NASA/TP-2011-216147

Preventing Decompression Sickness Over

Three Decades of Extravehicular Activity

Johnny Conkin, Ph.D.,

1 Human Adaptation and Countermeasures Division2

1

Universities Space Research Association, Houston

2

NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston

June 2011
THE NASA STI PROGRAM OFFICE . . . IN PROFILE

Since its founding, NASA has been 

dedicated to the advancement of aeronautics 

and space science. The NASA Scientific and 

Technical Information (STI) Program Office 

plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated 

by Langley Research Center, the lead center 

for NASA’s scientific and technical 

information. The NASA STI Program Office 

provides access to the NASA STI Database, 

the largest collection of aeronautical and 

space science STI in the world. The Program 

Office is also NASA’s institutional 

mechanism for disseminating the results of 

its research and development activities. 

These results are published by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes 

the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports 

of completed research or a major 

significant phase of research that present 

the results of NASA programs and 

include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data 

and information deemed to be of 

continuing reference value. NASA’s 

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and 

extent of graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, eg, 

quick release reports, working papers, 

and bibliographies that contain minimal 

annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific 

and technical findings by NASAsponsored contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, 

seminars, or other meetings sponsored or 

cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and mission, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material 

pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services that complement the 

STI Program Office’s diverse offerings 

include creating custom thesauri, building 

customized databases, organizing and 

publishing research results . . . even 

providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI 

Program Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI Program Home 

Page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA Access 

Help Desk at (301) 621-0134

• Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk 

at (301) 621-0390

• Write to:

NASA Access Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace 

Information

7115 Standard

Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA/TP-216147

Preventing Decompression Sickness Over

Three Decades of Extravehicular Activity

Johnny Conkin, Ph.D.,

1 Human Adaptation and Countermeasures Division2

1

Universities Space Research Association, Houston

2

NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston

June 2011
Dedication

This publication is dedicated to the hundreds of anonymous research subjects who accepted 

some risk to their health to validate denitrogenation protocols for astronauts, and to those persons 

with the courage to work in space.

Acknowledgment

It is impossible to acknowledge by name all those involved in the testing, training, 

and operational implementation of 5 denitrogenation protocols used in more than 30 years of 

spacewalks from the shuttle, Russian Mir space station, and International Space Station. NASA 

investigators James M. Waligora, David J. Horrigan, Jr., Michael R. Powell, and Michael L. 

Gernhardt worked tirelessly with numerous investigators in academia, the U.S. Air Force, and 

international partners to test denitrogenation protocols in altitude chambers in the U.S. and 

Canada. Jimmy D. Adams, Andrew A. Pilmanis, and James T. Webb from Brooks Air Force 

Base (AFB) provided valuable consulting to NASA and conducted many NASA-funded altitude 

tests at Brooks AFB. Many contributed to testing at the NASA Johnson Space Center, including 

Vasantha K. Kumar, Philip P. Foster, Charles K. LaPinta, Charles E. Ross, Mike Fox, and Alan 

H. Feiveson, who provided outstanding statistical support in study design, data analysis, and 

consulting. Ronald Y. Nishi, Patrick J. Sullivan, and Gary W. Gray from Defense Research and 

Development – Toronto, along with Bruce D. Butler, Caroline Fife, Richard D. Vann, Wayne A. 

Gerth, Michael J. Natoli, and Neal W. Pollock safely conducted tests for NASA on the benefits 

of exercise to accelerated denitrogenation during prebreathe. NASA flight surgeons, including 

Joseph P. Dervay, were critical to bridging the gap between chamber testing and operational 

implementation of protocols, especially in monitoring the success of those protocols and for 

preparations to treat decompression sickness. Jane Krauhs and Sharon Hecht provided 

exceptional editing, and Tom S. Neuman was the motivation behind the report.

Disclaimer

My opinions do not reflect official policy of NASA. This work was made possible through 

NASA Cooperative Agreement NNJ06HG25A with Universities Space Research Association.

Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service

7115 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161

301-621-0390 703-605-6000

This report is also available in electronic form at http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/
i

Abstract

The shuttle Space Transportation System has come to a close. Among the advances made 

during the 30-year operational life of the shuttle were those in our understanding of decompression sickness. New denitrogenation procedures were validated with research subjects in altitude 

chambers. Validation continued during hundreds of spacewalks that were safely performed from 

the shuttle, Russian Mir space station, and now from International Space Station. Hypobaric exposure combined with microgravity achieved through space flight afforded a unique opportunity 

to understand more about decompression sickness. Lessons learned included: (1) a greater understanding of the limits to depressurization to minimize evolved gas and symptoms of decompression sickness, (2) methods to accelerate denitrogenation during oxygen prebreathing, (3) insights 

into tissue micronuclei formation and stability, (4) differences between research and operational 

settings, and (5) translation of research results into effective operational prebreathe protocols appropriate for a spacesuit that operates at a pressure only 4.3 pounds per square inch, absolute, or

222 mmHg, above the vacuum of space. A spacewalk is the culmination of many hours of training

under both hyperbaric and hypobaric conditions, training that must be managed to avoid decompression sickness. Flexibility in selecting both atmospheric gas composition and pressure in future 

exploration vehicles and habitats plus advances in spacesuit design will enable humans to exploit

space without interference from decompression sickness.
ii

Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1

Nature of the Problem for the Astronauts.............................................................................. 1

Spacesuit ................................................................................................................................ 2

Denitrogenation...................................................................................................................... 3

Operational Denitrogenation.................................................................................................. 4

In-suit.............................................................................................................................. 5

Shuttle Staged................................................................................................................. 5

International Space Station Campout ............................................................................ 7

Exercise Prebreathe for the International Space Station............................................... 7

Air Break During Prebreathe ................................................................................................. 11

Tissue Ratio as Decompression Dose .................................................................................... 12

Micronuclei............................................................................................................................ 13

Hypobaric Ascent Limit......................................................................................................... 16

Diving Astronauts.................................................................................................................. 20

Decompression Sickness and Venous Gas Emboli from Validation Trials........................... 20

Age, Gender, Aerobic Fitness, Hydration, and Patent Foramen Ovale ................................. 24

Relationship between Venous Gas Emboli and Hypobaric Decompression Sickness.......... 24

Mathematical Modeling......................................................................................................... 27

Operational and Research Experience with Decompression Sickness.................................. 27

In-suit Doppler Effort ............................................................................................................ 30

Eliminating Decompression Sickness Through Engineering ................................................ 31

The Moon............................................................................................................................... 31

Mars and Beyond ................................................................................................................... 33

References.............................................................................................................................. 34
iii

Figures

1 Onset time for first detection of VGE was earlier in a trial (Test 2b) in which 

no PB was done before the first ascent and subsequent 12-hr exposure to 10.2 psia 

(solid line) compared to when a 1-hr PB was performed (50% peak, Test 3b) or 

when there was a direct ascent to 4.3 psia after a 3.5-hr PB (65% peak, Test 2a). 

Data for Test 3b are from 4 hr of a 6-hr exposure.......................................................... 5

2 Michael Gernhardt (right) performs equipment and procedures checkout of 

the Exercise PB protocol during STS-104.7A with assistance from Charles 

Hobaugh. This procedure was first used on July 20, 2001, during the third 

and last EVA of the mission........................................................................................... 10

3 Change in computed tissue N2 pressure (dashed curve) and P(DCS) (solid curve) 

as a function of PB time, under conditions of the simulation described in text............. 15

4 Three isoprobability DCS isopleths for hypobaric exposures converging on 

the negative x-intercept instead of the negative y-intercept, where extrapolated 

diver isoprobability isopleths converge.......................................................................... 19

5 P(DCS) and P(VGE) increase as decompression dose increases. The 95% 

confidence limits (shorter curves) above and below the best estimate help to 

visualize uncertainty in the outcome .............................................................................. 21

6 Time of VGE and DCS onset in 78 exposures with both present (solid curve) 

and in 150 exposures with VGE only present (dashed curve). The curves, all 

of which are skewed to the right, are the best-imposed normal distributions 

on histograms ................................................................................................................. 26

7 Artist’s conception of Orion and Altair approaching the moon..................................... 32

8 Prototype pressurized lunar rover with exterior-mounted spacesuits ............................ 32

Tables

1 Estimated N2 Content by Gender ................................................................................... 4

2 Summary of DCS and VGE in Tests from 1982 – 2009 8

22

3 Tests to Find Threshold Altitudes for DCS and VGE.................................................... 17

4 Measures of Association between VGE and DCS ......................................................... 25
iv

Acronyms

AFB Air Force Base

AGE arterial gas emboli

Ar argon

ATA atmosphere absolute

ATM atmosphere pressure

CEVIS cycle ergometer with vibration isolation and stabilization

CO2 carbon dioxide

DCS decompression sickness

ΔP pressure difference

ECG electrocardiogram

EMU extravehicular mobility unit

EVA extravehicular activity

FFW feet of fresh water

FN2 fraction of nitrogen in a bubble

FSW feet of seawater

ISLE In-suit Light Exercise

ISS International Space Station

JSC Johnson Space Center

μg microgravity

N2 nitrogen

NBL Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory

NEEMO NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations

O2 oxygen

P1 initial pressure

P1N2 computed tissue nitrogen partial pressure

P2 final pressure

PB prebreathe

P(DCS) probability of decompression sickness

P(Grade IV VGE) probability of Grade IV venous gas emboli

PIN2 inspired (wet) partial pressure of nitrogen

PIO2 inspired (wet) partial pressure of oxygen

PFO patent foramen ovale

ppN2 partial pressure of nitrogen

P(Serious DCS) probability of serious decompression sickness
v

psia pounds per square inch, absolute

R-value ratio-value used by NASA, equivalent to P1N2/P2

rc critical radius

SD standard deviation

STPD standard temperature [0°C], pressure (1 ATM), and dry gas

STS Space Transportation System

TR tissue ratio

USAF U.S. Air Force

VGE venous gas emboli

VO2 peak measured peak oxygen consumption as ml*kg-1*min-1

WWII World War II

1

Introduction

The Space Transportation System (STS), in the form of the space shuttle fleet, including 

Challenger and Columbia, has come to a close. Historians will tell the story of the impact that 

this remarkable system of machines and humans has made on our nation and humanity. Among 

the advances made during the 30-year operational life of the shuttle were those in our understanding

of decompression sickness (DCS). New denitrogenation procedures were validated with research 

subjects in altitude chambers. Validation continued during hundreds of spacewalks, or extravehicular activities (EVAs), safely performed from the shuttle, the Mir space station, and now from the 

International Space Station (ISS). Hypobaric exposure combined with microgravity (μg) achieved

through space flight afforded a unique opportunity to understand more about DCS, still a significant occupational and recreational hazard. This report explains how NASA minimized the risk of

DCS in an environment conducive to evolved gas. The current NASA spacesuit operates at a 

pressure that is only 4.3 pounds per square inch, absolute (psia), or 222 mmHg, above the 

vacuum of space.

1,2

Nature of the Problem for Astronauts

Life on Earth evolved under Earth-normal atmospheric pressure (1 ATA, 14.7 psia, 101.3 kPa, 

760 mmHg) and Earth-normal gravity (1g). One atmosphere of pressure is 1 pressure in a range 

of higher and lower pressures at which we can comfortably exist. It is the rapid transition from 

high to low pressure, discounting isobaric inert gas counterdiffusion, that is the concern for DCS. 

A diver wearing a wetsuit returns to the surface after completing a task and then is afflicted with 

DCS. By contrast, an astronaut performing an EVA in a spacesuit is afflicted with DCS while

performing a task. DCS therefore compromises the completion of the astronaut’s task and, in large

measure, the success of the mission. In both cases, the best plans have failed, however, and the 

DCS-afflicted individual seeks treatment for evolved gas. As the astronaut failed to complete an 

expensive task, DCS in astronauts is both a medical and a productivity concern that ultimately

define acceptable risk. Acceptable risk is eventually defined, either prospectively or through 

trial and error.

Preventing DCS is preferred to treating DCS. Two strategies, excluding the fascinating 

possibility of breathing oxygenated liquid, are available to prevent DCS. The first provides a 

sufficient ambient gas pressure on the body by means of a mechanical structure around the body. 

The use of 1-atmosphere space and diver suits, counterpressure suits, submarines, and pressurized

aircraft cockpits maximize human safety but are very costly in terms of engineering, complexity, 

materials, and inaccessibility to the environment. The second strategy exposes the body to the 

hyperbaric or hypobaric environment but reduces ambient pressure at a rate that avoids or limits 

the formation of bubbles in the tissues. The depressurization rate is made operationally relevant 

if partial denitrogenation is achieved before depressurization occurs. This approach takes advantage of tissue incompressibility, tissue accommodation to a quantity of dissolved inert gas, and 

accessibility to the environment. It is less costly in terms of engineering and materials, but is not 

necessarily as safe as the first approach. The second approach requires an understanding of DCS 

from which to develop depressurization strategies.

When a diver returns from a hyperbaric environment, or an aviator or astronaut travels to a 

hypobaric environment, the amount of inert gas in excess of what can be held in solution at the 

new, lower pressure has the potential to come out of solution to form gas spaces that can displace 
2

or otherwise damage tissues. Displacement of tissue by trapped gas spaces or disruption of metabolic function due to embolic obstruction of blood flow can cause a wide range of signs and 

symptoms. The many signs and symptoms as a consequence of evolved gas and a review of 

treatment options for those afflicted are described elsewhere. The reader is referred to several 

publications*

A fundamental axiom about DCS is that a transient gas supersaturation, also called over-pressure 

or pressure difference (∆P), exists in a tissue region; the sum of all gas partial pressures in that 

region is greater than the ambient pressure opposing the release of the gas. Expressed as an 

equation, supersaturation exists when ∆P is positive:

for descriptions of what aviators and astronauts need to avoid to stay healthy and 

productive, and treatment options if evolved gas is not prevented. One consistent observation 

about subjects at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is that pain-only DCS after significant 

denitrogenation occurs predominately in the lower body, particularly with that part of the body 

associated in or around the patella of the knee.6,11 Subjects often noticed, or confirmed, a fullness,

an awareness, or a frank pain when the leg was horizontally flexed with the body in a supine position. While standing or walking, this pain, fullness, or awareness would abate only to return 

when the leg was once again horizontally flexed.

n 

∆P = (∑ Pi - P2) (1)

i = 1

where Pi = the dissolved gas tension of the ith gas of n species in the tissue and P2 = the ambient 

pressure after depressurization. The potential for bubble nucleation and rate of bubble growth are 

a function of supersaturation.

While gas supersaturation in the tissue is not in itself harmful, it is a thermodynamically 

unstable condition between the tissue and the surrounding environment. The difference between 

tissue gas partial pressure and ambient pressure is easily resolved with a phase transition, and some

of the excess mass (moles) of gas in the form of bubbles may be accommodated by the tissue and 

cause no symptoms. However, when a gas space is formed due to partial or complete desaturation

of a supersaturated tissue, there is a probability of DCS (P[DCS]).

12 A necessary but insufficient 

condition for DCS is the formation of a gas phase in the tissue. The assumption that due to evolved

gas, pain results from the deformation of tissue past a critical point may not account for symptoms

other than pain-only DCS, but evolved gas is certainly the primary insult for all subsequent signs 

and symptoms. It is not the presence or even the volume of evolved gas in the tissue that is important in pain-only DCS; it is the pressure difference between the gas space and the tissue that 

is important. The pressure difference is termed “deformation pressure” by Nims.13

Spacesuit

One can reduce the ∆P in Eq(1) and, therefore, the P(DCS) by reducing Pi or increasing P2, 

or some combination of both to achieve acceptable risk and operational efficiency. In our application, P2 is suit pressure. The fascinating history about the development of U.S. and Russian 

spacesuits and the selection of suit pressure for particular missions is beyond the scope of this 

report to summarize. As the spacesuit is a flexible spacecraft, details about spacesuits are available from Hoffman14 and Flugel et al.15 Current suit technology, especially in the design of

gloves, does not permit a high-pressure suit without increased fatigue and reduced mobility. So,

 *

References 3-10.
3

reducing the risk of DCS by increasing suit pressure has significant operational limitations, and 

there is significant overhead and reward when considering a spacesuit that operates over a range 

of pressures.

A balance must be achieved in each application between the cost to reduce Pi and the cost to 

increase P2, not just the cost in dollars but also the cost in operational efficiency. At 1 extreme in 

Apollo and Skylab, Pi was reduced to such an extent that the lowest pressure in the suit (A7L and 

A7L-B) was set just to avoid significant hypoxia, with some margin for error. In contrast the Pi

in the shuttle, Mir space station, and ISS could not be reduced without significant denitrogenation time. To achieve a balance between acceptable risk and operational efficiency, P2 in the 

shuttle extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) was set higher than it was in Apollo and Skylab 

spacesuits with DCS and not hypoxia as the dominant concern.

Spacesuits are not the only pressure garments used by NASA. A modified U.S. Air Force 

(USAF) U-2/SR-71 partial pressure garment was used during early flight testing of the shuttle. 

Astronauts launched through and reentered the atmosphere under shirtsleeve conditions after

the flight testing and before the Challenger accident. Following the loss of Challenger, a partialpressure launch entry suit was developed that later became the full-pressure advanced crew escape suit, which protects astronauts from inadvertent rapid depressurization during launch and

reentry. Pilots who fly the WB-57 as part of the High Altitude Research Program at JSC are protected from hypoxia and DCS in the event of inadvertent cabin depressurization by wearing a

pressure garment and by breathing 100% oxygen (O2) prior to and during all phases of the flight.

Denitrogenation

Much of what we know about denitrogenation and hypobaric DCS was learned during 

and shortly after World War II (WWII) and is available on the pages of Fulton’s 1951 book16

Decompression Sickness,

17,18 with additional information in the 4th edition of Fundamentals of 

Aerospace Medicine4 and The proceedings of the 1990 hypobaric decompression sickness workshop.

19 The advent of Doppler ultrasound bubble detection technology in the 1970s provided a 

significant tool to increase our understanding of DCS. Clearly, denitrogenation protocols are effective in reducing the P(DCS) and the severity of symptoms, as well as the potential for venous 

gas emboli (VGE) and arterial gas emboli (AGE). After denitrogenation, also called O2 prebreathing, an astronaut has a small amount of tissue nitrogen (N2) to manage as compared to a diver

who enjoys even 2 modest SCUBA dives. But, in most cases, the astronaut depressurizes to a 

low-pressure spacesuit while the diver returns to sea-level pressure. The amount of dissolved N2

that transforms into evolved gas under a modest supersaturation after a prebreathe (PB) must be 

very small for the astronaut, but the volume expansion (Boyle’s Law) at the new lower pressure 

is potentially larger for the astronaut than it is for the diver.

Human gender differences ensure a wide range of body types. A brief comparison using 

gender illustrates that no 2 people have the same quality or quantity of N2 elimination (washout) 

and uptake (washin). Table 1 shows the estimated volume of N2 dissolved in lean and fat tissues in 

a representative male and female. The total volume of N2 is slightly more in the woman than in

the man, given an N2 solubility coefficient of 0.0146 ml (standard temperature [0°C], pressure

(1 ATM), and dry gas [STPD]) N2/ml tissue * ATM N2 in lean (aqueous) tissue and 0.0615 ml 

N2/ml tissue * ATM N2 in fat (lipid) tissue, and the other information in the table.
4

Table 1. Estimated N2 Content by Gender

gender wt

(kg)

body fat%

(% total wt)

fat mass

(kg)

N2 volume

in fat (ml)*

lean mass

(kg)

N2 volume

in lean (ml)

total N2

volume (ml)

male 75 10 7.5 405 67.5 778 1183

female 60 25 15.0 809 45.0 519 1328

*Density of fat = 0.9 kg/liter, partial pressure of N2 = 0.79 ATA in breathing air, and total body weight was not reduced to 

compensate for the weight of inert bone.

