Thermophysiological and Perceptual Responses of Amateur Healthcare Workers: Impacts of Ambient Condition, Inner-Garment Insulation and Personal Cooling Strategy

Yingying Zhao, Meng Su, Xin Meng, Jiying Liu () and Faming Wang ()
Additional contact information
Yingying Zhao: School of Thermal Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
Meng Su: School of Thermal Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
Xin Meng: School of Thermal Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
Jiying Liu: School of Thermal Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
Faming Wang: Department of Biosystems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 20, issue 1, 1-20

Abstract: While personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers from viruses, it also increases the risk of heat stress. In this study, the effects of environmental heat stress, the insulation of the PPE inner-garment layer, and the personal cooling strategy on the physiological and perceptual responses of PPE-clad young college students were evaluated. Three levels of wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT = 15 °C, 28 °C, and 32 °C) and two types of inner garments (0.37 clo and 0.75 clo) were chosen for this study. In an uncompensable heat stress environment (WBGT = 32 °C), the effects of two commercially available personal cooling systems, including a ventilation cooling system (VCS) and an ice pack cooling system (ICS) on the heat strain mitigation of PPE-clad participants were also assessed. At WBGT = 15 °C with 0.75 clo inner garments, mean skin temperatures were stabilized at 31.2 °C, H skin was 60–65%, and HR was about 75.5 bpm, indicating that the working scenario was on the cooler side. At WBGT = 28 °C, T skin plateaued at approximately 34.7 °C, and the participants reported “hot” thermal sensations. The insulation reduction in inner garments from 0.75 clo to 0.37 clo did not significantly improve the physiological thermal comfort of the participants. At WBGT = 32 °C, T skin was maintained at 35.2–35.7 °C, H skin was nearly 90% RH, T core exceeded 37.1 °C, and the mean HR was 91.9 bpm. These conditions indicated that such a working scenario was uncompensable, and personal cooling to mitigate heat stress was required. Relative to that in NCS (no cooling), the mean skin temperatures in ICS and VCS were reduced by 0.61 °C and 0.22 °C, respectively, and the heart rates were decreased by 10.7 and 8.5 bpm, respectively. Perceptual responses in ICS and VCS improved significantly throughout the entire field trials, with VCS outperforming ICS in the individual cooling effect.

Keywords: COVID-19; healthcare workers; personal protective equipment; thermal comfort; personal cooling (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/612/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/612/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:612-:d:1019481

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().