6 37.6 35.2 33.6
6 39.0 38.2 36.0 38.4 34.8 36.2 36.0 39.6 36.4 35.6
7 40.2 39.0 38.2 40.4 36.2 38.4 37.4 40.6 36.6 36.8
8 41.2 39.4 39.6 41.4 38.0 39.0 38.8 41.4 38.8 38.6
9 41.4 39.8 40.4 41.6 38.8 40.0 39.6 42.4 39.6 39.6
10 42.6 40.6 41.0 42.6 39.6 40.2 40.4 42.8 40.2 40,4
11 43.4 40.8 42.2 43.2 40.0 40.2 41.4 43.6 41.8 41.0
12 43.6 42.4 42.8 43.6 41.4 40.4 42.6 44.4 42.4 41.4
13 44.0 41.6 43.0 44.8 42.0 40.6 43.6 44.4 43.8 41.4
14 43.6 43.0 44.4 46.0 41.6 41.4 45.6 45.4 44.0 42.6
15 44.6 43.4 45.4 47.4 43.6 41.0 48.4 45.2 45.4 42.0
M-1)) 0 F-20 F-4 -F-5) F+6— P-7_—s F-8-~— F-9_—-F~10

0 30.0 29.2 28.4

1 30.0 29.4 29.4

2 31.6 30.6 31.2

3 32.8 31.4 32.6

4 33.6 33.0 34.2

5 34.6 33.6 35.8

6 36.0 35.2 37.4

7 37.6 37.0 38.6

3 38.4 38.0 40.6

9 39.0 38.8 41.8
10 39.2 ---- 42.6
11 40.4 43.0 ‘
12 40.8 44.6
13 42,0 -=-- 46.4
14 42.0 47.0 ----
15 42.0 48.0 w--- ----



2° OM

reese"

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F-10

O26
0.2
9.65
o

+

1 2 4 2 n n

9

23 46 6 7

86? B@BHE BRS MW

TIME

~~ Upper Visor

A-12

—+— Lower Visor


DOT/FAAJAM-89/11

Office of Aviation Medicine
Washington, D.C, 20591

AD-A216 799

Evaluation of the Scott Aviation

Portable Protective Breathing
Device for Contaminant Leakage
As Prescribed by FAA Action
Notice A-8150.2

PhaseI-- Original Tests of the
Portable Protective
Breathing Device

Phase I -- Tests of the Redesigned
Portable Protective
Breathing Device

E. Armold Higgins, Ph.D.
Gamet A. McLean, Ph.D.
Peggy J. Lyne, B.S.

Gordon E. Funkhouser, B.A.
Joseph W. Young, A.M.

Civil Aeromedical Institute
Federal Aviation Administration
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
November 1989

Final Report

This document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Appreved for pu:

DISTRIEVTION SF.
Duzpunca Unismite

2
US Department of Transportation
Aviettion Administration

90 01 16 151


es, in EE EEE SR

Results: The original CPBE neck seals were constructed ef 0.003"
polyurethane film with a 3.25" diameter neck opening, whereas the
new neck scala were constructed of 1/16" neoprene foam with a
2.75" diameter neck opening. The initial test subject ssmple
consisted of the onc male for whom the original device failed,
five females with neck circumferences ranging from 11.81 to 12.76
inches, and one male with a large neck circumference (16.52 in.)
to test for comfort and ease of donning.

In addition to the others parameters tested, the new neck seal was
effective in providing contaminant leak protection for subjects H-
1, F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-5 (Appendix B pages 2-6). However, it was
not effe tive for subjects N-2 and F-4 (Appendix B pages 7 and 8),
although both c£ these subjects had larger neck sizes than subject
F-3,

The apparent reason for contaminant leakage for these two subjects
was related more to anatomical structure rather than size. Both of
these subjects had significantly protruding larynxes, which caused
small channels alongside the iarnyx through which the SF6 could
enter. To overcome this problem, Scott decided to reduce the size
of the neck seal opening to a 2.5" diameter. Since the 2.75"
diameter CPBE opening had already passed the leak test on the
subject with the smaiieat neck circumference, only those two
individuais for whom anatomically-related failures were recorded
were retested for contaminant leakage, although sudject #-3, with
a large neck size (15.95 in.), was tested for the impact the
smaller neck seal opening had on comfort and fit. These lest tests
were conducted using identical procedures to those used before.
The results of these contaminant lesk tests are provided in
Appendix B (pages 9, 10, and 11). As indicated, reducing the neck
seal opening to 2.5" was adequate to provide contaminant Leak
protection for these last subjects, but subject M-3 did indicate
that the neck seal felt tight and uncomfortable, although not
unbearable.

Discussion: The results from the Phase If tests indicated that the
Scott Aviation CPBE (PN-802300-11) with the redesigned neck seal
met all the pexformance requirements of Action Notice A-8150.2, as
tested. Contaminant leakage, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, and
inhalation-exhalation pressures were all acceptable, and the dry-
bulb temperatures again suggested compliance with the wet-bulb
requirements.

The conteminant leak>ge problems for persons with smaller neck
sizes were generally aileviated by the selection of the neoprene
foam neck seal, with the 2.75" opening, which had a better
“memory” for its original configuration, although the particular
anatomical conformation of the iarynx in a smali neck made the
further reduction in neck opening size to 2.5" a necessity.

It is concluded that the Scott CPBE with the neck seal made of
1/16" neoprene foam with a 2.5" diameter cprning is adequate
tc perform as required in FAA Action Notice A-8150.2.



Although ali the deta for all parameters tested are available upon

request, only the results of the contaminant leak portion of the

test are reported here,
question from Phase I.

(about 1,300 ft), since
successfully during the
heart rate and EKG were

since only that parameter wes left in

All tests were conducted at ground Level
the altitude chamber tests were conducted
original experiment (phase I). Recall that
monitored continuously, and blood pressure

periodically, during the tests for subject safety. The workload
schedule for the i5-minute duration progressed as prescribed in

the Action Notice, i.e.:

@ to 05 minutes at 0.33 watts/1b body weight

5 to 07 minutes at 0.66 watts/1b body weight

7 to 12 minutes at 0.50 watts/ib body weight

12 to 14 minutes at 0.66 watts/i1b body weight

14 to 15 minutes at 0.33 watts/1b body weight

TABLE V
Physicai Characteristics of Test Subject Population

Subj. Age Hgt. Wgt. Neck Circ. z FEVI &
(No.) (Yrs) (in) (ib) (in) (i)
M-1 31 73 228 16.62 6.2 106 3.2 109
M-2 33 69° 163 13.07 5.7 116 3.7 32
M-3 25 68 150 15.95 5.7 112 4.6 110
F-1 36 69 130 12.68 4.6 118 3.3 165
F-2 19 67 142 12.68 4.4 112 3.4 97
F-3 24 59 1093 11.81 3.4 106 2.8 103
F-4 32 65 122 12.17 4.1 113 3.2 106
F-5 19 67 148 12.76 4.5 112 3.9 107
FVC = Forced Vital Capacity;
(Z) = Pred FVG (Percent of Predicted)
FEVI = Forced Expiratory Volume in First Second;
(Z) = Pred FEVI (Percent of Predicted)

FVC & FEV] based on age, height, and weight



CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-2

n
2
S

mmo ¢

3

AAS od

ars OURS MB

TIME
2.76 INCH NECK SCAL

23 46 6 7

1

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F-4

234667 @ 9 BRB MM EL

8

TIME
2.78 INCH NECE SEAL


- Ose

es<ise-

2 Owe

rset

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGS
SUBJECT F-8

Geir
0,068 F
9,006F
Q004F

0.0027

1 n 2 nN ao eT 1

0.03

23 46 67 8 9 ON 218 4
TIME

2.76 INCH NECK SBAL

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F-5

0.025

0,02

0.015

0.01

23465672 9 WUBI MB
TIME
2.76 INCH NECK SEAL

E-3


The maximum and minimum internal CPBE pressures at greund level
were well within the prescribed limit of 3.5 inches cf water of
breathing resistauce. These data are presented in Table III for
ail subjects except F-10.

TABLE 111

Maximum and Minimum Internal CPBE
Pressure in Inches of H20

Subj. Max. Min. Subj. Max. Min.
M- 1 0.8 -0.6

M- 2 1.0 -0.3 F- 2 0.5 -0.2
M- 3 0.2 -0.3 F- 3 0.4 -0.1
M~ 4 0.5 70.4 F- 4 0.4 0.4
M- 5 1.0 -0.6 F- 5 0.8 -0.4
M- 6 0.9 ~0.3 F- 6 0.7 -0.3
M- 7 1.2 -0.5 F- 7 0.4 -0.2
u- 8 0.8 -0.6 F- 8 25 -0.4
M- 9 0.6 -0.4 F- 9 0.2 0.0
M-10 0.8 -0.7 F-10 N/A N/A
M-11 0.7 -0.3

N/A indicates that these data are not available

Since only dry-bulb temperature measurenents were obtained, no
assessment of compliance with the 500 <° wet-bulb temperature
requirement of A-8150.2 42 could be made. The internal CPBE dry-
bulb temperature data are presented in Table IV. Recall that two
subjects were tested at both ground level and 8,000 feet altitude;
the temperatures at altitude were lower than at ground level.
Graphs of the internal CPBE temperature for those two subjects are
presented on page A-13 in the appendix.