What is apparent is that the amount of N2 in the fat tissues of the woman is twice as great as 

that in the man, and that the amount of N2 in lean tissues of the man is slightly greater than in the 

woman. Given enough PB time, the same total volume of N2 would be removed from both the

man and the woman. As PB time is always limited, the kinetics of N2 elimination and the relative

contributions of N2 from the fat and lean tissues during a limited PB must be considered.

During the early phase of a PB, a large amount of N2 is eliminated from a well-perfused and 

large lean tissue reservoir in the male, with a lesser amount of N2 coming from a poorly perfused 

fat depot that is smaller than that in the woman. Although poorly perfused fat contributes some N2

throughout the PB, it is likely responsible for the long tail of a typical N2 elimination curve. The 

female also provides a large amount of N2 that was initially removed from a well-perfused but

smaller lean tissue reservoir, with a greater amount of N2 than in the man coming from a poorly 

perfused fat depot that is larger than in the man. This poorly perfused fat tissue has 5 times greater

affinity for N2 than does the well-perfused lean tissue. As a result, a large amount of N2 is available from fat tissue in the woman, and the N2 slowly leaves the body during PB so that you would

expect an even longer tail on a typical N2 elimination curve for women than on a typical N2

elimination curve for men.

It is important to define the minimum PB time that protects the greatest number of EVA

astronauts, whether they are male or female and given a reasonable range of body type. It is 

important to keep the PB procedure simple and to balance the risk of DCS with available treatment resources.20 Risk is defined as the P(DCS) and the consequence of DCS. Since the consequence of a serious case of DCS in space is high, the P(Serious DCS) must be very low to 

achieve an acceptable operational risk.

Operational Denitrogenation

A minimum 3-hr in-suit PB was performed before launch in all NASA programs except that 

for the shuttle.

21 This protected inactive astronauts from DCS after reaching orbit; during ascent 

cabin pressure was reduced from 14.7 to 5.0 psia and atmosphere was simultaneously enriched to 

100% O2.

1 Although this PB was effective in most cases, 1 astronaut wrote, years after leaving

the space program, that he had symptoms consistent with DCS while at 5.0 psia. Michael Collins 

on Gemini X and later on Apollo 11 believed he had symptoms of pain-only DCS in his left knee 

that eventually resolved in the 100% O2 atmosphere as the missions proceeded.22 This was not an 

unexpected outcome based on prior PB validation trials reported by Maio et al.21,23 Astronauts on 

subsequent EVAs from the Apollo spacecraft and Skylab, and on moon walks from the Apollo lunar

module, who were wearing suits pressurized to 3.7 psia were not at risk for DCS due to denitrogenation during their extended time in the hypobaric and hyperoxic breathing environment. However,

the increased risks of fire and atelectasis on long missions, as well as many other considerations, 

compelled NASA to select an Earth-normal atmosphere for the shuttle and the ISS. The Russian 
5

space program had already committed to an Earth-normal atmosphere, even before the Mir space 

station was launched. A consequence of these decisions was that EVAs in the 4.3-psia EMU and 

the 5.8-psia Russian Orlan spacesuit could result in DCS, so efficient and effective denitrogenation protocols were needed. Compounding the challenge is that an air break (a brief exposure to 

high partial pressure of N2 [ppN2]) during a 100% O2 PB is a real possibility so procedures are

needed to compensate for air breaks.

In-suit

Shuttle astronauts have two denitrogenation strategies available to reduce the P(DCS). In 

the first denitrogenation strategy, the astronaut simply breathes gas, often through a mask or in a

spacesuit, with enriched O2, often 100% O2, for a time period depending on the hypobaric exposure

pressure, often the spacesuit operating pressure. The type and amount of work done in the suit

and the duration of hypobaric exposure set the final PB time to achieve an acceptable risk of 

DCS.

24 The operational challenge is to match the length of the PB with an acceptable low incidence of DCS25 to produce an efficient EVA system. Waligora et al26 describe tests of 3.5- and 

4-hr PBs at JSC. The first of several PB protocols were evaluated with male volunteers in August 

1982, and DCS after the first 3.5-hr PB was reported in a subject and a Doppler technician.

27,28

This was an inauspicious start to the validation of a 3.5-hr PB. A 4-hr PB reduced the incidence 

of DCS from 42% to 21% and the incidence of VGE from 71% to 46% in data normalized to a 

6-hr exposure to 4.3 psia in men that ambulated as part of exercise at 4.3 psia.

26,28 On April 12, 

1981, the shuttle STS became a reality. The first EVA from the shuttle was performed on April 

7, 1983, using a 3.5-hr baseline in-suit PB. Only 3 two-person EVAs have been performed from 

the shuttle after a 3.5- or 4-hr in-suit PB since April 1983. The 4-hr in-suit PB remained an 

option throughout the shuttle program, however. What appeared to be a simple in-suit PB 

protocol was not as acceptable as the shuttle staged protocol, described below.

Shuttle Staged

Ambient pressure is decreased to an intermediate pressure in the second denitrogenation 

strategy so the inspired partial pressure of N2 (PIN2) is lower than the initial PIN2.

21,29-32 The 

staged depressurization approach is enhanced when O2 concentration is also increased to lessen 

the impact of hypoxia and to further reduce PIN2. However, the initial pressure reduction likely

transforms a subpopulation of tissue micronuclei into “silent” bubbles in some astronauts, so a 

60-min PB with a mask is performed before the initial modest reduction in ambient pressure to 

10.2 psia occurs.

11,26,33-35

The cumulative fraction of VGE first detected in subjects exposed to 4.3 psia for 4 hr after 

3 different PBs is shown in Figure 1. A related figure appears in Waligora et al26 (their Figure 12). 

All subjects performed EVA-simulation work activities and were ambulatory at 4.3 psia. The solid 

line (steps) that increases and plateaus quickly to about 45% is from 10 of 22 subjects who had a 

mean VGE onset time of 43 ± 43 min standard deviation (SD). This trial did not include a 1-hr 

PB before a 12-hr stay at 10.2 psia where subjects breathed 26.5% O2. The dashed line that plateaus to about 50% VGE is from the same trial as described above except it did include a 1-hr PB 

before the ascent to 10.2 psia. The mean VGE onset time in 18 of 35 subjects with VGE was 105 

± 48 min. Finally, the dashed line that plateaus to about 65% VGE was from a trial with a 3.5-hr 

PB and a direct ascent to 4.3 psia. The mean VGE onset time in 15 of 23 subjects with VGE was 
6

115 ± 55 min. The mean VGE onset times were statistically longer (p<0.002) as compared to the 

trial without the 1-hr PB before ascent to 10.2 psia for 12 hr.

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

time at 4.3 psia (min)

0.000

0.125

0.250

0.375

0.500

0.625

0.750

cumulative VGE fraction

Figure 1. Onset time for first detection of VGE was earlier in a trial

(Test 2b) in which no PB was done before the first ascent and subsequent 12-hr exposure to 10.2 psia (solid line) compared to when a 1-hr

PB was performed (50% peak, Test 3b) or when there was a direct 

ascent to 4.3 psia after a 3.5-hr PB (65% peak, Test 2a). Data for 

Test 3b are from 4 hr of a 6-hr exposure.

The computed decompression dose (described later) was slightly higher in the trial that 

omitted the initial 1-hr PB, so a high group incidence of VGE was expected. Instead, a rapid 

onset of VGE was observed in a few subjects, possibly because micronuclei associated with the 

vascular endothelium transformed into silent bubbles that were ready to grow and enter the venous

circulation after final depressurization to 4.3 psia. An ascent to only 10.2 psia (3000 m [9750 ft]) 

without some PB predisposed some subjects to produce VGE shortly after reaching 4.3 psia, even

after spending 12 hr at 10.2 psia with a 40-min PB before the final ascent to 4.3 psia. It is notable 

that 5 of 10 subjects in this trial had VGE first detected within 30 min at 4.3 psia. One subject 

had VGE detected after 1 min at 4.3 psia and at 65 min had signs and symptoms classified as

serious DCS. DCS was diagnosed in all 3 trials, about a 20% group incidence and a mean onset 

to first symptoms of about 2 hr.

Optimization of the final shuttle 10.2-psia staged depressurization protocol took months of 

planning and years of validation. The first critical step was to certify the shuttle for operations at 

a reduced pressure with an enriched O2 atmosphere, since the vehicle was not planned to operate 

under these conditions. Several interacting variables were evaluated in isolation or combination: 

rate of ascent to intermediate pressure, the intermediate pressure itself (equipment cooling issues36), 

the partial pressure of O2 and ppN2 at the intermediate pressure (hypoxia and flammability issues37),

length of stay,32,33 likelihood of silent bubbles, final suit pressure, duration of EVA, work performed in the suit, final in-suit PB time before final ascent, and balancing the acceptable risk 

of DCS during EVA with limited treatment options.26,38
7

The protocol that ultimately became the preferred PB for shuttle was achieved in 3 steps as 

follows: (1) an initial 60-min PB by mask, of which 45 min were completed before the shuttle 

atmosphere was depressurized from 14.7 to 10.2 psia and the air was enriched to 26.5% O2 to

provide an inspired partial pressure of O2 (PIO2) of 127 mmHg; (2) a minimum stay of 12 hr at 

this intermediate pressure; and finally (3) an in-suit PB before a final depressurization to 4.3 psia,

lasting 40 to 75 min depending on the time spent at 10.2 psia. The time at 10.2 psia, which was 

not spent on a mask, was not a break in PB since the lengthy exposure to a reduced ppN2 at 

10.2 psia, approximately 7.5 psia, continued the denitrogenation process. Astronauts simply

donned their suits at 10.2 psia when they were ready and performed a final 40- to 75-min in-suit 

PB before final depressurization to 4.3 psia, without the need to first re-pressurize to 14.7 psia. 

If the time spent at 10.2 psia was greater than 36 hr, the initial 60-min mask PB at 14.7 psia was

omitted. The rationale for this was that any silent bubbles formed during the 15- to 20-min depressurization to 10.2 psia would be reabsorbed given enough time at 10.2 psia. This procedure 

was therefore complicated and had several operational and physiological impacts, and yet it was 

preferred over a simple in-suit PB. The first EVAs that used the shuttle staged protocol were on 

STS-41B in February 1984, and the last of about 180 person-EVAs is expected to take place in 

2011 with the retirement of the shuttle.

International Space Station Campout

A modification of the shuttle protocol, which is called the campout protocol, is now used on 

ISS. Since the entire atmosphere in the ISS cannot be reduced to 10.2 psia and enriched to 26.5% 

O2, 2 astronauts must “camp out” at 10.2 psia in the ISS airlock. For various operational reasons

the time at 10.2 psia is limited to 8 hr and 40 min, most of which is spent sleeping. The lack of 

food preparation and rest room facilities in the airlock means that a re-pressurization to 14.7 psia 

is needed once while 2 astronauts breathe 100% O2 by mask for 70 min. On return to 10.2 psia 

the masks are removed and the suit-donning process is completed. The airlock is re-pressurized

to 14.7 psia after the astronauts don their spacesuits to allow an assistant to exit at 14.7 psia and 

to complete the 50-min in-suit PB before final depressurization of the airlock to the vacuum of 

space. After extensive review, the similarity of the campout PB to the shuttle staged PB along 

with good operational experience with the shuttle PB negated an empirical validation of the

campout PB. The first EVAs from the ISS using the campout protocol took place in September

2006 with about 140 person-EVAs completed by the end of 2010.

Why were these complicated staged PB procedures favored over a simpler in-suit PB? The 

use of the staged protocol reduces fatigue in astronauts, who would otherwise be in the spacesuit

for 10 to 12 hr, and increases the efficiency of the astronauts, since time that would otherwise be 

wasted in the suit during the PB can be spent on other tasks. The only way to reduce fatigue and 

maintain efficiency while using the in-suit PB is to perform most of the PB while using a mask 

outside of the suit, but this eventually requires a transition from the mask to the suit. Since the 

suit requires a 100% O2 purge and leak check, the transition from a mask, or even a mouthpiece

and noseclip, to the suit with 100% O2 without an air break has proven problematic.

Exercise Prebreathe for the International Space Station

After the ISS airlock was delivered on STS-104.7A in July 2001 and before the campout 

protocol was available in September 2006, an option to perform exercise-enhanced denitrogenation from the ISS became available. Since the elimination and uptake of N2 is a perfusion-limited 
8

process, the use of exercise during the PB is a third denitrogenation strategy. An accelerated denitrogenation protocol was needed to avoid scheduling constraints on EVAs performed from the 

ISS. The ambitious goal was to reduce the available 4-hr resting in-suit PB by about half. Before 

the delivery of the Quest airlock, EVAs to support ISS construction were performed with hatches 

closed between the 2 vehicles so that shuttle 10.2-psia PB could be used. The first use of exercise

PB was to complete the installation of the ISS airlock. The discomfort and complexity of adding 

an effective interval of exercise during PB must be balanced with the rewards (less total PB time 

and greater reduction in the P(DCS) from an alternative resting PB) or the option is not acceptable

to the astronaut. No single, reasonable, short-term intervention can increase cardiac output as much

as exercise. Exercise during PB was evaluated during and shortly after WWII39-41 and reevaluated at Brooks Air Force Base (AFB) for the special operations community42-47 and most recently

by NASA. Details are available about 9 exercise PB options evaluated by NASA from 1997 to 

200948-51 (also see Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of DCS and VGE in Tests from 1982 – 2009

Test P2

(psia) conditions numberm f

mean

age

DCS VGE

(any Grade)

VGE

(Grade IV)

1a 4.3 P 11 0 34.5 4 7 4

1b 4.3 S 13 0 32.3 3 11 7

1c 4.3 S 12 0 32.0 4 7 6

1d 4.3 S 3 0 39.6 2 3 2

2a 4.3 P 23 0 31.6 7 15 8

2b 4.3 S 22 0 31.5 6* 10 7

3a 4.3 P 28 0 31.0 6 13 11

3b 4.3 P,S 35 0 30.1 8 20 8

3c 4.3 P 14 0 32.5 3 5 1

3d 4.3 P,S 12 0 28.5 2 5 2

4a 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 1 7 3

4b 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 2 1

4c 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 4 1

4d 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 0 0

4e 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 4 1

4f 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 0 0

5a 4.3 P 19 19 31.5 4 11 4

5b 4.3 P 11 0 32.0 0 0 0

6 6.0 S 15 14 32.9 1 3 0

7a 6.5 direct ascent 11 0 28.2 4† 8 6

7b 6.5 direct ascent 11 0 28.2 2 8 4

8a 6.5 direct ascent 29 11 32.5 7 20 13

8b 6.5 direct ascent 30 11 32.6 10* 22 17

9a 6.5 direct ascent 15 9 32.1 1 12 7

9b 6.5 A 14 9 33.8 2* 6 1

9c 4.3 A 9 2 34.8 3 5 4

9d 4.3 A 6 1 36.4 0 2 0

9e 4.3 E,A 7 0 34.6 0 2 0

10 10.1 FAD 14 5 31.7 1 6 3

11a 4.3 P,A 16 12 33.2 3 9 4

11b 6.5 direct ascent 1 3 39.5 0 1 0
9

Test P2

(psia) conditions numberm f

mean

age

DCS VGE

(any Grade)

VGE

(Grade IV)

Phase I 4.3 P,E,S,A 33 14 29.1 9 23 2

Phase II 4.3 P,E,S,A 35 10 31.7 0 14 3

Phase IV 4.3 P,E,S,A 44 12 30.1 8 23 7

Phase V-1 4.3 P,E,A 7 2 31.5 3 5 2

Phase V-2 4.3 P,E,A 1 2 39.2 1* 3 2

Phase V-3 4.3 P,E,A 38 10 36.9 7 25 5

Phase V-4 4.3 P,E,A 3 3 31.5 3 3 1

Phase V-5 4.3 P,E,S,A 37 11 32.3 2 14 8

Conditions: P, some PB occurred before ascent; S, a portion of the PB was spent at 10.2 psia breathing 26.5% O2; A, subjects 

were “adynamic” (no ambulation before or during the altitude exposure); E, a prescribed exercise was performed during some 

interval of the PB; and FAD, flying after diving.

*One case was classified as Type II DCS; †

2 cases were classified as Type II DCS.

Two exercise PB protocols that are deemed acceptable for operations on ISS are briefly 

described. The first of these is the Exercise PB protocol, which uses the cycle ergometer with 

vibration isolation and stabilization (CEVIS) device; and the second of these is the In-suit Light 

Exercise (ISLE) PB protocol, which employs the EMU as a resistive exercise device.

For the Exercise PB protocol an astronaut, months before launch, performs a peak O2

consumption test (VO2 peak test) using leg ergometry, and a linear regression of O2 consumption 

vs. watts (workload) is created. An exercise prescription is produced that distributes the appropriate workload between the upper body (12%) and the lower body (88%). Before performing an 

EVA the astronaut breathes O2 from a mask and performs 3 min of incremental exercise on the 

CEVIS at about 75 rpm using a prescription that increases work from 37.5%, to 50.0% and then 

to 62.5% of the VO2 peak while also rhythmically pulling against elastic surgical tubing to include upper body activity (see Figure 2). The ergometry is completed after 7 min at 75% of VO2

peak. After waiting an elapsed time of 50 min while still breathing 100% O2 from the mask, the 

astronauts and an assistant depressurize to 10.2 psia in 30 min in the ISS airlock. During this depressurization, the liquid cooling garment and the lower portion of the spacesuit are donned by 

the astronauts. Once the airlock O2 concentration stabilizes at 26.5%, the astronauts and the attendant remove the masks and complete donning the upper torso of the spacesuit. Thus, for a

good portion of the PB time, the astronaut is actively engaged in the suit-donning process. A leak

check and then purge with 100% O2 to remove N2 from the suit completes the suit-donning procedure. In-suit PB starts in conjunction with a 5-min re-pressurization back to 14.7 psia where 

the remaining 55 min of in-suit PB are performed and the assistant exits the airlock. The final 

depressurization to 4.3 psia in the suit and to the vacuum of space takes 30 min.

For the ISLE PB protocol, the astronaut does not engage in a short bout of intense PB 

exercise on the CEVIS prior to suit donning at 10.2 psia but instead performs a longer bout of 

mild exercise in the EMU. The ISLE PB protocol shares many steps with the Exercise PB protocol but differs from the latter in that 40 min are spent breathing 100% O2 by mask followed by a 

20-min depressurization to 10.2 psia. Once the astronaut has completed suit donning, arm and 

leg motions are performed for 4 min followed by 1 min of rest in conjunction with a 5-min repressurization back to 14.7 psia. The mild exercise pattern continues for 50 min and achieves a 

minimum O2 consumption of 6.8 ml*Kg-1

*min-1

. An additional 50 min of rest completes the PB 

protocol followed by a 30-min depressurization of the airlock to vacuum.

