Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31031643›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2019

An Evaluation of Personal Cooling Systems for Reducing Thermal Strain Whilst Working in Chemical/Biological Protective Clothing.

Aaron J E Bach, Matthew J Maley, Geoffrey M Minett, Stephanie A Zietek, Kelly L Stewart, Ian B Stewart

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Occupational Heat Stress: Multi-Country Observations and Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Aaron J E BachInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Matthew J MaleyInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Geoffrey M MinettInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Stephanie A ZietekInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Kelly L StewartInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ian B StewartInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe use of personal cooling systems to mitigate heat strain on first-responders achieves two potential performance benefits relative to the absence of such cooling: (1) the completion of a workload with less effort; and/or (2) the completion of a greater workload for the same effort. Currently, claims made by manufacturers regarding the capability of their products for use in conjunction with chemical/biological protective clothing remain largely unsubstantiated. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the means by which heat strain can be alleviated during uncompensable heat stress in chemical/biological clothing, using the ASTM F2300-10 methodology.

methodsEight healthy males completed five trials of continuous walking (4.5 km h

resultsWe observed significant improvements in trial times for IV (18 ± 10 min), PCM (20 ± 10 min) and SLIV (22 ± 10 min), but no differences for WS (4 ± 7 min). Heart rate, rectal, mean skin, and body temperatures were significantly lower in all cooling conditions relative to control at various matched time points in the first 60 min of exercise. Thermal sensation, comfort and perceived exertion all had significant main effects for condition, and time, there were no differences in their respective interactions.

conclusionThe IV, PCM, and SLIV produced lower heart rate, mean skin, rectal and mean body temperatures in addition to improved work times compared to control. The WS did not improve work times possibly as a result of the cooling capacity of the suit abating, and magnifying thermal insulation. Considering the added time and resources required to implement combination cooling in the form of ice slurry and ice vest (SLIV), there was no significant additive effect for perception, cardiovascular strain, rectal temperature and total trial time relative to the phase change vest or ice vest alone. This may be a product of a "ceiling" effect for work limit set to 120 min as part of ASTM F2300-10.

Indexed as

first responderheat stresshyperthermiamicroclimateoccupationalthermoregulation

Identifiers

PMID31031643
PMCPMC6474400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.