CO Analysers

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I think the handheld analyzers we're discussing are good for a diver to decide whether or not to dive a tank. If there's an incident requiring litigation, the tank can be sent off to a lab for proper analysis.
Yep, I appreciate John C. Ratliff explaining the expert approach tho.
For divers like me what we are looking for is a go/no go method of testing not an accurate gas analysis.
Divers struggle to justify the ~$300.00 and 20 seconds needed to analyze their gas as is. I don't think many will be buying an aircheck pump. They don't list the prices on that site, so I assume I can't afford them.
I wish everyone would. A $130 Sensorcon and some gallon ziplocks will work. But as we've seen, the Agencies and even DAN continue to fail to warn us or teach us how to deal with the deadly risk. That'd be bad for business, which is their big goal.
I'm surprised. A CO analyzer can be built for less than $30 in material costs and it will tell you if there is 1ppm CO present.
And it has been documented on the board here in the DIY section.
Some of us have no confidence in our DIY skills/
I'm kind of surprised nobody in China has taken the idea and put up CO analyzers on aliexpress for $50. I think most divers just don't understand the risk and so aren't interested in testing their gas. Especially if it's someone who "just dives air" and doesn't test for oxygen content either.
Those are available, if you want to risk them. Scuba-Lad posted one above on this page, well on the previous page then. Here is one for $30. Can you trust them tho? https://www.amazon.com/Handheld-Mon...6d5a0&pd_rd_wg=wW6kZ&pd_rd_i=B091H89H57&psc=1
 
Those are available, if you want to risk them. Scuba-Lad posted one above on this page, well on the previous page then. Here is one for $30. Can you trust them tho? https://www.amazon.com/Handheld-Mon...6d5a0&pd_rd_wg=wW6kZ&pd_rd_i=B091H89H57&psc=1
I was thinking of something designed to be used with high pressure gas from a scuba tank. To answer your question though, yes - I'd trust it after comparing it to another tester or checking it with bump gas. Having built one from scratch, I now realize how very simple the devices really are. It's just a mas produced sensor that will output a voltage or serial data. From there you can pick your device to convert that into human readable text. a 50 cent micro-controller and any kind of display will do - there's not much to it. As you can see in the DIY thread, although a little bit of diy level knowledge is helpful, you don't need to be any kind of expert. Therefore, I trust that cheap sensor on Amazon. The seller would almost have to make an effort to screw it up.
 
I had the Analox unit which was discontinued and replacement sensors increased in price to several times what Analox had suggested they would be. It was a great unit but replacement sensors are almost as much as the original unit cost and that is if you can find them. I tried a cheap one from Ali Express but it was not suitable. I now have the Sensorcon and it works quite well. Readings are inconsistent with pressure variation but if there is zero CO the unit will still display zero despite pressure. If I get any reading using it direct I then resort to the bag method.
 
...
Readings are inconsistent with pressure variation but if there is zero CO the unit will still display zero despite pressure. If I get any reading using it direct I then resort to the bag method.
I had a closer look at several sensors and the ones I've seen, require a gas flow. Measuring gas in bag would saturate the sensor quickly, causing it to display a higher value than actual the actual CO contents. Not a real problem, since 1ppm is reason enough to discard the contents.
Some of us have no confidence in our DIY skills
If there's a market, I can build them.
 
I
I had the Analox unit which was discontinued and replacement sensors increased in price to several times what Analox had suggested they would be. It was a great unit but replacement sensors are almost as much as the original unit cost and that is if you can find them. I tried a cheap one from Ali Express but it was not suitable. I now have the Sensorcon and it works quite well. Readings are inconsistent with pressure variation but if there is zero CO the unit will still display zero despite pressure. If I get any reading using it direct I then resort to the bag method.
I think a sample bag is the best way to go, with the deluxe approach to use a flow limiter like for nitrox analysis so the bag doesn’t blow away.
 
use a flow limiter like for nitrox analysis so the bag doesn’t blow away.
I blew a bag and a tiny unit overboard once by cracking a stubborn valve after covering it with the bag. It floated, and we got it back okay, but I learned: Crack valve, then cover it with the bag. The unit was one of the first I tried, turned out to be junk anyway, but a good lesson.
 