The return to 14.7 psia after a short suit-donning period at 10.2 psia in both the Exercise and 

the ISLE PB protocols and 2 returns to 14.7 psia over the course of the longer campout PB likely
10

reduced the subsequent P(DCS) by removing silent bubbles. These bubbles had the potential to 

form from a limited number of large-radius micronuclei (see Micronuclei) during the initial depressurization to 10.2 psia. After the bubbles are formed and are then reabsorbed during the repressurization to 14.7 psia while breathing 100% O2, tissues are temporarily left with a smaller 

range of micronuclei radii from which to grow bubbles during the final depressurization to 4.3 

psia. Recall that the shuttle 10.2-psia staged depressurization protocol did not require a return to 

14.7 psia to remove an assistant from the airlock. Since the entire habitable volume of the shuttle 

was depressurized, the astronauts simply continued the depressurization from 10.2 to 4.3 psia

after suit donning in the airlock.

Figure 2. Michael Gernhardt (right) performs equipment and procedures checkout of the Exercise PB 

protocol during STS-104.7A with assistance from 

Charles Hobaugh. This procedure was first used on 

July 20, 2001, during the third and last EVA of the 

mission.

An advancement in denitrogenation protocol selection came via establishing prospective 

accept conditions for validation trials. A sequential design was used to good effect by Kumar et 

al52as a means by which to discontinue a trial when statistical significance was achieved, thus 

minimizing risk to research subjects. A sequential design concept was also applied to the PB 

protocol selection for the ISS. First, an assessment of the maximum impact that a case of DCS

would have on the completion of ISS assembly, balanced with an ability to effectively treat DCS 
11

on orbit, created 3 “accept” conditions for validation trials. A PB protocol was acceptable in 

validation trials for ISS EVA operations if no serious case of DCS was observed, if the incidence 

of pain-only DCS was ≤15%, and if the incidence of Grade IV VGE (described later) was ≤20%.48

Second, the “accept” region during sequential trials was set at 95% statistical confidence with the 

“reject” region set at 70% statistical confidence, which avoided continued testing of ineffective 

protocols. In 9 exercise-enhanced PB protocols,50 in 50 exposures the observed DCS could not 

exceed 3 cases (6%) and the observed Grade IV VGE could not exceed 5 cases (10%) to meet 

the accept conditions. One of 9 trials (Phase II) had no DCS with only 3 occurrences of Grade IV 

VGE in 45 exposures that combined short-duration, high-intensity exercise with additional light 

exercise during the PB. Another trial (Phase V-5) had 2 cases of Type I DCS with 8 occurrences 

of Grade IV VGE in 48 exposures that combined long-duration, low-intensity exercise. These protocols were acceptable to NASA after extensive peer review of the research and with the realization

that implementation of an operational PB is always more conservative than the tested PB. Thirtyfour person-EVAs have been conducted from the ISS after use of the Exercise PB protocol. The 

first scheduled use of the ISLE PB protocol is during the last shuttle mission (STS-134). The 

ISLE PB protocol is available for subsequent EVAs from the ISS.

Air Break During Prebreathe

Various methods to preserve the quality of and confidence in the PB during the transition 

from mask to suit were evaluated at JSC, and all were found to be inadequate. In effect, the inability to avoid a potentially long air break in PB at 14.7 psia and ignorance of the consequences 

of an air break during PB were responsible for the development of the staged denitrogenation

protocols on the shuttle and the ISS.

1,31 The few research studies that exist concerning break in 

PB are listed in chronological order in the footnote.†

A lengthy break in PB is an operational reality that could compromise an otherwise safe 

denitrogenation procedure and jeopardize a scheduled EVA. The NASA Aeromedical Flight 

Rules defines O2 payback time based on the location and duration of a simple air break during 

a PB. Payback time is the number of minutes of additional PB time needed to compensate for an 

interruption in the original PB time. For air breaks during resting PB, the payback time on 100% 

O2 is 2 times the duration of the air break and 4 times the duration of the air break if the air break 

occurs early in the Exercise PB protocol for the ISS. A break in PB that lasts longer than 10 min 

requires that the PB be repeated from the start, or the crew switch to an alternative PB. A notable 

case of a complicated break in PB occurred during preparations for the second of 3 EVAs on 

STS-129. A mechanical problem in the airlock control panel on the ISS occurred about 2 hr into 

the sleep period of the campout PB. This failure initiated a re-pressurization of the airlock. There 

was no reasonable recovery from this air break due to the time needed to reconfigure the airlock 

operations. The decision was made to switch to Exercise PB, which was completed the following 

day and preserved the original scheduling of the second EVA.

Estimates for PB payback time have ranged from 154 to 35 times (Adams et al)

55 the duration

of the air break. Unfortunately, no published results exist that can be confidently applied to NASA

operations. There are simply no data about payback time if PB is interrupted during exercise.

Simple rules for PB compensation after an air break are desirable for space EVA operations, but 

no 2 people have identical N2 uptake and elimination kinetics, and in reality the duration of the 

break, the point at which the interruption in the PB occurred, and the remaining amount of PB time 

 †

References 17, 53-59.
12

are infinitely variable. Breathing 1 ATA of O2 is known to decrease cardiac output and increase 

peripheral vascular resistance by increasing vasoconstriction.60,61 It is reasonable to suppose 

asymmetrical N2 kinetics as a consequence of an air break. It is also reasonable to suppose that 

there is a change in the size distribution of tissue micronuclei as a function of the O2 window 

during the PB62 and the size distribution is influenced by air breaks. So, simple payback rules 

may not suffice under all conditions, and a quantitative approach to access payback time is a goal 

for the future.

63 Data from Pilmanis et al59 showed that a 10-min air break taking place 30 min 

into a 60-min PB prior to a 4.37-psia exposure did reduce the mean time to onset of symptoms 

and did increase DCS incidence at 1 hr compared to controls.

Tissue Ratio as Decompression Dose

Fundamental to our understanding of the P(DCS) in astronauts is to first understand how 

we calculate a tissue ratio (TR). TR is a simple index of decompression dose, first used at the 

turn of the century by Haldane, that defines the limit to direct ascent for divers. (See Stepanek 

and Webb4 for historical background on TR.) A decompression dose can also be computed from 

a biophysical model that addresses bubble growth, such as the maximum size a theoretical bubble

achieves, the rate of growth of that bubble, or the summed volume from a collection of bubbles 

competing for inert gas.64,65 TR is the ratio of computed P1N2 in a theoretical tissue to ambient 

pressure. Equation (2) defines P1N2 and P2 as the ambient pressure after depressurization. Prebreathing 100% O2 or O2-enriched mixtures before a hypobaric exposure prevents DCS, so it is 

necessary to account for the use of O2-enriched mixtures as part of the expression for decompression dose. After ppN2 in the breathing mixture changes, such as during a switch from

ambient air to a mask supplied with 100% O2, the ppN2 that is reached in a designated tissue

compartment after a specific time is P1N2:

P1N2 = P0 + (Pa - P0) (1 - e - k t ), (2)

where P1N2 is calculated for the tissue after t min, P0 is the initial ppN2 in the compartment, Pa 

is the ambient ppN2 in the breathing mixture, and t is the time at the new Pa in minutes. The TR

constant k is equal to ln(2)/t1/2, where t1/2 is the half-time for ppN2 in the 360-min compartment. 

The particular half-time compartment is a statistical construct that optimizes TR as a decompression dose to the observed dichotomous DCS or VGE outcomes from a collection of trials.66 A

long 360-min half-time is associated with long PB times tested by NASA.67 A shorter half-time

combined with long PBs produces low TRs that are not consistent (optimized) with trials that yield

significant DCS and VGE incidence. The half-time compartment is simply a surrogate linked to 

the actual process at the tissue level that dictates the true evolved gas condition.

Equation (2) describes the simple case in which Pa changes instantaneously, a step-change. 

This form is sufficient in most applications since donning or removing an O2 mask changes Pa

within a few breaths. There is also the possibility that Pa changes through time, such as breathing 

air during a long depressurization, or changing the N2 content through time at some intermediate 

pressure. An expanded form of Eq(2) covers these cases. One novel application is to reduce N2

content through time as dictated by the operational timeline such that P1N2 is appropriate at the 

time of suit donning, thus avoiding a final in-suit PB period. This application requires an automated control system to change the breathing atmosphere through time and space within a

vehicle that is compatible with enriched O2. As the cost likely exceeds the rewards with this 

approach, it has not been pursued. Finally, Eq(2) is modified to compute P1N2 to account for 
13

intervals of exercise during PB. The tissue rate constant k is defined in terms of %VO2 peak

during the PB.50

Equation (3) is 1 form of TR as decompression dose, which approximates the potential 

volume at an ambient pressure of N2 evolved in a unit volume of tissue given that all available 

N2 at P2 has transformed from the dissolved state to the evolved state:

68,69

decompression dose = [(P1N2 / P2) – 0.79], (3)

where decompression dose is 0 at sea level since [(11.6/14.7) – 0.79] is 0.

TR, which is an index of the true decompression dose, is fundamental to other formal 

expressions of decompression dose as evolved gas. Given an abundance of quality research data,

the bottom of the S-shaped curve on a DCS vs. TR dose-response curve would be nearly flat over 

a range of TR to, say, 1.1. The flat region is an indication that a decompression dose must exceed 

some critical value. TR is utilitarian, as it easy to use in statistical regression models to describe 

DCS and VGE outcomes from combined research trials over a range of TRs. TR, or R-value in 

NASA terminology, becomes a number that cannot be exceeded. For example, an R-value of

1.65 or less is acceptable for EVA operations in the 4.3-psia EMU from the shuttle. An R-value 

of 1.65 in an EMU does not mean the P(DCS) is 0.

28,70 Risk and reward must be balanced to 

achieve an operational protocol, and finding this balance is as much an art as a science. Operations using the Russian Orlan spacesuit at 5.8 psia result in an R-value of about 1.85 to provide 

a P(DCS) that is the equivalent of the P(DCS) in the EMU, so the acceptable R-value (TR) is not 

an absolute but a function of suit pressure.67,71 DCS research and operational EVA experience in 

the Russian space program is too extensive to summarize here (Barer72) and parallels the efforts 

in the U.S. space program.

Micronuclei

The previous discussion focused on the classic Haldanean approach: reducing the amount of

tissue N2 to limit bubble growth. But, an emerging area of DCS prevention is also to hinder the 

transformation of tissue micronuclei into growing bubbles.64,73 The presence of gaseous micronuclei in the tissues permits DCS under modest depressurizations.

74 Information about and evidence

for tissue micronuclei come mostly from indirect observations. Application of a high-pressure

spike, either hydraulic or pneumatic, filtration, or ultracentrifugation of a sample are all accepted 

means to reduce the number and size of micronuclei (change the distribution), as is evident from

fewer bubbles or cases of DCS after a subsequent depressurization.75-77 One inference from these

studies is that normal activity establishes a size distribution of micronuclei within tissues that can 

be modified by changing your activity. The idea of “using up” micronuclei faster than they are

generated as a means to understand increased resistance to DCS on repeated exposures has also 

been discussed.78 A comprehensive review and discussion of micronuclei is not provided here, 

but information is available in various sources.‡

If micronuclei are considered if the results from research on DCS are then applied to 

astronauts who perform EVAs, walking in an altitude chamber is not a reasonable analog to 

walking in space.

80,88,89 Exercise increases the risk of DCS, generally in the limb performing the 

exercise.24,90-92 Walking is such a natural event that in research on DCS it is frequently ignored 

as being exercise. This simple and ubiquitous act has new relevance as humans venture into space

 ‡

References 78-87.
14

and ambulate on the moon and later Mars, especially as it relates to the risk of DCS. Calling an

EVA in μg from the shuttle or ISS a spacewalk is a misnomer. Astronauts do not ambulate in the

conventional sense but only anchor their legs to a stable structure so the upper body can effect 

some task. Powell coined the term “adynamia” to characterize the lack of movement and, thus,

of dynamic forces in the lower body (lower body adynamia) over several days of adaptation to 

μg and during EVAs.81,93-95

The fundamental premise of adynamia concerns the control of nucleation processes within 

tissues and fluids. In the absence of supersaturation, the spontaneous rate of nucleation is inconsequential when micronuclei on the order of microns in radius are considered. The number or 

distribution of micronucleus sizes can be influenced, however, before supersaturation exists

when mechanical energy is added to the system. It is notable that subjects who performed brief 

but vigorous dual-cycle (arms and legs) ergometry at the start of an exercise PB showed earlier 

VGE onset compared to those who performed ergometry about 15 min into the start of the PB.

50

A 15-min delay in starting the ergometry in a 150-min total PB time delayed VGE onset time in 

research subjects during a subsequent exposure to 4.3 psia. Astronauts always perform EVAs in 

pairs, so those who use the Exercise PB protocol start the PB at the same time, but someone must 

go first as there is only 1 leg ergometer on the ISS dedicated to this protocol.

Violent muscular contractions in bullfrogs before a hypobaric exposure96 were associated 

with bubble formation in resting animals while at altitude. The number of bubbles was reduced if 

the bullfrogs were allowed to recover for as long as 1 hr after electrical stimulations. The authors 

offered 2 explanations for this: a short-lived local increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) that facilitated bubble growth at altitude, or the inception of micronuclei or some other short-lived entities

that would later facilitate the growth of bubbles at altitude. This concept was tested in humans97

when 20 subjects were exposed to 6.2 psia on 3 separate and random occasions without the

confounding of PB or any exercise at altitude during a 2-hr exposure. Each subject performed

150 deep-knee flexes in 10 min, either 2 hr, 1 hr, or just prior to ascent, with the remaining time 

spent adynamic in a chair. It was hypothesized that exercise before decompression would generate a population of some entity (micronuclei, macronuclei, vapor-filled cavities trapped on vascular endothelium, or increase the concentration of CO2) that would diminish in size or concentration

given enough time before ascent. The investigators used subsequent VGE information to indirectly test the hypothesis. They observed that intense lower-body activity just before the altitude 

exposure did cause more VGE to appear and to cause the VGE to appear earlier than when exercise was done earlier. The critical observation was that the predisposing factor(s) diminished 

with time while subjects sat quietly in a chair before the ascent.

If DCS outcome is related only to tissue N2 supersaturation, perhaps the decrease in P(DCS) 

tracks the decrease in computed supersaturation. If the relationship is not a mirror image, perhaps 

factors other than N2 supersaturation are jointly responsible. The dashed line in Figure 3 is from 

the natural logarithm transformation of the exponential decay in a 360-min half-time compartment that is normalized by dividing the initial tissue N2 pressure by 11.6 psia, ambient ppN2 at 

sea level. The solid curve is the same transformation applied to the P(DCS) from a survival

model67 evaluated over 6 hr of PB given that the person performed mild exercise at 4.3 psia for 

4 hr while breathing 100% O2 through a mask. Other factors that dictate the DCS outcome must 

exist besides tissue N2 supersaturation or the 2 plots would look similar. If DCS outcome is a 

complex competition between potential for evolved gas and transformation of micronuclei into 

bubbles, it might be expected that the curves for log[P(DCS)] and log(normalized N2 pressure) 

would diverge over a range of PB time.
15

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

prebreathe time (hrs)

-3.0

-2.4

-1.8

-1.2

-0.6

0.0

LN normalized P1N2 and P(DCS)

Figure 3. Change in computed tissue N2 pressure (dashed curve) 

and P(DCS) (solid curve) as a function of PB time, under conditions 

of the simulation described in text.

The physics of micronucleus stability, creation, size distribution, absolute numbers in tissues,

and transformation into growing bubbles for a given N2 supersaturation must be complex.98-100

One could hypothesize that only a few large-radius micronuclei could be absorbed during a short 

100% O2 PB, and that more large- and small-radius micronuclei are absorbed after more than 90 

min of PB. There would come a point during a long PB in which fewer and smaller-radius micronuclei exist to transform subsequently into growing bubbles under the prevailing reduced N2 supersaturation, as suggested by the rapid decrease in ln[P(DCS)] after 3 hr of PB in the survival model

(Figure 3). The reality of bubble growth in tissue is that it is not just the absolute potential for

evolved gas, as reflected in an exponential washout curve, but is a competition between the

potential for available gas and the population of micronuclei that are available to accept the 

excess gas and transform into growing bubbles. The acceptance of this excess gas occurs 

through simple diffusion, but that is the only simple statement possible.

The classic soda-bottle analogy of bubbles in the body illustrates the physical consequence of

depressurization, but emerging science suggests that activation of various stress-induced biomolecules before, during, or after depressurization will influence DCS and VGE outcomes.

101,102

Astronauts routinely take aspirin and other pharmacological agents to manage the stress of space

flight, which may influence the DCS and VGE outcomes. The benefit of particular exercise before and during PB likely has a biochemical component that is incorrectly attributed to enhanced 

N2 elimination. The large surface area of the vascular endothelium and its interaction with stressinduced biomolecules offers an opportunity to understand how excess intracellular dissolved gas 

actually becomes extracellular evolved gas bubbles that are then relocated to the lungs.

103
16

Hypobaric Ascent Limit

The need for high-altitude bombing during WWII and the rapid advancement in jet engine 

development after the war put aviators at risk for DCS, hypoxia, and hypothermia until pressurized

and air-conditioned aircraft cabins became common. Before these technical advances occurred, 

researchers in Canada and the U.S. characterized DCS, mostly with young airmen in training,

using hypobaric chambers.16,104,105 It was quickly realized that the altitude attained, time spent at 

altitude, and exercise at altitude increased the risk of DCS, both pain-only DCS and serious DCS 

linked to reactions in the cardiovascular and nervous systems.106,107 Never again will such provocative testing be performed, and “modelers” of DCS must be content with these data to define the

upper range of dose-response curves.

Denitrogenation with enriched O2 mixtures dramatically reduced both pain-only and serious 

DCS, and most fit young men could tolerate a degree of depressurization even without benefit of 

a PB. During the war years, criteria for a successful ascent centered around having enough time 

to perform the mission before DCS symptoms became debilitating. Under these extreme conditions, ascents to between 6096 and 7620 m (20 000 and 25 000 ft) were acceptable in most operational settings. Several studies were initiated to identify and screen out “weak links” as a means 

to reduce the impact of DCS on the mission. These efforts were abandoned as ineffective and 

costly, but they highlighted the reality of between and within subject variability to DCS. As the 

interest in aviator DCS increased after WWII, primarily through the USAF and NASA, a systematic approach led to a better understanding of hypobaric ascent limit. A shift in thinking from 

“tolerable” symptoms to the first onset of mild symptoms also reduced the threshold altitude 

for DCS.

Each year millions of people on commercial flights are quickly exposed to between 1219 

and 1829 m (4000 and 6000 ft) altitude for long periods. Most would agree that a rapid ascent to

3048 m (10 000 ft) does not incur a significant risk of DCS, but hypoxia soon limits useful physical

activity. The use of enriched O2 at higher altitudes confounds the basic question about the DCS 

limit to direct ascent on air.

108 In addition to defining the threshold of evolved gas and the interaction of the evolved gas with living tissues that produce symptoms, there are practical reasons 

to define a hypobaric ascent limit. Prebreathing takes time and resources, but a spacesuit that is 

pressurized to greater than the lowest pressure that will cause VGE and DCS could be an option 

to eliminate the risk of DCS.15

Just as divers can ascend to the surface after saturation to about 17 feet of seawater 

(FSW),

109 aviators can ascend to about 3962 m (13 000 ft) altitude110 without denitrogenation. 

