USAFSAM-TR-89-35 AD-A226 441

EVALUATION OF THE MODEL 185 AIRBORNE

LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS INFANT TRANSPORT
INCUBATOR

Robert J. Van Oss, Technical Sergeant. USAF

Rebecca B. Schultz, Second Lieutenant, USAF, BSC
Ernest G. Roy, Master Sergeant, USAF

DTIC
ELECTE
SEP 1 3 1990

March 1990 D

Final Report for Period April 1988 - October 1988

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

90 09 1 06,
USAF SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE
Human Systems Division (AFSC)
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5301 .
 NOTICES

This final report was submitted by personnel of the Chemical Defense Branch, Crew
Technology Division, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Human Systems Division, AFSC,
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, under job brder 7930-16-12.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any
varranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise,
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government or any agency, contractor, or subcontractor thereof. The views and
opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
States Government or any agency, contractor, or subcontractor thereof.
When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any purpose other
than in connection with a definitely Government-related procurement, the United States
Government incurs no responsibility or any obligation whatsoever. The fact that the Government
may have formulated or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not
to be regarded by implication, or otherwise in any manner construed, as licensing the holder or any
other person or corporation; or as conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell
any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.
The Office of Public Affairs has reviewed this report, and it is releasable to the National
Technical Information Service, where it will be available to the general public, including foreign
nationals.
This report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.

JE D. JENS , Major, USAF, NC F. WE SIY BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D.

Project Scientist Superv' or

ESCHENIRColonel, USAF, MC, CFS

G*IORG
Commander
 UNCLASSIFIED
SECLIOITY CLASSIFICATION Of TkiS PAGE
FomApproved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE -- 7 017 Ao.O0704-0188

Is. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 .DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b. DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE till] i .Ii t k

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

USAFSAM-TR-89-35

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

USAF School of Aerospace
Medicine
I6b. OFFICE SYMBOL
appicabit)
(if
I t1SAFSAN/VNC
7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

6c ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b ADDRESS (City, State, arnd ZIP Code)
Human Systems Division (AFSC)
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5301

S.. NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING 8 b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION USAF School of (I applicable)
Aerosnace Medicine IUSAFSAMI/VNC __________________________

Ot. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK uNIT
Human Systems Division (AFSC) ELEMENT NO NO. NO ACCESSION NO
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5301 6-220)2F 7930) lb 1)
11. TITLE (include Security Oassfication)
Evaluation of the Model 185 Airborne Life Support SVystemsl,- 111IL
ab t ra-.port Incubat or

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

Van Oss, Robert J.; Schultz, Rebecca B.; Roy,fErnest GI.
13a. TYPE OF REPORT
Final
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
13b. TIME COVERED
IFROM 88104 TO 88/10
14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, a)I
1990, Mairchl 7 PAECOUNT
30

17. COSATI CODES 1SUBJECT TERMS;on- v -- sm-4 mete y, e, do b

FIELD GROUP SUB-GRt UP Acromedical evacuiat ion; Incubator; humidification;
.201 Airboruc Life Support Svstems. 4 K

identify by block number)

1ABSTRACT (Continue n reverie if necestry and
he Military Airlift Command (NAC) is the rentral manager for aeromedicn] evacuat ion in the0
Department of Defense. The safe'evacuation of infants in MAC aircraft has alwaiys heen nn
important concern because infants must be transported in a controlled environment. The Ohio
Transport Incubator, now in use, is no longer manufactured. If an Ohio inCuibator breaks
down, needed spare parts nay not be available. The Model 185 Airborne Life Support Systemis
(ALSS) infant transport incubator has been s eted to replace the Oh1io ilneuhator in the
U.S. Air Force (USAF) inventory. Now available or use, thle Al.SS is lighter thlan the Ohbio;
it has an internal humidification system, an inte r I batterv, and a digital temperature
readout. The Aeromedical Equipment Evaluation La bor~ ory at the USAF School of Aerospace
Medicine tested the ALSS incubator and found it to be safe, adequate device for transport-
ing an infant without jeopardizing the infant's heal th.

20. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILAILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

~UNCLASSIFIE D/UNLI MITED f17SAME AS RPT. C DTIC USERS Unclassified
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL Z2b:.TELEPHONE (Include Area od)22c OFFICE SYMBOL
rq D
1qn ao.UAF.N 512 536-2937 USAFSAM/VNC
00 Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TWIS PAGE
I tINCLASSI F1 E)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 1

DES C RIP TION..................................................................................................................... 1

MET HODS ............................................................... 3

Baseline Performance Assessment ...................................................... 4
Human Factors and Physical Characteristics ...................... 4
W arm-Up Time .................................................................................. 4
Temperature Accuracy and Uniformity .................................... 5
Electrical Safety .................................................................................... 5
Battery Operation/Charging Characteristics ...................... 5
Extended Operation on 110 VAC/400 Hz ................................ 5
T ilt T e st ............................................................................................ . . 5
Interior Sound and Light Levels ....................................................... 5
Electromagnetic Compatibility .............................................................. 6
Radiated Emissions (RE-02) ........................................................ 6
Conducted Emissions (CE-03) ..................................................... 6
Radiated Susceptibility (RS-02) .............................................. 6
Conducted Susceptibility (CS-06) ........................................... 6
V ib ra tio n ................................................................................................................ 6
Environmental ................................................................................................ 8
High Temperature ............................................................................ 8
Low Temperature .............................................................................. 8
Humidity .............................................................................................. 8
5% Humidity ........................................................................................ 8
Direct Sunlight Exposure .............................................................. 8
A ltitu d e .................................................................................................................. 9
Decompression ............................................................................................. 9
Fresh Air Flow .............................................................................................. 9
Carbon Dioxide Concentration ..................................................... 9
Oxygen Concentration .................................................................... 9
In-Flight Feasibility .................................................................................. 9

RES ULTS ........................................................................................................................... 10

