Thermal responses and physiological strain in men wearing impermeable and semipermeable protective clothing in the cold.
Thermal responses and physiological strain in men wearing impermeable and semipermeable protective clothing in the cold.
复制标题
在寒冷中穿着不渗透和半渗透防护服的男性的热反应和生理应变。
DOI：
10.1080/001401397188260
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
H. Rintamäki
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Rissanen;H. Rintamäki
本研究的目的是检查长期寒冷暴露对穿着核生化 (NBC) 防护服的男性热反应和身体表现的影响。六名健康男性在 -10 摄氏度的环境温度下进行 60 分钟工作/60 分钟休息循环 8 小时。工作时在 20 厘米高的凳子上踩踏 15 次.min-1。受试者穿着两种不同类型的 NBC 服装进行测试：不渗透橡胶套装 (IP) 或带有寒冷天气内衣层的半渗透木炭浸渍套装 (SP)，以及橡胶手套、靴子和全面罩。在测试过程中，测量了耗氧量 (VO2)、直肠温度 (Tre) 和皮肤温度以及出汗量。两种 NBC 服装的直肠温度和皮肤温度以及体温都遵循工作/休息周期。 IP 和 SP (NS) 的 T(re) 平均值分别为 37.1 +/- 0.04 和 37.3 +/- 0.1 摄氏度。平均而言，IP 和 SP 的平均皮肤温度 (Tsk) 分别为 28.6 +/- 0.2 和 29.7 +/- 0.2 摄氏度 (p < 0.01)。在休息期间，两个团队的手指皮肤温度都迅速下降至 10 摄氏度以下。工作期间，IP 和 SP 的手指复温率分别为 0.49 +/- 0.06 和 0.70 +/- 0.02 °C.min-1 (p < 0.01)。 SP 中冷暴露期间身体蓄热 (S) 的减少量小于 IP，并且在工作期间，SP 和 IP 中的 S 分别恢复到 -0.6 +/- 0.3 和 -3.0 +/- 0.6 kJ.kg-1 的水平 (p < 0.01)。根据 VO2 测量结果，IP 和 SP 的工作负荷分别为 1.5 +/- 0.1 和 1.3 +/- 0.11.min-1 (p < 0.05)。此外，在静息期间，IP 组的 VO2 比 SP 组高 30% (p < 0.001)。总之，两种类型的 NBC 防护服都可以在寒冷条件下、中等工作负荷下长期使用，而不会出现明显的全身热债或热负荷。然而，在休息期间，身体的外围部位却经历了快速而剧烈的冷却。与不渗透性防护服相比，半渗透性防护服能够在工作期间实现更高的身体热量储存和更快的四肢复温。
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of long term cold exposure on thermal responses and physical performance in men while wearing nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protective clothing. Six healthy men performed 60 min work/60 min rest cycles during 8 hours at an ambient temperature of -10 degrees C. Work was performed by stepping on a 20 cm high bench 15 times.min-1. Subjects were tested while wearing two different types of NBC clothing: impermeable rubber suit (IP) or semipermeable charcoal impregnated suit (SP) with cold weather underwear layers, as well as rubber gloves, boots and a full-face mask. During the tests oxygen consumption (VO2), rectal (Tre) and skin temperatures and sweat production were measured. Rectal and skin temperatures and body heat content followed the work/rest cycles in both types of NBC clothing. T(re) averaged 37.1 +/- 0.04 and 37.3 +/- 0.1 degrees C for IP and SP (NS), respectively. On average, mean skin temperature (Tsk) was 28.6 +/- 0.2 and 29.7 +/- 0.2 degrees C for IP and SP (p < 0.01), respectively. Finger skin temperature decreased rapidly to below 10 degrees C in both ensembles during the rest periods. During work the finger rewarming rate was 0.49 +/- 0.06 and 0.70 +/- 0.02 degree C.min-1 for IP and SP (p < 0.01), respectively. Decrease in body heat storage (S) during cold exposure was smaller in SP than in IP and S was restored to the level of -0.6 +/- 0.3 and -3.0 +/- 0.6 kJ.kg-1 in SP and IP (p < 0.01), respectively, during the work. Work load, according to VO2 measurements, was 1.5 +/- 0.1 and 1.3 +/- 0.11.min-1 for IP and SP (p < 0.05), respectively. Furthermore, during rest VO2 was 30% (p < 0.001) higher in IP than in SP. In conclusion, both types of NBC protective clothing could be used for long periods in cold conditions at a moderate work load without marked whole body heat debt or heat load. However, peripheral parts of the body experienced a rapid and severe cooling during the rest periods. The semipermeable suit enabled higher body heat storage and faster rewarming of extremities during work than the impermeable suit.