Shapiro Y, Pandolf K B, Sawka M N, Toner M M, Winsmann F R, Goldman R F
Aviat Space Environ Med. 1982 Aug;53(8):785-9.
Water-cooled, air-cooled, and ambient air-ventilated auxiliary cooling vests were evaluated in a hot-wet climate (HW) (35 degrees C, 75% R.H.) and a hot-dry environment (HD) with additional infrared radiation (Ta = 49 degrees C, 20% R.H., 68 degrees C black globe temperature). Twelve subjects dressed in full chemical warfare combat uniforms underwent 120 min of heat exposure in each combination of climate and cooling vest, except for the hot-dry environment and ambient-air vest. During each exposure, total exercise time was 20 min and rest time 100 min. This resulted in a mean time weighted metabolic rate of 180 W. Both water-cooled and air-cooled vests were sufficient for cooling in the HW climate: heat storage (delta S) was 13 and 7 W, final rectal temperature (Tre) 37.4 and 37.3 degrees C, and heart rate (HR) 124 and 112 b . min-1, respectively. While using the ambient-air vest, all variables were significantly (p less than 0.05) higher (delta S, 25 W; Tre, 37.7 degrees C; HR, 139 b . min-1; respectively). In the HD climate, both water and air-cooled vests were insufficient with a delta S of 46 and 48 W, final Tre of 38.4 and 38.3 degrees C, and final HR of 151 and 147 b . min-1. However, both cooling vests improved the subjects' physiological status compared to these predicted variables without auxiliary cooling. No significant differences were found between the air or the water-cooled vests in either the HD or HW climates. It was concluded that an air-cooled vest can be used with the same efficiency as a water-cooled vest. In contrast, the ambient-air vest was shown to have a low effectiveness in HW and to be dangerous in a HD climate.
在高温潮湿气候（HW）（35摄氏度，相对湿度75%）和高温干燥环境（HD）（伴有额外红外辐射，气温49摄氏度，相对湿度20%，黑球温度68摄氏度）中，对水冷、风冷和环境空气通风的辅助冷却背心进行了评估。12名身着全套化学战作战制服的受试者，在除高温干燥环境和环境空气背心组合之外的每种气候和冷却背心组合下，接受了120分钟的热暴露。在每次暴露期间，总运动时间为20分钟，休息时间为100分钟。这导致平均时间加权代谢率为180瓦。在高温潮湿气候中，水冷背心和风冷背心都足以实现冷却：蓄热量（ΔS）分别为13瓦和7瓦，最终直肠温度（Tre）分别为37.4摄氏度和37.3摄氏度，心率（HR）分别为124次/分钟和112次/分钟。使用环境空气背心时，所有变量均显著更高（p<0.05）（蓄热量，25瓦；Tre，37.7摄氏度；HR，139次/分钟）。在高温干燥气候中，水冷背心和风冷背心都不足以实现冷却，蓄热量分别为46瓦和48瓦，最终Tre分别为38.4摄氏度和38.3摄氏度，最终HR分别为151次/分钟和147次/分钟。然而，与没有辅助冷却的预测变量相比，两种冷却背心都改善了受试者的生理状态。在高温干燥或高温潮湿气候中，风冷背心和水冷背心之间均未发现显著差异。得出的结论是，风冷背心的使用效率与水冷背心相同。相比之下，环境空气背心在高温潮湿气候中效果不佳，在高温干燥气候中则很危险。
