ArticleScientific reports2026
Effect of vest structure, airflow velocity, and humidity on evaporative cooling capacity using a thermal manikin.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change has exacerbated heat stress, particularly for outdoor workers. Evaporative cooling vests (ECVs) mitigate occupational heat stress. Their cooling capacity depends on the structural design, air temperature, air velocity, and humidity. This study investigated the cooling capacity and efficiency of four ECV designs under various environmental conditions. Four ECVs—polymer-based punched (ECVPP), polymer-based (ECVPB), cellulose-based (ECVCB), and TECHNICHE (ECVTECH)—were evaluated via a thermal manikin under controlled conditions (ambient temperatures: 35 °C and 40 °C; relative humidity: 20% and 40%; air velocities: 0.1, 0.4, and 1.0 m/s, respectively). The cooling capacity was measured by monitoring the energy consumption of the manikin over two-hour periods. The efficiency was calculated as the cooling capacity relative to the latent heat of water evaporation. Thermal imaging captured the surface temperature distribution. At 40 °C, ECVCB and 30 °C, the ECVPP consistently outperformed the other vests, achieving cooling capacities of 81.7 W and 78.5 W, respectively. These peak values were observed under higher air velocity conditions (1 m/s). Correlations (R = 0.9, p < 0.001) between the amount of evaporated water and the cooling capacity were observed. Thermal imaging confirmed that the progressive cooling capacity decreased due to evaporation—efficiency varied by vest design, highlighting the superiority of ECV_CB. This study highlights the performance of cellulose-based ECVs in hot, dry conditions, driven by enhanced evaporation rates. Higher air velocities improved the cooling capacity but reduced the efficiency, underscoring the need to balance airflow, humidity, and vest design for optimal performance. These findings provide insights for improving ECV functionality in occupational heat stress scenarios.
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.