ArticlePloS one2023
Comparing thermal strain in outdoor maintenance and indoor service workers in the mining industry during summer.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Symptoms of heat illness and water consumption habits in mine industry workers over the summer months in Australia.Industrial health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While working in the heat is a common practice within the Australian mining industry, it can lead to adverse effects on cognitive function, productivity, and physical health. This study aimed to compare the thermal strain experienced by maintenance workers and service workers in the mining industry during summer. Psycho-physiological parameters, manual dexterity, and cognitive function were assessed in maintenance workers (n = 12) and service workers (n = 12) employed at mine site villages in north-west Australia. Maintenance workers had the freedom to self-select their work intensity and predominantly worked outdoors (33.9±4.2°C, 38±18% RH), whereas service workers had to work to a fixed schedule and worked intermittently indoors (∼64% of work shift; 29.5±3.4°C, 48±8% RH) and outdoors (∼36%; 35.4±4.6°C, 47±21% RH). All workers underwent assessment at the beginning (day 2/3), middle (day 7/8), and end of their swing (day 13/14), at various time points throughout their 11-12 h shift. Service workers completed more steps (11282±1794 vs. 7774±2821; p<0.001), experienced a higher heart rate (p = 0.049) and reported higher ratings of perceived exertion (p<0.001), thermal discomfort (p<0.001), thermal sensation (p<0.001), and fatigue (p<0.012) compared to maintenance workers. Urinary specific gravity values were higher (less hydrated) in service workers (1.024±0.007) compared to maintenance workers (1.018±0.006; p = 0.007), with USG being overall higher post- compared to pre-shift (1.022±0.008 vs. 1.020±0.006; p<0.05). Core temperature, working memory capacity, processing speed and manual dexterity did not differ between occupations. Workers in hot environments who cannot self-select their work intensity should be educated about the importance of hydration before, during, and after their work-shifts and provided with more scheduled rest breaks during their shift. Employers should closely monitor workers for symptoms of heat illness, discomfort, and fatigue to ensure the health and safety of the workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.