Intermittent microclimate cooling during rest increases work capacity and reduces heat stress

Ergonomics ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. H. CONSTABLE ◽  
P. A. BISHOP ◽  
S. A. NUNNELEY ◽  
T. CHEN
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Foster ◽  
Simon G. Hodder ◽  
Alex B. Lloyd ◽  
George Havenith

Author(s):  
Josh Foster ◽  
James W. Smallcombe ◽  
Simon Hodder ◽  
Ollie Jay ◽  
Andreas D. Flouris ◽  
...  

AbstractHeat stress decreases human physical work capacity (PWC), but the extent to which solar radiation (SOLAR) compounds this response is not well understood. This study empirically quantified how SOLAR impacts PWC in the heat, considering wide, but controlled, variations in air temperature, humidity, and clothing coverage. We also provide correction equations so PWC can be quantified outdoors using heat stress indices that do not ordinarily account for SOLAR (including the Heat Stress Index, Humidex, and Wet-Bulb Temperature). Fourteen young adult males (7 donning a work coverall, 7 with shorts and trainers) walked for 1 h at a fixed heart rate of 130 beats∙min−1, in seven combinations of air temperature (25 to 45°C) and relative humidity (20 or 80%), with and without SOLAR (800 W/m2 from solar lamps). Cumulative energy expenditure in the heat, relative to the work achieved in a cool reference condition, was used to determine PWC%. Skin temperature was the primary determinant of PWC in the heat. In dry climates with exposed skin (0.3 Clo), SOLAR caused PWC to decrease exponentially with rising air temperature, whereas work coveralls (0.9 Clo) negated this effect. In humid conditions, the SOLAR-induced reduction in PWC was consistent and linear across all levels of air temperature and clothing conditions. Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature and the Universal Thermal Climate Index represented SOLAR correctly and did not require a correction factor. For the Heat Stress Index, Humidex, and Wet-Bulb Temperature, correction factors are provided enabling forecasting of heat effects on work productivity.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce S. Cadarette ◽  
Troy D. Chineverse ◽  
Brett R. Ely ◽  
Daniel A. Goodman ◽  
Brad Laprise ◽  
...  

Ergonomics ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (8) ◽  
pp. 1461-1469 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.J. Glitz ◽  
U. Seibel ◽  
U. Rohde ◽  
W. Gorges ◽  
A. Witzki ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Josh Foster ◽  
James W. Smallcombe ◽  
Simon Hodder ◽  
Ollie Jay ◽  
Andreas D. Flouris ◽  
...  

AbstractOccupational heat stress directly hampers physical work capacity (PWC), with large economic consequences for industries and regions vulnerable to global warming. Accurately quantifying PWC is essential for forecasting impacts of different climate change scenarios, but the current state of knowledge is limited, leading to potential underestimations in mild heat, and overestimations in extreme heat. We therefore developed advanced empirical equations for PWC based on 338 work sessions in climatic chambers (low air movement, no solar radiation) spanning mild to extreme heat stress. Equations for PWC are available based on air temperature and humidity, for a suite of heat stress assessment metrics, and mean skin temperature. Our models are highly sensitive to mild heat and to our knowledge are the first to include empirical data across the full range of warm and hot environments possible with future climate change across the world. Using wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) as an example, we noted 10% reductions in PWC at mild heat stress (WBGT = 18°C) and reductions of 78% in the most extreme conditions (WBGT = 40°C). Of the different heat stress indices available, the heat index was the best predictor of group level PWC (R2 = 0.96) but can only be applied in shaded conditions. The skin temperature, but not internal/core temperature, was a strong predictor of PWC (R2 = 0.88), thermal sensation (R2 = 0.84), and thermal comfort (R2 = 0.73). The models presented apply to occupational workloads and can be used in climate projection models to predict economic and social consequences of climate change.


Ergonomics ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce S. Cadarette ◽  
Samuel N. Cheuvront ◽  
Margaret A. Kolka ◽  
Lou A. Stephenson ◽  
Scott J. Montain ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Glenn Pransky

Abstract According to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) measures an individual's physical abilities via a set of activities in a structured setting and provides objective data about the relationship between an impairment and maximal ability to perform work activities. A key distinction between FCEs and self-reported activities of daily living is that the former involve direct observation by professional evaluators. Numerous devices can quantify the physical function of a specific part of the musculoskeletal system but do not address the performance of whole body tasks in the workplace, and these devices have not been shown to predict accurately the ability to perform all but the simplest job tasks. Information about reliability has been proposed as a way to identify magnification and malingering, but variability due to pain and poor comprehension of instructions may cause variations in assessments. Structured work capacity evaluations involve a set of activities but likely underestimate the individual's ability to do jobs that involve complex or varying activities. Job simulations involve direct observation of an individual performing actual job tasks, require a skilled and experienced evaluator, and raise questions about expense, time, objectivity and validity of results, and interpretation of results in terms of the ability to perform specific jobs. To understand the barriers to return to work, examiners must supplement FCEs with information regarding workplace environment, accommodations, and demotivators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document