The threshold depressurization for divers and aviators has decreased since the beginning of the 

20th century.

109,111,112 Initial empirical observations suggested that an ascent from 33 FSW to the 

surface was acceptable, and that matching the ratio of pressure change of an ascent to 5486 m

(18 000 ft) altitude should be possible. Two references document about 25 FSW,34,111 and recent 

work with a no PB spacesuit suggests that 4420 m (14 500 ft) altitude is close to a no-DCS ascent,

with VGE still produced at an altitude of 3505 m (11 500 ft).

28 Webb et al113 showed that a spacesuit at 9.5 psia (11 500 ft) certainly prevented DCS. So, there is some threshold below which 

the gas that is evolved after depressurization is insufficient to elicit symptoms, even if it is difficult to establish this without exception. Table 2, modified from Conkin et al,

28 lists hypobaric 

exposure pressures and the associated DCS and VGE incidence.

Kumar et al114 and Webb et al44 summarized the information in Table 2 and other 

information about altitude threshold but came to different conclusions. Kumar stressed that any 

threshold for symptoms is conditional on other factors, which calls into question the definition of 
17

threshold if threshold is indeed conditional. Kumar’s lowest conditional threshold was 3353 m 

(11 000 ft) altitude. Webb reported about 5% DCS for 6096 m (20 000 ft) altitude. Probing for 

the least amount of decompression dose to elicit symptoms is a difficult task since there are 

always exceptions to the rule.115,116

Table 3. Tests to Find Threshold Altitudes for DCS and VGE

P1N2/P2 P2

(psia)

DCS

cases/n

VGE

cases/n reference

1.49, day 1 of 3 7.8 2/64 = 3.0% 28/64 = 43% Dixon et al,

117

,

118

Conkin et al28

1.43, day 2 of 3 7.8 2/62 = 3.0% 29/62 = 46% Dixon et al,

117

,

118

Conkin et al28

1.42, day 3 of 3 7.8 1/60 = 1.6% 25/60 = 41% Dixon et al,

117

,

118

Conkin et al28

1.40 8.3 1/31 = 3.2% 8/31 = 26% Webb et al,

119

Smead et al120

1.36 8.5 0/9 = 0% 3/9 = 33% USAF pilot study,*

Conkin et al28

1.29 9.0 0/16 = 0% 7/16 = 43% USAF pilot study,*

Conkin et al28

1.22 9.5 0/6 = 0% 1/6 = 17% USAF pilot study,*

Conkin et al28

1.22 9.5 0/31 = 0% 8/31 = 26% USAF pilot study,*

Conkin et al28

1.22, day 1 of 5 9.5 0/23 = 0% 0/23 = 0%

Webb et a,

42,113Dixon and 

Krutz,

121

Conkin et al28

1.11, day 2 of 5 9.5 0/22 = 0% 0/22 = 0%

Webb et al,

42,113Dixon and 

Krutz,

121

Conkin et al28

1.10, day 3 of 5 9.5 0/22 = 0% 0/22 = 0%

Webb et al,

42,113Dixon and 

Krutz,

121

Conkin et al28

1.10, day 4 of 5 9.5 0/22 = 0% 0/22 = 0%

Webb et al,

42,113Dixon and 

Krutz,

121

Conkin et al28

1.10, day 5 of 5 9.5 0/22 = 0% 0/22 = 0%

Webb et al,

42,113Dixon and 

Krutz,

121

Conkin et al28

1.16 10.0 0/8 = 0% 2/8 = 25% USAF pilot study,*

Conkin et al28

*USAF pilot studies using subjects with a history of DCS and VGE.

Piccard performed a seminal experiment in 1941122 to understand ascent limits for divers 

and aviators. He depressurized 2 equal volumes of water, 1 of which was equilibrated at 5 ATA 

before a depressurization to 1 ATA and the other of which was equilibrated at 1 ATA before a 

depressurization to 0.2 ATA. He observed that the 5 to 1 ATA depressurization caused many 

small bubbles to form in the water, producing a “milky cloud.” In the 1 to 0.2 ATA depressurization, a few large bubbles formed. The total evolved volume was identical after both experiments,

but the time to reach the final evolved volume was shorter in the 5 to 1 ATA depressurization. 

Piccard extrapolated his results to 2 fictitious depressurizations, 1 in a diver and 1 in an aviator 
18

where the ratio of P1 to P2 in both was 5, just as in his experiment. He knew that the diver would 

certainly die, but not the aviator.

Piccard also knew that the evolved volume at P2, expressed as N2 volume or total gas 

volume, would be identical after both depressurizations (isovolume). If the volume evolved is the

critical variable, the 2 depressurizations should produce equally serious outcomes (isoincidence) if 

an infinite time in a closed system is assumed. A closed system means that blood does not 

transport N2 to or from the tissues at P2. However, in the Discussion, Piccard suggested that 

differences in the probability of bubble formation due to the critical radius (rc) concept and the 

greater relative loss of N2 from the tissues of the aviator than from those of the diver, because 

of a reduced rate of nucleation, accounted for the observed differences in outcome between the 

aviator and the diver. The historical concept of rc is that a bubble radius exists that would be in 

mechanical equilibrium with a given depressurization where it neither grows nor shrinks: rc = 

2γ/(P1 - P2), where γ is surface tension. Tikuisis and Gerth64 summarize contemporary thoughts 

about rc and the reality of heterogeneous nucleation. Nuclei that are present in the tissue with 

radii greater than rc for a given depressurization would grow and those that have smaller radii

would shrink and disappear. Surface tension, which is effective on very small bubbles, increases 

the bubble ppN2 to reduce the tissue ppN2 – bubble ppN2 difference, thus reducing diffusion of 

N2 into the bubble and slowing the initial bubble growth. Piccard’s early experiment highlights 

the limits of the basic critical volume release hypothesis123 by introducing the complexities of 

bubble nucleation rate and bubble growth rate, and the reality of evolved gas in an open system.

It has been observed that the lowest P2 to which a diver can ascend without developing DCS,

be it a diver saturated at an initial pressure (P1) or a diver returning from a no saturation dive, is 

described by a straight line with a negative y-intercept on a plot of P2 vs. P1110. Extrapolation of 

such a line into hypobaric pressures does not result in safe depressurizations, indicating that extrapolation of the safe diver line to altitude is invalid. Over the pressure range spanned by human 

hypobaric exposures and hyperbaric air exposures, the best separation between no DCS and DCS 

on a P2 vs. P1N2 plot seems to be a curve that approximates a straight line in the hyperbaric region

but bends toward a negative x-intercept. A consequence of isoprobability isopleths that intercept 

on the negative P1N2 axis of a P2 vs. P1N2 plot is that constant P(DCS) is described by TRs that 

decrease as P2 decreases. The negative x-intercept for all isoprobability isopleths is likely a consequence of: (1) the combined contributions of the limiting boundaries of the decompression test 

envelope due to hypoxia, (2) an artifact established by the P1N2 calculation since the horizontal 

position of a test result on a P2 vs. P1N2 plot is obtained using a 360-min half-time compartment, 

(3) the influence of exercise at altitude on the genesis and growth of bubbles, and (4) the contribution of metabolic gases and the O2 window62 to hypobaric DCS, which can only be inferred from 

a P2 vs. P1N2 plot. Isopleths that have a negative x-intercept all cross a unique positive P2 when 

P1N2 is 0, indicating the reality of ebullism at very low pressure as dissolved metabolic gases 

and water vapor come out of solution. Figure 4 shows 3 isoprobability isopleths derived 

from Conkin et al.

67

The isopleths in Figure 4 might represent isovolume isopleths that are defined by considering the summed volume from a subpopulation of critical radii nuclei activated to grow 

depending on initial and final pressures; they are expressed as the volume at the final pressure. 

One possibility that accords with physics is that depressurization from hyperbaric exposures 

along an isoprobability (isovolume) line produces many small bubbles after ascent from deep 

dives, fewer larger bubbles after ascent from shallower dives, and finally larger and fewer large 

bubbles on hypobaric depressurizations. The critical volume for the 0 isoprobability isopleth is 
19

the same along only 1 particular isovolume isopleth, the curve that defines the hypobaric ascent 

limit.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

P1N2 (360 t1/2, psia)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

P2 (psia)

hypoxia zone

38%

6% 14%

Figure 4. Three isoprobability DCS isopleths for hypobaric 

exposures converging on the negative x-intercept instead of the 

negative y-intercept, where extrapolated diver isoprobability 

isopleths converge.

As described above, given 2 exposures with the same TR, the P(DCS) is greater for the case 

in which ambient pressure is lower.67,69,124 Consider 2 depressurizations. In the first, P1N2 is 5.0 

psia in the tissue before an ascent to 3.75 psia, and the TR is 1.33. In the second, P1N2 is 5.7 psia 

in the tissue before an ascent to 4.30 psia, and the TR is also 1.33. All else being equal, we might 

expect the P(DCS) to be the same. In a physical system and given infinite time, the total evolved

gas in the 2 examples above would be identical.122 However, TR is not closely related to bubble 

size since the presence of metabolic gases will cause bubbles to grow larger at lower ambient

pressure.

125 This is seen in an equation by Van Liew and Burkard126 that relates the total volume

of evolved gas expressed at ambient pressure to TR:

∆V(a)tot = αN2 * Vtis * Ps * [(TR / FN2) – 1 ], (4)

where ∆V(a)tot is the total volume (ml) of evolved gas in bubbles, expressed at ambient 

pressure; αN2 is solubility of N2 in tissue; Vtis is the volume (ml) of tissue available to bubbles; 

Ps is standard pressure; TR is the ratio of tissue N2 pressure to ambient pressure (P1N2/P2); and 

FN2 is the fraction of N2 in a bubble. As the total pressure decreases, the FN2 in a bubble must

also decrease due to the presence of a constant metabolic gas pressure in the bubble. Notice that 

as FN2 decreases as ambient pressure decreases, the total evolved volume increases given the 

same TR. In the above case with a constant TR of 1.33 but 2 different ambient pressures, 

the total evolved volume is about 1.8 times larger at 3.75 psia than at 4.3 psia.

Astronauts will continue to perform EVAs in the Orlan suit when needed and cosmonauts 

will continue to perform EVAs in the EMU when needed. Other ISS partners will do EVAs in 
20

either suit. The operational philosophy is that astronauts/cosmonauts will follow the PB procedures developed for each suit. The rationale is that testing on Earth and operational experience 

in μG has validated each PB procedure. Different acceptable R-values, 1.65 for the EMU from 

the shuttle and 1.85 for the Orlan, are possible for approximately equivalent risk since suit 

pressures are different.

Diving Astronauts

Our focus in previous sections was on preventing DCS during EVAs, but an EVA is just the

culmination of many hours of training under both hyperbaric and hypobaric conditions. Policies 

and procedures are followed that minimize the P(DCS) after hyperbaric suited exposures in the

U.S. Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and the Russian Hydrolab, during suited exposures in 

hypobaric chambers, and after diving activities from the NASA Extreme Environment Mission 

Operations (NEEMO) underwater habitat. Objectives of an EVA are choreographed on flightlike hardware submerged in 40 feet of fresh water (FFW) at the NBL. Training emulates actual 

EVA scenarios and can last for 6 hr. To avoid DCS after long exposures to a maximum physiological depth of 50 FFW (pool depth plus suit pressure) astronauts breathe nitrox, a mixture of 

46% O2 and 54% N2. At this extreme, the equivalent air depth is 23 FFW. Breathing nitrox

eliminates the need for staged depressurization at the end of a long training session, and some 

details about diving practices are available from Fitzpatrick and Conkin.

127 Astronauts also train 

and maintain proficiency in operating the spacesuit by exposure to vacuum in various altitude 

chambers at JSC. In some cases, astronauts are required to fly in the T-38 aircraft or on commercial airlines shortly after a hyperbaric or hypobaric exposure. Specific directives, based on best 

available research,

128-130§

Decompression Sickness and Venous Gas Emboli from Validation Trials

dictate the proper surface intervals and PB procedures that minimize 

the P(DCS) on a subsequent hypobaric exposure. Procedures and equipment are available to treat 

DCS on orbit and after training activities, and a disposition policy returns astronauts to flight status

after undergoing a successful treatment regime. Adherence to these policies and procedures, which

undergo periodic review and update, minimizes the chance that DCS will become a medical 

concern to the astronaut or hinder the completion of training or safe execution of an EVA.

Validation testing often precedes implementation of a PB protocol for space operations. The

inefficiency of an in-suit PB and possibility of a break in PB during transition from an O2 mask 

to the spacesuit required that NASA validate the staged 10.2-psia protocol in the early 1980s.

Variations of similar protocols soon emerged, along with a desire to summarize all of the results 

with a simple decompression dose. In addition to the DCS outcomes, routine ultrasound bubble 

monitoring provided an unbiased assessment of decompression dose. Spencer’s 0 – IV categorical

scale131,132 was adopted, and the following standard 4-min evaluation scheme to improve bubble 

detection and grading was implemented at JSC:

133 A Doppler technician relocated and optimized

an acceptable Doppler ultrasound blood flow signal in the pulmonary artery from a sitting or semirecumbent subject in an altitude chamber in about 15 sec. The subject was then instructed to rhythmically flex each limb about 3 times in sequence, moving all joints in the limb. The movement

dislodged small bubbles sequestered in venous capillaries, and the grade of VGE passing beneath 

a 5.0- or 2.5-mHz ultrasound wave was assigned by an investigator outside the altitude chamber.

 §

Reference 130 is our Test 10.
21

Figure 5 illustrates decompression dose-response curves for DCS and VGE outcomes from 

341 exposures to 4.3 psia in altitude chambers at JSC. Subjects breathed 100% O2 through a mask,

and were otherwise in a comfortable shirtsleeve environment. The mean exposure time was 4.4 ± 

1.3 hr SD, and subjects ambulated from 1 exercise station to another. Exercise included cranking

and pulling against modest resistance, and torquing fixtures to simulate the type and intensity of 

work performed during a contingency EVA; details are in Conkin et al.

9 At intervals of about15 

min, the pulmonary artery was insonated with a bubble detector in recumbent subjects. Given 

enough exposures over a range of decompression doses, a predictive equation for DCS and VGE 

was created, in this case from the Hill equation. The wide 95% confidence limits for DCS and 

VGE suggest that factors other than simple decompression dose influence the outcome. There is 

more to accepting a denitrogenation protocol than just the raw incidence of DCS or VGE. The 

nature of the symptoms, how the incidence of DCS is related to the intensity of the symptoms,134

and their response to re-pressurization7 are as important as the overall incidence of DCS and 

VGE to a final decision to accept a protocol.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Decompression Dose as TR - 0.79

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

P(DCS) and P(VGE)

VGE

DCS

Figure 5. P(DCS) and P(VGE) increase as decompression dose 

increases. The 95% confidence limits (shorter curves) above and 

below the best estimate help to visualize uncertainty in the 

outcome.

Table 2**

 **The table, first shown on page 8 of this document, is repeated on the following page to ensure ease of access.

summarizes DCS and VGE results archived at JSC in the NASA Hypobaric Decompression Sickness Database. Tests done for NASA by Brooks AFB are not shown here, but 

are available in the Air Force Research Laboratory Altitude Decompression Sickness Research

Database archived at Wright-Patterson AFB. Operational questions dictated the sequence of

testing in Table 2. The first trials evaluated the 3.5- (Tests 1a and 2a) and then the 4- hr in-suit 

PBs (Tests 3a and 3c), and the subjects in these protocols often “crossed over” to validate the

10.2-psia staged PBs. Several variations of the staged protocol tested the benefit of an initial 60-

min PB before ascent to 10.2 psia, different durations at 10.2 psia, and different final in-suit PB 
22

times before depressurization to 4.3 psia (Tests 1b, 1c, 1d, 2b, 3b, 3d). Repetitive exposures to 

4.3 psia while living at 10.2 psia addressed issues of fatigue and cumulative DCS and VGE risk

(Tests 4a through 4f). Cumulative risk was not found to be a concern in repetitive hypobaric depressurizations,

28,135,136 so repetitive EVAs from the shuttle were deemed safe. Women were first 

used at JSC in a trial of a 6-hr PB (Test 5a) and during a novel 10.2-psia staged protocol in which

simulated suit pressure was 6.0 psia with 60% O2. A trial of an 8-hr resting PB (Test 5b) established the benefits of extreme prebreathing, even if extreme prebreathing is not practical from an 

operational perspective. The influence of high work rate during EVA was evaluated using a row 

machine,

21

a consequence of which being 2 cases classified as serious DCS in subjects from

Test 7a. Exercise intended to counteract deconditioning in space did not influence the subsequent 

DCS and VGE outcome given that the interval between the exercise and simulated EVA was 16 

hr (Tests 8a and 8b, Kumar et al137

). The consequences of ambulation before and during an altitude exposure were evaluated at both 6.5 and 4.3 psia in the Argo series, starting with Test 9a

and ending with Test 11a. Test 9a included ambulatory controls and Test 9b included the same

subjects but at 6-degree head-down bed rest for 3 days before and during the 3-hr exposure to 

6.5 psia without prior PB. The incidence of Grade III plus IV VGE was less in the bed-rest group

and it took longer before Grade III and IV VGE were first detected.138 Astronauts sometimes fly 

in commercial airliners or the T-38 jet shortly after training in the NBL. Test 10 included a

hyperbaric and then a hypobaric exposure to evaluate the consequences of flying after diving 

under our specific training conditions.

Table 2. Summary of DCS and VGE in Tests from 1982 – 2009

Test P2

(psia) conditions numberm f

mean

age

DCS VGE

(any Grade)

VGE

(Grade IV)

1a 4.3 P 11 0 34.5 4 7 4

1b 4.3 S 13 0 32.3 3 11 7

1c 4.3 S 12 0 32.0 4 7 6

1d 4.3 S 3 0 39.6 2 3 2

2a 4.3 P 23 0 31.6 7 15 8

2b 4.3 S 22 0 31.5 6* 10 7

3a 4.3 P 28 0 31.0 6 13 11

3b 4.3 P,S 35 0 30.1 8 20 8

3c 4.3 P 14 0 32.5 3 5 1

3d 4.3 P,S 12 0 28.5 2 5 2

4a 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 1 7 3

4b 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 2 1

4c 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 4 1

4d 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 0 0

4e 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 4 1

4f 4.3 P,S 12 0 30.1 0 0 0

5a 4.3 P 19 19 31.5 4 11 4

5b 4.3 P 11 0 32.0 0 0 0

6 6.0 S 15 14 32.9 1 3 0

7a 6.5 direct ascent 11 0 28.2 4† 8 6

7b 6.5 direct ascent 11 0 28.2 2 8 4

8a 6.5 direct ascent 29 11 32.5 7 20 13

8b 6.5 direct ascent 30 11 32.6 10* 22 17

9a 6.5 direct ascent 15 9 32.1 1 12 7
23

Test P2

(psia) conditions numberm f

mean

age

DCS VGE

(any Grade)

VGE

(Grade IV)

9b 6.5 A 14 9 33.8 2* 6 1

9c 4.3 A 9 2 34.8 3 5 4

9d 4.3 A 6 1 36.4 0 2 0

9e 4.3 E,A 7 0 34.6 0 2 0

10 10.1 FAD 14 5 31.7 1 6 3

11a 4.3 P,A 16 12 33.2 3 9 4

11b 6.5 direct ascent 1 3 39.5 0 1 0

Phase I 4.3 P,E,S,A 33 14 29.1 9 23 2

Phase II 4.3 P,E,S,A 35 10 31.7 0 14 3

Phase IV 4.3 P,E,S,A 44 12 30.1 8 23 7

Phase V-1 4.3 P,E,A 7 2 31.5 3 5 2

Phase V-2 4.3 P,E,A 1 2 39.2 1* 3 2

Phase V-3 4.3 P,E,A 38 10 36.9 7 25 5

Phase V-4 4.3 P,E,A 3 3 31.5 3 3 1

Phase V-5 4.3 P,E,S,A 37 11 32.3 2 14 8

Conditions: P, some PB occurred before ascent; S, a portion of the PB was spent at 10.2 psia breathing 26.5% O2; A, subjects 

were “adynamic” (no ambulation before or during the altitude exposure); E, a prescribed exercise was performed during some 

interval of the PB; and FAD, flying after diving.

*One case was classified as Type II DCS; †

2 cases were classified as Type II DCS.

As part of the NASA Prebreathe Reduction Program, recent trials evaluated the benefits 

of different exercise regimens during PB: short and intense, long and mild, and combinations

of the two. The goal was to combine known factors that reduce the P(DCS), such as exercise and

adynamia, with representative EVA work simulation in a PB for ISS construction and maintenance. 

Avoiding ambulation during PB and at altitude does reduce the incidence of DCS and VGE in

the lower body, so adynamia is included in all current validation testing as an analog to working 

in μg,

88,89,95 although there are contrary observations.139 Researchers evaluated the influence of 

combined intense dual-cycle ergometry in Phases I through IV for 10 min with additional lowintensity exercise on the DCS and VGE outcome. After completing the initial 50 min of PB at 

site pressure, subjects were depressurized to 10.2 psia over 30 min while still breathing 100% O2, 

and then 30 min were spent at 10.2 psia breathing 26.5% O2 to reproduce suit-donning conditions

in the ISS airlock. Then 100% O2 was reintroduced into the subjects’ masks and they were repressurized to site pressure within 5 min to complete the final 35 min of PB. After a 150-min 

total PB time, a final depressurization from site pressure to 4.3 psia was completed in 30 min, 

and subjects simulated EVA work tasks at 4.3 psia for 4 hr. Phase II met the accept conditions, 

as described earlier, for an ISS PB and became the operational Exercise PB protocol. In trials

from Phases V-1 to V-4, researchers evaluated whether mild exercise that could be performed 

during an in-suit PB at 14.7 psia would be effective, but no form of mild exercise met the prospective accept conditions. The final trials in this series (Phase V-5) extended mild exercise and

the total PB time to 190 min, including a 30-min suit-donning step at 10.2 psia that became the 

operational ISLE PB protocol. Instead of referencing publications over a period of 30 years that 

cover the specifics of all trials, the reader can find details in Conkin et al9,50 for trials from 1a to 

Phase IV. Details from Phases V-1 to V-5 are in Gernhardt and Pollock.

140 Phase I through V-5 

trials could not have been performed quickly and safely without the assistance of dedicated investigators at Duke University, Hermann Hospital, the University of Texas, and the Defense 

Research and Development facilities in Toronto.
24

Age, Gender, Aerobic Fitness, Hydration, and Patent Foramen Ovale

Weathersby,

141 Kumar et al,137 and Webb et al142 have observed that some divers and aviators

are particularly resistant or susceptible to DCS and VGE. Depressurization schedules developed 

to protect the most susceptible are then ultra-safe for the resistant, and therefore are not very efficient. There thus is a long history of persistent efforts to identify those who are susceptible, and to 

identify the physiological and anatomical factors associated, as either a cause or a correlate, with 

susceptibility.134 Selection schemes, except for natural selection, have not developed past the

conceptual stage primarily because prospective, well-controlled studies with adequate sample 

size are expensive.

A cursory listing of recent publications is provided for divers and aviators concerning

the association of age;

9,109,112,143,144 gender;129,145-147 aerobic fitness;148-150 hydration;151 patent 

foramen ovale (PFO);152,153 and exercise before, during, and after depressurization97,102,103,154

with DCS and VGE. One challenge in understanding the contribution of these factors to DCS

and VGE outcomes is that all are a part of the whole, and it is difficult to isolate the contribution 

of 1 factor. In reality, DCS and VGE outcomes are multifactorial and confounded by many 

factors, particularly the decompression dose.

155

A practical approach, given a large sample of quality research results, is to perform a 

multivariate statistical analysis in which the uniqueness of each trial becomes part of the reason,

along with other explanatory variables, for the outcome. In other words, a multivariate analysis,

such as logistic regression or survival analysis, identifies and controls for confounding and interacting variables so that a better interpretation of the outcome is possible.

68,70 Thus, multivariate 

analysis with large numbers of quality research data with an appropriate range of explanatory

variables is necessary to assign the appropriate contribution to an explanatory variable. This 

approach has not been generally used, as it contributes to contradiction and confusion in the 

literature.

Relationship between Venous Gas Emboli and Hypobaric Decompression 

Sickness

Ever since silent bubbles were first associated with modest hyperbaric and hypobaric 

exposures, there has been a vigorous debate about the value of VGE detected in the pulmonary

artery or other veins to predict subsequent DCS outcome.156 The fact that bubbles are present 

without overt symptoms suggests that, at best, the presence of VGE is a necessary but not sufficient condition for DCS, and relationships between the 2 are correlative as opposed to cause-andeffect. Correlative relationships differ from 1 study to the next depending on many factors, such 

as the decompression dose, the type of breathing gas,108,157 the type of ultrasound equipment, the 

training of the Doppler technician, and the methods used to quantify the Doppler signals, such as 

simple bubble grades or more sophisticated “time-intensity” approaches.158 However, the 

absence of VGE is strongly associated with the absence of DCS.

The positive and negative predictive values of VGE have been explored in both divers 

and aviators.69,138,156,159 The desire to have a single global understanding about the relationship 

between VGE and DCS is frustrated because of differences in bubbles between divers and aviators, and even differences attributed to gender.

146 Trials that produce Grade IV VGE in 50% of 

divers will never be sanctioned since this would result in an unacceptably high incidence of DCS,

as well as a high incidence of serious DCS. Grade IV VGE are routinely assigned in hypobaric 

depressurizations, however, even after conservative PBs.45 DCS incidence on the order of 20% is
25

common, with only about 1% of all exposures resulting in serious DCS in NASA testing and a 

higher percentage in tests of protocols for the USAF.

5 Divers returning to 1 ATA from a provocative SCUBA dive may produce many small bubbles, predominately composed of N2. In contrast,

aviators may produce fewer large bubbles composed of as much as 70% metabolic gases.

125,126,160

Since the gas composition of VGE in divers and aviators differs, it is reasonable to expect that

the association between VGE and DCS reflects this difference. In summary, a global understanding about the relationship between VGE and DCS is not yet available, the absence of which

results in contradictions when the experiences of divers and aviators are compared.

It is more than coincidental that VGE are often detected in high intensity, coming from a 

region of the body in which a sign or a symptom may appear. Table 4 shows that the positive 

predictive value for DCS of any VGE grade or of Grade III and IV is only 32% or 39%.161

Someone with prior knowledge of even Grade IV VGE from a particular limb in an aviator is 

less than 40% confident that a DCS symptom will follow. The absence of VGE has a negative 

predictive value of 98% in these data, but much less in other hypobaric data.162,163 So, it is more 

informative to know that an aviator or astronaut has no VGE in the pulmonary artery if the goal 

is to predict a subsequent DCS outcome.164

Table 4. Measures of Association between VGE and DCS

measure Grades 0 – IV (n = 1322) Grades 0, III, IV (n = 1210)

sensitivity 0.922 0.917

specificity 0.718 0.787

+ predictive value 0.323 0.391

- predictive value 0.980 0.980

Although a 1-to-1 cause-and-effect relationship between VGE and DCS does not exist, 

there is a consistent temporal association between VGE and DCS. Figure 6 shows this temporal 

pattern. Not everyone who has VGE has subsequent DCS, and a few who do not have VGE do 

have DCS. The caveat here is that a similar VGE onset-and-recovery pattern is present in those 

who do and those who do not develop DCS. Any association between VGE detected in the 

pulmonary artery and pain-only DCS in a distant limb is subtle.

There are 78 subjects that have DCS onset times associated with 78 VGE onset times, with 

a mean TR of 1.67 ± 0.15 SD, in the NASA historical database. The mean DCS onset time was

120 ± 71 min SD and the mean VGE onset time was 72 ± 55. In 150 other exposures, VGE were 

not associated with a report of DCS. The 150 exposures with VGE but without DCS had a mean 

VGE onset time of 90 ± 65 min and a mean TR of 1.65 ± 0.19. The mean VGE onset time for all 

228 exposures with VGE was 84 ± 62 min. Only 4 subjects had DCS without VGE being detected. The majority of exposures, a total of 317, had no DCS or VGE, since the goal was to validate only safe PB protocols. The same pattern held for exercise during PB, but the incidence of 

DCS given that VGE were present decreased slightly from 14% to 11%. It was likely, but not

certain, that an individual would report a DCS symptom after VGE were detected if that VGE

were detected early in the altitude exposure, if the intensity or grade of VGE from a limb region

increased rapidly, and if the intensity or grade of VGE remained high.69,161
26

Figure 6. Time of VGE and DCS onset in 78 exposures with both present

(solid curve) and in 150 exposures with VGE only present (dashed curve). 

The curves, all of which are skewed to the right, are the best-imposed 

normal distributions on histograms.

It is appropriate here to speculate on why VGE that are detected in the pulmonary artery 

seem disconnected from the DCS outcome even when the VGE seem to originate from a limb 

region. VGE moving in the venous blood and detected at a common location for all cardiac 

output are far removed from the site of bubble formation, so there is no guarantee that other 

tissues, such as fat and skin, do not contribute VGE to the venous return. There is no a priori

reason why VGE cannot be produced in a limb region even if the critical volume of evolved gas

needed to evoke a symptom has not been reached. Excess dissolved N2 in muscles, tendons,

ligaments, joints, cartilage, and other tissues can form bubbles in these tissues and can also

diffuse into the low-pressure venous return where bubbles grow from micronuclei clinging to 

vascular endothelium. They accumulate, grow, and then pinch off and coalesce, to be carried 

with the venous return as muscle contractions “milk” the blood and bubbles into the venous 

return. So, it is understandable that VGE detected in the pulmonary artery are only indirectly 

linked to DCS symptoms. But, even a weak association is helpful to visualize the primary cause 

of a symptom at a distant location and the transport of excess N2 as bubbles. Advances in ultrasound technology will soon replace speculation with clear visual evidence of stationary bubbles 

growing within tissues and on the vascular endothelium.

Most people prefer not to have circulating VGE, with or without a PFO. Blood is a complex

fluid and, as the blood-endothelial interface forms a complex homeostatic surface, the presence 

of bubbles in blood and at the blood-endothelial interface could be problematic. Aviators and 

astronauts share 1 feature with divers: healthy lungs that provide an efficient filter for VGE.165

Aviators and astronauts are not immune from the consequences of embolic overload, however, 

even in healthy lungs. Many factors in the aerospace environment compromise healthy lung 

function. These factors, when combined with too many bubbles entering the pulmonary 

circulation, can put this group at high risk.

139
27

Mathematical Modeling

Statistical descriptions of DCS and VGE outcomes from hypobaric exposures using logistic 

regression and survival analysis as well as biophysical modeling of tissue bubble dynamics have 

made significant advances in the last 20 years. The integration of both approaches has produced 

sophisticated probabilistic models, which are briefly summarized here. Probabilistic modeling 

requires 4 items: (1) a data set that contains a dichotomous response variable, ie, the presence or 

absence of DCS, and 1 or more explanatory variables; (2) an expression of decompression dose 

in terms of explanatory variables; (3) a function, such as the logistic function or Hill equation, 

that structures the dose model so the outcome is a calculated P(DCS); and (4) a parameterestimation routine on a computer that uses maximum likelihood.

Simple descriptions of decompression dose such as TR or ∆P approximate the true dose68,74

while models concerning tissue bubble dynamics strive to define true dose through diffusionbased physics and consideration of mass-balance65,166-172 Those referenced, and many others 

as well,

173-176 contribute to a single evolving model to describe the P(DCS) in both diving and 

altitude depressurizations by invoking multiple tissue compartments, multiple finitely diffusible 

gases, and a distribution of bubble nuclei that begins to grow at different times during depressurization. Others have also concentrated just on hypobaric depressurizations.

††

One reasonable expectation from modeling is that fewer trials, or even no trials, are performed before accepting a variation of a tested protocol if the model computes an acceptable 

P(DCS), P(Serious DCS), or even P(Grade IV VGE). Such was the case in a recent decision to 

accept the campout PB for ISS without direct testing of this variant of the shuttle 10.2-psia staged

PB. Aside from increasing computational efficiency for complex models, probabilistic modeling 

will significantly advance when the link is quantified between evolved gas in tissue and the perception of pain by the central nervous system.69 An assumption in modeling is that the outcome 

variable is known with certainty, which is certainly not the case,12,181,182 and adds a further level 

of uncertainty to probabilistic modeling.

Recent advances in 

probabilistic modeling came through the use of techniques from survival analysis. Weathersby and

Gerth180 and Tikuisis and Gerth64 provide additional details about probabilistic DCS modeling.

Operational and Research Experience with Decompression Sickness

Astronauts and cosmonauts working in spacesuits pressurized to between 3.7 and 5.8 psia 

have not reported DCS during EVAs. In contrast, U.S. and Russian research subjects who evaluate operational PB protocols in altitude chambers report about 20% DCS.9 How do we reconcile

these disparate observations? Technicians have reported pain-only DCS at JSC during suit development, and at least 1 astronaut recollected pain in a knee on 2 occasions after depressurization 

to 5.0 psia in the spacecraft. So, DCS is possible both in space and in a spacesuit at 1g. Foster 

and Butler183 discussed several factors related to working in a hypobaric and μg environment 

that may reduce the P(DCS) in EVA astronauts.

A research setting designed specifically to monitor for DCS certainly differs from an 

operational setting in which other tasks are the focus of the EVA. Subjects wearing an O2 mask

who are otherwise comfortable in a shirtsleeve environment at 1g are not the same as astronauts 

who are surrounded by 100% O2 and maneuvering in μg in restrictive and uncomfortable spacesuits. The Russians hypothesize that limited motion in the Orlan and, by extrapolation, the 

 ††References 67, 70, 137, 147, 177-179.
28

EMU will be a significant factor in reducing the likelihood of DCS during an EVA. Real 

differences, both physiological and behavioral, thus exist that may explain the difference between research and EVA results. A bias to not report mild discomfort in an operational setting is 

expected. This is routinely observed in pilot training where qualification to fly is compromised if 

DCS is reported during hypobaric training activities. The U-2 experience, described by Bendrick 

et al,

184 provides an example of the difference between operational and research reports of DCS. 

Seventy-five percent of respondents to a questionnaire said they had DCS symptoms at least 

once during their careers flying U-2 aircraft, but rarely reported their symptoms to the flight

surgeon.185 Webb et al43 reported an incidence of 77% DCS in subjects testing the 60-min U-2 

PB protocol, which included mild exercise while at a simulated aircraft cabin pressure of 4.37 

psia. Intense, short-duration exercise during this PB reduced the incidence to 42% in subjects, 

and is offered to U-2 pilots who feel the need for additional DCS protection.47 For various

reasons, astronauts and pilots are not motivated to report every small discomfort.

10 It is likely 

that the first report of DCS during an EVA will be a serious case of DCS.106

There are valid reasons why mild symptoms of DCS might be masked during an EVA. For 

example, many astronauts take aspirin before an EVA, so mild aches and pains are managed in 

advance. The EMU is a source of aches and pains of the same intensity as pain-only DCS since 

operational PB procedures are conservative, so many mild cases that are not reported during EVA

could be attributed to pain caused by working in the EMU. Mild symptoms quickly clear during 

re-pressurization, so astronauts would have little incentive to report a symptom that is no longer 

present after the EVA. The incidence of DCS symptoms that would interfere with performance 

in an EMU is less than 5% in validation testing in altitude chambers.

26,28 About 85% of those 

reporting symptoms showed improvement in the symptom or showed no change in symptom 

intensity when tests were allowed to proceed past the point of the first symptom report. Since 

PB protocols before EVA reduce the incidence and intensity of symptoms, it is understandable 

that any resulting mild symptoms are unremarkable in an operational setting.

In addition to understanding behavioral bias and the masking of symptoms, we also need to 

understand whether the primary risk mitigation strategy of prebreathing is more or less affected 

by adaptations to μg. All astronauts undergo readaptation in μg.

186 About 2 liters of fluid from 

the lower extremities is redistributed into the chest and head, with a resulting decrease in total 

body water. Upper body venous engorgement at the expense of a reduced lower body venous 

capacitance does not abate even after months in space, even with a net decrease in plasma volume. As a result, denitrogenation in μg may be more efficient than on Earth if a supine body 

position is a reasonable analog for μg.

187 Lesser interventions than adaptation to μg are 

known to modify N2 washout.188,189

Jones et al190 did the early work to understand the effects of blood perfusion on N2 uptake 

and elimination in tissues. Behnke et al39,191,192 showed how body composition and exercise

during PB influenced N2 removal. Studies by Balldin187,193 and Balldin et al194,195 showed how 

increased ambient temperature, supine body position, and immersion in water increased N2

removal from adipose and muscle tissue as well as from the entire body. Theis et al196 confirmed 

and supplemented these data by examining whole-body N2 washout during supine body position. 

Balldin and Borgstrom197 and Curry & Lundgren198 reported that even negative-pressure breathing

accelerates N2 washout. The most recent efforts to understand N2 removal under various experimental conditions, including μg simulation, were undertaken by Vann and Gerth199 and Gerth et 

al.

200,201 Various experimental interventions resulted in a wide range of tissue N2 washout, from 

about 8 ml/kg for seated subjects to about 24 ml/kg for subjects who performed 50 W of continuous
29

arm and leg exercise for 2 hr while in a 6-degree head-down tilt during a 3-hr PB. It is therefore 

reasonable to hypothesize that the altered physiology and anatomy in response to μg adaptation 

modifies the amount of N2 removed from the body during PB.88,95,202

It is also possible that DCS has not actually occurred during EVA.81,203 Astronauts perform 

more prebreathing than is tested on the ground, since ground-based PBs are translated into Aeromedical Flight Rules, and more than the minimum protection is always provided. TR computed 

for the first 142 staged PB protocols from the shuttle was 1.51 ± 0.07 SD compared to 1.52 ± 0.26

for 245 research subjects at JSC with 18% DCS, who were ambulatory during testing. Ambulation encourages DCS and VGE from the lower body, so the absence of ambulation in μg likely 

reduces the incidence of DCS below 18% during EVA. TR also decreases during subsequent

EVAs, from 1.51 to 1.48 for the second EVA. This is because breathing 100% O2 during a 6-hr 

EVA continues the denitrogenation over multiple EVAs during a shuttle mission, and because 

the crew lives at 10.2 psia, where tissues eventually equilibrate to a ppN2 of about 7.5 psia.

