Suppr超能文献

采用预冷和预加湿方法延长穿着防护服在热环境中的作业耐受时间。

Extending work tolerance time in the heat in protective ensembles with pre- and per-cooling methods.

机构信息

Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; Department of Sport, Institute of Human Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK.

Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

出版信息

Appl Ergon. 2020 May;85:103064. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103064. Epub 2020 Feb 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Investigate whether a range of cooling methods can extend tolerance time and/or reduce physiological strain in those working in the heat dressed in a Class 2 chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) protective ensemble.

METHODS

Eight males wore a Class 2 CBRN ensemble and walked for a maximum of 120 min at 35 °C, 50% relative humidity. In a randomised order, participants completed the trial with no cooling and four cooling protocols: 1) ice-based cooling vest (IV), 2) a non-ice-based cooling vest (PCM), 3) ice slushy consumed before work, combined with IV (SLIV) and 4) a portable battery-operated water-perfused suit (WPS). Mean with 95% confidence intervals are presented.

RESULTS

Tolerance time was extended in PCM (46 [36, 56] min, P = 0.018), SLIV (56 [46, 67] min, P < 0.001) and WPS (62 [53, 70] min, P < 0.001), compared with control (39 [30, 48] min). Tolerance time was longer in SLIV and WPS compared with both IV (48 [39, 58 min]) and PCM (P ≤ 0.011). After 20 min of work, HR was lower in SLIV (121 [105, 136] beats·min), WPS (117 [101, 133] beats·min) and IV (130 [116, 143] beats·min) compared with control (137 [120, 155] beats·min) (all P < 0.001). PCM (133 [116, 151] beats·min) did not differ from control.

CONCLUSION

All cooling methods, except PCM, utilised in the present study reduced cardiovascular strain, while SLIV and WPS are most likely to extend tolerance time for those working in the heat dressed in a Class 2 CBRN ensemble.

摘要

目的

研究一系列冷却方法是否可以延长穿着 2 级化学、生物、放射性、核(CBRN)防护服在热环境中工作的人员的耐受时间和/或减少生理压力。

方法

8 名男性穿着 2 级 CBRN 防护服,在 35°C、50%相对湿度下行走最长 120 分钟。参与者以随机顺序完成试验,不进行冷却和四种冷却方案:1)冰基冷却背心(IV),2)非冰基冷却背心(PCM),3)工作前消耗冰沙,与 IV 结合(SLIV),4)便携式电池供电水灌注服(WPS)。呈现平均值和 95%置信区间。

结果

与对照组(39 [30, 48] 分钟)相比,PCM(46 [36, 56] 分钟,P = 0.018)、SLIV(56 [46, 67] 分钟,P < 0.001)和 WPS(62 [53, 70] 分钟,P < 0.001)延长了耐受时间。与 IV(48 [39, 58 分钟])和 PCM(P ≤ 0.011)相比,SLIV 和 WPS 的耐受时间更长。工作 20 分钟后,与对照组(137 [120, 155] 次/分钟)相比,SLIV(121 [105, 136] 次/分钟)、WPS(117 [101, 133] 次/分钟)和 IV(130 [116, 143] 次/分钟)的 HR 更低(均 P < 0.001)。PCM(133 [116, 151] 次/分钟)与对照组无差异。

结论

本研究中使用的所有冷却方法(除 PCM 外)均降低了心血管压力,而 SLIV 和 WPS 最有可能延长穿着 2 级 CBRN 防护服在热环境中工作的人员的耐受时间。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验