White M K, Hodous T K, Vercruyssen M
Division of Safety Research, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV 26505.
Ergonomics. 1991 Apr;34(4):445-57. doi: 10.1080/00140139108967328.
This study examined the physiological and subjective responses of nine healthy men who performed work while wearing two types of protective ensembles in each of three thermal environments. The subjects, all experienced with the use of protective ensembles, each performed low intensity treadmill exercise (23% of VO2 max while not wearing a Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus [SCBA] or protective clothing) under six experimental conditions: two ensembles (SCBA--light work clothing and SCBA; and CHEM--a two-piece chemical protective ensemble with SCBA) during exposure to 'cool' (10.6 degrees C/water vapour pressure [Pw] 0.76 kPa), 'neutral' (22.6 degrees C/Pw 1.52 kPa), and 'hot' (34 degrees C/Pw 2.90 kPa) environments. Each test was intended to continue for 120 min; however the duration and number of work/rest periods within the testing session varied according to the specific responses of each individual. At the completion of each test seven subjective responses were recorded. Physiological data, collected every minute during each test, included heart rate, and skin and rectal temperature. The total worktime was significantly shorter in the hot environment while wearing the CHEM ensemble (53.4 min) compared to all the other conditions (103-105 min). The mean maximum physiological values also indicated significant differences due to thermal environment and/or ensemble. Work performance did not appear to be limited in a cold environment with either ensemble tested. The physiological responses to working in the CHEM/neutral condition were very similar to those occurring in a hot environment wearing the SCBA ensemble. The subjective responses also indicated significant differences due to thermal environment and ensemble, with subjects perceiving the CHEM ensemble as less favourable than the SCBA ensemble. The results suggested that, even at a low work intensity, individuals wearing chemical protective clothing in the heat will require progressively shorter work periods, and more frequent and longer rest periods.
本研究调查了九名健康男性在三种热环境中穿着两种防护套装进行工作时的生理和主观反应。这些受试者均有使用防护套装的经验，他们在六种实验条件下进行了低强度跑步机运动（不佩戴自给式呼吸器[SCBA]或防护服时为最大摄氧量的23%）：在“凉爽”（10.6摄氏度/水汽压[Pw]0.76千帕）、“中性”（22.6摄氏度/Pw 1.52千帕）和“炎热”（34摄氏度/Pw 2.90千帕）环境中穿着两种套装（SCBA——轻便工作服和SCBA；以及CHEM——配有SCBA的两件式化学防护服）。每次测试计划持续120分钟；然而，测试过程中的持续时间和工作/休息周期数量根据每个个体的具体反应而有所不同。每次测试结束时记录了七种主观反应。在每次测试期间每分钟收集的生理数据包括心率、皮肤温度和直肠温度。与所有其他条件（103 - 105分钟）相比，在炎热环境中穿着CHEM套装时的总工作时间显著缩短（53.4分钟）。平均最大生理值也因热环境和/或套装而存在显著差异。在寒冷环境中测试的任何一种套装下，工作表现似乎都没有受到限制。在CHEM/中性条件下工作的生理反应与在炎热环境中穿着SCBA套装时的反应非常相似。主观反应也因热环境和套装而存在显著差异，受试者认为CHEM套装不如SCBA套装舒适。结果表明，即使在低工作强度下，在炎热环境中穿着化学防护服的个体也需要逐渐缩短工作时间，并增加休息频率和延长休息时间。