Discussion: The results from these tests indicated that except
for contaminant leakage, the Scott Aviation CPBE (PN-802300-11)
met the performance requirements of Action Notice A-8150.2. Oxygen
and carbon dioxide levels, as well as inhalation-exhalation
pressures were all acceptable, and the dry-bulb temperatures
suggested compliance with the wet~bulb requirements, as weil.


2 Ose

meres ines

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE

- ome

ed<sose

SUBJEGT F-4
0.12
O1F
2.08;
6.66
0.04
G.02F
12s 486789 ODDS Mi
TIME
—* Upper Wsor -—+- Lowar Visor
CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT F-&
0.35
oS
0.26
0.2
O.18F
oO
0.05
ce a a Sr Se eee
0ot28 45 67 8 ¥ @DURS HME

TIME

-~ Upper Visor

Aa-9

—~ Lower Visor



CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL
SUBJECT M-3

am 8B

° Fa a ne a Qe
ot:2s$ 46 67 8 0 H IS MB
TIME

-®- NORM CO2 pp —+ ALT CO2 pp

4% s0c lovelsSO.4mm Hg
5% seq leveleSB.4mm Hg

CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL
SUBJECT m-ll

of” fe Oo eo
T

po po
G@} 28 468 6 7 8  @BUR IS HB

—©- NORM COZ pp = + ALT CO2 pp

4% sea leve}=30.4mnm Eg
6% oa levelsSS.4nm Eg

An15


EVALUATION OF THE SCOTT AVIATION PORTABLE PROTECTIVE
BREATHING DEVICE FOR CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE AS
PRESCRIBED BY FAA ACTION NOTICE A-8150.2

PHASE I - Original tests of the Portable Protective Breathing
Device

Introduction; A letter from Scott Aviation requesting support
from the Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) for contaminant leak
testing of the Scott Aviation CGrewmember Portable Protective
Breathing (CPBE) Device, PN802300-11, was received by the CAMI
Acting Manager, in November, 1987. Preliminary tests of the CPBE
were conducted in January 1988, and it was determined that the n-
pentane test system used for contaminant leak testing pursuant to
TSO C-99, was not suitable for testing breathing devices in which
the oxygen is chemically generated. Following the development of
a new test system in which sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) serves as the
challenge gas, the CPBE were recested in August 1988.

Subjects: A total of eleven male and nine female subjects
participated in the tests. Prior to the experiments all subjects
received a medical examination, including an exercise stress test
conducted using the workload profile for compliance with Action
Notice A-8150.2. Heart rate, blood pressure, and electrocardiagram
were monitored during the prescribed 15-minute test duration. The
subjects who could not pass either the physical exam or the stress
test were removed from participation in the experiment. Physical
characteristics of the CPBE test subjects are provided in Table I.

Test Procedures: Tests of the devices for contaminant leaks,
oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations, inhalation-exhalation
pressure, and inhalation temperature were conducted in the CAMI
test chamber using the duration and workload profile described in
FAA Action Notice A-8150.2. Two of the male subjects for which
the CPBE passed the contaminant leak tests at ground level (about
1,300 ft in Oklahoma City) also participated in the altitude
chamber tests at 8,000 feet simulated altitude for determinations
of oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, inhalation-exhalation
pressure, and inhalation temperature.

The actual CPBE test was conducted on a day subsequent to the
physical exam and workload screen. Prior to testing, subjects
were fully informed about the test procedures and objectives of
the research, after which they executed informed consent. They
then practiced the donning of the CPBE while wearing the required
eyeglasses, and EKG electrodes were fitted for medical monitoring
during the test. After being escorted to the test chamber, they
were attached to the monitor by the EKG electrodes and @ blood
pressure cuff, the bicycle ergometer seat was adjusted to the
correct height, the CPBE wes donned and supplied with compressed
air prior to the start of the 15-minute test, the chamber door was
closed, and the level of atmospheric SF6 was brought to about one

Ad,

Codes



- Owe

Oe Itt

. omm

arm<gnie

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-!

0.012

0.01

9,008

0.006

0.004

0.002

[a ee er ee Se Oe SO}

612383 45 67 8&8 F DURBS HM EB
TIME

~S- Upper Visor + Lower Visor

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-2

0.035
0.03}
0.026

0.02F

0.015
0.01
0.00557

n i ht

o 123 465 6 7 8&8 ¥ WU RB MB

—®- Upper Visor — Lower Visor

A-2


- ous

ern<amr

+ Oram

amndgrm

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE

SUBJECT M-6
a6
. as 1
44P
OF
9.2/
oir
TT. 3s 4 8 6? 8S! UD ts Me 18
: TIME
~©- Upper Visor ~—+- Lower Visor
CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-6
O21
0.08r
0.06,
6.04+
0.025
% 1 2

And


Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. ] 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog Ne.

