Kelly L. Stewart

Physiological Tolerance Times while Wearing Explosive Ordnance Disposal Protective Clothing in Simulated Environmental Extremes

Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) technicians are required to wear protective clothing to protect themselves from the threat of overpressure, fragmentation, impact and heat. The engineering requirements to minimise these threats results in an extremely heavy and cumbersome clothing ensemble that increases the internal heat generation of the wearer, while the clothing’s thermal properties reduce heat dissipation. This study aimed to evaluate the heat strain encountered wearing EOD protective clothing in simulated environmental extremes across a range of differing work intensities. Eight healthy males [age 25±6 years (mean ± sd), height 180±7 cm, body mass 79±9 kg, V˙O2max 57±6 ml.kg−1.min−1] undertook nine trials while wearing an EOD9 suit (weighing 33.4 kg). The trials involved walking on a treadmill at 2.5, 4 and 5.5 km⋅h−1 at each of the following environmental conditions, 21, 30 and 37°C wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) in a randomised controlled crossover design. The trials were ceased if the participants’ core temperature reached 39°C, if heart rate exceeded 90% of maximum, if walking time reached 60 minutes or due to fatigue/nausea. Tolerance times ranged from 10–60 minutes and were significantly reduced in the higher walking speeds and environmental conditions. In a total of 15 trials (21%) participants completed 60 minutes of walking; however, this was predominantly at the slower walking speeds in the 21°C WBGT environment. Of the remaining 57 trials, 50 were ceased, due to attainment of 90% maximal heart rate. These near maximal heart rates resulted in moderate-high levels of physiological strain in all trials, despite core temperature only reaching 39°C in one of the 72 trials.

The Effects of Metabolic Work Rate and Ambient Environment on Physiological Tolerance Times While Wearing Explosive and Chemical Personal Protective Equipment

This study evaluated the physiological tolerance times when wearing explosive and chemical (>35 kg) personal protective equipment (PPE) in simulated environmental extremes across a range of differing work intensities. Twelve healthy males undertook nine trials which involved walking on a treadmill at 2.5, 4, and 5.5 km·h−1 in the following environmental conditions, 21, 30, and 37°C wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT). Participants exercised for 60 min or until volitional fatigue, core temperature reached 39°C, or heart rate exceeded 90% of maximum. Tolerance time, core temperature, skin temperature, mean body temperature, heart rate, and body mass loss were measured. Exercise time was reduced in the higher WBGT environments (WBGT37 < WBGT30 < WBGT21; P < 0.05) and work intensities (5.5 < 4 < 2.5 km·h−1; P < 0.001). The majority of trials (85/108; 78.7%) were terminated due to participants heart rate exceeding 90% of their maximum. A total of eight trials (7.4%) lasted the full duration. Only nine (8.3%) trials were terminated due to volitional fatigue and six (5.6%) due to core temperatures in excess of 39°C. These results demonstrate that physiological tolerance times are influenced by the external environment and workload and that cardiovascular strain is the limiting factor to work tolerance when wearing this heavy multilayered PPE.

Internal and external cooling methods and their effect on body temperature, thermal perception and dexterity

Objective The present study aimed to compare a range of cooling methods possibly utilised by occupational workers, focusing on their effect on body temperature, perception and manual dexterity. Methods Ten male participants completed eight trials involving 30 min of seated rest followed by 30 min of cooling or control of no cooling (CON) (34°C, 58% relative humidity). The cooling methods utilised were: ice cooling vest (CV0), phase change cooling vest melting at 14°C (CV14), evaporative cooling vest (CVEV), arm immersion in 10°C water (AI), portable water-perfused suit (WPS), heliox inhalation (HE) and ice slushy ingestion (SL). Immediately before and after cooling, participants were assessed for fine (Purdue pegboard task) and gross (grip and pinch strength) manual dexterity. Rectal and skin temperature, as well as thermal sensation and comfort, were monitored throughout. Results Compared with CON, SL was the only method to reduce rectal temperature (P = 0.012). All externally applied cooling methods reduced skin temperature (P<0.05), though CV0 resulted in the lowest skin temperature versus other cooling methods. Participants felt cooler with CV0, CV14, WPS, AI and SL (P<0.05). AI significantly impaired Purdue pegboard performance (P = 0.001), but did not affect grip or pinch strength (P>0.05). Conclusion The present study observed that ice ingestion or ice applied to the skin produced the greatest effect on rectal and skin temperature, respectively. AI should not be utilised if workers require subsequent fine manual dexterity. These results will help inform future studies investigating appropriate pre-cooling methods for the occupational worker.