Baseline Performance Assessment ................................................... 10
Human Factors and Physical Characteristics ................... 10
Warmup Time .................................................................................. 10
Temperature Accuracy and Uniformity .................................. 10
Electrical Safety .......................................................................... 11
Battery Operation and Charging Characteristics ............ 11

iii
 Extended Operation on 110 VAC/400 Hz .................................. 1 1
Tilt Test.................................................................................................... 11
Interior Sound and Light Measurem ents .................................. 1 1
Electrom agnetic Com patibility ............................................................ 12
V ibration ....................................................................................................... 12
Environm ental ............................................................................................ 12
High Tem perature .......................................................................... 12
Low Temperature .......................................................................... 13
5% Hum idity .................................................................................... 13
Direct Sunlight Exposure ............................................................ 15
Altitude .......................................................................................................... 15
D ecom pression ............................................................................................ 15
Fresh Air Flow ............................................................................................ 18
Carbon Dioxide Concentration ................................................... 18
Oxygen Concentraton .................................................................... 18
In-Flight Feasibility .................................................................................. 20

CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 21

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 22

FOLLOW -UP .................................................................................................................... 22

ACKNOW LEDGMENTS ........................................................................................... 23

REFERENCES ............................................................
23

FIGURES
1. Probe placem ent ............................................................................................. 3
2. X and Y axis vibration test ........................................................................... 7
3. Z axis vibration test ....................................................................................... 7
4. Hot operation test .......................................................................................... 13
5. Cold operation test ....................................................................................... 14
6. Humidity performance in a 5% RH environment .............................. 14
7. Direct sunlight exposure; no cover ......................................................... 16
8. D irect sunlight exposure; with cover .................................................... 16
9. Altitude test...................................................................................................... 17
10. Rapid decom pressions ............................................................................... 17
11. Ground level C02 concentration ............................................................ 18
12. A ltitude C02 concentration ....................................................................... 19
13. Ground level oxygen concentrations ..................................................... 19

iv
 TABLES
1. Interior Noise Levels .................................................................................. 12
2. Interior Light Levels .................................................................................... 2

Accesion For
CRA&I
OTIC TAB 0
Unanno~inced 0
Justification

By
Distribuition
Availability Codes

Dist Avail arid Ior

v-
 EVALUATION OF THE MODEL 185
AIRBORNE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS
INFANT TRANSPORT INCUBATOR

BACKGROUND

Military Airlift Command (MAC) controls aeromedical evacuation (AE) missions for
the United States Air Force (USAF). There has always been a need for a means to
safely transport infants in a controlled environment within the AE arena. The OHIO
Transport Incubator, currently in use, is no longer manufactured; consequently, there
is a shortage in spare parts to repair those incubators still being used. The Model
185 Airborne Life Support Systems (ALSS) is the selected AE replacement
incubator. This incubator is lighter than the OHIO and has an internal battery, a
digital display (light emitting diode [LED]) temperature readout, and an internal
humidification system. It is now available for use.

DESCRIPTION
During AE missions, the ALSS 185 Infant Transport Incubator supports an infant's
thermal need in flight by circulating warmed, humidified air through the infant
chamber.
The incubator dimensions are: height, 50.8 cm (20 in.); width, 101.6 cm (40 in.);
depth, 55.9 cm (22 in.); and weight, 36.3 kg (80 Ib). The infant chamber is enclosed
in a clear Plexiglas double-walled hood. The mattress tray dimensions are 30.5 x 61
x 1.9 cm (12 x 24 x 3/4 in.). The rectangular mattress, slightly smaller than the tray,
is a spongy foam material covered by a plastic outer shell. The infant chamber has a
minimum vertical clearance of 22.9 cm (9 in.). There is a front access door with two
hand ports 20.3 x 56.5 cm (8 x 22 1/4 in.), a standard size head access door, and two
standard size tubing ports. Mounted to the incubator frame is a flexible 5-watt
examination light. On the aft face of the unit an intravenous (IV) pole is secured with
a well and lock pin. There is space for securing two "D"or two "E"size oxygen
cylinders. The incubator has carrying handles on both ends with two securing
devices. These securing devices are used to safely secure the incubator to a
standard North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) litter which is placed in the
securing stanchions of the aircraft.
A two position rocker switch is used to turn the incubator power on and off. The
infant chamber temperature is controlled by a thumb wheel rheostat located on the
lower right corner of the front face of the incubator. Next to the thumbwheel control is
an LED display ranging from 30.0-39.9 0C (87.6 - 103.8 OF). The operator uses the
thumbwheel to increase or decrease the incubator temperature in 0.1 0 C increments.
There are two external ports on the front face of the incubator to control the
humidification system. Using these ports, the operator can add or remove water from
a sponge located in a compartment below the mattress tray without disturbing the
infant or changing the internal incubator temperature. Heated air inside the incubator
is humidified as it circulates across the sponge.

1
 The unit can operate from an external power source of 115 volts alternating current
(VAC) 50 to 400 hertz (Hz), 12 to 14.5 VDC, or from an internally mounted 12V/24
ampere hour (AH) sealed lead/acid rechargeable battery. When the incubator is
connected to an AC source and the power switch is on, the AC operation mode is
automatically selected and the AC operation (OP) indicator is illuminated. Battery
operation is automatic when the power switch is turned on and no external power is
applied. The battery (BAT) OPERATION indicator illuminates in this mode. External
12 VDC operation is automatic when applying external DC power and switching on
the power switch. The DC OPERATION indicator illuminates to reflect external 12
VDC operation. Connecting AC power will supersede external DC operation.
Illumination of the LOW BATTERY indicator, accompanied by an intermittent
audible alarm, indicates battery voltage is less than 11 VDC. The incubator will be
able to supply the heater requirements for only a few minutes in the low battery
operation mode. The LOW BATTERY alarm is non-resettable. The POWER FAIL
indicator activates when the battery falls below 10 VDC, indicating that the battery
has reached its safe discharge limit, and power to maintain the temperature in the
infant chamber is no longer available. All power to the incubator, other than for this
indicator and audible alarm, is disabled.
The HIGH TEMP alarm indicator, accompanied by an intermittent audible alarm, is
triggered when the temperature of the primary sensor exceeds 38.5 OC (101.3 OF).
The HIGH TEMP and SYSTEM FAIL alarms, coupled with a continuous audible alarm,
indicate that the primary temperature sensor is over 39.0 °C (102.2 OF). The
incubators heater system is disabled and the incubator will cool to below 39.0 0C
(102.2 OF) before re-energizing the heating system. The SYSTEM FAIL alarm alone,
coupled with a continuouj audible alarm, indicates that the secondary (backup)
temperature sensor subsystem is reading over 39.2 °C (102.6 OF). The incubators
heater system is again disabled and the incubator will cool to below 39.2 OC (102.6 IF)
before re-energizing this subsystem. The activation of this subsystem alarm indicates
a problem with either the temperature sensors or with the control circuitry. This
condition indicates a need for incubator service by qualified personnel.