DOT/FAA/AM-89-11

a. Title end Subtitle EVALUATION OF THE SCOTT AVZATION PORTA- | >- Report Doe
BLE PROTECTIVE BREATHING DEVICE FOR CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE| November 1989

AS PRESCRIBED BY FAA ACTION NOXICE A-8150.2 6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.

7. Authors) BA Hiegine, GA, McLean, P.J.Lyne,
G.E.Funkhouser, and J.W. Young

9. Performing Organization Nome and Adress 19. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute
P.O. Box 25082 Ti. Controc? or Grant No.

Oklahoma City, OK. 73125

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12, Sponsoring Agency Name ond Address
Office of Aviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 14, Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20591

15. Supplementary Notes

This work was performed under Tasks AM-B-88-PRS-81D and AM~B~89-PRS-815

16. Abstect At the request of Scott Aviation, performance tests of the crew portable
protective breathing (CPBE) device (PN-802300-11) were conducted at ground level

and 8,000 ft. altitude. The first tests at ground level measured contaminant leakage
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, inhalation/exhalation pressures and internal/exter-
pal dry-bulb temperatures; replications at 8,000 ft. were performed for all the
variables except contaminant leakage. For ten male subjects, the device proved satis+
factory for all measures tested; compliance with A-8150.2 could not be estatlished
for internal CPBE temperature since no wet-bulb values were obtained. Devices were
also tested on nine female subjects; the findings were successful for all measures
excerpt contaminant leakage. A new set of tests, approved by the FAA Certification
Office in New York, was conducted after changes in neck seal material and opening
size were made by Scott Aviation, using only 1 male and 5 females with smal} neck
circumferences (11.81 to 13.07 ins.) and 1 male with a large neck size (16.62 ins.).
These tests proved successful for all but two devices on subjects with unusually
protruding larynxes, for which a further reduction in neck seal opening size afforded
adequate protection for these individuals, as well as an acceptable comfort level
for a large individual, It is concluded that the Scott CPBE device with a 1/16"

thick neoprene foam neck seal, having a 2.5] diameter opening, performs as required

-| by FAA Action Notice A+8150.2 for the paraméters measured.

PLL

tn,

wt -

fan
17. Key Wards = 18, Distribution Statement
Protective Breathing Devices, Smoke/ Document is available to the public
Fume Atmosphere, Oxygen and Carbon through the National Technical Information
Dioxide Levels. Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classil. (of this coport) 2. Security Cleasil. (of this page) Ql. No. of Pages | 22. Price

35

Unclassified Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized


INTERNAL CPBE TEMPERATURE

SUBJECT M-&
50
40-
sel
20F
OF
— 12s 4s 67 8 Ones MB
TIME
—®- GROUND LEVEL + 8,000 FT ALTITUDE
INTERNAL CPBE TEMPERATURE
SUBJECT M-b
° |
(ieee
20r
OF
oi _

0 § 23 46 6 7 6 F BFTRB HME
TIME

—© GROUND LEVEL i 8.000 PT ALTITUDE

&-i3


NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.



|

2 OR

epee

0.025

0.02

0.015

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE

SUBJECT M-8

TIME
2.5 INCH NECK SEAL

B-6 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINT NG OFFICE: 1989-761-020/00464



Page
Number

B-2
B-3
BR4
B-5

B-6

APPENDIX &

Figure 1, Graph of Contaminant -Leak Test for Subjecta M-1 and Fol
Pigure 2, Graph of Contaminant Leak Test for Subjecte F-3 and Fe5
Figure 3, Graph of Contaminant Leak Test for Subjectea M-2 and F-4
Pigure 4, Graph of Contaminant Leak.Retest for Subjects M-2 and. P—4

Figure 5, Graph of Contaminant Leak Test for Subject M-3 with the
Smaller Neck Seal

SF6 levels are presented ag the concentration within the heads. To deter-

mine the percertage of the 12 chamber concentration, multiply the concen-
tration by 100.


References:

1.

2.

FAA Action Notice 8150.2, " Guidance for Approval of Crewmember
Protective Breathing Equipment," September 1, 1987.

FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C99, “Protective Breathing
Equipment," June 27, 1983.

Society of Automotive Engineers Aerospace Standard 8931,

“Personal Protective Devices for Toxic and Irritating
Atmospheres. Air Transport Crew Members," June 1980.

10


merce + Owe

armani + oun

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-$

0.025

6.02

co oot as

és OURS 4H

Fee ee Se
o 4:23 46 6
—* Upper Visor + Lower Visor

CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE
SUBJECT M-4

0 n rn 4 4 n 1 n rn nl

012383 485 67 8 9 WH BS 4B
TIME

-® Upper Visor —+— Lower Visor

a-3