MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Effect of Sex on Heat Strain During Prolonged Work in the Heat

2020· article· en· W3016460378 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew W. D’Souza, Sean R. Notley, Brian J. Friesen, Emma R. McCourt, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiative Heat Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWet-bulb globe temperatureRelative humidityHeart rateMedicineHeat illnessHeat stressThermoregulationIntensity (physics)Core temperatureExercise intensityWet-bulb temperatureTreadmillPhysical therapyInternal medicineAnimal scienceHumidityBlood pressureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workers in many industries commonly experience excessive elevations in core temperature and heart rate (heat strain), which can compromise productivity and safety. These elevations in heat strain could be exacerbated in women, due to impairments in evaporative heat loss (sweat evaporation) relative to men, which exacerbate body heat storage during semi‐nude, short duration (30 min) exercise at a moderate metabolic rate (~200 W/m 2 ). However, in an occupational setting, work is often performed for prolonged periods (>180 min) at a similar intensity (on average) while wearing protective clothing that can impede sweat evaporation. As such, the extent to which such sex‐related impairments in heat dissipation may be exacerbated during prolonged, moderate‐intensity work while wearing protective clothing remains unclear. This is a critical knowledge gap, as such information is necessary to inform sex‐specific occupational heat stress guidelines, which are currently unavailable. We therefore sought to evaluate whether core (rectal) temperature and heart rate (% heart rate reserve, HRR) would be exacerbated in women relative to men during prolonged, moderate‐intensity work in non‐heat stress and high‐heat stress conditions while wearing standard work clothing. To evaluate this hypothesis, 15 healthy women (18–42 years) and 19 men (18–45 years) completed two trials (separated by >48 hours) involving 180‐min of treadmill walking at a moderate metabolic rate (200 W/m 2 ) in a non‐heat stress (21.9°C, 35% relative humidity; wet‐bulb globe temperature [WBGT] 16°C) and high‐heat stress (41.4°C, 35% relative humidity; WBGT 32°C) environment, while wearing single‐layer cotton coveralls (~1 Clo). Trials were terminated upon completion of 180‐min work, volitional fatigue, or a core temperature ≥39.5°C. Mann‐Whitney U‐tests were used to identify between‐group differences in work duration, while unpaired t ‐tests (2‐tailed) were used to assess between‐group differences in peak core temperature and HRR (average of the final 5‐min of work). All participants completed 180 min in the WBGT 16°C however, in the WBGT 32°C, 7 men and 7 women terminated prematurely. Nonetheless, median (range) work duration was similar between groups (women: 158 min [75 – 180] vs. men: 145 min [78–180]; p =.79). Peak core temperature (mean [SD]) was similar between women and men in the WBGT 16°C (37.8°C [0.3] and 37.6°C [0.3], respectively; p =.07) however, contrary to our hypothesis, this response was also similar between men and women in the WBGT 32°C (38.8°C [0.4] and 39.0°C [0.4], respectively; p =.23). Peak HRR was also similar between women and men in the WBGT 16°C (47% [11] and 43% [16]; p =.44) and WBGT 32°C (81% [13] and 86% [16]; p =.41), respectively. Our preliminary findings indicate that sex‐related impairments in heat loss (previously observed in dry heat) do not appear to exacerbate heat strain in women relative to men during prolonged, moderate‐intensity work while wearing standard protective clothing. However, whether a given level of heat strain is equally detrimental to the health of women and men has yet to be determined, and this should be considered prior to implementing or dismissing sex‐specific guidelines for industrial workers. Support or Funding Information The Government of Ontario.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicRadiative Heat Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207