The AIRFLOW alarm, coupled with a continuous audible alarm, indicates that
there is an airflow blockage by some object, such as a blanket. The incubators
heater system is disabled and the incubator will cool until the thermal switch on the
heater element drops below its selected temperature. After the airflow is restored and
the heating element has cooled, the heater system will return to normal operation.
The SENSOR FAIL alarm, coupled with a continuous audible alarm, indicates that the
temperature being sensed by the primary temperature sensor subsystem is well
outside the normal operational range of the incubator. The activation of this
alarm indicates a problem with the temperature sensor or with the
control circuitry, and a need for service by qualified personnel. An
Indicator Test Switch, located on the operation panel, is used to test the LED on the
display panel and the audible alarm.

2
 METHODS

The Aeromedical Equipment Evaluation Laboratory (AEEL) Procedures Guide (1),

an internal document, prescribes which tests are performed and provides a
quantitative description of those tests. Not every piece of equipment we evaluate
undergoes each and every test. Also, since every piece of equipment is different and
unique, not every piece of equipment will be tested in the exact same way.

T1 T2 T3
0 0 0

G1, G2, H1

Figure 1. Probe placement.

1. Temperature Sensors (10.2 cm (4 in.) above the mattress)
a. T1 (Head) -Centered and 5.1 cm (2in.) in from the incubator wall
b. T2 (Middle) - Centered within the incubator
c. T3 (Foot) -Centered and 5.1 cm (2in.) in from the incubator wall
d. T4 (Ambient) - Outside the incubator monitoring room or chamber
2. Humidity Probe
a. H1 - Centered within the incubator and 10.2 cm (4in.) above the
mattress
b. H2 - Outside the incubator monitoring room or chamber
3. Gas Measurement
a. G1 (Oxygen) - During actual usage the placement of the oxygen sensor is5.1 cm
(2in.) from the infant's airway. To approximate this position, we placed the gas
analyzer 11.4 cm (4.5 in.) from the front access door and 20.3 cm (8in.) from the
incubator wall (head). Measurements within the electrical compartment were made
centered within the compartment.
b. G2 (Carbon Dioxide) - Measurements were made at the same location as the
oxygen sensor within the incubator. Carbon dioxide flow was administered at the
center of the incubator compartment.

3
 The tests described in this section simulate the environment under which the
device must function, but under controlled laboratory conditions. We approximate
field conditions as closely as possible for a limited time. The tests vary only one
parameter at a time. Comparison to baseline measurements enables us to assess
that parameters effect on the item. The precise setup used to test the item is
determined by the Project Coordinator (PC).

Data are collected by computer whenever possible to simplify data plotting and
analysis. If data recording cannot be done by computer, the data are manually
recorded on a "Data Collection Sheet." Information specifically relating to the test
setup is recorded for each test on a "Test Information Sheet."

Figure 1 illustrates the location of the test probes: temperature, oxygen, carbon
dioxide, and humidity. Ambient temperature was monitored during all tests. The
infant chamber temperatures were measured at three locations across the infant
mattress; each centered from front to back and 10.2 cm (4 in.) above the mattress; the
head and foot probes were 5.1 cm (2 in.) in from the left and right Plexiglas walls; the
middle probe was centered above the mattress. Power transformer temperature
measurements were made by taping the temperature probe directly to the
transformer. Grant EU-U-V5 minithermistors and a Grant Squirrel Model 1201
Datalogger were used throughout our evaluation. Oxygen and carbon dioxide
concentrations were measured with a Perkin Elmer Model 1100 Medical Gas
Analyzer. Oxygen samples were taken at two locations: centered and 10.2 cm (4 in.)
above the mattress, and centered in the electronics compartment. Humidity was
measured in and outside the incubator using a Grant L-type probe. Measurements
inside the incubator were made centered and 10.2 cm (4 in.) above the mattress.
Unless otherwise noted, the incubator was prewarmed to 37 °C (98.6 OF) on 110 VAC
/60 Hz prior to each test.

Baseline Performance Assessment

The purpose of the Baseline Performance Assessment (BPA) was to measure and
record the incubator's performance under standard ambient conditions (22.0±2 °C
(71.6±4 °F), 750±10 mmHg barometric pressure, 50 ± 30% relative humidity) prior to
adverse testing. The BPA is used as a reference to measure subsequent
performance against, to verify selected manufacturer and contract specifications, and
to ensure safe operation and use prior to testing.

Human Factors and Physical Characteristics-- These are observations made

throughout our evaluation. Observations and corrective action are listed in the
Results section.

Warm-U Tine -- The time required to warm the incubator to a set temperature of
37 °C (98.6 OF) was measured while operating on 110 VAC/60 Hz and 400 Hz.
Ambient temperature was approximately 21 °C (69.8 OF) during the 110 VAC/60 Hz
test and approximately 24 °C (75.2 OF) during the 110 VAC/400 Hz test.

4
 Temperature Accuracy and Uniformity - The incubator's display temperature was
compared to the mid-mattress temperatures to determine the display's accuracy.
Temperature uniformity was determined by comparing the displayed temperature
with all three mattress temperatures. Mattress temperature uniformity was evaluated
during a 3-h period at standard ambient conditions with the incubator pre-warmed to
37 0C (98.6 OF).
Electrical Safety -- Electrical safety testing consisted of ground resistance and
leakage current measurements, and a visual examination of the incubator's wiring
and strain relief. Ground resistance was measured from the power plug's ground pin
to the exposed metal chassis. The leakage current was measured with the power on
and off, with all controls adjusted to yield the highest leakage current (unit off), with
the power supply ground intact (normal polarity), with ground lifted (normal polarity),
and ground lifted (reverse polarity). All measurements were made using a Dempsey
Model 431 Safety Analyzer.

Battery Operation/Charging Characteristics -- These tests were performed to verify

the incubator's battery operation time and charging characteristics. Battery operation
and charging currents were measured by placing a precision resistor load of 25
milliohms in series with the positive battery terminal and calculating the current from
the resulting voltage drop. Battery voltage was measured across the battery
terminals. Temperatures and voltages were recorded on a Squirrel Datalogger at a
sample rate of once per minute. The incubator's battery was first discharged until the
low battery light illuminated and then charged for 6 h on 110 VAC/60 Hz. The
incubator was then pre-warmed to 37 °C (98.6 OF) on 110 VAC/60 Hz in accordance
with (lAW) the manufacturer's instructions. It was then disconnected from external
power and allowed to operate on internal battery until the low battery light
illuminated. This charge and operation cycle was repeated on 110 VAC/400 Hz
power.

