Differences in rust in hearing aid batteries across four manufacturers, four battery sizes, and five durations of exposure

Michael Valente, Jamie H. Cadieux, Laura Flowers, John G. Newman, Juergen Scherer, Greg Gephart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Three hundred twenty zinc-air batteries representing four manufacturers (Energizer, Power One, Duracell, and Ray-O-Vac) and four cell sizes (10, 312, 13, and 675) were exposed in a salt spray fog apparatus for 2.5, 5.5, 24, 48, and 72 hours. At the conclusion of each exposure, the batteries were rated blindly for the presence of rust by four experienced audiologists using a four point rating scale. Results revealed significant differences in the rating of rust across the four manufacturers and duration of exposure. No statistically significant difference was found across cell size. Also, the correlation between raters was exceptionally high indicating that each audiologist rated the presence of rust for each battery in a very similar manner. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) techniques were applied and provided answers for the observed differences in rust between the four manufacturers.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)846-862
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Audiology
Volume18
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2007

Keywords

  • Auger electron spectroscopy
  • Corrosion
  • Duracell
  • Energizer
  • Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy
  • Hearing aid battery
  • Power One
  • Ray-O-Vac
  • Rust
  • Salt spray fog apparatus
  • Scanning electron microscopy
  • Zinc air

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Differences in rust in hearing aid batteries across four manufacturers, four battery sizes, and five durations of exposure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this