New Type Of Artificial Lung Created

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Type Of Artificial Lung Created

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @09:38AM from the breath-differently dept.

cylonlover writes "Researchers have created an artificial lung that uses air as a ventilating gas instead of pure oxygen — as is the case with current man-made lungs, which require heavy tanks of oxygen that limit their portability. The prototype device was built following the natural lung's design and tiny dimensions and the researchers say it has reached efficiencies akin to the genuine organ. With a volume roughly the same as a human lung, the device could be implanted into a person and even be driven by the heart."

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In other news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 09:42 · Score: 0

Tobacco stocks just jumped 40%
1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Especially after Phillip Morris adds it to the Marlboro Miles catalog.
2. Re:In other news by TheInternetGuy · 2011-07-27 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  I know you two are joking, but Imagine Marlboro being able to give each smoker an extended life time of (on average) a couple of years. Imagine all the extra cigarettes they will sell, and of course only Marlboro Cigarettes will be fully compatible with your new lung.
  
  --
  If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
Great news! by MrEricSir · 2011-07-27 09:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Let's all celebrate... with a cigar!

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
So... by wsxyz · 2011-07-27 09:42 · Score: 1

Does that mean it's ok to keep smoking now?
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  No.
2. Re:So... by georgenh16 · 2011-07-27 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Does that mean it's ok to keep smoking now?
  Yeah - less flammable!
3. Re:So... by tsotha · 2011-07-27 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, as soon as they come out with artificial versions of lips, throat, esophagus, stomach, intestines, and colon. Oh, and arteries.
4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Puff puff give, puff puff give.
5. Re:So... by ManTaboo · 2011-07-27 09:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What it means is a person with cystic fibrosis(and other diseases as well of course), such as my daughter who may have to have a lung transplant in the future, has fighting chance to continue to live a somewhat normal life with continued technological/scientific progress in this field. This makes me happy!
6. Re:So... by Dunbal · 2011-07-27 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Lung cancer is actually one of the least of your worries if you smoke. There are so many other diseases (especially coronary artery disease) and exotic cancers caused by tobacco smoke that if you get lung cancer you might even consider yourself lucky.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
7. Re:So... by Opportunist · 2011-07-27 10:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ummmmmm... I've seen people die from heart attack and people die from lung cancer.
  Bluntly? I'd take the heart attack. At least it's over quickly. You do NOT want to die from lung cancer. The execution equivalent would probably be crucifixion.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  Mind explaining exactly how smoking affects the colon..?
9. Re:So... by tsotha · 2011-07-27 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Carcinogens dissolve into your saliva and mucus when you smoke. So you have an substantially increased risk of cancer throughout your entire digestive tract.
10. Re:So... by camperdave · 2011-07-27 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Mind explaining exactly how smoking affects the colon..?
  Swallowing smoke infused saliva, and polluted mucous from the lungs.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
11. Re:So... by rubycodez · 2011-07-27 10:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  33% of smokers will die from smoking-caused disease, The breakdown is 40% cancer, 25% lung disease other than cancer, 35% heart disease. But of the other 66^ of smokers, they will also have health problems. But the lung cancer is the worst from what I've seen, a long drawn out agonizing death of over a year.
12. Re:So... by rubycodez · 2011-07-27 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  no way, crucified you'll die in less than a day of agonizing pain. Lung cancer and the other cancers it causes takes over a year in the many cases of friends and family I've lost to the (preventable, caused by stupidity) disease
13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  You're not well versed in how analogies work, are you?
14. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  Colon? Dude, you're doing it wrong!
15. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention something which protects others from second-hand smoke....
16. Re:So... by bretticus · 2011-07-27 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Mesenteric ischemia from atherosclerotic disease would be another. Smoking is a risk factor for your intestinal arteries just like your coronaries.
17. Re:So... by bretticus · 2011-07-27 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  You haven't seen enough people then, because it may not be so quick. Talk to someone with class IV heart failure from ischemic cardiomyopathy.
18. Re:So... by rubycodez · 2011-07-27 11:44 · Score: 2
  
  no, can you explain it using a likeness to cars?
19. Re:So... by EdIII · 2011-07-27 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you are talking about percentages, I heard something pretty staggering.
  Granted, it is second hand knowledge. A cardiologist told my friend that 99% of all the patients he did a heart bypass on smoked at some point in their lives. Obviously, sustained for a few years I would bet.
  Any cardiologists care to comment?
20. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  No you cannot pig out on bacon ivs if you dont smoke.
21. Re:So... by FiloEleven · 2011-07-27 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sure you can! Somebody's gotta be in the 1%!
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
22. Re:So... by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-07-27 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be a turd, Dunbal.
  Lucky if you get lung cancer? Pah. I quit smoking over 35 years ago - and it still amazes me the vitriol that some people heap on smokers.
  I'd rather live with a smoker (and I think smoking is incredibly stupid) than deal with a sanctimonious jerk that insinuates that getting lung cancer is a good thing. It isn't.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
23. Re:So... by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-07-27 15:04 · Score: 2
  
