White M K, Vercruyssen M, Hodous T K
Ergonomics. 1989 Sep;32(9):1111-23. doi: 10.1080/00140138908966878.
This study examined work tolerance and subjective responses while performing two levels of work and wearing four types of protective ensembles. Nine males (mean age = 24.8 years, weight = 75.3 kg, VO2 max = 44.6 ml/kg min) each performed a series of eight experimental tests in random order, each lasting up to 180 min in duration. Work was performed on a motor-driven treadmill at a set walking speed and elevation which produced work intensities of either 30% or 60% of each subject's maximum aerobic capacity. Work/rest intervals were established based on anticipated SCBA refill requirements. Environmental temperature averaged 22.6 degrees C and average relative humidity was 55%. The four protective ensembles were: a control ensemble consisting of light work clothing (CONTROL); light work clothing with an open circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); firefighter's turnout gear with SCBA (FF); and chemical protective clothing with SCBA (CHEM). Test duration (tolerance time) was determined by physiological responses reaching a predetermined indicator of high stress or by a 180-min limit. Physiological and subjective measurements obtained every 2.5 min included: heart rate, skin temperature, rectal temperature, and subjective ratings of perceived exertion, thermal sensation, and perspiration. The mean tolerance times were 155, 130, 26, and 73 min, respectively, for the CONTROL, SCBA, FF, and CHEM conditions during low intensity work; and 91, 23, 4, and 13 min, respectively, during high intensity work. Differences between ensemble and work intensity were significant. FF and CHEM heart rate responses did not reach a steady state, and rose rapidly compared to CONTROL and SCBA values. SCBA heart rates remained approximately 15 beats higher than the CONTROL ensemble during the tests. At the low work intensity, mean skin temperatures at the end of the test were 32.7, 33.1, 36.7, and 36.3 degrees C, while mean core temperatures were 37.6, 37.9, 37.9, and 38.5 degrees C, respectively. The subjective data indicated that, in general, subjects were able to perceive relative degrees of physiologic strain under laboratory conditions. Wearing protective clothing and respirators results in significant and potentially dangerous thermoregulatory and cardiovascular stress to the wearer even at low work intensities in a neutral environment. Physiologically and subjectively, firefighter's turnout gear (the heaviest ensemble) produced the most stress, followed by the CHEM, SCBA, and CONTROL protective ensembles.
本研究在进行两种强度的工作并穿着四种类型的防护服时,检测了工作耐力和主观反应。九名男性(平均年龄 = 24.8岁,体重 = 75.3千克,最大摄氧量 = 44.6毫升/千克·分钟)每人按随机顺序进行了一系列八项实验测试,每项测试持续时间最长为180分钟。在电动跑步机上以设定的步行速度和坡度进行工作,产生的工作强度为每个受试者最大有氧能力的30%或60%。根据预期的自给式呼吸器(SCBA)重新充气需求确定工作/休息间隔。环境温度平均为22.6摄氏度,平均相对湿度为55%。这四种防护服分别是:由轻便工作服组成的对照套装(CONTROL);配有开路自给式呼吸器的轻便工作服(SCBA);配有SCBA的消防员灭火防护服(FF);以及配有SCBA的化学防护服(CHEM)。测试持续时间(耐受时间)由生理反应达到高压力的预定指标或180分钟的时间限制来确定。每2.5分钟进行的生理和主观测量包括:心率、皮肤温度、直肠温度,以及对主观用力程度、热感觉和出汗情况的主观评分。在低强度工作期间,CONTROL、SCBA、FF和CHEM条件下的平均耐受时间分别为155、130、26和73分钟;在高强度工作期间,平均耐受时间分别为91、23、4和13分钟。防护服和工作强度之间的差异具有显著性。FF和CHEM的心率反应未达到稳定状态,与CONTROL和SCBA的值相比上升迅速。在测试期间,SCBA的心率比CONTROL套装大约高15次/分钟。在低工作强度下,测试结束时的平均皮肤温度分别为32.7、33.1、36.7和36.3摄氏度,而平均核心温度分别为37.6、37.9、37.9和38.5摄氏度。主观数据表明,一般来说,受试者能够在实验室条件下感知相对程度的生理应变。即使在中性环境中的低工作强度下,穿着防护服和呼吸器也会给穿着者带来显著且潜在危险的体温调节和心血管压力。从生理和主观方面来看,消防员灭火防护服(最重的套装)产生的压力最大,其次是CHEM、SCBA和CONTROL防护服。