I had a closer look at several sensors and the ones I've seen, require a gas flow. Measuring gas in bag would saturate the sensor quickly, causing it to display a higher value than actual the actual CO contents. Not a real problem, since 1ppm is reason enough to discard the contents.

If there's a market, I can build them.
If meters are measuring and reporting out in parts per million (ppm) they all need some kind of means of measuring volume. Most use a flow, and the instruments are calibrated against that flow. This is why some of these meters are expensive; they must use a constant flow to measure the CO (or other gas) to get a concentration in unit volume.

The detector tubes do it differently, in that the gas is brought through the broken ends of the glass tube to a known volume in the hand pump. With this design, then the results are shown on a gradient gauge on the side of the tube, and usually there are two gradients, one for one pull of the pump, and one for more than one pull of the pump (3, if my memory is correct). This method is easier to do, but less accurate than the more expensive pumps (+ or - 5%, again if my memory is correct).

Now, a couple of more pieces of information. One great source of information on chemicals is the NIOSH Pocket Guide for Hazardous Chemicals. For carbon monoxide, it looks like this:
CDC - NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards - Carbon monoxide

Now there are several values here, the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and the NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL). NIOSH uses available science, and us usually more up-to-date than the OSHA PEL, as OSHA must go through a regulatory process to set its PELs. Another organization, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has its own set of standards called the Threshold Limit Value (TLV). This OSHA process sometimes takes years or even decades to modify. The NIOSH REL is usually lower than the OSHA PEL, but the ACGIH TLV is independently evaluated much more frequently than either of the other two standards, and industrial hygienists usually use the ACGIH TLV as their gold standard for exposures. Here’s what it looks like for CO:

OSHA PEL: 50 ppm
NIOSH REL: 35 ppm
ACGCIH TLV: 25 ppm

Now, this is for workers, not divers. Divers have this special problem of increased pressure. Remember your physics of diving classes? Remember Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures:
Dalton’s law of partial pressures is a gas law which states that the total pressure exerted by a mixture of gases is equal to the sum of the partial pressures exerted by each individual gas in the mixture. For example, the total pressure exerted by a mixture of two gases A and B is equal to the sum of the individual partial pressures exerted by gas A and gas B (as illustrated below).
Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures (Formula & Solved Problems)
Well, that changes as the pressure increases. So if a diver has 25 ppm (the ACGIH TLV) in his or her tank at the surface, and decides to dive to 99 feet (4 atmospheres absolute pressure) it would be as if that diver were breathing 100 ppm at the surface. If the diver was doing a deep dive, with 25 ppm in his or her tank, to 50 meters (6 atmospheres absolute pressure, or 165 feet depth) it is as if he were breathing 6 x 25 ppm, or 150 ppm CO.

Industrial Scientific has published information from the American Industrial Hygiene Association on symptoms at different concentrations of CO:
Carbon Monoxide Gas Detectors | CO Detectors | Industrial Scientific

What a log of newer diver don’t know today is that this sport almost lost Jacques Cousteau to CO poisoning in the 1950s. He describe this dive as “Our worst experience in five thousand dives did not come in the sea but in an inland water cave, the famous Fountain of Vaucluse near Avignon…”

He went on to describe the deteriorating dive:
…We had rapture of the depths, but not the familiar drunkenness. We felt heavy and anxious, instead of exuberant. Dumas was stricken worse than I. This is what I thought: I shouldn’t feel this way in this depth….I can’t go back until I learn where we are. Why don’t I feel a current? The pig-iron line is our only way home. What if we lose it? Where is the rope I had no my arm? I was able in that instant to recall that I had lost the line somewhere above. I took Dumas’s hand and closed it around the guide line. “Stay Here,” I shouted. “I’ll find the shaft.” Dumas understood me to mean I had no air and needed the safety aqualung. I sent the beam of he flashlight around in search of the roof of the cave. I found no ceiling.