Extended Operation on 110 VAC/400 Hz -- Power sources of 110 VAC/400 Hz are

unique to the aircraft. To ensure the incubator would safely operate on 110 VAC/400
Hz for an extended period, the unit was operated for 36 hours under ambient room
temperature and humidity. The incubator and power transformer temperatures were
measured during this period.

Tilt Test -- The incubator is placed in many different angles and axes during
transport. To test for water leakage from the humidification reservoir into other areas
of the incubator, we filled the reservoir with 250 ml (8.4 oz) of water, lAW the
manufacturer's literature at that time, and tilted the incubator 450 from front to back
and from side to side for a 1-min period. We then examined the incubator's bassinet
and electrical compartment for any signs of fluid leakage or component securing
problems; e.g., at the battery, bassinet or cylinder fasteners.

Interior Sound and Light Levels -- Bioenvironmental engineers from the USAF
Clinic, Brooks AFB, took sound and light measurements using a Gen Rad Model
1982 Octave Band Analyzer Sound Meter and a Lite Mate III Model 504 Photometer.
Sound level measurements were made at the infant's head location. Light
measurements were made as indicated in the Results section.

5
 Electromagnetic Compatibility

The purpose of these tests is to verify compliance with MIL-STD-461 C,

Electromagnetic Emission and Susceptibility Requirements for the Control of
Electromagnetic Interference, Category Ale (2).

Radiated Emissions (RE-02) -- The RE-02 test measures radiated emissions

generated by the incubator. Excessive emissions could interfere with aircraft
navigation and communication equipment. The incubator was tested operating on
110 VAC/60 Hz, on 110 VAC/400 Hz, on internal battery, and while charging on 110
VAC/400 Hz. Incubator control settings were as follows: with temperature set to
37 °C (98.6 IF) with one front port door open to ensure heater circuit remained on,
with light on, with Alarm Test button both on and off, with internal battery discharged
(low battery LED or;) during AC tests, and with battery fully charged.

Conducted Emissions (CE-03) -- The CE-03 test measures conducted emissions

generated by the incubator and conducted back up the power line. Excessive
conducted emissions could affect the aircraft power supply and/or systems powered
from it. The incubator was tested operating on 110 VAC/60 Hz, on 110 VAC/400 Hz,
and while charging on 110 VAC/400 Hz. Incubator control settings were as follows:
temperature set to 37 °C (98.6 OF) with one front port door open, with the light on, and
with the Alarm Test button both on and off.

Radiated Susceptibility (RS-02) -- The RS-02 test determines whether the

ambient electromagnetic fields encountered in flight interfere with incubator
operation. The incubator was exposed to the electromagnetic induction fields
described in the USAFSAM Test and Evaluation Planning Guide for Aeromedical
Evacuation Equipment (3). During exposure, the incubator was operated on both
110 VAC/60 Hz and battery power while monitoring incubator temperatures and
alarm functions.

Conducted Susceptibility (CS-06) -- The CS-06 test verifies that the incubator will
safely operate from the aircraft's noisy fluctuating power supply. Electrical voltages
and waveforms specified in MIL-STD-461 were used. During exposure, while the
incubator was operated on both 110 VAC/60 Hz and 110 VAC/400 Hz, incubator
temperatures and alarm functions were monitored.

The vibration test, consisting of random and sinusoidal X, Y, and Z curves, tests an
item's construction, durability, and performance during severe vibration. Because of
the size of the incubator, the vibration table at USAFSAM could not accommodate
this test; consequently, the incubator was taken to the US Army Aeromedical
Research Laboratory (USAARL), Fort Rucker, Alabama, for testing support. The
USAARL vibration table was used to test the incubator which was strapped to a .95
cm (3/8 in.) metal plate that had been bolted to the table. During the test, the table
was controlled by a GenRad computer system. The vibration curve used, Figures 2
and 3, was derived from data collected during a helicopter mission. The incubator

6
was vibrated on each of the X, Y, and Z axes for 1 h each. An accelerometer attached
to the plate allowed the GenRad system to monitor the exact vibration experienced by
the plate. Following the tests, a visual inspection of the incubator was performed.

1.0-

0.1

('4

0.01

0.001

0.0001

L r! 1.25 Frequency (Hz) Log

Figure 2. X and Y axis vibration test.

500

~0.1

C4
0.01

E
<0.001

0.0001 1 I l i i
1.25 Frequency (Hz) Log50
Figure 3. Z axis vibration test.

7
 Enviromeal~
The environmental tests measured the incubator's performance under varying
temperature and relative humidity (RH) conditions encountered during transport.
During each of these tests, except for the storage tests, the incubator was prewarmed
to 37 0C (98.6 OF) and placed in an environmental chamber and operated for the
specified period. The incubator was preheated to 37 0C (98.6 OF) and allowed to
stabilize for 20 min prior to both operational and storage tests. The incubator was
placed in the environmental chamber and operated on both line 11OV AC/60 Hz and
internal battery power for the specified periods.

High Temperature --
Operation: 49 °C ± 2 0C (120 OF ± 3.6 OF) for 2 h.
Storage: 60 0C 2 0C (140 OF ± 3.6 OF) for 6 h.

Low Temperature--
Operation: 0 0C ± 4 °C (32 OF ± 7.20 F) for 2 h.
Storage: -40 0C ± 2 0C (-40 OF ± 3.6 OF) for 6 h.

Humidity --
Operation: 94 ± 4% RH, 29.5 C ± 2 0C (85 OF ± 3 OF), for 4 h.

5% Humidity -- Specifications called for the incubator to maintain 20% RH

within the infant chamber for 4 h while operating within a 5% RH ambient
environment. This test was performed using a hypobaric chamber to create a 5% RH
environment at an equivalent altitude of 3048 m (10,000 ft). With the incubator inside
the chamber, a Grant Model 1201 Data Logger recorded both the interior incubator
hood and the ambient chamber temperatures and RH. One humidity probe was
placed inside the incubator mid-compartment, elevated approximately 5.1-7.6 cm
(2-3 in.) above the mattress. A second humidity probe was positioned outside the
incubator approximately 0.30 m (1 ft) away. The temperature was monitored inside
the incubator hood mid-compartment, and outside the incubator at the end of the
NATO litter. Per manufacturer's recommendations, 150 cm3 of water was injected
into the incubator's humidification system. The Data Logger sampled humidity and
temperature levels every minute. Occasionally, throughout the test, an attempt was
made to extract excess water from the humidification system's drain port.

