Do the Threshold Limit Values for Work in Hot Conditions Adequately Protect Workers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated core temperature responses and the change in body heat content (ΔHb) during work performed according to the ACGIH threshold limit values (TLV) for heat stress, which are designed to ensure a stable core temperature that does not exceed 38.0°C. METHODS: Nine young males performed a 120-min work protocol consisting of cycling at a fixed rate of heat production (360 W). On the basis of the TLV, each protocol consisted of a different work-rest (WR) allocation performed in different wet-bulb globe temperatures (WBGT). The first was 120 min of continuous (CON) cycling at 28.0°C WBGT (CON[28.0°C]). The remaining three protocols were intermittent work bouts (15-min duration) performed at various WR and WBGT: (i) WR of 3:1 at 29.0°C (WR3:1[29.0°C]), (ii) WR of 1:1 at 30.0°C (WR1:1[30.0°C]), and (iii) WR of 1:3 at 31.5°C (WR1:3[31.5°C]) (total exercise time: 90, 60, and 30 min, respectively). The change in rectal (ΔTre) and mean body temperature (ΔTb) was evaluated with thermometry. ΔHb was determined via direct calorimetry and also used to calculate ΔTb. RESULTS: Although average rectal temperature did not exceed 38.0°C, heat balance was not achieved during exercise in any work protocol (i.e., rate of ΔTre > 0°C·min; all P values ≤ 0.02). Consequently, it was projected that if work was extended to 4 h, the distribution of participant core temperatures higher and lower than 38.0°C would be statistically similar (all P values ≥ 0.10). Furthermore, ΔHb was similar between protocols (P = 0.70). However, a greater ΔTb was observed with calorimetry relative to thermometry in WR3:1[29.0°C] (P = 0.03), WR1:1[30.0°C] (P = 0.02), and WR1:3[31.5°C] (P < 0.01) but not CON[28.0°C] (P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrated that heat balance was not achieved and ΔTb and ΔHb were inconsistent, suggesting that the TLV may not adequately protect workers during work in hot conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".