METHODS: This was an observational manikin-based study. A total of 96 participants as well as two types of mechanical compression devices: Lucas-2 and AutoPulse, performed one minute of continuous chest compression on BT-CPEA programmed manikin while the ambulance travelled at different speeds, i.e., idle state, 30km/hr and 60km/hr. Seven outcome variables of chest compression were measured. Performance data of different groups of compressor were compared and analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).
RESULTS: In manual chest compression, significant variation were noted among different speeds in term of average compression rate (p<0.001), average compression depth (p=0.007), fraction of adequate/insufficient compression depth and fraction of normal hands positioning with p=0.018, 0.022 and 0.034 respectively. Overall, AutoPulse and Lucas-2 were not affected by ambulance speed. Lucas- 2 showed more consistent average compression rate, higher fraction of adequate compression depth and reduced fraction of insufficient compression depth as compared to manual compression with p<0.001, 0.001 and 0.043 respectively.
CONCLUSION: In this study we found that ambulance speed significantly affected certain aspects of manual chest compression most notably compression depth, rate and hand positioning. AutoPulse and Lucas-2 can improve these aspects by providing more consistent compression rate, depth and fraction of adequate compression depth during transport.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Water samples were subjected to in situ and laboratory water quality analyses and focused on pH, turbidity, chlorine, Escherichia coli, total coliform, total hardness, iron (Fe), aluminium (Al), zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg) and sodium (Na). All procedures followed the American Public Health Association (APHA) testing procedures.
RESULTS: Based on the results obtained, the values of each parameter were found to be within the safe limits set by the NDWQS except for total coliform and iron (Fe). PCA has indicated that turbidity, total coliform, E. coli, Na, and Al were the major factors that contributed to the drinking water contamination in river water intake.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the water from all sampling point stations after undergoing water treatment process was found to be safe as drinking water. It is important to evaluate the drinking water quality of the treatment plant to ensure that consumers have access to safe and clean drinking water as well as community awareness on drinking water quality is essential to promote public health and environmental protection.