Direct Sunlight Exposure -- This test was conducted to determine the effects of
direct sunlight on the clear Plexiglas hood assembly. The unit was prewarmed to
37 0C (98.6 F) and exposed to direct sunlight while the Grant Data Logger monitored
the incubator's infant chamber temperature at three locations, and the ambient
temperature outside the incubator 0.30 m (1 ft) from the incubator. Sample readings
were taken every 15 sec to observe the rapid temperature increase.

In a second test, the effect of shading the incubator hood area from the sun was
examined. The test setup and environmental exposure was the same as for the first
sunlight test. A standard white hospital bedsheet was folded in half and folded in half
again, and placed over the Plexiglas hood. Following both tests, the incubator was
taken indoors and allowed to stabilize at 37 0C (98.6 °F).

8
 Alitude
We subjected the incubator to reduced atmospheric pressures of 564 mmHg, 2440
m (8,000 ft) equivalent, for a 30-min period on battery power.

Decompression
Decompressions are uncommon; however, if one were to occur, the incubator
should not present a hazard to the infant, to the crew, or to aircraft operations. In the
hypobaric chamber the incubator, operating at an equivalent cabin pressure of 2438
m (8,000 ft), was subjected to a series of three sudden decompressions to 12,190 m
(40,000 ft) equivalent pressure in 1, 7, and 60 sec.

FesAlow
Air exchange within the infant chamber is a concern since an excessive buildup
of carbon dioxide (P02)or oxygen (02) could worsen the condition of the child in the
incubator.
Carbon Dioxide Concentration -- Fresh air flow through the incubator must be
sufficient to prevent a buildup of C02. The maximum safe concentration of C02, as
specified in the contract, is 0.5%. Thirty cc/min of C02*was injected into the infant
chamber of the incubator that had been prewarmed to 37 °C (98.6 OF). The C02
concentration inside the infant chamber and the ambient concentration outside the
incubator were monitored using the Perkin Elmer Model 1100 Medical Gas Analyzer.
Oxygen Concentration -- Maximum oxygen concentrations which could be
maintained within the incubator at various oxygen flow rates were evaluated at an
equivalent altitude of 3048 m (10,000 ft) in the hypobaric chamber. Oxygen was
ducted into the prewarmed incubator through a flowmeter. A Biomarine Oxygen
Analyzer measured the 02 concentration inside the infant chamber at flow rates of
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 15 liters per minute. The 02 concentration at each flow rate
was recorded.

In-Flight Feasibility
Two Aeromedical Research Technicians assigned to USAFSAM/VN performed
the in-flight feasibility test in C-9, C-12, C-21, C-130, and C-141 aircraft and in UH-1,
and H-60 helicopters. The purpose of in-flight testing was to evaluate the incubators
compatibility with each airframe, to verify that it was operationally sound, and to verify
its structural ability to withstand the vibrations encountered during actual takeoff, in

As suggested by the AAMI Draft Standard for Infant Incubators (May 1984).

9
flight, and during landing. The incubator was operated according to manufacturers
specifications for actual use. During each flight, the AE technicians measured
ambient and incubator temperatures every 15 min both manually and using a Grant
Squirrel Model 1201 Datalogger with Grant Type EU-U-V5 mini-thermistors. Relative
humidity was recorded every 15 min on the C-141 mission, using a Hygrotest Model
6400 temperature/humidity probe. Decibel noise levels inside the incubator hood
and within the aircraft cabin were measured every 15 min using Metrosonics Sound
Level Analyzers Model dB-310. Ambient humidity levels within the aircraft cabins
were measured with a Princo Humidity System (swing type) with slide conversion
ruler. Following each mission the data derived from the evaluations were transferred
to a Z-1 84 laptop computer. Other medical crewmembers on each mission were
encouraged to help with on/off loading procedures, to help secure equipment
onboard the aircraft, and to ask questions about the incubator, thereby providing user
feedback.

RESULTS

Baseline Performance Assessment

Human Factors and Physical Characteristics -- The securing mount originally
failed to safely secure the incubator to a NATO litter. The bulkiness and rounded
edges of the incubator in combination with tilting the litter during loading caused the
incubator to partially slide off the litter. The straps and metal hooks provided with the
unit did prevent the incubator from totally falling off the litter. Nevertheless, the litter
was very awkward and unstable to carry. The manufacturer later modified the mount,
placing an additional aluminum ridge on each side of the existing mount which
prevented slippage when carrying.

Several glued-on rubber feet, separating the hood's double wall construction, fell
off during normal use. The manufacturer later added Plexiglas extensions to the
internal wall construction eliminating the need for rubber feet. No secure storage or
vertical securing mechanism was provided with the IV pole. A twistlock and spring-
loaded locking mechanism was added later to prevent vertical dislodging during use.
A securing mechanism was also added to prevent IV pole movement in the storage
position.
Warmup Time -- The incubator warmup time to 37 °C (98.6 OF) was 16 min on 110
VAC/60 Hz and 8 min on 110 VAC/400 Hz. Differences in warmup times were
attributed to the difference in ambient temperatures between the two tests. The
ambient temperature was approximately 21 °C (70 OF) during the 110 VAC/60 Hz test
and approximately 24 0C (75 OF) during the 110 VAC/400 Hz test. The warmup times
were within the limits specified in the contract (no more than 20 min). Note that the
manufacturers operating instructions specifies a 20-min stabilization period at the
selected temperature before placing the infant into the incubator.

Temperature Accuracy and Uniformity - Accuracy of the incubators display

temperature was within the limits specified in the contract, ±1 °C (2 OF) from the
incubators set temperature at an ambient temperature of 22.77 °C (73 OF), and the

10
manufacturers specification, ± 0.5 0C (1 OF) for display accuracy. It should be noted
that during the incubator warmup period and during rapid extreme temperature
changes the temperature accuracy and uniformity may exceed 1 OC (2 OF). However,
this is an expected and an inherent characteristic of incubator heating systems which
use heated circulating air. Example: The Ohio Transport Incubator currently in use
has temperature variations greater then 100 F when exposed to environmental
changes, i.e., 4.4 °C (40 OF), 22.7 OC (73 OF).

Electrical Safety -- The electrical safety check consisted of ground resistance and
leakage current measurements as well as a visual inspection of the incubators wiring
and strain relief. Measured ground resistance from the ground pin of the power plug
to the exposed chassis was 120 mQ. Maximum chassis leakage current was 16 pA.
During disassembly, the battery lead wire's insulation frayed causing arcing between
the exposed wire and the metal chassis. The wire's insulation was so thin it could be
easily scraped off with fingernail pressure. The manufacturer later increased the
insulation factor to its Underwriter Laboratory (UL) rating.
Battery Operation and Charging Characteristics -- Battery operation time was
3.7 h, after a 6-h battery charge on 110 VAC/60 Hz and 3.45 h, after a 6-h battery
charge on 110 VAC/400 Hz. These battery operation/charge times were within the
contract specifications (minimum 2-h operation, 24-h charge time) and the
manufacturers specifications (nominal 3-h operation, 6-h charge time).
Extended Operation on 110 VAC/400 Hz -- The incubator was operated for 36
continuous hours on 110 VAC/400 Hz. No excessive transformer temperatures or
operational problems were noted.

ilt Test -- Approximately 60 cm3 of water overflowed from the reservoir past the
heating pad, power switching transistor (Q-5), and into the air circulating fan when the
incubator was tilted 450. Fluid leaked around Q-5 and onto its soldered lead
connections. Water within the circulating fan area did not leak into the motor or
electronics beneath. The manufacturer resolved the problem by reducing the
recommended reservoir volume from 250 to 150 cm3 and using insulating sealant
around 0-5. After making these changes, we repeated the tilt test with no water leaks
noted. According to the incubator manufacturer, the chance of electrical hazards
caused by water leaks is remote and has never been reported by customers over
years of use. To further minimize the hazard, we recommend clearly identifying the
sponge specifications within the operation manual. A sponge which is too thick may
alter airflow and temperature characteristics; a sponge which is too small or using no
sponge will increase the probability of fluid leakage from the reservoir.

Interior Sound and Light Measurements -- Sound measurements were below the
60 dBA specified in the contract under normal operation. Other noise levels are
presented in Table 1 for information only. Light illumination levels, shown in Table 2,
are within the contract limits of 30 fc at mattress level. However, illumination intensity
varies considerably across the mattress.

11
 TABLE 1. INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS.
(110 VAC/60 Hz Operation, 56.2 dBA ambient noise)
Inside incubator, normal operation 56.0 dB
Inside incubator, warmup 69.6 dBA
Inside incubator, alarms on 76.6 dBA
Inside incubator, charging 46.4 dBA
Inside incubator, ambient noise of 90 dBA 72.0 dBA
Inside incubator, ambient noise of 100 dBA 84.0 dBA

TABLE 2. INTERIOR LIGHT LEVELS.

(0.12 fc ambient light)

Center of mattress 67.3 fc

10.2 cm (4 in.) from center toward foot 10.8 fc
10.2 cm (4 in.) from center towards head 20.8 fc
10.2 cm (4 in.) from center towards front 33.5 fc
10.2 cm (4 in.) from center towards rear 13.8 fc
Centered at end of mattress (foot) 1.40 fc
Centered at end of mattress (head) 2.92 fc

Electromagnetic Compatibility
The incubator failed the first set of electromagnetic compatibility tests performed in
May 1988, in the narrow band areas of RE-02 and CE-03. The incubator was sent
back to the manufacturer to correct the problem areas. A retest was performed in
August 1988, and the item passed. Modifications consisted of shielding the fan by
encasing it in a metal can and placing a Sprague 735P I±F (5 microfarad ± 10%, 100
VDC) across the power transformer secondary lead.

The incubator operated correctly throughout the vibration test. A visual inspection
of the incubator, including the electronic compartment, revealed that everything was
intact and operational. None of the components showed abnormal wear.

Enonmeal
High Temperature -- During the 2-h operation test in a 49 °C (120 OF) ambient
temperature environment, the incubator reacted according to manufacturer's
specifications (Fig. 4). Once 38.5 OC (101.3 OF) was sensed, the HIGH TEMP alarm
activated followed by a SYSTEM FAIL alarm at 39 OC (102.2 OF). After the 2-h Hot
Operation test was finished, the incubator was removed from the heated chamber
environment. Approximately a 1.5 h cool-down period was required to lower the
infant chamber temperature to the preset temperature of 37 °C (98.6 OF).

12
 Hot Operation (Temp vs Time )
50

45

T-2
40
0

_ 35

E
*
I- 30

25 - 0 Ambient

20
0 wn 0n La 0; U1 0000

Time (mln./hr.)

Figure 4. Hot operation test.

Low Temperature -- During the 2-h operation test at 0 °C (32 °F), the LOW
BATTERY indicator illuminated approximately 1.5 h into the evaluation. The
incubator indicated a temperature of 19.8 °C (67.6 OF). The incubator continued to
operate for approximately 1 h longer before the POWER FAIL indicator illuminated
signaling that the battery has reached its safe discharge limit (Operation Manual pg
2-3). After the 2 h Cold Operation test was finished, and the incubator was removed
from the cooled chamber environment, it took approximately 1.5 h for the incubator to
warm to 37 °C (98.6 OF). Following the cold storage test the incubator operated
according to specifications and warmed to 37 °C (98.6 OF) (Fig. 5).

5Humidity -- Figure 6 shows that the incubator performed well beyond the
contract specification. With the incubator inside a 5% RH hypobaric chamber
environment at an equivalent 3048 m (10,000 ft) altitude, the humidity within the
incubator's infant compartment ranged from 43.2-50.5% over 8 h. The contract
required the incubator to provide at least 20% humidity for 4 h. The item passed this
test. No excess fluid was removed from the incubators drain port. Our evaluations
proved that 150 cm3 of water is adequate to provide the infant with a humidified
environment without overfilling the well and sponge.

13
 Cold Operation (Temp vs Time)

45-

40 - T-1
-4- T-2
35 -- T-3

30

25-

* 20-

g* 15-
E
10-

5-

0min

-5-

10

Time (hr:min)
Figure 5. Cold operation test.

