Space Suit Electrocardiographic Electrode Selection: Are commercial electrodes better than the old Apollo technology?
The NASA Manned Space Program uses an electrocardiograph (ECG) system to monitor astronauts during extravehicular activity (EVA). This ECG system, called the Operational Bioinstrumentation System (OBS), was developed during the Apollo era. Throughout the Shuttle program these electrodes experienced failures during several EVAs performed from the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) airlocks. An attempt during Shuttle Flight STS-109 to replace the old electrodes with new commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) disposable electrodes proved unsuccessful. One assumption for failure of the STS-109 COTS electrodes was the expansion of trapped gases under the foam electrode pad, causing the electrode to be displaced from the skin. Given that our current electrodes provide insufficient reliability, a number of COTS ECG electrodes were tested at the NASA Altitude Manned Chamber Test Facility. Methods: OBS disposable electrodes were tested on human test subjects in an altitude chamber simulating an Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) operating pressure of 4.3 psia with the following goals: (1) to confirm the root cause of the flight certified, disposable electrode failure during flight STS-109. (2) to identify an adequate COTS replacement electrode and determine if further modifications to the electrodes are required. (3) to evaluate the adhesion of each disposable electrode without preparation of the skin with isopropyl alcohol. Results: There were several electrodes that failed the pressure testing at 4.3psia, including the electrodes used during flight STS-109. Two electrodes functioned well throughout all testing and were selected for further testing in an EMU at altitude. A vent hole placed in all electrodes was also tested as a possible solution to prevent gas expansion from causing electrode failures. Conclusions: Two failure modes were identified: (1) foam-based porous electrodes entrapped air bubbles under the pad (2) poor adhesion caused some electrodes to fail