![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
This investigation assessed the thermophysiological and subjective impacts of different respirator ambient air cooling options while wearing chemical and biological personal protective equipment in a warm environment (32.7 ± 0.4°C, 49.6 ± 6.5% RH). Ten volunteers participated in 90-min heat exposure trials with and without respirator (Control) wear and performed computer-generated tasks while seated. Ambient air cooling was provided to respirators modified to blow air to the forehead (FHC) or to the forehead and the breathing zone (BZC) of a full-facepiece air-purifying respirator using a low-flow (45 L·min−1) mini-blower. An unmodified respirator (APR) trial was also completed. The highest body temperatures (TTY) and least favorable comfort ratings were observed for the APR condition. With ambient cooling over the last 60 min of heat exposure, TTY averaged 37.4 ± 0.6°C for Control, 38.0 ± 0.4°C for APR, 37.8 ± 0.5°C for FHC, and 37.6 ± 0.7°C for BZC conditions independent of time. Both the FHC and BZC ambient air cooling conditions reduced facial skin temperatures, reduced the rise in body temperatures, and led to more favorable subjective comfort and thermal sensation ratings over time compared to the APR condition; however statistical differences among conditions were inconsistent. Independent of exposure time, average breathing apparatus comfort scores with BZC (7.2 ± 2.5) were significantly different from both Control (8.9 ± 1.4) and APR (6.5 ± 2.2) conditions when ambient cooling was activated. These findings suggest that low-flow ambient air cooling of the face under low work rate conditions and mild hyperthermia may be a practical method to minimize the thermophysiological strain and reduce perceived respirator discomfort.