Dumas was passing under heavy narcosis. He thought I was the one in danger. He fumbled to release the emergency lung. As he tugged hopelessly at his belt, he scudded across the drowned shingle and abandoned the guilde line to the surface. THe rope dissolved in the dark. I was swimming above, mulishly seeking for a wall or a ceiling, when I felt his weight tugging me back like a drifting anchor, restraining my search.

Above us somewhere were seventy fathoms of tunnel and crumbling rock. My weakened brain found the power to conjure up our fate. When our air ran out we would grope along the ceiling and suffocate in dulled agony. I shook off this thought and swam down to the ebbing glow of Dumas’s flashlight.

He had lost the better part of his consciousness. When I touched him, he grabbed my wrist with awful strength and hauled me toward him for a final experience of life, an embrace that would take me with him. I examined Dumas with the torch. I saw his protruded eyes rolling inside the mask.

The cave was quiet between my grasping breaths. I marshaled all my remaining brain power to consider the situation. Fortunately there was no current to carry Dumasaway from the pig iron. If there had been the least current we would have been lost. The pig iron must be near. I looked for that rusted metal block, mare precious than gold. Andy suddenly there was the stolid and reassuring pig Carlton. It’s line flew away into the dark, toward the hope of life.

In his stupor, Didi lost control of his jaws and his mouthpiece slipped from his teeth. He swallowed water and took some in his lungs before he somehow got the grip back into his mouth. Now,with the guide line beckoning, I realized that I could not swim to the surface, carrying the inert Dumas, who weighed at least twenty-five pounds in his waterlogged suit. I was in a state of exhaustion from the mysterious effect of the cave. We had not exercised strenuously, yet Dumas was helpless and I was becoming idiotic…
Cousteau, Jacques and James Dugan, The Silent World, Harper & Brothers Pumblishers, New York, Copyright 1953, pages 69, 76-78.
Obviously, both Dumas and Cousteau survived, and I’ll let you read the rest. But they were puzzled about how this all came about. Then they tested the air in their tanks. It was 1/2000 carbon monoxide, which if my calculations are correct, is 500 ppm.

In the book, The Silent World, Cousteau stated:
The next morning we sampled the cylinders. The analysis showed 1/2000 of carbon monoxide. At a depth of one hundred and sixty feet the effect of carbon monoxide is sixfold. The amount we were breathing may kill a man in twenty minutes. We started our new Diesel-powered free-piston air compressor. We saw the compressor sucking in its own exhaust fumes. We had all been breathing lethal doses of carbon monoxide.

160 feet / 34 feet/atmosphere (freshwater) = 4.7 atmospheres + 1 atmosphere = 5.7 atmospheres absolute pressure
5.7 atm x 500 ppm = 2350 ppm equivalent, = ~2350 ppm

If you follow the link above, you’ll see that the IDLH for CO (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health for carbon monoxide) is 1500 ppm for 30 minutes under OSHA, and the Short-Term Excursion Limit under ACGIH is 400 ppm for 15 minutes.

They were very lucky to be alive at the end, and it’s worth reading the whole chapter.

SeaRat
 
Yep, I appreciate John C. Ratliff explaining the expert approach tho.

Those are available, if you want to risk them. Scuba-Lad posted one above on this page, well on the previous page then. Here is one for $30. Can you trust them tho? https://www.amazon.com/Handheld-Mon...6d5a0&pd_rd_wg=wW6kZ&pd_rd_i=B091H89H57&psc=1

This isn't specifically aimed at DandyDon but more for the wider audience. I'm very happy with my 30 dollar CO tester, and since using it I've had zero instances of CO sickness after diving, due to refusing tanks that measure any amount of CO at all. I'd say I've dived 100-ish tanks and of those I refused about 5 due to detecting CO. Most of my dives have a max depth of between 30-40 meters (131.234 feet for all you americans out there) so I'm pretty sure if my tester was letting me down I'd know about it by now.

