Wissler E H
Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998 Jul;85(1):35-41. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1998.85.1.35.
A paper published by Harry H. Pennes in Volume 1 of the Journal of Applied Physiology defined the theoretical basis for a considerable body of analysis performed by many investigators during the ensuing half century. However, during the past decade, the Pennes' model of heat transfer in perfused tissue has been criticized for various reasons, one of which is that his own experimental data seemed to be at variance with the model. More specifically, the shape of the mean temperature-depth relationship measured by Pennes was distinctly different from the shape of the theoretical curve. In this paper, I show that Pennes used an inappropriate procedure to analyze his data and that, when the data are analyzed in a more rigorous manner, they support his theory. Additional support for Pennes' theory is provided by the experimental data of H. Barcroft and O. G. Edholm [J. Physiol. (Lond.) 102: 5-20, 1942 and 104: 366-376, 1946], who had previously studied cooling of the forearm during immersion in water at various temperatures.
哈里·H·彭尼斯发表于《应用生理学杂志》第1卷的一篇论文为许多研究人员在随后半个世纪进行的大量分析奠定了理论基础。然而,在过去十年中,彭尼斯的灌注组织热传递模型因各种原因受到批评,其中之一是他自己的实验数据似乎与该模型不一致。更具体地说,彭尼斯测量的平均温度-深度关系的形状与理论曲线的形状明显不同。在本文中,我表明彭尼斯使用了不恰当的程序来分析他的数据,并且当以更严格的方式分析数据时,数据支持他的理论。H. 巴克罗夫特和O.G. 埃德霍尔姆的实验数据 [《生理学杂志》(伦敦)102: 5 - 20, 1942年和104: 366 - 376, 1946年] 为彭尼斯的理论提供了额外支持,他们此前研究了前臂在不同温度的水中浸泡时的冷却情况。