01.12.2012 Views

View - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

View - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

View - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Delay time: the time between turning on the switch and the onset <strong>of</strong> the analyser<br />

signal<br />

Response time: the rise time that from onset <strong>of</strong> signal to 95Vo <strong>of</strong> plateau or a square wave<br />

<strong>The</strong> experiment was repeated 10 times in all with times recorded for each <strong>of</strong> the analysers.<br />

Results are presented in the Table 5.1.<br />

Table 5.1: <strong>The</strong> delay and response time <strong>of</strong> the NO, COz, mouth pressure and flow meter analysers<br />

used<br />

Analyser Delay time Response tlme<br />

NO analyser Model2107 5.9 seconds<br />

(SEM 0.8 s)<br />

CO2 Morgan capnograph 0.11 seconds<br />

(SEM 0.003 s)<br />

Medex Staingauge pressure<br />

transducer (mouth pressure)<br />

SEM = standard error <strong>of</strong> the mean, s = secondsr lrls = milliseconds<br />

This established that the delay time for the NO analyzer at 5.9 seconds (SEM 0.8s), and95Vo<br />

response time at 0.5 seconds (SEM 0.1s) showed the NO analyser responded much more<br />

slowly than the CO2 analyser at a delay time <strong>of</strong> 0.1 I seconds (SEM 0.003s) and 95Vo response<br />

time at 0.41 milliseconds (SEM 2.9ms). It has to be remembered that the delay time was<br />

influenced only by the time that it took for the gases, flow or pressure to get to the analysers<br />

and the time to cornmence registering the change. <strong>The</strong> response time should be a square wave<br />

for 'on/<strong>of</strong>f' phenomena like the pressure and the flow, but could be influenced by other<br />

parameters in the measurement <strong>of</strong> the gases. <strong>The</strong> pattern <strong>of</strong> excretion through the exhaled<br />

breath was unknown for NO, and was known to increase with the duration <strong>of</strong> exhalation for<br />

COz. So while the response time was measured with these two gases, it was the delay time<br />

that was the key factor. In essence it meant that when comparing the NO and COz recordings,<br />

an allowance needed to be made for the difference in time delay <strong>of</strong> the measurements from<br />

each machine and for the 2mm <strong>of</strong>fset <strong>of</strong> the pens on the recorder.<br />

Finally, confirmation <strong>of</strong> the detection <strong>of</strong> the appropriate gases was checked for the two<br />

analysers. Cylinders <strong>of</strong> IOOVo Oz, 5.9Vo COz and 37ppb <strong>of</strong> NO were run through the NO<br />

analyser and the CO2 analyser with only the NO gas detected and the others giving a zero<br />

reading on the NO analyser machine and only the COz gas detected with the others giving a<br />

zero reading on the CO2 analyser machine.<br />

7.3 milliseconds<br />

(SEM 0.2 ms)<br />

Platon flow meter 40.2 milliseconds<br />

(SEM O.8 ms)<br />

118<br />

Seconds<br />

(SEM 0.1 s)<br />

41 milliseconds<br />

(SEM 2.9 ms)<br />

No appreciable delay<br />

No appreciable delay

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!