Waligora and Pepper204 and Waligora and Kumar205 summarized physiological aspects of 

working in space during the first 59 shuttle person-EVAs.

The astronaut is surrounded by 100% O2 for some of an operational PB and all of the EVAs. 

It is unclear how much N2 is transferred out of the body through the skin of astronauts, or into

the body of subjects surrounded by air in altitude chambers. However, any benefit would go to 

the astronaut.206 Warm ambient temperature enhances denitrogenation.187 Astronauts in the shuttle

and performing EVA often report they are cool to cold. It is likely that research subjects are in a 

more comfortable thermal environment during a PB and EVA simulation than are astronauts. It 

is unclear how skin temperature that is cool due to the liquid cooling and ventilation garment affects the transport of N2 across the skin during the in-suit portion of the PB and the EVA. Knowing anything conclusive about N2 washout in space or the unbiased information from an in-suit 

Doppler bubble detector would greatly help us to understand the true risk of DCS in EVA 

astronauts.161,207-209

Astronauts are physically active during PB, and exercise during PB accelerates N2

washout.

43,51 Subjects in early trials at JSC were inactive during their PB. Aerobic fitness, as 

measured by VO2 peak, is not, per se, associated with resistance to pain-only DCS. An analysis 

of VO2 peaks in subjects failed to show a strong association with DCS in exposures without PB 

and with resting PB. However, the association was strong when exercise was included as part of 

the PB.210,211 The benefit of exceptional aerobic fitness toward reducing P(DCS) is only realized 

when exercise is exploited as part of the PB. A person with low VO2 peak can reduce his or her

P(DCS) to match that of a fit person by increasing the intensity of exercise in the same PB time, 

by increasing the length of the PB, or by some combination of both.50,210 Cumulative O2 consumption during PB is not the only consideration to reduce the P(DCS). Effective N2 elimination seems

to depend on how the exercise is performed more so than just total O2 consumption per unit time 

normalized to body mass. There are also constraints as to the type and duration of exercise that is 

prescribed during the PB since a long EVA awaits the astronaut after the PB. Women research

subjects did not benefit to the same degree as men research subjects when exercise during PB was

prescribed as %VO2 peak.212 Astronauts as a group are more physically fit than their age-matched

research subject counterparts. Current astronauts are about 10 years older than research subjects, 

but have similar aerobic fitness as measured by VO2 peak. Therefore, subjects as old as astronauts

would be less fit. If fitness is linked to DCS susceptibility,142,144,150 ,213-215 astronauts as a group,

under any PB condition, may be less susceptible to DCS than subjects of comparable age.9

Finally, the “effective” exercise in the EMU might be less than or different from the exercise 
30

on Earth that is used to simulate EVA activity, and exercise is certainly an important 

consideration for DCS risk at altitude.

In-suit Doppler Effort

Monitoring for venous bubbles in the pulmonary artery as the entire right-heart cardiac 

output enters the pulmonary circulation is the simplest approach to take in performing an unbiased assessment of the effective decompression dose, even if VGE are not directly linked to 

subsequent DCS. Noninvasive Doppler ultrasound bubble detection technology quickly advanced

in the mid-1970s to the point at which small, battery-operated devices were safe to use in operational settings. Investigators at Brooks AFB in the early 198's proposed that a 5-mHz continuous 

wave bubble detector with simple analog recording be interfaced with the U-2 aircraft pressure

garment. But, scientific rationale and engineering capability were not enough to implement this 

system, even as a research tool. Because the idea was valid and the rewards were great, efforts 

persisted at JSC to provide an automated venous blood bubble monitor for use in the EMU. Several prototypes were developed and tested at JSC. A parallel effort was also initiated by the

Russians, who eventually monitored subjects who were wearing the Orlan suit during altitude

chamber flights.

The ability to acquire a stable, quality blood flow signal was verified during brief periods of 

μg during parabolic flight. The viscera within the chest stabilized in μg, which allowed for good 

signal quality even under modest body motion.

216 Technical advances continued, especially in

the design of the probe. The final configuration was a triangular flat probe head with 1 transmit 

and 3 receive sensors spaced so that a rib was always spanned regardless of probe orientation on 

the chest over the pulmonary artery. The sensor had to perform in a “hands-off” operation once 

the EMU was donned. Various taping and strapping options were evaluated to maintain orientation of the probe. Techniques to maintain ultrasound coupling between the sensor and skin were 

needed since hours of use in a hypobaric environment would evaporate the ultrasound gel. Issues 

of suit fit with the Doppler device inside the EMU were evaluated during normal training activities

at the NBL. A final design emerged where the battery module, 2.4-mHz continuous wave ultrasound electronic module, and digital recorder module were separate on a belt worn around the 

waist. The system was flown on STS-87 and worn by Winston Scott while in the shuttle, not in 

the EMU. The system was evaluated at 6.5 psia on 4 subjects in an altitude chamber (Test 11b), 

and recorded VGE in 1 subject. Finally, the system was used in the underwater habitat Aquarius

where astronauts on the NEEMO 5 mission wore the unit for several hours after returning from 

dives deeper than the 56-FSW saturation depth of the habitat. A significant finding was the recording of false positive VGE signals. Gas entrained by swallowing liquids was detected due to 

the proximity of the sensor to the esophagus.217,218 This was significant since the astronauts are 

encouraged to drink water from a 32-oz drink bag within the EMU during long EVAs. The

Doppler device, training on the device, and use of the device under real-world conditions was

successful.

A final operational system did not materialize in spite of a successful research and 

development program for an automated in-suit bubble detector. Safety concerns about the

battery-operated device within the 100% O2 EMU environment halted the effort, and also prevented exposure of an astronaut to 4.3 psia while in shirtsleeve in the shuttle or ISS airlock as a 

means to evaluate the device. There was also an understandable resistance to implement this system out of concerns that the results could impact future EVA assignments. There was a related 

biomedical spin-off effort to develop an ambulatory stroke monitoring system, much like the 
31

ECG [electrocardiogram] Holter monitor system used to record abnormal ECG patterns in 

cardiac patients. Paradoxical stroke is not well understood, and a system that insonated the 

midcerebral artery to detect solid emboli could alert the patient to seek medical help sooner 

rather than later. A similar system could someday be used by astronauts during moon or Mars 

exploration in which an audio or a visual cue would alert the astronaut that bubbles were present 

in the midcerebral artery in time to take corrective actions.

Eliminating Decompression Sickness Through Engineering

An efficient exploration program needs an efficient EVA component. EVA preparation 

time should be minimized, and suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without

the wearer undergoing undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or even suit-related trauma. The atmosphere for Skylab achieved a working balance between risk and reward. The science and medical 

community accepted 70% O2 at 5.0 psia, since the Earth-equivalent PIO2 would be 150 mmHg,

and the risk of atelectasis was minimized, since the atmosphere was 30% N2. Scientists on Earth 

did not have to provide a hypoxic or hyperoxic environment as part of their ground-based control 

studies, so μg was the only experimental variable. No dedicated PB was needed before EVAs were

undertaken from Skylab in spacesuits pressurized to 3.7 psia since the tissues would eventually

equilibrate to a P1N2 of no more than 1.2 psia, far below the suit pressure. Various restrictions, such

as uncomfortable flame-retardant polybenzimidazole clothing, were imposed due to the serious

risk of fire in a 70% O2 atmosphere. Skylab was a success, and the need to confront several technical issues early in the mission showed that an effective EVA capability is critical to the success 

of long-duration missions.

Currently, a long PB time is needed before EVA from the shuttle or ISS. Denitrogenation 

may be effective to reduce the P(DCS), but even effective PB protocols are associated with a

high incidence of VGE. Significant VGE insult of the lungs at 4.3 psia increases the chance of 

transporting VGE through the pulmonary vasculature or through a PFO.

153,219,220 A future habitat

atmosphere should have a low ppN2 to shorten or eliminate the PB time. One practical approach 

to reduce the ppN2 is to increase the pO2 while also reducing the ambient pressure.

29-31 A balance 

is achieved between the increased risk of fire at high O2 concentration and the decreased risk of

DCS as ppN2 is reduced in the habitat. The concentration of O2 and, therefore, the risk of fire for 

a given ambient pressure can be reduced further if PIO2 is less than 150 mmHg, but not so low as 

to cause significant hypoxia.221 Not considered here are the many other factors involved in living 

in a low-pressure habitat with an exotic breathing mixture: a significant increase in electrical power

for ventilation fans, increased insensible water loss (dehydration), valid issues about food preparation and steam sterilization,

222,223 problems with voice communication,224 and reduced response 

time in the event of an atmosphere leak. The engineering, operational, scientific, and medical

communities evaluate and “trade” various options until a safe system is devised. The program 

as a whole benefits from this trade process, but each stakeholder then mitigates what is lost in 

the trade process.

The Moon

A trade process was performed leading to the atmosphere recommendations223 for the 

proposed NASA Orion crew exploration vehicle, Altair lunar surface access module (Figure 7),

and lunar habitat. The atmospheric pressure and gas composition for these vehicles should minimize the in-suit PB time in preparation for EVA and reduce the risk of DCS. To accomplish this 
32

objective and minimize the risk of fire, mildly hypoxic atmospheres were recommended.221,223,225

The nominal atmosphere proposed for Orion is 10.2 psia with 26.5% O2 (PIO2 of 127 mmHg),

the atmosphere proposed for Altair is 8.0 psia with 32.0% O2 (PIO2 of 117 mmHg), and the

atmosphere proposed for the lunar habitat is 7.6 psia with 32.0% O2 (PIO2 of 111 mmHg). The 

inclusion of a pressurized rover (Figure 8) as part of the integrated EVA system is a departure 

from the Apollo-era lunar exploration capability. Travel to distant places of geological interest 

is best performed in a pressurized vehicle that contains the Altair or a habitat atmosphere. This 

capability limits the time in the suit to just what is essential, which reduces the many hazards of 

being on the lunar surface. Validation of these atmospheres is a task for the future, and will be 

done with realistic EVA work tasks that include ambulation equivalent to walking in 0.17 Earth 

gravity (1g).

226

Figure 7. Artist’s conception of Orion and Altair approaching the moon.

Figure 8. Prototype pressurized lunar rover with exterior-mounted spacesuits.
33

Mars and Beyond

Mars has something the moon lacks: a very thin atmosphere of 95.7% CO2, 2.7% N2, and 

1.6% argon (Ar) exerting a pressure of about 5 mmHg. An automated vacuum pump that would 

be sent in advance of a crew would transfer a useful quantity of the thin atmosphere into a storage

container. Carbon dioxide would be converted to O2, leaving N2 and Ar in a 1.68-to-1.0 ratio.227,228

From an engineering standpoint, it is preferable to not separate inert gases into different containers, as this requires substantial energy and technology. Therefore, the atmosphere for the habitat 

would have N2 and Ar in the same ratio as in the martian atmosphere, with the balance being O2

to achieve an acceptable total pressure. Argon in the breathing mixture presents a special challenge

to avoid DCS since it is twice as soluble as N2, as clearly demonstrated by Pilmanis et al.157 Using

this atmosphere is a cost-effective alternative to transporting additional N2 and O2 from Earth.

One example of an atmosphere for a Mars habitat is 8.0 psia total pressure with 32.0% O2, 42.7%

N2, and 25.3% Ar. The operating pressure of the suit with 100% O2 is set or even variable to complement the habitat atmosphere to maximize comfort, minimize final in-suit PB time, and reduce

the P(DCS) to a level that can match the resources to treat DCS on Mars. The contribution of 

ambulation toward increased risk of DCS in martian gravity (0.37 Earth gravity) needs to be 

understood. Even if Ar is not selected for the habitat atmosphere, it would be available for the 

return trip to Earth since EVAs would not be a common occurrence during the transit to and 

from Mars.

Mining asteroids, permanent presence in low-Earth orbit, and even exploration of Titan229

are all future possibilities. Flexibility in selecting both atmospheric gas composition and pressure 

plus advances in spacesuit design will enable humans to exploit space without interference from 

DCS.
34

References

1

Powell MR, Horrigan DJ Jr, Waligora JM, Norfleet WT. Extravehicular activities. In: 

Nicogossian AE, Huntoon-Leach C, Pool SL, eds. Space Physiology and Medicine. 3rd ed. 

Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1994:128-140.

2

Locke JP. Space environments. In: Davis JR, Johnson R, Stepanek J, Fogarty JA, eds. 

Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;

2008:270-272.

3

Norfleet WT. Decompression-related disorders: decompression sickness, arterial gas embolism, 

and ebullism syndrome. In: Barratt MR, Pool SL, eds. Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space 

Flight. New York City, NY: Springer; 2008:223-246.

4

Stepanek J, Webb JT. Physiology of decompressive stress. In: Davis JR, Johnson R, Stepanek J, 

Fogarty JA, eds. Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott 

Williams & Wilkins; 2008:46-82.

5

Balldin UI, Pilmanis AA, Webb JT. Central nervous system decompression sickness and venous 

gas emboli in hypobaric conditions. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75:969-972.

6

Ryles MT, Pilmanis AA. The initial signs and symptoms of altitude decompression sickness. 

Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:983-989.

7

Krause KM, Pilmanis AA. The effectiveness of ground level oxygen treatment for altitude 

decompression sickness in human research subjects. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2000;71:115-118.

8

Muehlberger PM, Pilmanis AA, Webb JT, Olson JE. Altitude decompression sickness symptom 

resolution during descent to ground level. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75:496-499.

9

Conkin J, Klein JS, Acock KE. Description of 103 Cases of Hypobaric Decompression Sickness 

from NASA-sponsored Research (1982 to 1999). Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center;

July 2003. NASA Technical Publication 2003-212052.

10Jersey SL, Baril RT, McCarty RD, Millhouse CM. Severe neurological decompression sickness 

in a U-2 pilot. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2010;81:64-68.

11Degner EA, Ikels KG, Allen TH. Dissolved nitrogen and bends in oxygen-nitrogen mixtures 

during exercise at decreased pressures. Aerospace Med. 1965;36:418-425.

12Weathersby PK, Homer LD, Flynn ET. On the likelihood of decompression sickness. J Appl 

Physiol. 1984;57:815-825.

13Nims LF. Environmental factors affecting decompression sickness. Part I: Physical theory of 

decompression sickness. In: Fulton JF, ed. Decompression Sickness. Philadelphia, Pa: WB 

Saunders; 1951:192-222.
35

14Hoffman SJ. Advanced EVA Capabilities: A Study for NASA’s Revolutionary Aerospace 

Systems Concept Program. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; April 2004. NASA 

Technical Publication 2004-212068.

15Flugel CW, Kosmo JJ, Rayfield JR. Development of a zero-prebreathe spacesuit. Paper 

presented at:14th International Conference on Environmental Systems; July 16-19, 1984; San 

Diego, Calif. SAE Technical Series No. 840981.

16Fulton JF, ed. Decompression Sickness. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1951.

17Bateman JB. Preoxygenation and nitrogen elimination. Part I: Review of data on value of 

preoxygenation in prevention of decompression sickness. In: Fulton JF, ed. Decompression 

Sickness. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1951:242-277.

18Jones HB. Preoxygenation and nitrogen elimination. Part II: Gas exchange and blood-tissue 

perfusion factors in various body tissues. In: Fulton JF, ed. Decompression Sickness. 

Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1951:278-321.

19Pilmanis AA, ed. The Proceedings of the 1990 Hypobaric Decompression Sickness Workshop. 

Brooks Air Force Base, Tex: Air Force Systems Command; October 16-18, 1990. Report ALSR-1992-0005. Report published June 1992.

20McIver RG, Beard SE, Bancroft RW, Allen TH. Treatment of decompression sickness in 

simulated space flight. Aerospace Med. 1967;38:1034-1036.

21Maio DA, Allen TH, Bancroft RW. Decompression sickness and measured levels of exercise 

on simulated Apollo missions. Aerospace Med. 1970;41:1162-1165.

22Hawkins WR, Zieglschmid JF. Clinical aspects of crew safety. In: Johnson RS, Dietlein LF, 

Berry CA, eds. Biomedical Results of Apollo. U.S. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1975:70. NASA SP-368.

23Maio DA, Allen TH, Bancroft RW. Decompression sickness in simulated Apollo space-cabins. 

Aerospace Med. 1969;40:1114-1118.

24Conkin J, Waligora JM, Horrigan DJ Jr, Hadley AT III. The Effect of Exercise on Venous Gas 

Emboli and Decompression Sickness in Human Subjects at 4.3 psia. Houston, Tex: NASA 

Johnson Space Center; 1987. NASA Technical Memorandum 58278.

25Waligora JM, Horrigan DJ Jr, Conkin J. The effect of extended oxygen prebreathing on altitude

decompression sickness and venous gas bubbles. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1987;58(suppl

9):A110-112.

26Waligora JM, Horrigan DJ Jr, Conkin J, Hadley AT III. Verification of an Altitude 

Decompression Sickness Protocol for Shuttle Operations Utilizing a 10.2 psi Pressure Stage. 

Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; June 1984. NASA Technical Memorandum 58259.
36

27Conkin J, Powell MR, Gernhardt ML. Age affects severity of venous gas emboli on 

decompression from 14.7 to 4.3 psia. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003;74:1142-1150.

28Conkin J, Edwards BF, Waligora JM, Stanford J Jr, Gilbert JH III, Horrigan DJ Jr. Updating 

Empirical Models that Predict the Incidence of Aviator Decompression Sickness and Venous Gas 

Emboli for Shuttle and Space Station Extravehicular Operations. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson 

Space Center; October 1990. NASA Technical Memorandum 100456 Update.

29Allen TH, Maio DA, Beard SE, Bancroft RW. Space-cabin and suit pressures for avoidance of 

decompression sickness and alleviation of fire hazard. J Appl Physiol. 1969;27:13-17.

30Cooke JP, Robertson WG. Decompression sickness in simulated Apollo-Soyuz space missions. 

Aerospace Med. 1974;45:297-300.

31Horrigan DJ Jr, Waligora JM. The development of effective procedures for the protection of

space shuttle crews against decompression sickness during extravehicular activities. Proceedings 

of the 1980 Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting. Anaheim, Calif; May 12-

15, 1980. 1980:14-15.

32Waligora JM, Horrigan DJ Jr, Hadley AT III, Conkin J. Proceedings of the 1983 Aerospace 

Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting. Houston, Tex; May 23-26, 1983. 1983:124-125.

33Damato MJ, Highly FM, Hendler E, Michel EL. Rapid decompression hazards and prolonged 

exposure to 50 percent oxygen – 50 percent nitrogen atmosphere. Aerospace Med.

1963;34:1037-1040.

34Vann RD, Torre-Bueno JR. A theoretical method for selecting space craft and space suit 

atmospheres. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1984;55:1097-1102.

35Hills BA. Compatible atmospheres for a space suit, space station, and shuttle based on 

physiological principles. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1985;56:1052-1058.

36Horrigan DJ Jr, Waligora JM, Nachtwey DS. Physiological considerations for EVA in the 

space station era. Paper presented at 15th International Conference on Environmental Systems;

July 15-17, 1985; San Francisco, Calif. SAE Technical Series No. 851313.

