Hemmatjo Rasoul, Motamedzade Majid, Aliabadi Mohsen, Kalatpour Omid, Farhadian Maryam
Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Department of Ergonomics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Health Promot Perspect. 2017 Mar 5;7(2):66-73. doi: 10.15171/hpp.2017.13. eCollection 2017.
Firefighters often perform multiple tasks during firefighting operations under unknown and unpredictable conditions in hot and hostile environments. In this interventional study each firefighters engaged in 4 conditions: namely (1) no cooling device; control (NC), (2) cooling gel (CG), (3) cool vest (CV), and (4) CG+CV. Cooling effects of the employed interventions were evaluated based on heart rate (HR), temporal temperature (TT), reaction time (RT), and the correct response (CR). HR and TT values for use of CG+CV (147.47 bpm [SD 4.8]; 37.88°C [SD 0.20]) and CV bpm (147.53 [SD 4.67]; 37.90°C [SD 0.22]) were significantly lower than the CG (153.67 bpm [SD 4.82]; 38.10°C [SD 0.22]) and NC (154.4 bpm [SD 4.91]; 38.11°C [SD 0.23]) at the end of the activity. RT and CR for use of CG + CV (389.87 ms [SD 6.12]; 143.53 [SD 1.24]) and CV (389.53 ms [SD 6.24]; 143.47 [SD 1.18]) were significantly higher than the CG (385.73 [SD 7.25] ms; 143.07 [SD 0.88]) and NC (385.67 ms [SD 7.19]; 143.00 [SD 0.84]) at the end of the activity. It is concluded that CV was more effective than the CG in attenuating physiological responses and cognitive functions during firefighting operations. Furthermore, combining CV with CG provides no additional benefit.
消防员在炎热且恶劣的环境中,于未知且不可预测的条件下执行灭火行动时,常常要执行多项任务。在这项干预性研究中,每位消防员参与了4种条件测试:即(1)无冷却装置;对照(NC),(2)冷却凝胶(CG),(3)冷却背心(CV),以及(4)CG+CV。基于心率(HR)、颞部温度(TT)、反应时间(RT)和正确反应(CR)对所采用干预措施的冷却效果进行了评估。活动结束时,使用CG+CV时的HR和TT值(147.47次/分钟[标准差4.8];37.88°C[标准差0.20])以及CV时的HR和TT值(147.53[标准差4.67];37.90°C[标准差0.22])显著低于使用CG时的(153.67次/分钟[标准差4.82];38.10°C[标准差0.22])和NC时的(154.4次/分钟[标准差4.91];38.11°C[标准差0.23])。活动结束时,使用CG + CV时的RT和CR(389.87毫秒[标准差6.12];143.53[标准差1.24])以及CV时的RT和CR(389.53毫秒[标准差6.24];143.47[标准差1.18])显著高于使用CG时的(385.73[标准差7.25]毫秒;143.07[标准差0.88])和NC时的(385.67毫秒[标准差7.19];143.00[标准差0.84])。得出的结论是,在灭火行动中,CV在减轻生理反应和认知功能方面比CG更有效。此外,将CV与CG结合使用并无额外益处。