Dataset Information

Variations in Athlete Heat-Loss Potential Between Hot-Dry and Warm-Humid Environments at Equivalent Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature Thresholds.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Many organizations associated with sports medicine recommend using wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT)-based activity-modification guidelines that are uniform across the country. However, no consideration has been given to whether the WBGT thresholds are appropriate for different weather conditions, such as warm-humid (WH) relative to hot-dry (HD), based on known differences in physiological responses to these environments.

Objective

To identify if personnel in regions with drier conditions and greater evaporative cooling potential should consider using WBGT-based activity-modification thresholds that differ from those in more humid weather.

Design

Observational study.

Setting

Weather stations across the contiguous United States.

Main outcome measure(s)

A 15-year hourly WBGT dataset from 217 weather stations across the contiguous United States was used to identify particular combinations of globe temperature, wet-bulb temperature, and air temperature that produce WBGTs of 27.9°C, 30.1°C, and 32.3°C. A total of 71 302 observations were clustered into HD and WH environmental conditions. From these clusters, maximum heat-loss potential and heat-flux values were modeled at equivalent WBGT thresholds with various activity levels, clothing, and equipment configurations.

Results

We identified strong geographic patterns, with HD conditions predominant in the western half and WH conditions predominant in the eastern half of the country. Heat loss was systematically greater in HD than in WH conditions, indicating an overall less stressful environment, even at equivalent WBGT values. At a WBGT of 32.3°C, this difference was 11 W·m-2 at an activity velocity of 0.3 m·s-1, which doubled for an activity velocity of 0.7 m·s-1. The HD and WH difference increased with the WBGT value, demonstrating that evaporative cooling differences between HD and WH conditions were even greater at a higher, rather than lower, WBGT.

Conclusions

Potential heat loss was consistently greater in HD than in WH environments despite equal WBGTs. These findings support the need for further clinical studies to determine the appropriate WBGT thresholds based on environmental and physiological limits to maximize safety while avoiding unnecessary limitations.

SUBMITTER: Vanos JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7709211 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: A commercial chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) protective covert garment has recently been developed with the aim of reducing thermal strain. A covert CBRN protective layer can be worn under other clothing, with equipment added for full chemical protection when needed. However, it is unknown whether the covert garment offers any alleviation to thermal strain during work compared with a traditional overt ensemble. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare thermal strain and work tolerance times during work in an overt and covert ensemble offering the same level of CBRN protection. Methods: Eleven male participants wore an overt (OVERT) or covert (COVERT) CBRN ensemble and walked (4 km·h-1, 1% grade) for a maximum of 120 min in either a wet bulb globe temperature [WBGT] of 21, 30, or 37°C (Neutral, WarmWet and HotDry, respectively). The trials were ceased if the participants' gastrointestinal temperature reached 39°C, heart rate reached 90% of maximum, walking time reached 120 min or due to self-termination. Results: All participants completed 120 min of walking in Neutral. Work tolerance time was greater in OVERT compared with COVERT in WarmWet (P < 0.001, 116.5[9.9] vs. 88.9[12.2] min, respectively), though this order was reversed in HotDry (P = 0.003, 37.3[5.3] vs. 48.4[4.6] min, respectively). The rate of change in mean body temperature and mean skin temperature was greater in COVERT (0.025[0.004] and 0.045[0.010]°C·min-1, respectively) compared with OVERT (0.014[0.004] and 0.027[0.007]°C·min-1, respectively) in WarmWet (P < 0.001 and P = 0.028, respectively). However, the rate of change in mean body temperature and mean skin temperature was greater in OVERT (0.068[0.010] and 0.170[0.026]°C·min-1, respectively) compared with COVERT (0.059[0.004] and 0.120[0.017]°C·min-1, respectively) in HotDry (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively). Thermal sensation, thermal comfort, and ratings of perceived exertion did not differ between garments at trial cessation (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Those dressed in OVERT experienced lower thermal strain and longer work tolerance times compared with COVERT in a warm-wet environment. However, COVERT may be an optimal choice in a hot-dry environment. These findings have practical implications for those making decisions on the choice of CBRN ensemble to be used during work.