37Waligora JM, Horrigan DJ Jr, Bungo MW, Conkin J. Investigation of combined effects of 

bedrest and mild hypoxia. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1982;53:643-646.

38

Adams JD, Dixon GA, Olson RM, Bassett BE, Fitzpatrick EL. Preventing of bends during 

space shuttle EVAs using staged decompression. Proceedings of the 1981 Aerospace Medical 

Association Annual Scientific Meeting. San Antonio, Tex; May 4-7, 1981. 1981;55-56.

39Behnke AR, Willmon TL. Gaseous nitrogen and helium elimination from the body during rest 

and exercise. Am J Physiol. 1941;131:619-626.

40Webb JP, Ryder HW, Engel GL, Romano J, Blankenhorn MA, Ferris EB. The Effect on 

Susceptibility to Decompression Sickness of Preflight Oxygen Inhalation at Rest as Compared to 
37

Oxygen Inhalation during Strenuous Exercise. Washington, DC: National Research Council;

1943. Report No. 134.

41Boothby WM, Luft UC, Benson OO Jr. Gaseous nitrogen elimination. Experiments when 

breathing oxygen at rest and at work with comments on dysbarism. Aviat Med. 1952;23:141-176.

42Webb JT, Dixon GA, Wiegman JF. Potential for reduction of decompression sickness by 

prebreathing with 100% oxygen while exercising. Paper presented at 19th International 

Conference on Environmental Systems; July 24-26, 1989; San Diego, Calif. SAE Technical 

Series No. 891490.

43Webb JT, Fischer MD, Heaps CL, Pilmanis AA. Exercise-enhanced preoxygenation increases 

protection from decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:618-624.

44Webb JT, Pilmanis AA, O’Connor RB. An abrupt zero-preoxygenation altitude threshold for 

decompression sickness symptoms. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1998;69:335-340.

45Webb JT, Pilmanis AA, Fischer MD, Kannan N. Enhancement of preoxygenation for 

decompression sickness protection: effect of exercise duration. Aviat Space Environ Med.

2002;73:1161- 1166.

46Webb JT, Pilmanis AA, Balldin UI. Altitude decompression sickness at 7620 m following 

prebreathe enhanced with exercise periods. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75:859-864.

47Hankins TC, Webb JT, Neddo GC, Pilmanis AA, Mehm WJ. Test and evaluation of exerciseenhanced preoxygenation in U-2 operations. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2000;71:822-826.

48Gernhardt ML, Conkin J, Foster PP, Pilmanis AA, Butler BD, Fife CE, et al. Design of a 2-hr 

prebreathe protocol for space walks from the international space station [abstract no. 43]. Aviat 

Space Environ Med. 2000;71:49.

49Gernhardt ML, Dervay JP, Welch J, Conkin J, Acock K, Lee S, Moore A, Foster P. 

Implementation of an exercise prebreathe protocol for construction and maintenance of the 

international space station- results to date [abstract no. 145]. Aviat Space Environ Med.

2003;74:397.

50Conkin J, Gernhardt ML, Powell MR, Pollock N. A Probability Model of Decompression 

Sickness at 4.3 psia After Exercise Prebreathe. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center;

December 2004. NASA Technical Publication 2004-213158.

51Loftin KC, Conkin J, Powell MR. Modeling the effects of exercise during 100% oxygen 

prebreathe on the risk of hypobaric decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med.

1997;68:199-204.

52Kumar KV, Powell MR, Waligora JM. Early stopping of aerospace medical trials: application 

of sequential principles. J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;34:596-598.
38

53Clarke RW, Humm FD, Nims LF. The Efficacy of Preflight Denitrogenation in the Prevention 

of Decompression Sickness. New Haven, Conn: Yale Aeromedical Research Unit, Yale 

University; 1945. National Research Council, Committee on Medical Research, Report 472.

54Cooke JP. Denitrogenation interruptions with air. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1976;47:1205-

1209.

55Adams JD, Theis CF, Stevens KW. Denitrogenation/renitrogenation profiles: interruption of 

oxygen prebreathing. Proceedings of the 1977 Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientific 

Meeting. Las Vegas, Nev; May 9-12, 1977. 1977;42-43.

56Horrigan DJ Jr, Wells CH, Hart GB, Goodpasture JE. The uptake and depletion of inert gases 

in muscle and subcutaneous tissues of human subjects. Proceedings of the 1979 Aerospace 

Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting. Washington DC; May 14-17, 1979. 1979;264-

265.

57Dixon GA, Adams JD, Olson RM, Fitzpatrick EL. Validation of additional prebreathing times 

for air interruptions in the shuttle EVA prebreathing profile. Proceedings of the 1980 Aerospace 

Medical Association Annual Scientific Meeting. Anaheim, Calif; May 12-15, 1980. 1980;16-17.

58Barer AS, Vakar MI, Vorob’yev GF, Iseyev LR, Filipenkov SN, Chadov VI. Influence of 

addition of nitrogen to inhaled oxygen on efficacy of two-hr denitrogenation before 

decompression from 760 to 220 mm Hg [in Russian]. Space Biology and Aerospace Med.

1983;17:66-69.

59Pilmanis AA, Webb JT, Balldin UI, Conkin J, Fischer JR. Air break during preoxygenation and 

risk of altitude decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2010;81:944-950.

60Andersen A, Hillestad L. Hemodynamic responses to oxygen breathing and the effect of 

pharmacological blockade. Acta Med Scand. 1970;188:419-424.

61Anderson D, Nagasawa G, Norfleet W, Olszowka A, Lundgren C. O2 pressures between 0.12 

and 2.5 atm abs, circulatory function, and N2 elimination. Undersea Biomed Res. 1991;18:279-

292.

62Van Liew HD, Conkin J, Burkard ME. The oxygen window and decompression bubbles: 

estimates and significance. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1993;64:859-865.

63Conkin J. Decompression sickness after air break in prebreathe described with a survival 

model. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2011;82:589-598.

64Tikuisis P, Gerth WA. Decompression theory. In: Brubakk AO, Neuman TS, eds. The 

Physiology and Medicine of Diving. 5th ed. New York, NY: Saunders; 2003:419-454.

65Srinivasan RS, Gerth WA, Powell MR. Mathematical model of diffusion-limited evolution of 

multiple gas bubbles in tissue. Ann Biomed Eng. 2003;31:471-481.
39

66Vann RD, Gerth WA, Leatherman NE, Feezor MD. A likelihood analysis of experiments to test 

altitude decompression protocols for shuttle operations. Aviat Space Environ Med.

1987;58:A106-A109.

67Conkin J, Kumar KV, Powell MR, Foster PP, Waligora JM. A probabilistic model of hypobaric 

decompression sickness based on 66 chamber tests. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:176-183.

68Conkin J. Probabilistic Modeling of Hypobaric Decompression Sickness [dissertation]. 

Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo; 1994.

69Conkin J, Foster PP, Powell MR. Evolved gas, pain, the power law, and probability of 

hypobaric decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1998;69:352-359.

70Kumar KV, Powell MR. Survivorship models for estimating the risk of decompression 

sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1994;65:661-665.

71Chadov VI, Iseyev LR, Filipenkov SN. Assessment of the atmospheric parameters of the space 

craft and space suit ensuring decompression safety during episodic extra-vehicular activity.

Paper presented at 26th International Conference on Environmental Systems; July 8-11, 1996;

Monterey, Calif. SAE Technical Series No. 961419.

72Barer AS. Physiological and medical aspects of the EVA: The Russian experience. Paper 

presented at 25th International Conference on Environmental Systems; July 10-13, 1995; San 

Diego, Calif. SAE Technical Series No. 951591.

73Blatteau J-E, Souraud J-B, Gempp E, Boussuges A. Gas nuclei, their origin, and their role in 

bubble formation. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;77:1068-1076.

74Weathersby PK, Homer LD, Flynn ET. Homogenous nucleation of gas bubbles in vivo. J Appl 

Physiol. 1982;53:940-946.

75Evans A, Walder DN. Significance of gas micronuclei in the aetiology of decompression 

sickness. Nature. 1969;222:251-252.

76Ikles KG. Production of gas bubbles in fluid by tribonucleation. J Appl Physiol. 1970;28:524-

527.

77Vann RD, Grimstad J, Nielsen CH. Evidence for gas nuclei in decompressed rats. Undersea 

Biomed Res. 1980;7:107-112.

78Hills BA. Decompression sickness. In: The Biophysical Basis of Prevention and Treatment. 

Vol 1. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1977.

79Hemmingsen EA. Nucleation of bubbles in vitro and in vivo. In: Brubakk AO, Hemmingsen 

BB, Sundnes G, eds. Supersaturation and Bubble Formation in Fluid and Organisms. 

Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Publishers; 1989:43-68.
40

80Powell MR, Waligora JM, Norfleet WT, Kumar KV. Project ARGO – Gas Phase Formation in 

Simulated Microgravity. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; 1993. NASA Technical 

Memorandum 104762.

81Powell MR, Waligora JM, Kumar KV. Decompression gas phase formation in simulated null 

gravity. Paper presented at 25th International Conference on Environmental Systems, July 10-13, 

1995, San Diego, Calif. SAE Technical Series No. 951590.

82Butler BD, Little T, Cogan V, Powell MR. Hyperbaric oxygenation pre-breathe modifies the 

outcome of decompression sickness. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2006;33:407-417.

83Arieli R, Boaron E, Abramovich A. Combined effect of denucleation and denitrogenation on 

the risk of decompression sickness in rats. J Appl Physiol. 2009;106:1453-1458.

84Hayward ATJ. Tribonucleation of bubbles. Brit J Appl Phys. 1967;18:641-644.

85McDonough PM, Hemmingsen EA. Bubble formation in crabs induced by limb motion after 

decompression. J Appl Physiol. 1984;57:117-122.

86McDonough PM, Hemmingsen EA. A direct test for the survival of gaseous nuclei in vivo. 

Aviat Space Environ Med. 1985;56:54-56.

87Brubakk AO, Hemmingsen BB, Sundnes G, eds. Supersaturation and Bubble Formation in 

Fluids and Organisms. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Publishers; 1989.

88Powell MR, Waligora JW, Norfleet WT. Decompression in simulated microgravity; bedrest 

and its influence on stress-assisted nucleation. Undersea Biomed Res. 1992;19(suppl):54.

89Vann RD, Gerth WA. Is the risk of DCS in microgravity less than on Earth [abstract no. 45]? 

Aviat Space Environ Med. 1997;68:621.

90Cook SF. Role of exercise, temperature, drugs, and water balance in decompression sickness. 

In: Fulton JF, ed. Decompression Sickness. Part II. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1951:223-

235.

91Henry FM. Effects of exercise and altitude on the growth and decay of aviator’s bends. J Aviat 

Med. 1956;27:250-259.

92Krutz RW Jr, Dixon GA. The effect of exercise on bubble formation and bends susceptibility at 

9,100 m (30,000 ft; 4.3 psia). Aviat Space Environ Med. 1987;58(suppl 9):A97-A99.

93Powell MR, Norfleet WT, Waligora JM, Kumar KV, Robinson R, Butler ВD. Modification of 

physiological processes concerning extravehicular activity in microgravity. Paper presented at

24th International Conference on Environmental Systems and the 5th European Symposium on 

Space Environmental Control Systems, June 20-23, 1994, Friedrichshafen, Germany. SAE 

Technical Series No. 941334..
41

94Kumar KV, Powell MR, Waligora JM. Evaluation of the risk of circulating microbubbles under 

simulated extravehicular activity after bed rest. Paper presented at 23rd International Conference 

on Environmental Systems, July 12-15, 1993, Colorado Springs, Colo. SAE Technical Series No. 

932220..

95Conkin J, Powell MR. Lower body adynamia as a factor to reduce the risk of hypobaric 

decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2001;72:202-214.

96Whitaker DM, Blinks LR, Berg WE, Twitty VC, Harris M. Muscular activity and bubble 

formation in animals decompressed to simulated altitudes. J Gen Physiol. 1945;28:213-223.

97Dervay JP, Powell MR, Butler B, Fife CE. The effect of exercise and rest duration on the 

generation of venous gas bubbles at altitude. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73:22-27.

98Van Liew HD, Raychaudhuri S. Stabilized bubbles in the body: pressure-radius relationships 

and the limits to stabilization. J Appl Physiol. 1997;82:2045-2053.

99Van Liew HD. Evidence that breathing of oxygen inactivates precursors if decompression 

bubbles [abstract no. 8]. Undersea Hyperb Med. 1998;25:11.

100Van Liew HD, Conkin J. A start toward micronuclei-based decompression models; altitude 

decompression [abstract no. A14]. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2007;34:13.

101Dujić Z, Palada I, Valic Z, Duplancic D, Obad A, Wisloff U, Brubakk AO. Exogenous nitric 

oxide and bubble formation in divers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:1432-1435.

102Valic Z, Palada I, Dujić Z. Short-acting NO donor and decompression sickness in humans. J 

Appl Physiol. 2007;102:1725.

103Wisløff U, Richardson RS, Brubakk AO. Exercise and nitric oxide prevent bubble formation: 

a novel approach to the prevention of decompression sickness? J Physiol. 2004;555:825-829.

104Adler HF. Dysbarism. Aeromedical Review 1-64. Brooks AFB, San Antonio, Tex, 1964;64-82.

105Fryer DI, Roxburgh HL. Decompression sickness. In: Gillies JA, ed. A Textbook of Aviation 

Physiology. New York, NY: Pergamon Press; 1965:122-151.

106Conkin J. Evidence-based Approach to the Analysis of Serious Decompression Sickness with 

Application to EVA Astronauts. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; January 2001.

NASA Technical Publication 2001-210196.

107Conkin J, Pilmanis AA, Webb JT. Case Descriptions and Observations about Cutis Marmorata

from Hypobaric Decompressions. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; April 2002.

NASA Technical Publication 2002-210779.

108Webb JT, Pilmanis AA. Breathing 100% oxygen compared with 50% oxygen:50% nitrogen 

reduces altitude-induced venous gas emboli. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1993;64:808-812.
42

109Eckenhoff RG, Olstad CE, Carrod GE. Human dose-response relationship for decompression 

and endogenous bubble formation. J Appl Physiol. 1990;69:914-918.

110Conkin J, Van Liew HD. Failure of the straight-line DCS boundary when extrapolated to the 

hypobaric realm. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1992;63:965-970.

111Ikeda T, Okamoto Y, Hashimoto A. Bubble formation and decompression sickness on direct 

ascent from shallow air saturation diving. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1993;64:121-125.

112Cameron BA, Olstad CS, Clark JM, Gelfand R, Ochroch EA, Eckenhoff RG. Risk factors for 

venous gas emboli after decompression from prolonged hyperbaric exposures. Aviat Space 

Environ Med. 2007;78:493-499.

113Webb JT, Olson RM, Krutz RW Jr, Dixon G, Barnicott PT. Human tolerance to 100% oxygen 

at 9.5 psia during five daily simulated eight-hour EVA exposures. Aviat Space Environ Med.

1989;60:415-421.

114Kumar KV, Waligora JM, Calkins DS. Threshold altitude resulting in decompression sickness. 

Aviat Space Environ Med. 1990;61:685-689.

115Rudge FW. A case of decompression sickness at 2,437 meters (8,000 feet). Aviat Space 

Environ Med. 1990;61:1026-1027.

116Voge VM. Probable bends at 14,000 feet: a case report. Aviat Space Environ Med.

1989;60:1102-1103.

117Dixon GA, Adams JD, Harvey WT. Decompression sickness and intravenous bubble 

formation using a 7.8 psia simulated pressure suit environment. Aviat Space Environ Med.

1986;57:223-228.

118Dixon GA, Krutz RW, Fischer JR. Decompression sickness and bubble formation in females 

exposed to a simulated 7.8 psia suit environment. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1988;59:1146-1149.

119Webb JT, Smead KW, Jauchem JR, Barnicott PT. Blood factors and venous gas emboli: 

surface to 429 mmHg (8.3 psi). Undersea Biomed Res. 1988;15:107-121.

120Smead KW, Krutz RW, Dixon GA, Webb JT. Decompression sickness and venous gas emboli 

at 8.3 psia. 24th Annual SAFE Symposium Proceedings. San Antonio, Tex; December 11-13, 

1986. 1986:196-199.

121Dixon GA, Krutz RW. Evaluation of 9.5 psia as a suit pressure for prolonged extravehicular 

activity. Proceedings of the SAFE 23rd Annual Symposium. Van Nuys, Calif; December 2-4, 

1985. 1985;122-125.

122Piccard J. Aeroemphysema and the birth of gas bubbles. Proc Mayo Clinic. 1941;16:700-704.

123Hennessy TR, Hempleman HV. An examination of critical released gas volume concept in 

decompression sickness. Proc R Soc Lond. 1977;197:299-313.
43

124Chadov VI, Iseyev LR. Variation in the maximum acceptable coefficient of supersaturation 

during altitude decompression. Kosmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmicheskaya Meditsina.

1989;23:58-62.

125Van Liew HD, Burkard ME. Simulation of gas bubbles and the role of O2, CO2, and H2O 

[abstract no. 15]. Undersea Hyperb Med. 1994;21:20.

126Van Liew HD, Burkard ME. Simulation of gas bubbles in hypobaric decompressions: roles of 

O2, CO2, and H2O. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1995;66:50-55.

127Fitzpatrick DT, Conkin J. Improved pulmonary function in working divers breathing nitrox at 

shallow depths. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003;74:763-767.

128Horrigan DJ Jr, LaPinta CK, Conkin J. NASA requirements for underwater training and 

surface intervals before flying. In: Sheffield PJ, ed. Flying After Diving. Proceedings of the 39th 

Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop. Bethesda, Md; December 1989. 1989;11-

27. UHMS Report 77.

129Vann RD, Denoble P, Emmerman MN, Corson KS. Flying after diving and decompression 

sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1993;64:801-807.

130Pollock NW, Fitzpatrick DT. NASA flying after diving procedures. In: Sheffield PJ, Vann 

RD, eds. DAN Flying After Diving Workshop Proceedings. Durham, NC: Divers Alert Network;

2004:59-64.

131Spencer MP. Decompression limits for compressed air determined by ultrasonically detected 

blood bubbles. J Appl Physiol. 1976;40:229-235.

132Neuman TS, Hall DD, Linaweaver PG. Gas phase separation during decompression in man: 

ultrasound monitoring. Undersea Biomed Res. 1976;3:121-130.

133Adams JD, Olson RM, Dixon GA. Use of the Doppler precordial bubble detector in altitude 

decompressions. Proceedings of the 1979 Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientific 

Meeting. Washington DC; May 14-17, 1979. 1979:260-261.

134Allen TH, Maio DA, Bancroft RW. Body fat, denitrogenation and decompression sickness in 

men exercising after abrupt exposure to altitude. Aerospace Med. 1971;42:518-524.

135Cooke JP, Bollinger RR, Richardson B. Prevention of decompression sickness during a 

simulated space docking mission. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1975;46:930-933.

136Pilmanis AA, Webb JT, Kannan N, Balldin UI. The effect of repeated altitude exposures on 

the incidence of decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73:525-531.

137Kumar KV, Waligora JW, Gilbert JH III. The influence of prior exercise at anaerobic 

threshold on decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1992;63:899-904.
44

138Kumar KV, Calkins DS, Waligora JM, Gilbert JH III, Powell MR. Time to detection of 

circulating microbubbles as a risk factor for symptoms of altitude decompression sickness. Aviat 

Space Environ Med. 1992;63:961-964.

