Suchergebnisse

This investigation aimed to quantify metabolic rate when wearing an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) ensemble (~33kg) during standing and locomotion; and determine whether the Pandolf load carriage equation accurately predicts metabolic rate when wearing an EOD ensemble during standing and locomotion. Ten males completed 8 trials with metabolic rate measured through indirect calorimetry. Walking in EOD at 2.5, 4.0 and 5.5km·h −1 was significantly (p < 0.05) greater than matched trials without the EOD ensemble by 49% (127W), 65% (213W) and 78% (345W), respectively. Mean bias (95% limits of agreement) between predicted and measured metabolism during standing, 2.5, 4 and 5.5km·h −1 were 47W (19 to 75W); −111W (−172 to −49W); −122W (−189 to −54W) and −158W (−245 to −72W), respectively. The Pandolf equation significantly underestimated measured metabolic rate during locomotion. These findings have practical implications for EOD technicians during training and operation and should be considered when developing maximum workload duration models and work-rest schedules.

Objective The aim of this study was to model the effect of body armor coverage on body core temperature elevation and wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) offset. Background Heat stress is a critical factor influencing the health and safety of military populations. Work duration limits can be imposed to mitigate the risk of exertional heat illness and are derived based on the environmental conditions (WBGT). Traditionally a 3°C offset to WBGT is recommended when wearing body armor; however, modern body armor systems provide a range of coverage options, which may influence thermal strain imposed on the wearer. Method The biophysical properties of four military clothing ensembles of increasing ballistic protection coverage were measured on a heated sweating manikin in accordance with standard international criteria. Body core temperature elevation during light, moderate, and heavy work was modeled in environmental conditions from 16°C to 34°C WBGT using the heat strain decision aid. Results Increasing ballistic protection resulted in shorter work durations to reach a critical core temperature limit of 38.5°C. Environmental conditions, armor coverage, and work intensity had a significant influence on WBGT offset. Conclusion Contrary to the traditional recommendation, the required WBGT offset was >3°C in temperate conditions (<27°C WBGT), particularly for moderate and heavy work. In contrast, a lower WBGT offset could be applied during light work and moderate work in low levels of coverage. Application Correct WBGT offsets are important for enabling adequate risk management strategies for mitigating risks of exertional heat illness.