Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

General Discussion on any topic relating to CPAP and/or Sleep Apnea.
bbenergy
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:55 am

Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

Post by bbenergy » Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:03 am

Hi All,
I did not think I would ever join a CPAP forum but thanks to Phillips I need all the info I can get. I tried to research a question I had but found no answer on the internet. I was wondering whether in terms of the foam degradation and risk issue there is a relationship between the degree of degradation and when it begins versus my CPAP pressure, AHI, and how long I have been using the machine. If anyone has any thoughts on these issues I would appreciate it. To quantify, my pressure is 5.0, my AHI is generally 4.0-5.0 and I have been using my DreamStation for about 4 years. Would that suggest that the probability of my ingesting foam particles is lower than for, say, someone whose pressure is above 10.0 and they have been using their machine for 10 years?
Thanks. Glad to join the community

User avatar
Julie
Posts: 19898
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

Post by Julie » Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:03 am

Hi - someone else will hopefully address the Q re a timeline, but someone else bothered me - you said your AHI's are usually 4 or 5, but are you aware that we consider that quite high and most here strive to be under 2?

I'd bump your min. setting up from 5 (if I read correctly and you're not on 'auto') to e.g. 7 and see how that goes after a couple of nights. Any reason you're not on Auto?

User avatar
Pugsy
Posts: 63942
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 9:31 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Re: Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

Post by Pugsy » Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:09 am

I think I would make sure that the AHI was OAs/hyponeas and not CAs/central apneas before I went blindly increasing the pressure.
Chances are it is obstructive but it wouldn't be impossible for the AHI to be primarily central in nature and more pressure can't fix centrals and potentially could make them worse.

_________________
Machine: AirCurve™ 10 VAuto BiLevel Machine with HumidAir™ Heated Humidifier
Additional Comments: Mask Bleep Eclipse https://bleepsleep.com/the-eclipse/
I may have to RISE but I refuse to SHINE.

If you want to try the Eclipse mask and want a special promo code to get a little off the price...send me a private message.

User avatar
SleepyCPAP
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:01 am

Re: Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

Post by SleepyCPAP » Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:07 pm

Would that suggest that the probability of my ingesting foam particles is lower than for, say, someone whose pressure is above 10.0 and they have been using their machine for 10 years?
I doubt the amount of use or pressure setting is an issue. Philips Respironics has not declared anything like that. Their big three were: Ozone cleaners, high temperatures (in the environment), and high humidity (in the environment).

My 2010 PRS1 that was often left in my car trunk (as my travel machine) has degraded foam.
My 2013 PRS1 that was always indoors in climate controlled conditions does not show any degradation.
Both have been used at 10cm and above for their entire lifespan. My 2013 machine has higher number of hours of use.
Never any ozone cleaners.

As the others above point out, the AHI you typically experience is a concern. Would you get the free OSCAR software and look at your SD card data to see what’s up?

- SleepyCPAP

_________________
Machine: AirCurve™ 10 VAuto BiLevel Machine with HumidAir™ Heated Humidifier
Mask: Bleep DreamPort CPAP Mask Solution
Additional Comments: Use OSCAR. Combine AlaxoStent with VAuto for perfect 0.0 AHI at PS 3.6 over 4cm EPAP
-- SleepyCPAP
Sleep study in 2010 (11cm CPAP). Pillows (Swift FX>TAP PAP >Bleep). PRS1 “Pro” 450/460 until recall, now Aircurve 10 VAuto. Tape mouth. Palatal Prolapse solved by AlaxoStent & VAuto EPAP 4cm, PS 3.6cm = 0.0 AHI

User avatar
ChicagoGranny
Posts: 14409
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

Post by ChicagoGranny » Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:11 pm

bbenergy wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:03 am
To quantify, my pressure is 5.0, my AHI is generally 4.0-5.0 and I have been using my DreamStation for about 4 years. Would that suggest that the probability of my ingesting foam particles is lower than for, say, someone whose pressure is above 10.0 and they have been using their machine for 10 years?
You stuck two variables in your example. As far as probabilities of 4 years vs. 10 years, the answer should be obvious.

The important thing for either example is that the chance of a significant health problem arising from using a Philips "foamgate" machine is nearly zero.

Lane101
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:03 pm

Re: Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

Post by Lane101 » Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:36 pm

Hi bbenergy,

In my post (link: https://www.cpaptalk.com/viewtopic/t182 ... -Risk.html ) regarding the foam used by other manufacturers I included the link and excerpt from the Polymer Properties Database at https://polymerdatabase.com/Elastomers/PUR.html . Bottom line it appears there are a variety of factors that contribute to foam degradation. Pressure isn't listed as one of them. Would expect rate of degradation to vary according to the level at which foam is exposed to the various factors. Note that AU (Polyester foam) is what Philips used in its recalled machines.

Excerpt Below:

AU (PolyESTER) & EU (PolyETHER)– polyurethane

"Properties

Cast polyurethanes can be divided into two main classes; polyester (AU) and polyether urethanes (EU). Many polyurethane elastomers are based on diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI). These elastomers have outstanding tensile strength, tear and abrasion resistance. They also have good resistance to oxidation, ozone, aliphatic solvents, and petroleum based fuels and oils. The electrical properties, the compression set and the creep properties are only fair and the heat resistance is poor.

The physical properties of polyester urethanes (AU) are somewhat better than those of polyether urethanes (EU); whereas EU elastomers have better chemical resistance and better low temperature flexibility but are more expensive and are sensitive to ultraviolet light. For example, polyesters can be affected by hot water, high humidity and their resistance to acids and alkalis is rather poor. They are also prone to microbiological attack. EU elastomers, on the other hand, have poor resistance to oxidation and heat."

User avatar
Conrad
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:10 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Factors Impacting Foam degradation timeline

Post by Conrad » Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:57 am

SleepyCPAP wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:07 pm
Would that suggest that the probability of my ingesting foam particles is lower than for, say, someone whose pressure is above 10.0 and they have been using their machine for 10 years?
I doubt the amount of use or pressure setting is an issue. Philips Respironics has not declared anything like that. Their big three were: Ozone cleaners, high temperatures (in the environment), and high humidity (in the environment).

My 2010 PRS1 that was often left in my car trunk (as my travel machine) has degraded foam.
My 2013 PRS1 that was always indoors in climate controlled conditions does not show any degradation.
Both have been used at 10cm and above for their entire lifespan. My 2013 machine has higher number of hours of use.
Never any ozone cleaners.

As the others above point out, the AHI you typically experience is a concern. Would you get the free OSCAR software and look at your SD card data to see what’s up?

- SleepyCPAP
I also have a PRS1 in use from 7/2012 to 10/2019

And a DreamStation Auto bipap in use from 10/2019 to 7/2021 (discontinued till further notice)

How did you determine that the foam was degraded in your first example and not degraded in your second? Did you disassemble the machines and take a looksee?
ResMed AirCurve 10 Vauto Swift FX

Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many...