ArticleScientific reports2026
Design and evaluation of novel microtube-based and fan-assisted evaporative cooling vests in climatic chamber under hot and dry conditions.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure to high temperatures in industrial environments can lead to heat stress and a decline in physiological performance. The use of evaporative cooling garments has been proposed as an effective strategy to reduce body temperature and enhance potential thermal comfort. This study` aimed to compare the cooling capacity of two types of evaporative cooling vests, including a fan-assisted vest and a microtube‑based evaporative cooling vest (compressed‑air supplied), under controlled hot-dry conditions. In this study, the two types of cooling vests were evaluated in a climatic chamber at an ambient temperature of 35 °C and relative humidity levels of 20% and 40%. The cooling capacity of the cooling vests was assessed by measuring the cooling power using a thermal manikin and calculating the rate of water evaporation. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and differences between conditions were analyzed using a paired t-test. The mean cooling capacity of the fan-assisted cooling vest at 20% relative humidity was 83 ± 8 W, compared to 56 ± 5 W for the microtube‑based evaporative cooling vest (p < 0.01). At 40% relative humidity, the cooling capacity of the fan-assisted cooling vest was 74 ± 4 W, while that of the microtube‑based evaporative cooling vest was 47 ± 4 W (p < 0.05). Additionally, both the evaporation rate and evaporative efficiency of the fan-assisted cooling vest were significantly higher than those of the microtube‑based evaporative cooling vest (p < 0.01). The results indicate that, on the thermal manikin, the fan‑assisted vest provides superior performance in reducing heat load, whereas the microtube‑based cooling vest offers more stable but less effective cooling. These objective findings suggest that, under hot and dry conditions, the fan-assisted design may be more suitable for applications requiring high cooling capacity, while the microtube‑based cooling vest may be considered for prolonged heat exposure in settings with access to compressed air. However, the actual thermal comfort benefits for human users should be verified in future human‑subject studies.
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.