Talk:Oxygen concentrator

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Text and/or other creative content from PSA oxygen generator was copied or moved into Oxygen concentrator with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Diagram needed

of how it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animation

While the effort to include an animation is laudable it has not been successful since it seems to illustrate some type of fully continuous process, not a cyclic pressure swing process.150.227.15.253 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lopsided view

There seems to be a heavy over representation by just one manufacturer, Fritz Stephan GmbH. This should be corrected.

Difference

Oxygen concentrators and oxygen generators are not the same thing at all.

Oxygen generators are small canisters, used in commercial aircraft and spacecraft to "generate" oxygen and heat. These are the canisters which ignited and caused the fire on the ValuJet flight in Florida.

The develpment of the oxygen generator is held by a Dr Hwoschinsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.152.113 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

efficiency?

Most concentrators capable of delivering 5 litres per minute are rated at about 400 watts. But what about the new Sequal's that evidently require lower pressure. Unfortunately their specs do not include power consumption although they claim efficiency and fewer moving parts. I am tempted to purchase one just to put it on a power meter. 8-( Anyone have a better source of information? See [1]. --Poodleboy 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of the Inogen One? This page lists its specs: http://www.inogen.net/products/inogenone/specs.asp I'll see if I can find other manufacturers' specs. Cholerashot 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SeQual Integra 10 LPM EZ uses about 600 Watts to make 10 LPM. Compared to typical 5 LPM concentrators at 400 Watts / 5 liters = 80 Watts per liter, the Integra 10 is 600 W / 10 LPM = 60 Watts per liter. Some of the portables are actually less efficient in terms of power and weight than the larger 5 LPM concentrators. The pulse portable oxygen concentrators (those which have no continuous flow settings) typically make less than 1 liter per minute, but use demand or pulse flow to deliver oxygen only when the patient is inhaling and consume about 75 watts, which works out to 75W / 0.7 LPM = 107 Watts per liter. The SeQual Eclipse makes 3 LPM of continuous flow oxygen using about 150 W, which is 145 W / 3 LPM = 48 Watts per liter. The power efficiency affects a patient's power bill. See [2]

In terms of weight efficiency, the pulse portables are at about 10 pounds / 0.7 LPM = 14.3 pounds per liter compared to stationary 5 LPM concentrators at 50 pounds / 5 LPM = 10 pounds per liter, while the Eclipse is at 18 pounds / 3 LPM = 6 pounds per liter. Actually, since this weight is inclusive of the battery, which is something the other portables have, but the larger 5 LPM and 10 LPM stationary concentrators do not have, the weight without battery may be a more appropriate comparison against stationary concentrators. The Eclipse is 14.7 pounds / 3 liters = 4.9 pounds per liter, about half the weight per liter of stationary concentrators. The weight efficiency reflects the weight of the equipment per liter it delivers. With both weight efficiency and power efficiency, portables might be compared to one another with just the onboard battery, with external batteries included in the weight, or with all carts and accessories considered in the calculation. When comparing portables to stationary concentrators, it is probably appropriate to compare the weight without battery, but with the AC adapter.

Because many of the portables do not have continuous flow capability, it can be difficult to choose the right number for liter flow when calculating either power or weight efficiency. Whenever possible, the continuous flow capability of the machine should be considered, as this relates how much oxygen it actually makes, and the stationary concentrators make continuous flow. The conserving features of the portables make it possible to claim higher liter flows by delivering oxygen only when the patient is inhaling, and the manufacturers may not provide information about the actual liter flow of the machine prior to conserving. See Long Term Oxygen Therapy: Getting Better All the Time

Note that most of the stationary 5 LPM and 10 LPM concentrators consume the same amount of power independent of the oxygen flow setting. If the flow is turned down, the machine uses the same amount of power as it does at the highest setting. The extra oxygen just goes out the purge, rather than to the patient. With the Eclipse, if the flow is turned down, the unit consumes less power. Similarly, if the pulse setting is used, the concentrator may consume less power. These features are used to extend battery life when away from a power source, but also have benefits in the car and at home. At the lower flow settings of 1 LPM continuous flow, for example, the Eclipse uses only 52 Watts, and at a pulse setting of 1, it uses only 44 Watts, about 1/3 of its power consumption at 3 LPM continuous flow. This is 1/8th of the 400 Watts a stationary 5 LPM concentrator uses no matter what oxygen flow it is producing. So, a patient with a concentrator that uses less power at lower flow settings and uses less Watts per liter will have dramatically lower power bill than a patient with a standard concentrator. See [3]