  Your cardiologist is one of the 73.5 percent of people who "make up" 94.376 percent of statistics.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
24. Re:So... by BurningFeetMan · 2011-07-27 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  I recently watched an article on artificial arteries. Here's a hit from a Google search;
  
  http://singularityhub.com/2010/01/05/nanotechnology-creates-artificial-artery-for-clinical-trials/
  
  Interesting stuff.
25. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder how many of those "33% of smokers will die from smoking-caused disease" actually died from second hand car exhaust.
  We hear a lot of propaganda and a lot of biased "research" that is down demonize tobacco, but nobody seems to be interested in doing research into the death economy of the automobile industry. Demonizing car users isn't as politically correct as demonizing tobacco users (because anti-tobacco zealots get all the Moderation points and "research" dollars).
26. Re:So... by davester666 · 2011-07-27 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. But you really do want to get some help if you actually catch fire...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
27. Re:So... by Neil+Boekend · 2011-07-27 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather die from crashing with a Bugatti Veyron, because the crash takes only a fraction of a second at 400 km/h, than from crashing with an Opel Kadett, because those crashes take way longer.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
28. Re:So... by EdIII · 2011-07-27 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's really constructive.
  1) It is not my cardiologist.
  2) It is my friend's cardiologist.
  3) My friend was told this about 10 years ago.
  4) The cardiologist in question was highly respected and is in his 70's now and retired.
  So, snarky comments aside, I was seeking another cardiologist that may be on Slashdot to confirm, refute, or refine that statement. When my friend was told this, this cardiologist had probably performed thousands of bypasses. Sample size may be small, but I have no reason to disbelieve the statement that 99% of his patients had smoked.
  Other than calling us all liars, do you have anything productive to add to the conversation? A study? A different percentage? etc.
  I just mentioned something interesting that was pertinent to the poster I replied to. There is no need for sarcastic incredulity.
29. Re:So... by SynthaxError · 2011-07-27 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  And what's the percentage of those patients ate junk food at some point in their live? How many practiced a sport at some point in their live?
  And here it comes: Correlation is not causation :)
  
  --
  "There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."
30. Re:So... by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-27 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I had the same thought when my Dad had a heart attack. Artificial hearts have been around for a while, why can't we buy one for him? I think there is a problem going from research to implementation. Scientists like developing things but they don't encourage mass production. There should be factories in Korea churning out hearts and lungs. With engineers (rather than scientists) in the loop they would get better very fast.
  Good luck for your daughter.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
31. Re:So... by gknoy · 2011-07-28 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  While I'm not keen on being a first or second generation adopter, I suppose that for some it's a matter of living and not, and thus an easier choice.
32. Re:So... by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-07-28 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well if you have no reason to disbelieve the guy, why'd you ask then? 99 percent is your truth. He's your citation.
  And we can debate the constructiveness of fake statistics. I just really am skeptical of that number.
  I personally know 6 people that have had bypasses. Not one has been a smoker.
  I know many smokers.
  Is my experience so far outside the realm of the truth that 99 percent bypass patients being smokers that it is invalid? I don't have as many examples, for sure. But it is interesting that I get 100 percent non-smokers. I'm inclined to believe that although accurate within itself, is skewed by chance toward non-smokers. I'd expect at the least that the percentage would be related to the percentage of smokers in the public at large, although there might be adjustments for smokers by age/years of smoking/ general fitness - that sort of thing. But even then, it wouldn't be difficult to make the first observation of smoker/Bypass operation - and assign a percentage to it.
  I just don't like people bandying about statistics that probably aren't accurate. If you wanted to note that smoking is implicated in cardiovascular problems, then I'l agree wholeheartedly. But assigning a number, especially one like 99 percent, isn't going to do your case any good. It's like looking at third-hand smoke. People will see some funny numbers and immediately become suspicious.
  Give some thought to the idea like maybe the guy was noting that a lot of smokers end up getting bypasses, and that his 99 percent figure is likely something that he pulled off the top of his head as a way of saying that. Exaggeration for effect.
  Which of course leads us back to my reply. He probably made that number up. But if that's your truth, so be it.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
33. Re:So... by EdIII · 2011-07-28 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  See that is constructive :)
  
