Meade Robert D, D'Souza Andrew W, Krishen Lovely, Kenny Glen P
a Human and Environmental Physiology Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics , University of Ottawa , Ottawa , ON , Canada.
b Electrical Power Research Institute , Knoxville , Tennessee.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017 Dec;14(12):986-994. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2017.1365151.
In this article, we evaluated physiological strain in electrical utilities workers during consecutive work shifts in hot outdoor conditions.
Four highly experienced electrical utilities workers were monitored during regularly scheduled work performed in hot conditions (∼34°C) on two consecutive days. Worker hydration (urine specific gravity) was assessed prior to and following work. The level of physical exertion was determined by video analysis. Body core temperature (T) and heart rate (HR; presented as a percentage of maximum, %HR) were monitored continuously. Responses were reported for each worker individually and as a group mean ± standard deviation.
According to current guidelines, all workers were dehydrated prior to work on both days (urine specific gravity: day 1, 1.025 ± 0.005; day 2, 1.029 ± 0.004) and remained dehydrated following work (urine specific gravity: day 1, 1.027 ± 0.015; day 2, 1.032 ± 0.004) except for one worker on day 1 (urine specific gravity of 1.005). On day 1, the proportion of the work shift spent at rest (as defined by the American Conference for Governmental and Industrial Hygienists, ACGIH) was 51 ± 15% (range: 30-64%). Time spent resting increased in all workers on the second day reaching 66 ± 5% (range: 60-71%) of the work shift. Work shift average T was 37.6 ± 0.1°C (range: 37.5-37.7°C) and 37.7 ± 0.2°C (range: 37.5-37.9°C) on days 1 and 2, respectively. Peak T surpassed the ACGIH recommended threshold limit of 38.0°C for work in the heat in three workers on day 1 (38.1 ± 0.2°C, range: 37.8-38.2°C) while all workers exceeded this threshold on day 2 (38.4 ± 0.2°C, range: 38.2-38.7°C). By contrast, work shift average (day 1, 67 ± 7%HR, range: 59-74%HR; day 2, 65 ± 4%HR, range: 60-70%HR) and peak (day 1, 90 ± 6%HR, range: 83-98%HR; day 2, 87 ± 10%HR, range: 73-97%HR) HR were similar between days.
This case report demonstrates elevations in thermal strain over consecutive work shifts despite decreases in work effort in electrical utilities workers during regular work in the heat.
在本文中,我们评估了电力公司工人在炎热户外环境下连续轮班工作期间的生理应变情况。
在连续两天炎热条件(约34°C)下进行的常规工作期间,对四名经验丰富的电力公司工人进行了监测。在工作前后评估工人的水合状态(尿比重)。通过视频分析确定体力消耗水平。连续监测体核温度(T)和心率(HR;以最大值的百分比表示,%HR)。分别报告了每名工人的反应以及作为组均值±标准差的结果。
根据当前指南,两天工作前所有工人均处于脱水状态(尿比重:第1天,1.025±0.005;第2天,1.029±0.004),工作后除第1天的一名工人(尿比重为1.005)外,其余工人仍处于脱水状态(尿比重:第1天,1.027±0.015;第2天,1.032±0.004)。第1天,休息时间占轮班工作时间的比例(按照美国政府工业卫生学家会议,ACGIH的定义)为51±15%(范围:30 - 64%)。第二天所有工人的休息时间均增加,达到轮班工作时间的66±5%(范围:60 - 71%)。第1天和第2天轮班工作期间的平均体温分别为37.6±0.1°C(范围:37.5 - 37.7°C)和37.7±0.2°C(范围:37.5 - 37.9°C)。第1天有三名工人的体温峰值超过了ACGIH推荐的高温工作时38.0°C的阈值极限(38.1±0.2°C,范围:37.8 - 38.2°C),而第2天所有工人均超过了该阈值(38.4±0.2°C,范围:38.2 - 38.7°C)。相比之下,两天轮班工作期间的平均心率(第1天,67±7%HR,范围:59 - 74%HR;第2天: 65±4%HR,范围:60 - 70%HR)和心率峰值(第1天,90±6%HR,范围:83 - 98%HR;第2天,87±10%HR,范围:73 - 97%HR)相似。
本病例报告表明,尽管电力公司工人在炎热环境下正常工作时工作量有所减少,但连续轮班工作期间的热应变仍有所升高。