Havenith George, Richards Mark G, Wang Xiaoxin, Bröde Peter, Candas Victor, den Hartog Emiel, Holmér Ingvar, Kuklane Kalev, Meinander Harriet, Nocker Wolfgang
Environmental Ergonomics Research Group, Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2008 Jan;104(1):142-9. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00612.2007. Epub 2007 Oct 18.
Investigating claims that a clothed person's mass loss does not always represent their evaporative heat loss (EVAP), a thermal manikin study was performed measuring heat balance components in more detail than human studies would permit. Using clothing with different levels of vapor permeability and measuring heat losses from skin controlled at 34 degrees C in ambient temperatures of 10, 20, and 34 degrees C with constant vapor pressure (1 kPa), additional heat losses from wet skin compared with dry skin were analyzed. EVAP based on mass loss (E(mass)) measurement and direct measurement of the extra heat loss by the manikin due to wet skin (E(app)) were compared. A clear discrepancy was observed. E(mass) overestimated E(app) in warm environments, and both under and overestimations were observed in cool environments, depending on the clothing vapor permeability. At 34 degrees C, apparent latent heat (lambda(app)) of pure evaporative cooling was lower than the physical value (lambda; 2,430 J/g) and reduced with increasing vapor resistance up to 45%. At lower temperatures, lambda(app) increases due to additional skin heat loss via evaporation of moisture that condenses inside the clothing, analogous to a heat pipe. For impermeable clothing, lambda(app) even exceeds lambda by four times that value at 10 degrees C. These findings demonstrate that the traditional way of calculating evaporative heat loss of a clothed person can lead to substantial errors, especially for clothing with low permeability, which can be positive or negative, depending on the climate and clothing type. The model presented explains human subject data on EVAP that previously seemed contradictive.
为了调查关于着装者的质量损失并不总是代表其蒸发散热(EVAP)的说法,进行了一项热人体模型研究,该研究比人体研究更详细地测量了热平衡组件。使用具有不同透汽性的服装,并在10、20和34摄氏度的环境温度下,在恒定蒸气压(1 kPa)下测量34摄氏度的皮肤控制温度下的热损失,分析了湿皮肤与干皮肤相比的额外热损失。比较了基于质量损失的蒸发散热(E(质量))测量值和人体模型因湿皮肤导致的额外热损失的直接测量值(E(app))。观察到明显的差异。在温暖环境中,E(质量)高估了E(app),而在凉爽环境中,根据服装的透汽性,既观察到了低估也观察到了高估。在34摄氏度时,纯蒸发冷却的表观潜热(lambda(app))低于物理值(lambda;2430 J/g),并随着抗蒸性增加而降低,最高可达45%。在较低温度下,lambda(app)会增加,这是由于衣物内部凝结的水分蒸发导致额外的皮肤热损失,类似于热管。对于不透水的服装,在10摄氏度时,lambda(app)甚至超过lambda四倍。这些发现表明,计算着装者蒸发散热的传统方法可能会导致重大误差,特别是对于低透性的服装,误差可能为正或负,这取决于气候和服装类型。所提出的模型解释了以前看似矛盾的关于蒸发散热的人体数据。