P3.L228: Discovering the Effects of Common Infant Product Materials on Breathing Patterns in Healthy Adults

Background: In the US alone, approximately 3,500 infants die of a sleep-related incident a year, including suffocation, asphyxia, or entrapment. Previous research has established the safe sleep guidelines: alone, on their back, and in a crib. Even with these guidelines, infants nap or sleep in commercial products which may be hazardous. Pillows, blankets, or soft goods on products are commonly found near infants while in commercial gear, yet there’s a lack of understanding of how material composition of these various surroundings impact airflow. No previous research has examined how different materials in common infant products may affect breathing patterns. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to characterize how common infant soft good materials influence respiration.

Methods: Ten healthy young adults (age: 22.5 ± 3.0 years; 4M, 6F; height: 66.9 ± 4.6 inches; weight: 137.9 ± 23.3 pounds) participated in this study. Each participant was fitted with a Capnostream 35 respiratory monitor nose/mouthpiece collecting end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) and a finger clamp collecting oxygen saturation (SPO2) for each trial. Participants then laid prone on a table (Figure 1) and were asked to breathe normally under seven conditions, ten minutes per condition. Three trials measured baseline respiration at the start, middle, and end of the session. The other four trials were randomized for each participant and included material in the pillow hole such that the participant was breathing through the material. The four materials selected for this study were chosen based on the common material composition of infant products like bouncers, swings, rockers, and car seats: cotton, polyester, cotton/polyester blend, and spandex (Figure 2). The mean values for EtCO2 and SPO2 were calculated for each participant across all four materials, and were normalized to the mean of the three baseline trials. The mean and standard deviation of the change was then calculated for all participants under each material condition, and t-tests compared values of each condition to the baseline (p < 0.05).

Results: Participants baseline EtCO2 and SPO2 levels were 5.3% and 95% respectively, and there were no significant differences between the three baseline trials. For each material, participants had an increase in EtCO2 output (range: 0.4 to 12.9) and a decrease in SPO2 levels (range: 0.53 to -3.2) from their baselines (Figure 2).

Conclusion: Materials commonly used in infant products can negatively influence breathing for adults. Considering their use in infant products, manufacturers should consider how the design of products and use of these materials may introduce suffocation-related hazards to the vulnerable infant population. Efforts should be made to limit or prevent infant’s faces from contacting materials that inhibit normal breathing to reduce the risk of respiratory-related injury or death.