Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on August 6, 2004
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2004 93(4):532-539; doi:10.1093/bja/aeh239
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
93/4/532    most recent
aeh239v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dellamonica, J.
Right arrow Articles by Raucoules-Aimé, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dellamonica, J.
Right arrow Articles by Raucoules-Aimé, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2004

Comparison of manufacturers' specifications for 44 types of heat and moisture exchanging filters

J. Dellamonica, N. Boisseau, B. Goubaux and M. Raucoules-Aimé*

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care ‘Ouest’, Hôpital l'Archet, 151, route de Saint-Antoine-de-Ginestière, BP 3079, 06202 Nice Cedex 3, France

* Corresponding author. E-mail: anesthesiologie{at}chu-nice.fr

Background. Although heat and moisture exchanging filters (HMEF) are recommended for use during anaesthesia, the criteria for choosing a filter are not clearly defined. Manufacturers offer many different types of HMEF with various technical characteristics. We compared the technical specifications provided by the manufacturers for different types of HMEF.

Methods. Filter manufacturers were asked to provide technical information. Additional information was obtained from websites. Information about 44 filters (16 mechanical and 28 electrostatic) was collated.

Results. Filter performances were estimated with different sizes of microorganism and durations of challenge. Twenty-eight filters had not been tested by independent laboratories. For 12 of the filters, information obtained from websites and from the manufacturers differed. Most filter specifications claimed high efficiency, particularly for filtration, microbial challenge number and test duration. Electrostatic filters used in anaesthesia were claimed to have high filtration efficiency, similar to the efficiency provided by mechanical filters. Excluding moisture output values did not alter the general conclusions.

Conclusions. Technical aspects of the tests, international standards, and independent validation should be considered when a filter is chosen.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.