4.5 Article

Rapid and selective brain cooling method using vortex tube: A feasibility study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 887-894

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.02.001

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Lawson Health Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vortex tubes are simple mechanical devices to produce cold air from a stream of compressed air without any moving parts. The primary focus of the current study is to investigate the feasibility and efficiency of nasopharyngeal brain cooling method using a vortex tube. Experiments were conducted on 5 juvenile pigs. Nasopharygeal brain cooling was achieved by directing cooled air via a catheter in each nostril into the nasal cavities. A vortex tube was used to generate cold air using various sources of compressed air: (I) hospital medical air outlet (n=1); (II) medical air cylinders (n = 3); and (III) scuba (diving) cylinders (n = 1). By using compressed air from a hospital medical air outlet at fixed inlet pressure of 50 PSI, maximum brain-rectal temperature gradient of -2 degrees C was reached about 45-60 minutes by setting the flow rate of 25 L/min and temperature of -7 degrees C at the cold air outlet. Similarly, by using medical air cylinders at fill-pressure of 2265 PSI and down regulate the inlet pressure to the vortex tube to 50 PSI, brain temperature could be reduced more rapidly by blowing -22 degrees C +/- 2 degrees C air at a flow rate of 50 L/min; brain-body temperature gradient of -8 degrees C was obtained about 30 minutes. Furthermore, we examined scuba cylinders as a portable source of compressed gas supply to the vortex tube. Likewise, by setting up the vortex tube to have an inlet pressure of 25 PSI and 50 L/min and -3 degrees C at the cold air outlet, brain temperature decreased 4.5 degrees C within 10-20 min. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available