  I just don't like people bandying about statistics that probably aren't accurate.
  You noticed I specifically said it was 2nd hand knowledge right? Then asked for opinions from other cardiologists?
  I never claimed it was accurate, just an interesting percentage that people could weigh in on. To have a discussion about. Your last post was interesting. 100% of the bypass patients I know of are smokers, yet you are the opposite.
  I never claimed it as truth, but in the absence of all other data, I have no reason to disbelieve his 99% or question his motives, especially when he has credentials and a lifetime of experience. You presented more data. That was kind of my intent all along. Was to get people talking about the relationship between smoking and incidents of heart bypasses later on in life.
34. Re:So... by EdIII · 2011-07-28 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  lol
  I agree with you. However, you notice I put it out there as 2nd hand information I received from a well respected cardiologist, then made specific disclaimers, and asked for a discussion where others (possibly cardiologists) added their own experience or an actual number backed by a study.
  All I know is that this doctor said 99% of all his surgical patients smoked. That's it. You may be right that there were many other factors, and that smokers may also be predisposed towards other unhealthy behaviors that also increase the risk of heart disease.
  I never claimed it as truth, just wanted to put it out there and have a discussion about it, intelligently I hoped.
  So far I have one post calling bullshit and another post with the classic Correlation is not causation. Or in other words, Slashdot :)
35. Re:So... by rubycodez · 2011-07-28 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  not a factor since studies compare to non-smokers, who probably have the same exposure to car and truck exhaust.
air exchange? by rbrausse · 2011-07-27 09:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

TFA/TFS says that the blood stream through the lung is driven by the normal blood circulation - so far so good.
but what about air exchange? the thing doesn't look flexible, so I think it is not possible to use the biological muscle-driven air stream. The information in the article are sparse, only "while air is fed into the gas inlet" mentions the topic of the air flow.
this is only a first step, mechanical ventilation is still needed (and with the need of external devices this implanted lung is imo not useful, not only maintenance is harder but the patient has additionaly the danger of complications without the result of an apparatus-free life)
1. Re:air exchange? by jgunchy · 2011-07-27 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I don't know, Vader lasted pretty long with an external feed...
2. Re:air exchange? by Opportunist · 2011-07-27 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. That technology ain't available to us yet.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:air exchange? by h4rr4r · 2011-07-27 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  It does not need to be flexible. It could be a rigid wall on the back of a balloon, or two of these plates could be mounted between some elastic material. That would allow the use of a muscle driven air stream.
4. Re:air exchange? by rubycodez · 2011-07-27 10:37 · Score: 2
  
  not really, the exertion of throwing one puny emperor over a railing caused total cardiac failure and death. talk about terrible cardiovascular fitness.
5. Re:air exchange? by astrodoom · 2011-07-27 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  air pumps are no-where near as difficult to deal with as oxygen tanks when lugging them around/replacing them. I agree that there is still work to be done, but this is a HUGE step. Obviously the ultimate goal would be an entirely self-sufficient internal apparatus, but I would disagree that this isn't useful.
6. Re:air exchange? by theshowmecanuck · 2011-07-27 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting to see the Marlborough Man in a Darth Vader suit riding a horse with one of those WWI horse gas masks. Something like this.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
7. Re:air exchange? by yodleboy · 2011-07-27 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  "mechanical ventilation is still needed"
  
  Sure, but it's a hell of a lot easier to create a small pump that uses ambient air (filtered no doubt) than it is to cram enough useful O2 into something that's not a pain in the ass to lug around. Even a backpack size pump has to be better than running around with O2 cylinders (and spares). Definitely a step in the right direction. cool.
8. Re:air exchange? by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-07-27 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. That technology ain't available to us anymore.
  TFTY
9. Re:air exchange? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  but what about air exchange?
  People using the artificial lung will have to survive similar to fish - by constantly walking, running or sitting with a fan in front while opening and closing their mouths.
  It's the exhaust we should be worrying about.
10. Re:air exchange? by Neil+Boekend · 2011-07-27 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on how far away and how long ago. If it was only 1 million years ago and 2 million light years away that information hasn't reached us yet.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
11. Re:air exchange? by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-27 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  They would have to drive with their head sticking out the window.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
12. Re:air exchange? by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-07-28 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  touché
We're getting there! by Paracelcus · 2011-07-27 10:02 · Score: 1

