Advertisement

Decompression Theory

  • Olaf Rusoke-Dierich
Chapter

Abstract

The French physician Paul Bert (1833–1886) recognized the problem of accidents during and after decompression and therefore recommended a slow ascent. John Scott Haldane developed dive tables for the US Navy in 1908. Fundamentals of his research are incorporated in today’s dive tables. His calculations included exponential saturation and desaturation, five different body compartments, gradual decompression in 3-m intervals and the concept of maximum supersaturation with the so-called Haldane factor [7]. He postulated that the partial pressure of inert gases in all tissues should not exceed twofold (2:1) of the ambient pressure during the ascent to avoid decompression accidents. In other words, a direct reduction to an ambient pressure from a twofold overpressure is regarded not to cause any DCS symptoms. For example, a direct ascent from 10 m after a saturation dive without deco stop is supposed to be safe. However, Workman corrected the value later to 1.58:1, considering only partial pressures of inert gases, primarily nitrogen. Haldane assumed that the main factor of a decompression accident during rapid ascents is caused by fast compartments. He postulated that slow compartments are responsible for decompression accidents during slow ascents and decompression stops. He established the basic principle of compartment saturation and desaturation based on tissue perfusion. He set the ascent rate initially to 18 m/min than later to 9 m/min.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker EC. Derivation with explanation of the VPM dynamic critical volume algorithm of Yount & Hoffman. 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker EC. Understanding M-Values. Immersed. 1998;3(3).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blatteau JE, Souraud JB, Gempp E, Boussuges A. Gas nuclei, their origin, and their role in bubble formation. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;77(10):1068–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brennen CE. Cavitation and bubble dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bühlmann AA, Voelmm EB, Nussberger P. Tauchmedizin, Barotrauma, Gasembolie, Dekompensation, Dekompensationskrankheit. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haldane JS. Respiration. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1935.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaluza M. VPM the inner workings. 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kunkle TD, Beckman EL. Bubble dissolution physics and the treatment of decompression sickness. Med Phys. 1983;10:184–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wienke BR. Technical diving in depth. Flagstaff: Best Publishing Company; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wienke BR. Basic decompression theory and application. 3. Edition: Best Publishing Company; 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wienke BR. Diving decompression models and bubble metrics: modern computer synthesis. Comput Biol Med. 2009;39(2009):309–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wienke BR. Basic decompression theory and application. Flagstaff: Best Publishing Company; 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wienke BR. Bubble number saturation curve and asymptotics of hypobaric and hyperbaric exposures. Int J Biomed Comput. 1991;29:215–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wienke BR. Computational decompression models. Int J Biomed Comput. 1987;21:205–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wienke BR. Equivalent multitissue and thermodynamic decompression algorithms. Int J Biomed Comput. 1989;24:227–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wienke BR, O'Leary TR. Statistical correlations and risk analysis techniques for a diving dual phase bubble model and data bank using massively parallel supercomputers. Comput Biol Med. 2008;38:583–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wienke BR. Reduced gradient bubble model. Int J Biomed Comput. 1990;26:237–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wienke BR. Tissue gas exchange models and decompression computations: a review. Undersea Biomed Res. 1989;16:53–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wienke BR. Diving decompression models and bubble metrics: modern computer syntheses. Comput Biol Med. 2009;39:309–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yount DE, Hoffman DC. Decompression theory: a dynamic critical-volume hypothesis. In: Bachrach AJ, Matzen MM, editors. Underwater physiology VIII: proceedings of the eighth symposium on underwater physiology. Bethesda: Undersea Medical Society; 1984. p. 131–46.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yount DE, Hoffman DC. On the use of a bubble formation model to calculate diving tables. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1986;57:149–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yount DE, Maiken EB, Baker EC. Implications of the varying permeability model for reverse dive profiles. In: Lang MA, Lehner CE, editors. Smithsonian Institution. D.C. pp: Washington; 2000. p. 29–61.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yount DE. Skins of varying permeability: a stabilization mechanism for gas cavitation nuclei. J Acoust Soc Am. 1979;65:1431–9.Google Scholar

Suggested Reading

  1. Ball R, Schwartz SL. Kinetic and dynamic models of diving gases in decompression sickness prevention. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2002;41(6):389–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kuch B, Bedini R, Buttazzo G, Sieber A. Mathematical platform for studies on VPM and Buhlmann decompression algorithms. In: Proc. Of the 35th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Underwater and Baromedical Society (EUBS 2009), Aberdeen, August; 2009. p. 25–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olaf Rusoke-Dierich
    • 1
  1. 1.TownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations