Cargando…
Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery
BACKGROUND: Deep body temperature is a critical indicator of heat strain. However, direct measures are often invasive, costly, and difficult to implement in the field. This study assessed the agreement between deep body temperature estimated from heart rate and that measured directly during repeated...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6567444/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31196190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40779-019-0208-7 |
_version_ | 1783427078899630080 |
---|---|
author | Hunt, Andrew P. Buller, Mark J. Maley, Matthew J. Costello, Joseph T. Stewart, Ian B. |
author_facet | Hunt, Andrew P. Buller, Mark J. Maley, Matthew J. Costello, Joseph T. Stewart, Ian B. |
author_sort | Hunt, Andrew P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Deep body temperature is a critical indicator of heat strain. However, direct measures are often invasive, costly, and difficult to implement in the field. This study assessed the agreement between deep body temperature estimated from heart rate and that measured directly during repeated work bouts while wearing explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) protective clothing and during recovery. METHODS: Eight males completed three work and recovery periods across two separate days. Work consisted of treadmill walking on a 1% incline at 2.5, 4.0, or 5.5 km/h, in a random order, wearing EOD protective clothing. Ambient temperature and relative humidity were maintained at 24 °C and 50% [Wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) (20.9 ± 1.2) °C] or 32 °C and 60% [WBGT (29.0 ± 0.2) °C] on the separate days, respectively. Heart rate and gastrointestinal temperature (T(GI)) were monitored continuously, and deep body temperature was also estimated from heart rate (ECTemp). RESULTS: The overall systematic bias between T(GI) and ECTemp was 0.01 °C with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of ±0.64 °C and a root mean square error of 0.32 °C. The average error statistics among participants showed no significant differences in error between the exercise and recovery periods or the environmental conditions. At T(GI) levels of (37.0–37.5) °C, (37.5–38.0) °C, (38.0–38.5) °C, and > 38.5 °C, the systematic bias and ± 95% LoA were (0.08 ± 0.58) °C, (− 0.02 ± 0.69) °C, (− 0.07 ± 0.63) °C, and (− 0.32 ± 0.56) °C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate acceptable validity of the ECTemp up to 38.5 °C. Conducting work within an ECTemp limit of 38.4 °C, in conditions similar to the present study, would protect the majority of personnel from an excessive elevation in deep body temperature (> 39.0 °C). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6567444 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65674442019-06-20 Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery Hunt, Andrew P. Buller, Mark J. Maley, Matthew J. Costello, Joseph T. Stewart, Ian B. Mil Med Res Research BACKGROUND: Deep body temperature is a critical indicator of heat strain. However, direct measures are often invasive, costly, and difficult to implement in the field. This study assessed the agreement between deep body temperature estimated from heart rate and that measured directly during repeated work bouts while wearing explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) protective clothing and during recovery. METHODS: Eight males completed three work and recovery periods across two separate days. Work consisted of treadmill walking on a 1% incline at 2.5, 4.0, or 5.5 km/h, in a random order, wearing EOD protective clothing. Ambient temperature and relative humidity were maintained at 24 °C and 50% [Wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) (20.9 ± 1.2) °C] or 32 °C and 60% [WBGT (29.0 ± 0.2) °C] on the separate days, respectively. Heart rate and gastrointestinal temperature (T(GI)) were monitored continuously, and deep body temperature was also estimated from heart rate (ECTemp). RESULTS: The overall systematic bias between T(GI) and ECTemp was 0.01 °C with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of ±0.64 °C and a root mean square error of 0.32 °C. The average error statistics among participants showed no significant differences in error between the exercise and recovery periods or the environmental conditions. At T(GI) levels of (37.0–37.5) °C, (37.5–38.0) °C, (38.0–38.5) °C, and > 38.5 °C, the systematic bias and ± 95% LoA were (0.08 ± 0.58) °C, (− 0.02 ± 0.69) °C, (− 0.07 ± 0.63) °C, and (− 0.32 ± 0.56) °C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate acceptable validity of the ECTemp up to 38.5 °C. Conducting work within an ECTemp limit of 38.4 °C, in conditions similar to the present study, would protect the majority of personnel from an excessive elevation in deep body temperature (> 39.0 °C). BioMed Central 2019-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6567444/ /pubmed/31196190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40779-019-0208-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Hunt, Andrew P. Buller, Mark J. Maley, Matthew J. Costello, Joseph T. Stewart, Ian B. Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery |
title | Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery |
title_full | Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery |
title_fullStr | Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery |
title_full_unstemmed | Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery |
title_short | Validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery |
title_sort | validity of a noninvasive estimation of deep body temperature when wearing personal protective equipment during exercise and recovery |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6567444/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31196190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40779-019-0208-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huntandrewp validityofanoninvasiveestimationofdeepbodytemperaturewhenwearingpersonalprotectiveequipmentduringexerciseandrecovery AT bullermarkj validityofanoninvasiveestimationofdeepbodytemperaturewhenwearingpersonalprotectiveequipmentduringexerciseandrecovery AT maleymatthewj validityofanoninvasiveestimationofdeepbodytemperaturewhenwearingpersonalprotectiveequipmentduringexerciseandrecovery AT costellojosepht validityofanoninvasiveestimationofdeepbodytemperaturewhenwearingpersonalprotectiveequipmentduringexerciseandrecovery AT stewartianb validityofanoninvasiveestimationofdeepbodytemperaturewhenwearingpersonalprotectiveequipmentduringexerciseandrecovery |