139Balldin UI, Pilmanis AA, Webb JT. Pulmonary decompression sickness at altitude: early 

symptoms and circulating gas emboli. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73:996-999.

140Gernhardt ML, Pollock NW. Prebreathe Reduction Program V-4 Status Report and Options

for Protocol V-5. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center, April 2006. Contact authors for 

copy of report.

141Weathersby PK. Individual susceptibility to DCS. In: Vann RD, ed. The Physiological Basis 

of Decompression. 38th Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop, Bethesda, Md, June 

1, 1989. 1989:372-373. Reproduces data from Gray et al. J Aviat Med. 1947;34:88-95.

142Webb JT, Pilmanis AA, Balldin UI, Fischer JR. Altitude decompression sickness 

susceptibility: influence of anthropometric and physiologic variables. Aviat Space Environ Med.

2005;76:547-551.

143Sulaiman ZM, Pilmanis AA, O’Connor RB. Relationship between age and susceptibility to 

altitude decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1997;68:695-698.

144Carturan D, Boussuges A, Vanuxem P, Bar-Hen A, Burnet H, Gardette B. Ascent rate, age, 

maximal oxygen uptake, adiposity, and circulating venous bubbles after diving. J Appl Physiol.

2002;93:1349-1356.

145Webb JT, Kannan N, Pilmanis AA. Gender not a factor for altitude decompression sickness 

risk. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003;74:2-10.

146Conkin J. Diver and aviator decompression sickness and gender. In: Fife CE, St. Leger Dowse 

M, eds. Women and Pressure. Flagstaff, Ariz: Best Publishing Co; 2010:27-40.

147Thompson LA, Chhikara RS, Conkin J. Cox Proportional Hazards Models for Modeling the 

Time to Onset of Decompression Sickness in Hypobaric Environments. Houston, Tex: NASA 

Johnson Space Center; March 2003. NASA Technical Publication 2003-210791.

148Dujić Z, Duplancic D, Marinovic-Terzic I, Bakovic D, Ivancev V, Valic Z, Eterovic D, Petri 

NM, Wisløff U, Brubakk AO. Aerobic exercise before diving reduces venous gas bubble 

formation in humans. J Physiol. 2004;555:637-642.

149Dujić Z, Valic Z, Brubakk AO. Beneficial role of exercise on scuba diving. Exerc Sport Sci 

Rev. 2008;36:38-42.

150Carturan D, Boussuges A, Burnet H, Fondaral J, Vanuxem P, Gardette B. Circulating venous 

bubbles in recreational diving: relationship with age, weight, maximum oxygen uptake, and body 

fat percentage. Int J Sports Med. 1999;20:410-414.
45

151Fahlman A, Dromsky DM. Dehydration effects on the risk of severe decompression sickness 

in a swine model. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;77:102-106.

152Saary MJ, Gray GW. A review of the relationship between patent foramen ovale and type II 

decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2001;72:1113-1120.

153Foster PP, Boriek AM, Butler BD, Gernhardt ML, Bové AA. Patent foramen ovale and 

paradoxical systemic embolism: a bibliographic review. Aviat Space Environ Med.

2003;74(suppl):B1-B64.

154Jankowski LW, Nishi RY, Eaton DJ, Griffin AP. Exercise during decompression reduces the 

amount of venous gas emboli. Undersea Hyperb Med. 1997;24:59-65.

155Kumar KV, Waligora JM, Powell MR. Epidemiology of decompression sickness under 

simulated space extravehicular activities. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1993;64:1032-1039.

156Nishi RY. Doppler and ultrasonic bubble detection. In: Bennett PB, Elliott DH, eds. The 

Physiology and Medicine of Diving. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Company Ltd;

1993:433-453.

157Pilmanis AA, Balldin UI, Webb JT, Krause KM. Staged decompression to 3.5 psi using argonoxygen and 100% oxygen breathing mixtures. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003;74:1243-1250.

158Eftedal OS, Tjelmeland H, Brubakk AO. Validation of decompression procedures based on 

detection of venous gas bubbles: a Bayesian approach. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007;78:94-99.

159Kumar KV, Waligora JM. Efficacy of Doppler ultrasound for screening symptoms of 

decompression sickness during simulated extravehicular activities. Acta Astronautica.

1995;36:589-593.

160Van Liew HD, Burkard ME. Density of decompression bubbles and competition for gas 

among bubbles, tissue, and blood. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75:2293-2301.

161Conkin J, Foster PP, Powell MR, Waligora JM. Relationship of the time course of venous gas 

bubbles to altitude decompression illness. Undersea Hyperb Med. 1996;23:141-149.

162Olson RM, Krutz RW Jr, Dixon GA, Smead KW. An evaluation of precordial ultrasonic 

monitoring to avoid bends at altitude. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1988;59:635-639.

163Balldin UI, Pilmanis AA, Webb JT. The effect of simulated weightlessness on hypobaric 

decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73:773-778.

164Kumar VK, Billica RD, Waligora JM. Utility of Doppler-detectable microbubbles in the 

diagnosis and treatment of decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1997;68:151-158.

165Diesel DA, Ryles MT, Pilmanis AA, Balldin UI. Non-invasive measurement of pulmonary 

artery pressure in humans with simulated altitude-induced venous gas emboli. Aviat Space 

Environ Med. 2002;73:128-133.
46

166Epstein PS, Plesset MS. On the stability of gas bubbles in liquid-gas solutions. J Chem Phys.

1950;18:1505-1509.

167Van Liew HD, Hlastala MP. Influence of bubble size and blood perfusion on absorption of gas 

bubbles in tissues. Resp Physiol. 1969;7:111-121.

168Gernhardt ML. Development and Evaluation of a Decompression Stress Index Based on 

Tissue Bubble Dynamics [dissertation]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 1991.

169Gerth WA, Vann RD. Probabilistic gas and bubble dynamics models of DCS occurrence in air 

and nitrogen-oxygen diving. Undersea Hyperb Med. 1997;24:275-292.

170Thalmann ED, Parker EC, Survanshi SS, Weathersby PK. Improved probabilistic 

decompression model risk predictions using linear-exponential kinetics. Undersea Hyperb Med.

1997;24:255-274.

171Srinivasan RS, Gerth WA, Powell MR. A mathematical model of diffusion-limited gas bubble 

dynamics in unstirred tissue with finite volume. Ann Biomed Eng. 2002;30:232-246.

172Nickolaev VP. Simulation of cumulative risk of developing altitude decompression sickness. 

Aviat Space Environ Med. 2008;79:21-29.

173Ball R, Himm J, Homer LD, Thalmann ED. Does the time course of bubble evolution explain 

decompression sickness risk? Undersea Hyperb Med. 1995;22:263-280.

174Tikuisis P, Gault KA, Nishi RY. Prediction of decompression illness using bubble models. 

Undersea Hyperb Med. 1994;21:129-143.

175Vann RD. Decompression theory and applications (Chap. 14). In: Bennett PB, Elliott DH, eds.

The Physiology and Medicine of Diving. 3rd ed. San Pedro, Calif: Best Publishing; 1982:366-370. 

176Wienke BR. Basic Decompression Theory and Application. Flagstaff, Ariz: Best Publishing 

Co., 1991.

177

Foster PP, Feiveson AH, Boriek AM. Predicting time to decompression illness during exercise 

at altitude, based on formation and growth of bubbles. Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative 

Comp Physiol. 2000;279:R2317-2328.

178

Foster PP, Feiveson AH, Glowinski R, Izygon M, Boriek AM. A model for influence of 

exercise on formation and growth of tissue bubbles during altitude decompression. Am J Physiol 

Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol. 2000;279:R2304-2316.

179

Pilmanis AA, Petropoulos LJ, Kannan N, Webb JT. Decompression sickness risk model: 

development and validation by 150 prospective hypobaric exposures. Aviat Space Environ Med.

2004;75:749-759.

180Weathersby PK, Gerth WA. Survival analysis and maximum likelihood techniques as applied 

to physiological modeling. In: Weathersby PK, Gerth WA. 51st Undersea and Hyperbaric 
47

Medical Society Workshop. Kensington, Md: Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Inc; 

2002.

181Frieberger JJ, Lyman SJ, Denoble PJ, Pieper CF, Vann RD. Consensus factors used by experts 

in the diagnosis of decompression illness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75:1023-1028.

182Conkin J, Sung H-G, Feiveson AH. A latent class model to assess error rates in diagnosis of 

altitude decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;77:816-824.

183Foster PP, Butler BD. Decompression to altitude: assumptions, experimental evidence, and 

future directions. J Appl Physiol. 2009;106:678-690.

184

Bendrick GA, Ainscough MJ, Pilmanis AA, Bisson RU. Prevalence of decompression 

sickness among U-2 pilots. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:199-206.

185

Meader WL. Decompression sickness in high-altitude flight. Aerospace Med. 1967;38:301-

303.

186

Nicogossian AE, Parker JF, eds. Space Physiology and Medicine. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office; 1982:304. NASA SP-447.

187

Balldin UI. Effects of ambient temperature and body position on tissue nitrogen elimination in 

man. Aerospace Med. 1973;444:365-370.

188

Pendergast DR, Olszowka AJ. Effect of exercise, thermal state, blood flow on inert gas 

exchange. In: Vann RD, ed. The Physiological Basis of Decompression. Paper presented at 38th

Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop, Bethesda, Md, June 1, 1989. 1989;37-57.

189

Margaria R, Sendroy J Jr. Effect of carbon dioxide on rate of denitrogenation in human 

subjects. J Appl Physiol. 1950;3:295-308.

190Jones HB, Myers E, Berg WE. Gas Exchange, Circulation, and Diffusion. Washington DC:

National Research Council; April 10, 1945. Report No. 429.

191Behnke AR, Thompson RM, Shaw LA. The rate of elimination of dissolved nitrogen in man in 

relation to fat and water content of the body. Amer J Physiol. 1935;114:137-146.

192Behnke AR. The application of measurements of nitrogen elimination to the problem of 

decompressing divers. Navy Med Bull. 1937;35:219-220.

193Balldin UI. Effects of immersion and ambient temperature on elimination of 133xenon from 

human adipose tissue. In: Shilling CW, Beckett MW, eds. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on 

Underwater Physiology. FASEB: Bethesda, Md; 1978:329-334.

194

Balldin UI, Lundgren CEG, Lunduall T, Mellander S. Changes in the elimination of 133xenon 

from the anterior tibial muscle in man induced by immersion in water and by shifts in body 

position. Aerospace Med. 1971;42:489-493.
48

195

Balldin UI, Lundgren CEG. Effects of immersion with the head above water on tissue nitrogen 

elimination in man. Aerospace Med. 1972;43:1101-1108.

196

Theis CF, Adams JD, Stevens KW. Nitrogen washout in the supine position. Aerospace 

Medical Association Preprints. May 14-17, 1979;262-263.

197

Balldin UI, Borgstrom P. Intracardial gas bubbles at altitude after negative pressure breathing. 

Aviat Space Environ Med. 1977;48:1007-1011.

198

Curry TB, Lundgren CEG. Negative pressure breathing enhances nitrogen elimination. Aviat 

Space Environ Med. 2003;74:1034-1039.

199

Vann RD, Gerth WA. Factors affecting tissue perfusion and efficacy of astronaut 

denitrogenation for extravehicular activity. Durham, NC: F.G. Hall Hypo/Hyperbaric Center, 

Duke University Medical Center; 1995:11-13.

200Gerth WA, Vann RD, Leatherman NE, Feezor MD. Effects of microgravity on tissue 

perfusion and efficacy of astronaut denitrogenation for EVA. Aviat Space Environ Med.

1987;59(suppl):A100-A105.

201Gerth WA, Vann RD, Leatherman NE. Whole-body nitrogen elimination during oxygen 

prebreathing and altitude decompression sickness risk. In: Vann RD, ed. The Physiological Basis 

of Decompression. Bethesda, MD: 38th Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop;

1989:147-151.

202Conkin J, Waligora JM, Horrigan DJ Jr. Effect of Hydration on Nitrogen Washout in Human 

Subjects. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; May 1983. NASA Technical 

Memorandum 58254.

203Gernhardt ML, Conkin J, Vann RD, Pollock NW. Risk of decompression sickness in groundbased hypobaric trials vs. extravehicular activity [abstract no. 100]. Undersea Hyperb Med.

2004; 31:G100.

204

Waligora JM, Pepper LJ. Physiological experience during shuttle EVA. Paper presented at 

25th International Conference on Environmental Systems; July 10-13, 1995; San Diego, Calif. 

SAE Technical Series No. 951592.

205

Waligora JM, Kumar KV. Energy utilization rates during shuttle extravehicular activities. Acta 

Astronautica. 1995;36:595-599.

206

Groom AC, Farhi LE. Cutaneous diffusion of atmospheric N2 during N2 washout in the dog. J 

Appl Physiol. 1967;22:740-745.

207

Barer AS, Filipenkov SN, Katuntsev VP, Vogt L, Wenzel J. The feasibility of Doppler 

monitoring during EVA. Acta Astronautica 1995; 36:81-3.
49

208

Conkin J, Powell MR, Foster PP, Waligora JM. Information about venous gas emboli 

improves prediction of hypobaric decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1998;69:8-

16.

209

Thompson LA, Conkin J, Chhikara RS, Powell MR. Modeling Grade IV Venous Gas Emboli 

Using a Limited Failure Population Model with Random Effects. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson 

Space Center; June 2002. NASA Technical Publication 2002-210781.

210Conkin J, Gernhardt ML, Wessel JH III. Exploiting aerobic fitness to reduce the risk of 

hypobaric decompression sickness [abstract no. F6]. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2007;34:82.

211Pollock NW, Natoli MJ, Vann RD, Nishi RY, Sullivan PJ, Gernhardt ML, Conkin J, Acock 

KE. High altitude DCS risk is greater for low fit individuals completing oxygen prebreathe based 

on relative intensity exercise prescriptions [abstract no. 50]. Aviat Space Environ Med.

2004;75:B11.

212Conkin J. Analysis of NASA decompression sickness and venous gas emboli data and gender. 

In: Fife CE, St. Leger Dowse M, eds. Women and Pressure. Flagstaff, Ariz: Best Publishing Co., 

2010;41-68.

213Dujić Z, Palada I, Obad A, Duplancić D, Baković D, Valic Z. Exercise during a 3-min 

decompression stop reduces postdive venous gas bubbles. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:1319-

1323.

214Webb JT, Pilmanis AA. A new preoxygenation procedure for extravehicular activity (EVA). 

Acta Astronautica. 1998;42:115-122.

215Wisløff U, Brubakk AO. Aerobic endurance training reduces bubble formation and increases 

survival in rats exposed to hyperbaric pressure. J Physiol. 2001;537:607-611.

216Hadley AT III, Conkin J, Waligora JM, Horrigan DJ Jr. Pulmonary Artery Location During 

Microgravity Activity: Potential Impact for Chest-mounted Doppler During Space Travel. 

Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center, August 1984, NASA Technical Memorandum 

58262.

217

Acock KE, Gernhardt ML, Conkin J, Powell MR. Field evaluation in four NEEMO divers of a 

prototype in-suit Doppler ultrasound bubble detector [abstract no. 106]. Undersea Hyperb Med.

2004;31:G106.

218

Gernhardt ML, Acock KE, Conkin J. Field Evaluation in Four NEEMO-5 Divers of a 

Prototype In-suit Doppler Ultrasound Bubble Detector. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space 

Center; March 2005. Contact authors for copy of report.

219

Moon RE. Patent foramen ovale (PFO) and decompression illness (DCI) in space [abstract no.

380]. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2000;71:125.

220Pilmanis AA, Meissner FW, Olson RM. Left ventricular gas emboli in six cases of altitudeinduced decompression sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996;67:1092-1096.
50

221Conkin J, Wessel JH III. Critique of the equivalent air altitude model. Aviat Space Environ 

Med. 2008;79:975-982.

222Brown JW, Kosmo J, Campbell PD. Internal Atmospheric Pressure and Composition for 

Planet Surface Habitats and Extravehicular Mobility Units. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson 

Space Center; 1991. JSC-25003. Contact authors for copy of report.

223Campbell PD. Recommendations for Exploration Spacecraft Internal Atmospheres: The Final 

Report of the NASA Exploration Atmospheres Working Group. Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson 

Space Center; January 2006. JSC-63309. Contact authors for copy of report.

224Roth EM. Selection of space-cabin atmospheres. In: Space Science Reviews. Dordrecht,

Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.; 1967:452-492.

225Conkin J, Wessel JH III. A Model to Predict Acute Mountain Sickness in Future Spacecraft. 

Houston, Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; July 2009. NASA Technical Publication 2009-

214791.

226Cowell SA, Stocks JM, Evans DG, Simonson SR, Greenleaf JE. The exercise and 

environmental physiology of extravehicular activity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73:54-67.

227

Conkin J. The Mars Project: Avoiding Decompression Sickness on a Distant Planet. Houston, 

Tex: NASA Johnson Space Center; May 2000. NASA Technical Memorandum 2000-210188.

228

Conkin J. Habitat options to protect against decompression sickness on Mars. In: Concepts 

and Approaches for Mars Exploration, LPI Contribution No. 1062. Houston, Tex: Lunar and 

Planetary Institute; NASA Johnson Space Center: 2000;73-74.

229

Nott J. Titan: a distant but enticing destination for human visitors. Aviat Space Environ Med.

2009;89:900-901.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, 

and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

 June 2011 Technical Publication

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Preventing Decompression Sickness Over Three Decades of Extravehicular Activity

6. AUTHOR(S)

Johnny Conkin, PhD,* Human Adaptation and Countermeasures Division** 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBERS

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas 77058

S-1094

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

TP-2011-216147 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

*Universities Space Research Association, Houston, **NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified/Unlimited

Available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

7115 Standard

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Category: 54

 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Among advances made during the 30-year operational life of the shuttle were those in our understanding of decompression sickness. 

New denitrogenation procedures were validated with research subjects in altitude chambers. Validation continued during hundreds of 

spacewalks that were safely performed from the shuttle and Russian Mir space station, and are performed from the International Space 

Station. Hypobaric exposure combined with microgravity achieved through space flight afforded a unique opportunity to understand 

more about decompression sickness. Lessons learned included: (1) greater understanding of limits to depressurization to minimize 

evolved gas and symptoms of decompression sickness, (2) methods to accelerate denitrogenation during oxygen prebreathing, (3)

insights into tissue micronuclei formation and stability, (4) differences between research and operational settings, and (5) translation of 

research results into effective operational prebreathe protocols appropriate for a spacesuit operating at a pressure only 4.3 psia (222 

mmHg) above the space vacuum. A spacewalk is the culmination of many hours of training under both hyperbaric and hypobaric 

conditions, training that must be managed to avoid decompression sickness. Flexibility in selecting atmospheric gas composition and 

pressure in future exploration vehicles and habitats plus advances in spacesuit design will enable humans to exploit space without 

interference from decompression sickness

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF 

PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

decompression sickness; extravehicular activity; astronaut locomotion; denitrogenation; 

hypobaric atmospheres; high pressure; gas analysis; atmospheric pressure 64 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

Standard Form 298 (Rev Feb 89) (MS Word Mar 97)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102

NSN 7540-01-280-5500