4.5 Article

A new occupational heat tolerance test: A feasibility study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL BIOLOGY
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 42-50

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.09.001

关键词

Heat tolerance; Occupational health; Validity; Reliability; Personal protective equipment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heat tolerance tests identify those susceptible to heat illnesses and monitor heat adaptations. Currently, tolerance tests do not replicate the uncompensable heat strain environments experienced in some occupations. In addition, tests can take up to 2 h to complete, and cannot offer intra and inter individual comparisons, due to the use of a fixed exercise intensity. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of a new heat occupational tolerance test (HOTT: 40 min at 6 W kg(-1) metabolic heat production, 50 degrees C 10% RH, in protective clothing) to the standard heat tolerance test (HTT: 2 h walk at 5 km h(-1) 1% gradient, 40 degrees C 40% RH, in shorts and t-shirt). Eighteen participants (age: 21 +/- 3 yrs, body mass: 81.3 +/- 5.9 kg) completed trials to assess the validity and/or reliability of the HOTT. Peak rectal temperature (T-re) displayed strong agreement and low measurement error (0.19 degrees C) between HTT (38.7 +/- 0.4 degrees C) and HOTT (38.6 +/- 0.4 degrees C). Strong agreement was also displayed for physiological and perceptual measures between the two HOTT trials, including peak T-re (38.5 +/- 0.4 degrees C vs. 38.5 +/- 0.4 degrees C) and peak heart rate (182 +/- 20 b min(-1) vs. 182 +/- 21 b min(-1)). The HOTT is the first tolerance test that assesses individuals' responses whilst wearing protective clothing in high temperatures. It can consistently identify individuals' levels of heat tolerance within a reduced time frame. In addition, it allows for participant monitoring over time and comparisons between individuals to be made. A continuum based approach is recommended when assessing individuals' responses to the HOTT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据