Bach Aaron J E, Maley Matthew J, Minett Geoffrey M, Zietek Stephanie A, Stewart Kelly L, Stewart Ian B
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Front Physiol. 2019 Apr 12;10:424. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00424. eCollection 2019.
The use of personal cooling systems to mitigate heat strain on first-responders achieves two potential performance benefits relative to the absence of such cooling: (1) the completion of a workload with less effort; and/or (2) the completion of a greater workload for the same effort. Currently, claims made by manufacturers regarding the capability of their products for use in conjunction with chemical/biological protective clothing remain largely unsubstantiated. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the means by which heat strain can be alleviated during uncompensable heat stress in chemical/biological clothing, using the ASTM F2300-10 methodology.
Eight healthy males completed five trials of continuous walking (4.5 km h; 35°C; 49% RH) for up to 120 min while wearing one of four cooling systems and/or a National Fire and Protection Association 1994 Class-3 chemical/biological ensemble. The four cooling methods (ice vest [IV], phase-change vest [PCM], water-perfused suit [WS], and combination ice slurry/ice vest [SLIV]) and no cooling (CON).
We observed significant improvements in trial times for IV (18 ± 10 min), PCM (20 ± 10 min) and SLIV (22 ± 10 min), but no differences for WS (4 ± 7 min). Heart rate, rectal, mean skin, and body temperatures were significantly lower in all cooling conditions relative to control at various matched time points in the first 60 min of exercise. Thermal sensation, comfort and perceived exertion all had significant main effects for condition, and time, there were no differences in their respective interactions.
The IV, PCM, and SLIV produced lower heart rate, mean skin, rectal and mean body temperatures in addition to improved work times compared to control. The WS did not improve work times possibly as a result of the cooling capacity of the suit abating, and magnifying thermal insulation. Considering the added time and resources required to implement combination cooling in the form of ice slurry and ice vest (SLIV), there was no significant additive effect for perception, cardiovascular strain, rectal temperature and total trial time relative to the phase change vest or ice vest alone. This may be a product of a "ceiling" effect for work limit set to 120 min as part of ASTM F2300-10.
与不使用此类冷却设备相比,使用个人冷却系统减轻急救人员的热应激可带来两个潜在的性能优势:(1)以更少的努力完成工作负荷;和/或(2)在同等努力下完成更大的工作负荷。目前,制造商关于其产品与化学/生物防护服配合使用能力的说法在很大程度上尚未得到证实。本研究的目的是使用ASTM F2300 - 10方法,评估在穿着化学/生物防护服时无法补偿的热应激期间减轻热应激的方法。
八名健康男性在穿着四种冷却系统之一和/或美国国家消防协会1994年3级化学/生物防护服套装的情况下,以4.5 km/h的速度在35°C、相对湿度49%的环境中连续行走进行了五次试验,每次试验持续长达120分钟。这四种冷却方法分别是冰背心(IV)、相变背心(PCM)、水灌注服(WS)以及冰浆/冰背心组合(SLIV),还有不使用冷却设备的对照组(CON)。
我们观察到,使用冰背心(IV)、相变背心(PCM)和冰浆/冰背心组合(SLIV)的试验时间有显著改善(分别为18±10分钟、20±10分钟和22±10分钟),但水灌注服(WS)组没有差异(4±7分钟)。在运动的前60分钟的各个匹配时间点,与对照组相比,所有冷却条件下的心率、直肠温度、平均皮肤温度和体温均显著降低。热感觉、舒适度和主观用力程度在不同条件和时间上均有显著的主效应,它们各自的交互作用没有差异。
与对照组相比,冰背心(IV)、相变背心(PCM)和冰浆/冰背心组合(SLIV)除了能改善工作时间外,还能降低心率、平均皮肤温度、直肠温度和平均体温。水灌注服(WS)未能改善工作时间,可能是由于该套装的冷却能力减弱且热绝缘性增强。考虑到以冰浆和冰背心组合(SLIV)形式实施组合冷却所需的额外时间和资源,相对于单独使用相变背心或冰背心,在感知、心血管应激、直肠温度和总试验时间方面没有显著的叠加效应。这可能是作为ASTM F2300 - 10一部分将工作极限设定为120分钟所产生的“天花板”效应的结果。