Humidity (Levels vs Time)

60-

55-

-~ Icubaor Humidity %
45-

.E 40-

.~35-

30-

25-
E -00 Sato %Level

15-

10-

0JJC~
11 '11
11 ........... t-r-r m
Time (hr:mln)
Figure 6. Humidity performance in a 5%RH environment.

14
 Direct Sunlight Exposure -- A sudden temperature rise in the infant chamber
occurs when the incubator is exposed to direct sunlight (Fig. 7). This sudden
temperature increase could endanger the infant. Heat injury can be avoided by
covering the clear, double-walled hood with material similar to the white cotton
bedsheet used during our test. Shielding the Plexiglas hood keeps the incubator's
infant chamber temperature below a level of concern, and still keeps the infant in
view (Fig. 8).

Altitude
At an equivalent altitude of 2438 meters (8,000 ft), infant chamber temperatures
were maintained within 1 0C (2 OF) of the incubators display and set temperatures,
Figure 9. No malfunctions were observed during or after the test.

Decompression

Incubator performance during the series of decompressions did not present a

hazard to the infant, crew, or chamber operation. Incubator performance was
acceptable and considered normal for operation in such a drastically changing
environment. Observed temperature changes are illustrated in Figure 10.
Immediately after each decompression, the ambient temperature in the hypobaric
chamber increased, raising the incubators temperature to 38.5 °C (101.3 OF) and
activating the high temperature alarm. Incubator temperatures continued to increase
and activated the system failure alarm at 39 °C (102.2 OF), turning the heater off. The
high temperature alarms operated as expected and prevented temperatures capable
of causing hyperthermia. As the hypobaric chamber airflow and temperatures
changed less drastically during normal descent and at ground level, the incubators
temperature decreased below its selected temperature, turning the heater on.

15
 60-

u T-I
45-0- T-2
4 T-3
S 40-

30-

25
20h
0 5 1"0 15 20 25 0 35 40Q

Time (min.)
Figure 7. Direct sunlight exposure; no cover.

40-

E 30-

25-
-- Ambient

Tim* (mlnmbec)
Figure 8. Direct sunlight exposure; with cover.

16
 Operation at 8,000 feet (564 mm Hg)
(internal Battery)
40-

35-,

0 30 q (T-2)
• Foot (T-3)

CL
. 2 A (T5) I g"
20-

10 .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (Minutes)
Figure 9. Altitude test.

Decompression (8,000 to 40,000 ft)

40

35

7 Second I Second 6 e;n

30

25
a.
E
20

15

10
I -a-incubatorTemperature (00)
I& Ambient Temperture I°C)
. . . . . I . . . .,I . . . . i
.
05 10 15 20 25

Time (Minutes)

Figure 10. Rapid decompressions.

17
 Carbon Dioxide Concentration -- The first time this test was performed at ground
level, the C02 concentration climbed above 0.5% within the first 10 min. During the
first 2 h of the test the concentration continued to rise to 0.93%, where it seemed to
plateau. For the final 2 h, it remained between 0.93% and 0.99%.

On the original hood, there were three slots along the bottom of the hood to allow
fresh air flow, one across the back and one on each side. Working together, one of
our engineers and the contractor found that enlarging the two side slots and closing
the back slot improved removal of C02 without affecting incubator temperature or
humidity. When the test was repeated, the C02 concentration reached a plateau at
approximately 0.27% (Fig. 11).
GL C02 (Levels vs Time)
0.6

- Safe C02 Level

0.5

0.4

- Incubator C02 Concentration

0.3

0.2'

0.1-
-- 1- Ambient C02 Concetmtlion

0.0 T-

Time (hr:mln)

Figure 11. Ground level C02 concentration.

The test was repeated at an equivalent altitude of 3048 m (10,000 ft). During this
test the C02 concentration inside the hypobaric chamber increased, which, in turn,
increased the C02 concentration inside the infant chamber. Once the hypobaric
chamber was vented with fresh air, both concentrations decreased to an acceptable
level of 0.29% (Fig. 12).

Oxygen Concentration -- Figure 13 shows the 02 concentration obtained at

several different flow levels. At 15 liters per minute, the 02 concentration was 85.5%.
A maximum 02 concentration of 98% oxygen was obtained at maximum flow (Flush).

18
 Altitude C02 (Levels vs Time)
0.6-

-U- Safe 002 Concentration Love;

0.5

a Incubator 002 concentration

-j 0.4-
C

C 0.3.
C
0

0.0

o~001 --- mbet 0 Concentration

0.1 -T

Time (hr-min)

Figure 12. Altitude C02 concentration.

GL 02 (Levels vs Flow Rats)

100-

* U Ambient 02 Concentration
so E3 Incubator 02 Concentration

C0 70-

S60-
C

*40-
C
m30-

20

0-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 15
Flow Rate (Liters per min.)
Figure 13. Ground level oxygen concentrations.

19
 In-Flight Feasibility

The incubator performed on each of the aircraft lAW the manufacturers description
of performance. It secured easily to a standard NATO litter and remained secured
throughout this testing phase. The litter-mounted incubator fit in the stanchions on
each of the selected aircraft with the exception of the H-60 helicopter. Since the
helicopter did not have a medevac carousel installed, the incubator was flown
strapped to the floor of the helicopter using standard aircraft tiedown straps.

During ground transport of the incubator from the hangar to the helicopter, the
incubator was exposed to direct sunlight, activating the High Temp alarm. The ports
on the incubator were opened to release heat since the actual temperature within the
incubator exceeded 39.7 °C (103.5 OF). Once we removed the incubator from direct
sunlight into the helicopter, the temperature returned to 37 °C (98.6 OF), and the
system operated normally for the remainder of that mission.

Ambient noise levels and noise levels inside the incubator hood assembly were
recorded during the ascent, descent, and in-flight test phases for each aircraft.
Environmental impact experts from the USAF Occupational and Environmental Health
Laboratory (OEHL) at Brooks AFB evaluated this data and determined the C-9, C-12,
and C-21 average in-flight noise levels inside the incubator did not exceed the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guideline of 70 decibels (dB) A-weighted (A),
calculated over a 24-hour period. The UH-1 helicopter average in-flight noise level
was slightly above 70 dB (A), but a 19-h exposure would be required to exceed a
daily dose of 70 dB (A) if the remainder of that day's exposure were at or below 70 dB
(A). The C-130 average in-flight noise levels in the incubator produced the greatest
potential for exceeding the EPA guideline. The C-141 in-flight noise levels inside the
incubator varied depending on the 02 flow rate into the incubator, but never exceeded
the EPA level of 70 dB (A) except for a short period during taxi. No reliable data were
collected inside the incubator on the H-60 helicopter.

