MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625709278 · doi:10.1080/15459624.2017.1321844

The recommended Threshold Limit Values for heat exposure fail to maintain body core temperature within safe limits in older working adults

2017· article· en· W2625709278 on OpenAlexaff
Dallon T. Lamarche, Robert D. Meade, Andrew W. D’Souza, Andreas D. Flouris, Stephen G. Hardcastle, Ronald J. Sigal, Pierre Boulay, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWet-bulb globe temperatureRectal temperatureWork (physics)Core temperatureMedicineEnvironmental scienceHeat illnessCyclingThreshold limit valuePersonal protective equipmentSkin temperatureHeat stressMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental healthPhysicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineBiomedical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Values (TLV® guidelines) for work in the heat consist of work-rest (WR) allocations designed to ensure a stable core temperature that does not exceed 38°C. However, the TLV® guidelines have not been validated in older workers. This is an important shortcoming given that adults as young as 40 years demonstrate impairments in their ability to dissipate heat. We therefore evaluated body temperature responses in older adults during work performed in accordance to the TLV® recommended guidelines.Methods: On three occasions, 9 healthy older (58 ± 5 years) males performed a 120-min work-simulated protocol in accordance with the TLV® guidelines for moderate-to-heavy intensity work (360 W fixed rate of heat production) in different wet-bulb globe temperatures (WBGT). The first was 120 min of continuous (CON) cycling at 28.0°C WBGT (CON[28°C]). The other two protocols were 15-min intermittent work bouts performed with different WR cycles and WBGT: (i) WR of 3:1 at 29.0°C (WR3:1[29°C]) and (ii) WR of 1:1 at 30.0°C (WR1:1[30°C]). Rectal temperature was measured continuously. The rate of change in mean body temperature was determined via thermometry (weighting coefficients: rectal, 0.9; mean skin temperature, 0.1) and direct calorimetry.Results: Rectal temperature exceeded 38°C in all participants in CON[28°C] and WR3:1[29°C] whereas a statistically similar proportion of workers exceeded 38°C in WR1:1[30°C] (χ2; P = 0.32). The average time for rectal temperature to reach 38°C was: CON[28°C], 53 ± 7; WR3:1[29°C], 79 ± 11; and WR1:1[30°C], 100 ± 29 min. Finally, while a stable mean body temperature was not achieved in any work condition as measured by thermometry (i.e., >0°C·min−1; all P<0.01), heat balance as determined by direct calorimetry was achieved in WR3:1[29°C] and WR1:1[30°C] (both P ≥ 0.08).Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the TLV® guidelines do not prevent body core temperature from exceeding 38°C in older workers. Furthermore, a stable core temperature was not achieved within safe limits (i.e., ≤38°C) indicating that the TLV® guidelines may not adequately protect all individuals 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207