Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-nhjpk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-08T12:46:58.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Thermal Manikin Modeling and Human Subjects’ Response During Use of Cooling Devices Under Personal Protective Ensembles in the Heat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2018

Tyler Quinn ,
Jung-Hyun Kim ,
Yongsuk Seo  and
Aitor Coca
Tyler Quinn
Affiliation:
National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA
Jung-Hyun Kim
Affiliation:
National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA
Yongsuk Seo
Affiliation:
National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA
Aitor Coca*
Affiliation:
National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA
*
Correspondence: Aitor Coca, PhD National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory 626 Cochrans Mill Road Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236 USA E-mail: aitorcocanunez@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Personal protective equipment (PPE) recommended for use in West Africa during the Ebola outbreak increased risk for heat illness, and countermeasures addressing this issue would be valuable.

Hypothesis/Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine the physiological impact and heat perception of four different personal cooling devices (PCDs) under impermeable PPE during low-intensity exercise in a hot and humid environment using thermal manikin modeling and human testing.

Methods

Six healthy male subjects walked on a treadmill in a hot/humid environment (32°C/92% relative humidity [RH]) at three metabolic equivalents (METs) for 60 minutes wearing PPE recommended for use in West Africa and one of four different personal cooling devices (PCDs; PCD1, PCD2, PCD3, and PCD4) or no PCD for control (CON). The same ensembles were tested with thermal manikin modeling software in the same conditions to compare the results.

Results

All PCDs seemed to reduce physiological heat stress characteristics when worn under PPE compared to CON. Both the manikin and human testing provided similar results in core temperature (Tc) and heat sensation (HS) in both magnitude and relationship. While the manikin and human data provided similar skin temperature (Tsk) characterization, Tsk estimation by the manikin seemed to be slightly over-estimated. Weight loss, as estimated by the manikin, was under-estimated compared to the human measurement.

Conclusion

Personal cooling device use in conjunction with impermeable PPE may be advantageous in mitigating physiological and perceptual burdens of heat stress. Evaluation of PCDs worn under PPE can be done effectively via human or manikin testing; however, Tsk may be over-estimated and weight loss may be under-estimated. Thermal manikin testing of PCDs may provide fast and accurate information to persons recommending or using PCDs with PPE.

QuinnT, KimJH, SeoY, CocaA. Comparison of Thermal Manikin Modeling and Human Subjects’ Response During Use of Cooling Devices Under Personal Protective Ensembles in the Heat. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):279–287.

Keywords

cooling devicesEbolaemergency preparednessenvironmental exposurethermal manikin

Information

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , June 2018 , pp. 279 - 287
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest/funding/disclaimer: This study was conducted with internal operating funds of the US National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA) where all authors were employed. Human subjects testing in this study was approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH; Washington, DC USA) IRB for project # NPPTL 10 HSRB 04. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the NIOSH. Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. The authors have no relevant information or relationships to disclose.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) To Be Used by Healthcare Workers during Management of Patients with Confirmed Ebola or Persons under Investigation (PUIs) for Ebola who are Clinically Unstable or Have Bleeding, Vomiting, or Diarrhea in US. Atlanta, Georgia USA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015.Google Scholar
2. World Health Organization. Personal Protective Equipment in the Context of Filovirus Disease Outbreak Response. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2014.Google Scholar
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For General Healthcare Settings in West Africa: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Recommended for Low Resource Settings. Atlanta, Georgia USA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015.Google Scholar
4. Havenith, G, den Hartog, E, Martini, S. Heat stress in chemical protective clothing: porosity and vapor resistance. Ergonomics. 2011;54(5):497-507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. de Almeida, RACd, Veiga, MM, de Castro Moura Duarte, FJ, et al. Thermal comfort and personal protective equipment (PPE). Work. 2012;41(Supplement 1):4979-4982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Coca, A, DiLeo, T, Kim, J-H, et al. Baseline evaluation with a sweating thermal manikin of personal protective ensembles recommended for use in West Africa. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(05):536-542.Google Scholar
7. Coca, A, Quinn, T, Kim, JH, et al. Physiological evaluation of personal protective ensembles recommended for use in West Africa. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017;11(5):580-586.Google Scholar
8. Chertow, DS, Kleine, C, Edwards, JK, et al. Ebola virus disease in West Africa—clinical manifestations and management. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(22):2054-2057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Wolz, A. Face to face with Ebola—an emergency care center in Sierra Leone. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(12):1081-1083.Google Scholar
10. Chou, C, Tochihara, Y, Kim, T. Physiological and subjective responses to cooling devices on firefighting protective clothing. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;104(2):369-374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Hasegawa, H, Takatori, T, Komura, T, et al. Wearing a cooling jacket during exercise reduces thermal strain and improves endurance exercise performance in a warm environment. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):122-128.Google Scholar
12. Kenny, GP, Schissler, AR, Stapleton, J, et al. Ice cooling vest on tolerance for exercise under uncompensable heat stress. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2011;8(8):484-491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Quinn, T, Kim, J-H, Strauch, A, et al. Physiological evaluation of cooling devices in conjunction with personal protective ensembles recommended for use in West Africa. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017;11(5):573-579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Holmer, I. Protective clothing in hot environments. Indust Health. 2006;44(3):404-413.Google Scholar
15. Meinander, H, Hellsten, M. The influence of sweating on the heat transmission properties of cold protective clothing studied with a sweating thermal manikin. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2004;10(3):263-269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Holmér, I. Thermal manikin history and applications. Euro J Appl Physiol. 2004;92(6):614-618.Google Scholar
17. Bogerd, N, Psikuta, A, Daanen, H, et al. How to measure thermal effects of personal cooling systems: human, thermal manikin and human simulator study. Physiol Measure. 2010;31(9):1161.Google Scholar
18. O’Brien, C, Blanchard, LA, Cadarette, BS, et al. Methods of evaluating protective clothing relative to heat and cold stress: thermal manikin, biomedical modeling, and human testing. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2011;8(10):588-599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Dionne, J, Makris, A, Semeniuk, K, et al. Thermal manikin evaluation of liquid cooling garments intended for use in hazardous waste management. Citeseer. 2003.Google Scholar
20. Farrington, R, Rugh, J, Bharathan, D, et al. Using a sweating manikin, controlled by a human physiological model, to evaluate liquid cooling garments. SAE Technical Paper. 2005.Google Scholar
21. Gao, C, Kuklane, K, Holmér, I. “Cooling effect of a PCM vest on a thermal manikin and on humans exposed to heat.” In: Mekjavic IB, Kounalakis SN, Taylor NAS (eds). Environmental Ergonomics. 2007;Vol. XII:146-149. Biomed d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
22. Rugh, J, King, C, Paul, H, et al. Phase II testing of liquid cooling garments using a sweating manikin, controlled by a human physiological model. SAE Technical Paper. 2006.Google Scholar
23. Xu, X, Endrusick, T, Gonzalez, J, et al. Evaluation of the efficiency of liquid cooling garments using a thermal manikin. DTIC Document. 2005.Google Scholar
24. Lai, D, Wei, F, Lu, Y, et al. Evaluation of a hybrid personal cooling system using a manikin operated in constant temperature mode and thermoregulatory model control mode in warm conditions. Textile Research Journal. 2017;87(1):46-56.Google Scholar
25. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2371-2010 Standard test method for measuring the heat removal rate of personal cooling systems using a sweating heated manikin. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania USA: ASTM; 2010.Google Scholar
26. Fiala, D, Lomas, KJ, Stohrer, M. A computer model of human thermoregulation for a wide range of environmental conditions: the passive system. J Appl Physiol. 1999;87(5):1957-1972.Google Scholar
27. Fiala, D, Lomas, KJ, Stohrer, M. Computer prediction of human thermoregulatory and temperature responses to a wide range of environmental conditions. Int J Biometeorol. 2001;45(3):143-159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Rugh, J, Lustbader, J. Application of a Sweating Manikin Controlled by a Human Physiological Model and Lesson Learned. Lakewood, Colorado USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2006.Google Scholar
29. Zhang, H, Arens, E, Huizenga, C, et al. Thermal sensation and comfort models for non-uniform and transient environments, part III: whole-body sensation and comfort. Building and Environment. 2010;45(2):399-410.Google Scholar
30. Sawka, MN, Montain, SJ. Fluid and electrolyte supplementation for exercise heat stress. Am J Clin Nutrit. 2000;72(2):564s-572s.Google Scholar
31. Ainsworth, B. The 2011 compendium of physical activities: tracking guide. Compendium Physical Activities. 2015.Google Scholar
32. Ramanathan, N. A new weighting system for mean surface temperature of the human body. J Appl Physiol. 1964;19(3):531-533.Google Scholar
33. International Organization for Standardization Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment. Assessment of the Influence of the Thermal Environment Using Subjective Judgement Scales. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 1995.Google Scholar
34. Rugh, JP, Bharathan, D. Predicting human thermal comfort in automobiles. SAE Technical Paper. 2005.Google Scholar
35. Del Ferraro, S, Tombolini, F, Plebani, C, et al. Thermophysiological response of Newton manikin equipped with power assisted filtering device incorporating a full face mask in hot environment. Int J Hyperthermia. 2017;33(7):717-723.Google Scholar
36. Hepokoski, M, Gibbs, S, Curran, A, Coca, A. Improving Adaptive Manikin PPE Testing with Virtual Simulation. 11th International Meeting on Thermal Manikin and Modelling: Suzhou, China; 2016.Google Scholar