The incubator internal hood temperature was consistently monitored in three

places as described earlier in this report. During in-flight feasibility testing, the
ambient temperature was monitored within 0.61 m (2 ft) of the incubator at the end of
the litter canvas. The internal temperatures remained fairly constant even though the
exterior ambient temperatures varied greatly. The humidification delivery system,
along with the incubator's ability to attain varying 02 concentration levels, was tested
during the C-141 mission because of its unique cabin environment and the long
flights associated with these missions. The incubator provided adequate humidity
and exceeded the requirements specified by the contract. The humidity test was
3
performed lAW the manufacturers recommendations for introducing 250 cm of
water into the humidification well. The average level of humidity within the incubator
was between 60-70% while operating in average ambient environments ranging from
<10-80% RH.

During the in-flight Oxygen Concentration feasibility test, oxygen was introduced
into the incubator using the aircraft 02 system and manufacturers recommended
method of oxygen therapy. The 02 concentration levels were monitored using the
BioMarine Industrias Model OA202R Oxygen Analyzer. The analyzer was affected by

20
aircraft vibration and displayed inaccurate readings. The 02 Concentration Test was
discontinued during this phase of testing and conducted back in the controlled
laboratory environment. The incubator passed 02 concentration tests following hood
modifications to allow the escape of excessive C02 buildup.

CONSIDERATIONS
There is no physical connection between the inner and outer hood. During
removal, the inner hood may slip and injure the infant, or may fall to the aircraft floor
or onto another patient or crewmember. The infant securing strap metal fasteners
may not adequately restrain an infant during transport. Their small size and
construction, similar to a paper clip, may present a hazard to the infant if the metal
fastener is separated from the strap. The incubator may not be able to accommodate
a 4.5 kg (10 Ib) infant safely.
The amount of water needed to provide humidity within the incubator was reduced
from 250 cm3 to 150 cm 3 . We performed the contract required test at the 150 cm 3
level and the incubator exceeded the minimum requirements. The operation manual
should be changed accordingly.
USAF OEHL concluded that the noise levels generated by the different aircraft the
incubator was tested in did not produce a significant risk to hearing within the
incubator due to the relatively short period of exposure. No valid data were collected
on incubator noise levels in the H-60. The OEHL also recommends not taping ear
plugs over the infant's ear. Currently, there is no commercially available hearing
protection equipment for infants.

When the incubator is exposed to direct sunlight, a sudden rise in the temperature
within the infant chamber occurs, as was the case during the in-flight feasibility test
phase when the incubator was transported on the ground from a hangar to a
helicopter across a tarmac.

To prevent the sudden rise in temperature inside the preheated incubator

'subjected to direct sunlight exposure, we recommend shielding the clear Plexiglas
hood assembly from the sun's rays. We tested this procedure using a folded white
cotton bed sheet.
To prevent an excessive C02 buildup, the hood assembly was modified by
enlarging slots on the two ends of the hood and closing the slot at the back of the
hood to allow for ambient air exchange. It is recommended that AE crewmembers
refrain from placing articles that may block the airflow at either end of the hood and
incubator tray.
The aforementioned recommended improvement areas were forwarded to the 375
AAW/SGNL for action prior to the Operational Testing and Evaluation (OT&E) phase
of the incubator contract. We considered all other items acceptable after
manufacturer modifications.

21
 CONCLUSIONS

Based upon careful analysis of the test results, we* have concluded the Model
ALSS 185 Infant Transport Incubator is a safe, adequate means for transporting an
infant without jeopardizing the infant's health. The incubator is acceptable in its
ability to produce warmth, maintain humidity, and accommodate oxygen therapy.

FOLLOW-UP

Upon completion of our evaluation, the incubator underwent Operational Testing

and Evaluation (OT&E) where it was actually used in the field. When this testing was
completed, some modifications were made to the incubator based on
recommendations from our testing and from the OT&E. The following changes were
made:

1. The inner and outer hood were permanently connected so they could be
removed as one piece.
2. The wire clips used on the restraining straps were removed. The straps
were widened, and Velcro was used instead of wire.
3. The hood opening was enlarged by 1.27 cm (0.5 in.) in all directions.
4. The litter securing straps were modified to better stabilize the incubator on
the litter.
5. The examination light was moved from the back center to the back right so
that it could be reached when the incubator was secured in the aircraft.
6. The head access door was moved from the left to the right side of the hood
so that, when it was opened the cold air would not affect the thermostat
located under the left side of the mattress.
7. The one-way valve in the humidity fill port was removed because it
prevented adequate cleaning.
8. The power cord length was changed from 1.83 m (6 ft) to 3.1 m (10 ft).

* There isa wide variety of medical backgrounds and knowledge among the members of our group. We
have a Flight Surgeon (FS), a Flight Nurse (FN), a Biomedical Equipment Maintenance Technician
(BEMIT), a Medical Research and Development Technician, three Biomedical Engineers, and two
Aeromedical Research Technicians (ART). The FN and ARTs remain current and flight qualified in
aeromedical evacuation on the C-9A aircraft. Input isalso requested from the 375th Aeromedical Airlift
Wing (MAC), Aeromedical Equipment Function (SGNL), Scott AFB, IL.

22
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank those who helped and advised us during the evaluation of
the ALSS Model 185 Infant Transport Incubator. We would particularly like to
thank...
Lt Col John Marshall
Maj Mark Swedenburg
Maj Garye Jensen
Capt Terry Lewis
Capt Sue Nagel
MSgt Thomas Philbeck
MSgt Rufino Navalta
MSgt John Yacalavitch
TSgt Gary Jenkins
SSgt Thomas Waters
Mr. John Jenkins
Mr. Al Lewis

REFERENCES
1. The Aeromedical Equipment Evaluation Laboratory Procedures Guide
(Draft). USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, January
1990.

2. MIL-STD-461C, "Electromagnetic Emission and Susceptibility

Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference," Category
Ale, August 1986.
3. Test and Evaluation Planning Guide for Aeromedical Equipment. USAF
School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, TX, August 1982.

* U. S. GOVEIRNNT PRINTING OFFICZ: 1990--761-051/20110

23