Whole body prosthesis, sign me up!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
1. Re:We're getting there! by tsotha · 2011-07-27 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  Tyler: [while creating RoboCop] We were able to save the left arm.
  Bob Morton: What? I thought we agreed on total body prosthesis, now lose the arm okay!
  Tyler: Jesus, Morton!
  [snaps his finger at RoboCop]
  Bob Morton: Can he understand what I'm saying?
  Roosevelt: Doesn't matter, we're gonna blank his memory anyway.
  Bob Morton: I think we should lose the arm, what do you think Johnson?
  Johnson: Well he signed a release form when he joined the force. He's legally dead. We can do pretty much what we want to him.
  Bob Morton: Lose the arm.
2. Re:We're getting there! by screwzloos · 2011-07-27 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking battle suits. I wonder if a special forces troop could benefit from having a couple extra lungs grafted in? With this form factor, it might actually be feasible (and removable). Better throw in an extra heart too, just to seal the deal.
3. Re:We're getting there! by rubycodez · 2011-07-27 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  naw, there's one part I'm keeping until they can get artificial nerves and feeling into it.....but after that, make it a ten inch x two inch o.d. when fully, er, deployed
4. Re:We're getting there! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  protip: girls don't really want to fuck a guy with a 10" dick
5. Re:We're getting there! by Paracelcus · 2011-07-28 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  That hasn't been my experience. ;-)..
  
  --
  I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
excellent news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:05 · Score: 0

Several years ago I lost a dear friend to lung cancer, I only wish this device was available sooner.
1. Re:excellent news by Opportunist · 2011-07-27 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm with you here. 5 years earlier and my mom could still be alive. Maybe.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:excellent news by Arrepiadd · 2011-07-27 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  They still need to fix a few issues (discussed in the last part of the article (I know, I know, I shouldn't have read it) and the thing ends like this: "The Case Western Reserve University researchers expect to have human-scale artificial lungs in use in clinical trials within a decade." It's not being implanted in humans as we speak.
Underwater breathing by Dthief · 2011-07-27 10:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

interesting post on the actual website that I thought I would re-post - can you create a similar technology that mimics a gill and would allow either underwater, or both under and above water breathing. though the air/liquid exchange is still an important issue for both. might require carrying a battery powered pump

--
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
1. Re:Underwater breathing by JoeDuncan · 2011-07-27 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Two issues:
  1) Moving water takes more muscle power than moving air
  2) Mammals (such as us) are warm blooded so our oxygen requirements are high. Fish and other gilled creatures are cold blooded and thus can actually survive on the amount of oxygen dissolved in water. We cannot.
2. Re:Underwater breathing by Opportunist · 2011-07-27 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really think so. I'm no biologist, but considering the much higher viscosity of water compared to air means that you would need a LOT more pressure to move the same volume of material. IIRC fishes (and other animals using gills) also don't breathe "in and out" but rather have some sort of "pass through" breathing apparatus, possibly owing it to the high viscosity and the rather poor efficiency. There's rather little oxygen in water compared to air.
  So... no. But maybe we can use other liquids. Liquid breathing has been tried before, and the applications would certainly be very interesting.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Underwater breathing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yeah, some kind of Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus would be really cool!
4. Re:Underwater breathing by FrootLoops · 2011-07-27 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  @2: But Star Wars Episode I used a device that looked like it was extracting oxygen from the water to let the Jedi breathe. Are you saying that wasn't factually accurate?
5. Re:Underwater breathing by pluther · 2011-07-27 10:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It was totally factually accurate, but it didn't use dissolved oxygen like fish do, it actually split the water molecules on the fly to create enough oxygen to breathe.
  Interesting fact: More Jedi are injured due to oxygen toxicity from breathing pure oxygen at depth than by any other training accidents, including lightsaber fumbling.
  