You guys are all getting caught up on the +/- 10PPM accuracy on a scale of up to a 1000PPM - when in actual fact that's not how I use this tester at all. I use it in a more binary way, if it detects ANY carbon monoxide at all, I give the tank back and exchange for one that tests 0. From my experience and based on the fact I've not had any further CO sickness symptoms, the +/- 10PPM accuracy only really comes into play at higher numbers. If a tank actually has 9PPM CO, I'm pretty sure my reader is gonna show 9, or there about. If it shows even 1 I refuse the tank, since the next one will probably show 0. Usually it shows around 6 or above if detecting anything. The highest I tested was 21.

I don't see the risk here. Having even a cheap CO tester is a huge improvement over nothing. I test it every now and again with a friends burning cigarette, or behind my motorbike exhaust.

I advise anyone reading this topic who doesn't already have a tester, to purchase one, even if it's a cheap one. Remember, if any CO is present, chances are some other potentially nasty stuff could also be present. If you wanna spend some big dollars and purchase a more industrial style tester that can tell you EXACTLY how many PPM it detects, that's up to you. As mentioned before, personally I don't care how many PPM, more than 0 and I don't dive the tank.
 
Great post Scuba-Lad. Good reasoning and presentation. :thumb:
Having even a cheap CO tester is a huge improvement over nothing.
Yep, as long as it doesn't lead to a false negative. Your testing to make sure it responds sounds sound along with your approach
I advise anyone reading this topic who doesn't already have a tester, to purchase one, even if it's a cheap one.
:cheers: Get one for $30, write the date on the back, and replace it in a year to avoid sensor drift. Send the old one to recycling. https://www.amazon.com/Handheld-Mon...6d5a0&pd_rd_wg=wW6kZ&pd_rd_i=B091H89H57&psc=1
 
This isn't specifically aimed at DandyDon but more for the wider audience. I'm very happy with my 30 dollar CO tester, and since using it I've had zero instances of CO sickness after diving, due to refusing tanks that measure any amount of CO at all. I'd say I've dived 100-ish tanks and of those I refused about 5 due to detecting CO. Most of my dives have a max depth of between 30-40 meters (131.234 feet for all you americans out there) so I'm pretty sure if my tester was letting me down I'd know about it by now.

You guys are all getting caught up on the +/- 10PPM accuracy on a scale of up to a 1000PPM - when in actual fact that's not how I use this tester at all. I use it in a more binary way, if it detects ANY carbon monoxide at all, I give the tank back and exchange for one that tests 0. From my experience and based on the fact I've not had any further CO sickness symptoms, the +/- 10PPM accuracy only really comes into play at higher numbers. If a tank actually has 9PPM CO, I'm pretty sure my reader is gonna show 9, or there about. If it shows even 1 I refuse the tank, since the next one will probably show 0. Usually it shows around 6 or above if detecting anything. The highest I tested was 21.

I don't see the risk here. Having even a cheap CO tester is a huge improvement over nothing. I test it every now and again with a friends burning cigarette, or behind my motorbike exhaust.

I advise anyone reading this topic who doesn't already have a tester, to purchase one, even if it's a cheap one. Remember, if any CO is present, chances are some other potentially nasty stuff could also be present. If you wanna spend some big dollars and purchase a more industrial style tester that can tell you EXACTLY how many PPM it detects, that's up to you. As mentioned before, personally I don't care how many PPM, more than 0 and I don't dive the tank.
After reading this I purchased the $40. CO tester. I am doing the same as Scuba-Lad, if a tank shows ANY CO I refuse it. Basically a go/no go type of testing. I truly don't care what the PPM is, 1 is too much.
Thanks for helping make more divers aware of this!
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom