Bomalaski S H, Chen Y T, Constable S H
Sustained Operations Branch, Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5120, USA.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 1995 Aug;66(8):745-50.
A comparison was made between two personal auxiliary cooling approaches for the relief of thermal stress while wearing the standard USAF Chemical Defense Ensemble (CDE). Subjects exercised at approximately 40% VO2max in either warm (28/24/34 degrees C) or hot (38/26/43 degrees C) environmental conditions, (Tdb/Twb/Tbg degrees C, respectively). During each of three trials, four hours of intermittent work (four work/rest cycles) were attempted. Microclimate air cooling was applied in two different fashions and compared with a control trial during which no cooling was received (NC). In one trial, conditioned air cooling (Tin approximately 20 degrees Cdb) was delivered during rest periods only (intermittent cooling, IC), while during the second trial, ambient air cooling was also applied during the work period in addition to the conditioned air delivered during rest periods (continuous cooling, CC). During the warm condition, exposure cycle time was 45 min work and 15 min rest, while under the hot conditions, exposure cycle time was 30 min work and 30 min rest. Both CC and IC trials resulted in significantly extended work times, lower final rectal temperatures, heart rates, and sweat production (SP) than in the NC trial. Additionally, CC results in significantly lower SP, higher % sweat evaporation, and lower ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and thermal comfort (TC) than IC at both warm and hot temperatures. Moreover, subjects were better able to maintain thermal equilibrium (i.e., cumulative heat balance) over time using CC compared to IC in the warm environment. The physiological significance of these findings, in some cases, was secondary to the improvement in subjective measures of TC and RPE.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
对两种个人辅助冷却方法进行了比较,这两种方法用于在穿着标准美国空军化学防御套装(CDE)时缓解热应激。受试者在温暖(28/24/34摄氏度)或炎热(38/26/43摄氏度)的环境条件下(分别为干球温度/湿球温度/黑球温度,单位为摄氏度),以约40%的最大摄氧量进行运动。在三次试验中的每一次试验期间,尝试进行四个小时的间歇性工作(四个工作/休息周期)。微气候空气冷却以两种不同方式应用,并与未接受冷却的对照试验(NC)进行比较。在一次试验中,仅在休息期间提供经调节的空气冷却(入口温度约为20摄氏度干球温度)(间歇性冷却,IC),而在第二次试验中,除了在休息期间提供经调节的空气外,在工作期间还应用环境空气冷却(连续冷却,CC)。在温暖条件下,暴露周期时间为45分钟工作和15分钟休息,而在炎热条件下,暴露周期时间为30分钟工作和30分钟休息。与NC试验相比,CC和IC试验均导致工作时间显著延长、最终直肠温度、心率和汗液分泌(SP)降低。此外,在温暖和炎热温度下,CC导致的SP显著更低、汗液蒸发百分比更高、主观用力感觉(RPE)和热舒适度(TC)评分更低。此外,与IC相比,在温暖环境中使用CC的受试者能够随着时间更好地维持热平衡(即累积热平衡)。在某些情况下,这些发现的生理意义次于TC和RPE主观测量指标的改善。(摘要截断于250字)