The Critical Ambient Temperature Threshold for Safe Fan Use in Young Adults During Extreme Heat Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The electric fan may be an effective, low-cost heat resilience solution during extreme heat. Fans have been shown to attenuate the rise in cardiovascular and thermal strain relative to still air in young adults, particularly during exposure to more humid conditions. When ambient temperature exceeds skin temperature, a fan improves sweat evaporation from the skin surface, which counterbalances the increased rate of convective heat gain. However, at higher air temperatures, the increased convective heat gain may exceed the rate of evaporative heat loss resulting in net heat gain and increasing physiological strain. The purpose of the present study was to identify the critical ambient temperature limit, where increased physiological strain will be observed, with a fan in comparison to still air. Method: To date, 6 participants (4 females; 24±9 y; 72.8±17.8 kg; 1.8±0.2 m) have completed two 180-minute temperature ramp heat-exposures (37°C to 47°C at ~0.05°C/min, 25%RH) on separate days. Wearing standardized t-shirts and shorts, the participants remained seated while either i) facing an electric fan (5.3±0.9 m/s) or ii) in still air (0.1±0.0 m/s). Rectal and skin temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, whole-body sweat loss, thermal comfort, and thermal sensation were measured every 10 minutes. Results: Rectal temperature was similar between fan and still air up to 43°C (P>0.92), however was greater with a fan from 44°C onwards (p<0.05). Skin temperature was higher with a fan compared to still air throughout the exposure (p<0.001). Heart rate was similar between fan and still air until 44°C (P>0.61), after which heart rate was higher with a fan (p<0.05). Mean arterial pressure was not different between fan and still air at any air temperature (P=0.53). The rate pressure product was higher with a fan compared to still air when the ambient temperature exceeded 44°C (p<0.05). Whole-body sweat losses were greater with a fan (1215±250 g) compared to still air (675±103 g, P=0.006). No differences between fan and still air were observed for thermal comfort (P=0.22) or thermal sensation (P=0.73) throughout the temperature ramp protocol. Conclusion: When ambient temperature exceeds 43°C, electric fan use results in greater physiological strain at rest in young healthy adults relative to still air. This research was supported by Dr. Ravanelli’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant (PIN#2022-05096). This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2024 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".