  --
  If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
6. Re:Underwater breathing by compro01 · 2011-07-27 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  That was just really tiny scuba gear with air compressed to absurd pressures.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
7. Re:Underwater breathing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  No, but it needed a nuclear power source like strontium-90. So it's ending...
8. Re:Underwater breathing by demonlapin · 2011-07-27 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Extracting the oxygen from water isn't the problem. Concentrating it is.
9. Re:Underwater breathing by physicsphairy · 2011-07-27 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Quick calculations:
  The body consumes 5-6 mL of oxygen at what I assume is close to STP (1), which comes out 7.14 mg of oxygen. The numbers here (2) indicate the dissolved oxygen content can be fairly high, e.g., "the optimal DO for adult brown trout is 9-12 mg/l." In as much as I assume this would be applied toward diving, dissolved oxygen tends to increase with depth. It does not seem that unreasonable to be able to process a liter of water or less per minute, if not by this mechanism, then by some other. Disposing of CO2 is actually a bigger problem, I think, as it is for the liquid breathing you link to, but I think considerable advantages open up in the context of an artificial apparatus vs. trying to interoperate with a human lung.
  (1) "How much oxygen does the human lung consume?" Loer SA, Scheeren TW, Tarnow J., Department of Anesthesiology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9066318
  (2) "General Information on Dissolved Oxygen," Sheila Murphy, City of Boulder/USGS Water Quality Monitoring, http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/NEW/info/DO.html
  
  --
  When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
10. Re:Underwater breathing by JoeDuncan · 2011-07-27 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  Obviously the answer is that Jedi are cold blooded...
11. Re:Underwater breathing by Dthief · 2011-07-27 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  so how are fish alive? ...are they all....(cue music).....zombies!!!!
  if you can mimic a human lung with a grid of micro-channels, why cant you mimic the design of a fishes gills and breathing apparatuses?
  
  --
  www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
12. Re:Underwater breathing by demonlapin · 2011-07-27 12:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Your lungs are able to extract oxygen from air because there is more oxygen in the air than in the blood. Your blood carries this oxygen to the tissue, where the blood has more oxygen than the tissue - the oxygen then diffuses into the tissue.
  
  In theory, you could do this with an adequate flow of surface seawater (which has a partial pressure of O2 very similar to that of air), but the fact that the oxygen content of seawater is minuscule compared to the oxygen content of air means that you're going to need an enormous water flow. You should be able to extract about a fourth of the oxygen in the seawater before the partial pressure will go low enough that no further net diffusion of oxygen will occur (human not under load typically extract about a fifth, but let's be conservative here). Given that the oxygen content of fresh water is about 0.0089 g/L H2O, that's about 12.5 mL O2 per liter of water. Humans need about 250 mL O2 per minute at rest, so you'll need to extract all the oxygen from 20 L/min of fresh water saturated with air in order to supply each person. However, they're going to need at least four times that flow due to the difficulty of extraction, so now we're up to 80 L/min of water flow at rest, even if you don't consider the efficiency of the exchange process.
  
  The way around this is to do something that captures more of the oxygen content of the water - usually by binding it to some intermediate (as we, and fish, do - hemoglobin is one such). The problem is that the human heart can't handle that level of cardiac output for it to happen within an all-blood system, and that any molecule which can extract a large measure of the oxygen available in water isn't going to give it up easily - it will have an oxygen dissociation curve that lets go a significant amount of the oxygen only at very low tissue pO2. Unfortunately for us, "tissue" in this case is the breathing-air side of the artificial lung. So you can choose chemical sequestration, but that presents the same problem - unless you can figure out some way for humans to live with much lower tissue pO2, you're going to have to expend a lot of energy dissociating that oxygen from whatever carrier you use to get it up to a usable concentration for humans. Fish have much lower metabolic oxygen requirements and so can live with lower tissue pO2.
13. Re:Underwater breathing by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2011-07-27 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hope they can invent this underwater breathing thing in a hurry. That talking head in some TV was yapping away saying the USA is going to be underwater on Aug 2. Something about some ceiling.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
14. Re:Underwater breathing by Plunky · 2011-07-27 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Quick calculations:
  I think the problem with your calculations is that you assume we would be able to extract *all* the available oxygen from that litre, you should be looking at the DO of the discarded water to see how efficient the process is going to be..
15. Re:Underwater breathing by FrootLoops · 2011-07-27 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting fact: More Jedi are injured due to oxygen toxicity from breathing pure oxygen at depth than by any other training accidents, including lightsaber fumbling.
  Wow, I had no idea! Now I see why they were so speedy about getting Luke his prosthetic hand--the Jedi had a lot of experience replacing body parts.
16. Re:Underwater breathing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you, I wish I had mod points for you.
17. Re:Underwater breathing by Dthief · 2011-07-28 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  see, that is a much more convincing explanation as to why it wouldnt work.
  
  --
  www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
While cool... by mark-t · 2011-07-27 10:07 · Score: 1

... organic organs heal if they should happen to get damaged (as long as the damage is below a certain severity threshold). So until they can figure out how to make them self-repairing as well, it seems to me that there's still a long way to go.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:While cool... by Opportunist · 2011-07-27 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, since technology is repeatable once built, I think it's easier and more efficient to just replace it when it breaks down. At least it's a very good replacement 'til we get the technology for self-healing artificial lungs, but I'd rather have them concentrate on other body parts before trying that, it's good enough for now 'til we have no other worries.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:While cool... by mark-t · 2011-07-27 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Having to wait several months (or years) for a surgery appointment to have your chest opened up by a surgeon to replace a synthetic organ that has gotten damaged is more efficient than something that can repair itself in just a fraction of that time?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:While cool... by DigiShaman · 2011-07-27 10:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  More to the point, how does one clean one of these things? Our lungs are constantly filtering out crap via mucous membrane and cilia to flush it out from the organ. Unless these things are designed to be flushed out with water through some sort of inlet/outlet hose design, I'm afraid they will have to be made external for ease of maintenance.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
4. Re:While cool... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  I think you may be exaggerating a little bit there. A lung is not the sort of thing you get put on a long waiting list to get replaced. They're the types of surgeries that create those long waiting lists for less important surgeries as they get bumped up the list.
5. Re:While cool... by sjames · 2011-07-27 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Like most artificial replacements being worked on now, they're primarily seen as either a bridge to transplant or buying enough time fro the natural organ to heal back to a functional state.
  I would imagine the patient would need a significant external filter when not in a clean room environment. Not great, but it beats death.
6. Re:While cool... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  When your options are "non-self-repairing-mechanical-lung" and "no lung", since self repairing organs won't exist for decades, yeah, it's a hell of a lot better. I'd rather see an artificial liver / pancreas / spleen / any other organ that is currently a death sentence if it fails.
7. Re:While cool... by mark-t · 2011-07-27 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Other options would include, I imagine, an actual human lung... either donated, or else produced in cloning lab (although we aren't yet fully at the point where the latter tech exists yet either... but I suspect we are closer to it than self-repairing inorganic body part replacements). Either way, the organ can repair itself when moderately damaged.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
8. Re:While cool... by Co0Ps · 2011-07-27 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Uhh.. I thought it was impossible to transplant lungs?
9. Re:While cool... by bws111 · 2011-07-27 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you think that? A simple Google search shows lots of information about lung transplants.
10. Re:While cool... by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-07-27 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  A few diabetics in my family would disagree about a failed pancreas being a death sentence. Serious PITA, yes. Death sentence, almost certainly not if you deal with it properly.
11. Re:While cool... by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-07-27 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_transplantation
12. Re:While cool... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  Uhh... I thought we've been doing it for decades? Why not check first, you lazy ass?
13. Re:While cool... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 19:38 · Score: 0
  
  Any damage in the lung is repaired with scar tissue. It doesn't have the same properties as regular lung tissues (alveoli, etc). Over time repeated damage causes widespread scar tissue (fibrosis) to form and a loss of lung function. This can lead to lung transplantation. See COPD, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.
14. Re:While cool... by DamienNightbane · 2011-07-27 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  Anything that will damage a plastic lung will destroy a flesh and blood lung.
  You vastly underestimate the body's ability to deal with trauma.
Gentlemen by squidflakes · 2011-07-27 10:11 · Score: 2

We have the technology, we can rebuild him.... sort of.
SCORE! by RazorSharp · 2011-07-27 10:17 · Score: 1

I've been waiting for this for years, I always knew we'd get there eventually. I'm going to go buy a carton of Marlboros to celebrate.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Further links by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-27 10:37 · Score: 0

Case Western news release
Paper: " Bio-inspired, efficient, artificial lung employing air as the ventilating gas"
Smoking? by GWBasic · 2011-07-27 13:30 · Score: 1

Does this mean that I can start smoking?

--
No, I will not work for your startup
Repo Men by GameboyRMH · 2011-07-28 01:04 · Score: 1

"You owe it to yourself. You owe it to your family."

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
More information by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-28 01:36 · Score: 0

Here's a link to the Lab On A Chip paper for this work:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2011/lc/c1lc20020h
The author was also on public radio yesterday. They talk to him at the 38:50 mark.
http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/node/14749
awesome to hear by hesaigo999ca · 2011-07-28 01:42 · Score: 1

Great news for all those with lung cancer, they can get replacement parts now, and keep smoking as much as they want....!