Manufacturers of PSA systems and chemical engineers measure efficiency in two terms, recovery and productivity. Recovery is how much oxygen is obtained from the amount of air pushed into the separation process by the compressor (unitless, expressed as a percent, and higher is better). Productivity is how much oxygen is obtained from the weight of the sieve material in the sieve beds (liters/pound of sieve). The higher the recovery, the smaller the compressor can be for a given system, which will lead to lower power consumption, noise, heat, and weight. The higher the productivity, the smaller the sieve beds can be, which will lead to lower weight. Typical recoveries in most concentrators are about 25%-35%. The Integra 10 is on the order of 42%. The Eclipse is above 60%.

However, users will likely not be as interested in recovery and productivity as they will in the things they can measure, which were discussed above. How many liters can the concentrator deliver divided by how much does it weigh? How many liters can the concentrator deliver divided by how much power does the concentrator consume to make that oxygen? Mscott0 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How they work

The flowrates with associated rated percentage of oxygen given in the article are likely to confuse people, as they seem to represent the oxygen concentration coming out of the machine, which doesn't make sense since one would expect a machine to be able to deliver higher oxygen content at lower flow rates. In fact, these figures represent the oxygen concentration the patient breaths when using for example nasal cannula attached to the machine. The output of the machine mixes with the ambient air when a patient inhales. The oxygen delivered while the patient exhales or pauses is not used. Say for example the machine delivers 2 liters per minute, the respiratory minute volume is 10 liters and the patient inhales 50% of the time, then the total amount inhaled will be 1 liter from the machine (50% of the output) and 9 liters ambient air. 84.197.185.192 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant article

The articles on PSA oxygen generators, oxygen concentrators and oxygen plants should be merged into oxygen enrichment. The article on gas separation needs some work too, there is probably some merging that could be done with it.Testem (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the page on gas separation into a summary page of various techniques. I created a new article for its old content, which only covered membrane technologyTestem (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The PSA oxygen generator page is particularly thin on content and has much overlap. It should be moved first into this one, then have the overlap removed before further merging.Testem (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages mergedTestem (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

This article needs information on alternative methods of oxygen concentration, such as membrane technology. I know that other approaches are rarely used for insitu concentration but the article title implies it covers all possible methods when it does not.Testem (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radon

The article (Jan 19, 2015) claims that radon gas is present in the "near pure oxygen". I challenge both of these assertions. I have some familiarity with zeolites, and I doubt that a 80:20 mixture can be reduced to a 1:99 mixture in a reasonable number of steps using such technology. Hence, I doubt the gas present is nearly "pure" oxygen. Moreover, radon may or may not be absorbed by the zeolite, IDK, but it certainly isn't a significant amount UNLESS the intake air has a significant amount it it. I expect that the zeolite's selectivity for N2 is only moderate, so I suspect this section is advertising hyperbole, not scientific measurement. Anyway, the composition in the cylinder is EASILY measured, the fact that this article provides no such measurements raises an enormous RED FLAG about its trustworthness. It is also true that for those species (radon?) which are not absorbed, they will be concentrated, and this includes ALL pollutants. Radon is such a trivial component of most air, that it doesn't merit inclusion. I also question the claim that water vapor is present in a "small amount", but I don't know what the selectivity is of the zeolite. Clearly, the H2O molecule is much smaller than N2, but what effect the dipole effects have on absorption depend on the particulars of the interaction. I'd be happy to be proved wrong here, where are the citations and what are the facts??Abitslow (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oxygen concentrator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130928060025/http://www.co2crc.com.au/RESEARCH/research_c_2_4.html to http://www.co2crc.com.au/RESEARCH/research_c_2_4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]