Talk:Oxygen toxicity

message: I understand the distinction between oxygen partial pressure (e.g. 20% af 15 psi is 3 psi O2 partial pressure) and concentration of oxygen (oxygen percentage of inhaled atmosphere), but the article doesn't seem to.  It bounces from one to the other as though they were somehow commensurate, which isn't so (e.g., 100% O2 at 5 psi and 25% O2 at 20 psi both produce an O2 partial pressure of 5 psi).  If the partial pressure of O2 is relevant in some contexts and its atmospheric concentration is relevant in others, then some indication should be given of which is relevant where.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.223.125.164 (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific please, and give some indication of where the problematic text is to be found (which section heading, at least, and if there is likely to be any confusion, quote the instance.) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  From "Causes", subsection "Central nervous system toxicity": "Exposures, from minutes to a few hours, to partial pressures of oxygen above 1.6 bars (160 kPa)—about eight times the atmospheric concentration." Partial pressure (measured in kPa or bars) is not a concentration. Thank you, anonymous editor. I shall check through the whole article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  A search on "concentration" and "fraction" shows that the use of these terms in the article is widespread, and in a high proportion of the cases they are used where partial pressure is the intended meaning. As there are many references to different ambient pressures in the article one cannot make the assumption of constant ambient pressure which would make the terms effectively equivalent, so they will have to be changed. I will make a start. Good feedback from 199.223.125.164. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have changed all the instances that I consider ambiguous. Those remaining seem appropriate. The section on Mechanism refers to dissolved oxygen, and I think concentration is appropriate in that context, but will defer to expert opinion. Otherwise most instances are now either referring to gas fraction directly as a percentage, or are in an implied normobaric context. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only problem is that the sources quite often use the word 'concentration' in an informal sense to mean either partial pressure or volume fraction (which coincide numerically at normobaric pressures). The first one I spot-checked was Bitterman 2009 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688103/) which contained "Resolution of the acute phase of pulmonary oxygen toxicity or prolonged exposures to oxygen at sublethal concentrations such as during prolonged hyperoxic mechanical ventilation ...". Pedantically, there is no such thing as a "[sub]lethal concentration" of oxygen, since any concentration would become toxic at sufficiently high ambient pressure, but we all understand what Bitterman is saying. It may be that we need to consistently use "partial pressure of x bar" when considering exposure, but please remember that it is a cumbersome phrase, and "concentration of x" (implied at normal atmospheric pressure) represents the same condition, so many sources themselves do not distinguish between the two phrases. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: In "Causes", subsection "Pulmonary toxicity", paragraph 2, it is unclear if the rat experiments are at atmospheric pressure. At first, I assumed that this was the case. However the last sentence of the paragraph implies hyperbaric conditions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Demchenko et al's 2007 paper was conducted by having rats breathe >98% O2 at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 ATA, so the answer is "both", but it's effectively a hyperbaric trial. The authors are all colleagues of our Gene Hobbs, so we could always get more information almost first-hand if we needed. I've tried to clarify the text. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. The current information is fine. An extended statement about these experiments is beyond the scope of this article, and interested readers should go to the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in basis of measurement, please! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oxygen toxicity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210095431/http://www.supsalv.org/pdf/Dive%20Manual%20Rev%206%20with%20Chg%20A.pdf to http://supsalv.org/pdf/Dive%20Manual%20Rev%206%20with%20Chg%20A.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oxygen toxicity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to ftp://downloadfiles:decompression1@ftp.decompression.org/Baker/Oxygen%20Toxicity%20Calculations.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512074511/http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/misc_topics/radicals.html to http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/misc_topics/radicals.html
*Added  tag to http://www.bsac.org/uploads/moved/documents/Resources/Nitrox/OD_Nitrox_Workshop_Student_Workbook_V00bh.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060415175719/http://www.o2planet.com/HTML/fitness.html to http://www.o2planet.com/HTML/fitness.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218231151/http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/docs/publications/ROP_Guideline_-_Masterv11-ARF-2.pdf to http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/docs/publications/ROP_Guideline_-_Masterv11-ARF-2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I made the positive decision to use a minimum column width of 30em as I feel that is the best compromise between whitespace and line-wrapping for this article. That's not to say that I intended the column widths to be set to the default value for , which is subject to change of course. If there is an rationale to use a different minimum column width, then I'm happy to discus it here. --RexxS (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For what page widths did you make this analysis? How is it affected by different skins? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column widths of references 

message: There are a few items I have identified as incomplete or requiring some clarification. This is normal, and does not mean the article needs to be delisted as a featured article as they are minor matters, but it is necessary to do some research to find suitable sources before making the changes. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates, clarification and expansion 

message: The article is below FA standard with regard to citations. I have tagged some places where they are needed. Could this be addressed to avoid WP:FAR? Graham Beards (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , The content tagged is as far as I can see pretty uncontroversial, and in some cases logically obvious, but I will try to find suitable sources, as many readers will not have the background to recognise this. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have managed to find refs for everything. Some of the tagged claims were technically already referenced elsewhere in the text, but it would require the reader to carefully read the article and understand the topic to recognise this. In deference to the apparent need to have a ref at the end of every paragraph regardless, I have put a ref at the end of each of those paragraphs. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

text: If there are any other improvements you would like to recommend, I can look into them. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations