You are on page 1of 4

NOT Restricted to FERIC Members and Partners Vol. 3 No.

X December 2002

Contents Thermal responses to exercise while


1
2
Introduction
Objectives
wearing industrial protective headwear
2 Methods
3 Results and Abstract
discussion This report describes a study designed to evaluate the effects of selected safety headwear
4 Conclusions products. Three conditions were compared: no helmet, a standard helmet, and helmet
4 References with side impact protection. Thermal responses to exercise and the effects of exercise-
induced thermal stress and fatigue were investigated.

Keywords
Personal protective equipment, Thermal responses, Firefighters, Hardhat, Side im-
pact protection, Head protection, Industrial protective headwear.

Authors Introduction Most manufacturers meet the CSA


Stewart Petersen, Ph.D., standard for side impact protection by in-
Brian Maraj, Ph.D.,
Fighting wildfires involves the risk of
head injury and therefore, head protection cluding an expanded polystyrene (EPS) liner
Neil Eves, M.Sc.,
has been designated mandatory personal inside the helmet to absorb impact energy.
Michael Stickland, B.P.E.,
Michael Gilpin, M.Sc., protective equipment. The concept of “due Because the EPS liner fits tightly against the
Randy Dreger, M.Sc.1 diligence” in worker safety requires that an head, it reduces airflow between the helmet
employer will provide employees with the and the environment. The liner also restricts
best safety protection available. In the case the head size adjustments that can be made
of headwear, side impact helmets are viewed to the suspension system. Other researchers
as providing superior overall protection. In (Abeysekera and Shahnavaz 1988) have
1999, Alberta’s Occupational Health and found a strong association between increased
Safety determined all employees in operations dome temperature, thermal discomfort, and
would be required to use Canadian Standards reduced compliance with mandatory safety
Association (CSA) certified protective headwear requirements.
headwear (CSA Z94.1-92 (CSA 1992)) that In response to concerns of the Alberta
provides lateral protection against impact wildland firefights about discomfort caused
(Figure 1). by this headware, primarily due to the heat
and poor fit, FERIC initiated a study con-
ducted by the Faculty of Physical Education
Figure 1. An and Recreation at the University of Alberta.
example of a The study evaluated the effects of selected
hardhat with side
impact protection.
safety headwear products, worn by Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development’s fire-
fighters, on thermal responses during sus-
tained exercise. The issue of discomfort and
reduced protection due to poor fit, although

1
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
of significant concern, is not addressed in that had previously received approval from the
this report. Research Ethics Committee in the Faculty
of Physical Education and Recreation,
Objectives University of Alberta. Each subject completed
The specific purpose of the study was to a medical examination with a physician to
document thermal response to exercise under screen for contraindications to participation.
three headwear conditions. The three The study consisted of two phases and in
conditions were: the “standard” helmet (SH), total, each subject performed five exercise
ANSI Z89.1-1986 (ANSI 1986); the “side- tests. The first phase consisted of a graded
impact” helmet (SI), CAN/CSA Z94.1-92; exercise test on a motor-driven treadmill to
and a control condition (no helmet). The determine selected parameters of aerobic
objectives of the study were to: fitness and work capacity. In the second phase,
• Investigate the effect of selected safety a practice session and three exercise challenges
headwear designs on body temperature were completed, and thermal responses to
during sustained exercise. the exercise with the two helmets were
• Identify any differences in thermal compared to a control (no helmet) conditions
responses to exercise between helmet (Figure 2). In each test, subjects completed
conditions. 45 minutes of strenuous exercise while
• Investigate the effects of exercise-induced outfitted in the personal protective equipment
thermal stress and fatigue on select typically worn by wildland firefighters.
aspects of psychomotor function. Headwear conditions were assigned randomly
and subjects were not aware of the overall
purpose of the study or its relationship to
Methods the helmet they were wearing.
Sixteen male subjects provided written Measurements of core body temperature
informed consent to participate in the study were obtained continuously from a Cortemp
CT200 miniaturized ambulatory recording
system. This system consists of a miniature
Figure 2. Test transmitter that sends temperature readings
subject on the by telemetry to an external receiver. The
treadmill, without
helmet.
subjects swallowed the transmitters that later
passed through the digestive system.
The subjects provided ratings of perceived
exertion (RPE) at five minute intervals
throughout the sub maximal exercise trials
using the 15 point Borg scale (Borg 1982).
The numbers reported ranged from 6 to 20
with the odd numbers assigned description
from very, very, light (RPE=7) to very, very,
hard (RPE=19). Perceptions of thermal
distress (PTD) were reported using a 9 point
psychophysical scale. On this scale, numbers

Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC)


Eastern Division and Head Office Western Division Disclaimer
580 boul. St-Jean 2601 East Mall Advantage is published solely to disseminate information to FERIC’s mem-
Pointe-Claire, QC, H9R 3J9 Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 bers and partners. It is not intended as an endorsement or approval of any
product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
(514) 694-1140 (604) 228-1555
(514) 694-4351 (604) 228-0999  Copyright 2002. Printed in Canada on recycled paper.
admin@mtl.feric.ca admin@vcr.feric.ca
Vol. 3 No. x
2 Advantage
December 2002
ISSN 1493-3381
range from 1 to 9 with odd numbers assigned to the standard and control. Based on this
descriptions from “My body temperature is study, increased helmet dome temperature
comfortable” (PTD=1) to “The heat is does not appear to have a significant effect on
unbearable” (PDT=9). core temperature, the main index of heat stress.
Immediately before and after each The study found that absolute helmet
exercise challenge, subjects completed a dome temperatures reached 26.5, 27, 29.6º
series of psychomotor skill tests. Participants C for the control, SH and SI conditions,
were asked to perform upper limb movements, respectively (Figure 4). The higher dome
making a three segment sequencing temperatures in the side impact helmet may
movement to manipulate lights of various be explained by the increased padding and
colours on a panel. The tests recorded reduced airflow. The standard helmet is not
reaction time, movement time, and any errors padded and therefore has greater head to
made. helmet clearance. Logically, the design of the
side impact helmet would tend to trap heat
Results and discussion in its dome. We would expect that radiant
heat from the sun or fire would exacerbate
Thermal response to exercise
this situation and would result in greater
Core body temperature increased during thermal discomfort.
the exercise trial in all three conditions. When Perceived thermal distress at the head, a
the helmet conditions were compared to the subjective rating of heat within the helmet,
control, no difference was evident between was greater in both helmet conditions during
the standard and side impact helmets exercise compared to the control condition.
(Figure 3). Temperature within the helmets However, despite the higher helmet dome
was highest in the side impact helmet, both temperature with the side-impact helmet,
before and during exercise (Figures 3 and 4) there was no difference in the perceived
and the rate of increase was also slightly distress between subjects wearing the two
higher for the side impact helmet compared helmets.

2.0
Note: The averages for No helmet
Figure 3. Change in
and Standard helmet were core temperature
Change in core temperature (°C)

identical. during 45 minutes


1.5 of treadmill
exercise under
selected headwear
conditions. All
1.0 changes in
temperature from
the pre-test
baseline are
0.5 significant
(p≤0.05), but there
are no differences
No helmet
0.0 between headwear
Standard helmet conditions. The
Side impact helmet vertical lines
indicate standard
-0.5 deviation. N=16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (minutes)

Vol. 3 No. x
Advantage December 2002 3
No helmet
Figure 4. Helmet
dome temperature Standard helmet
31 Side impact helmet
during 45 minutes
of treadmill

Helmet dome temperature (°C)


30
exercise under
selected headwear
conditions. 29
Significantly
different 28
relationships are
identified on the 27
graph by symbols.
The vertical lines
26
indicate standard
deviation. N=16
25
= SI vs Control (p 0.05) = SI vs SH (p 0.05)
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (minutes)

Effects of thermal stress and strenuous, constant load treadmill exercise.


exercise on psychomotor The findings suggest that the side im-
responses pact helmet does inhibit heat release from
The test results showed no significant the head compared to the standard helmet.
differences between the helmet conditions. However, this difference did not contribute
The participants were able to follow the in- to higher levels of measured or perceived ther-
structions and complete the tasks irrespec- mal stress during exercise. While the results
tive of the helmet conditions. No significant did not show higher perceptions of thermal
differences in performance were found be- distress specific to either the head or general-
tween the SH and SI conditions. ized to the whole body in the side impact
condition, we believe that under other con-
Conclusions ditions (e.g., radiant heat and/or work of
The investigation examined the effects longer duration) the differences may be more
of two designs of protective headwear on pronounced. The working environment may
thermal stress during exercise, compared to a have a larger role in thermal discomfort than
no-helmet control. Dome temperature in- measured under the conditions of this study.
side the side impact helmet was higher than
the other two conditions. However, the per- References
ception of head temperature was the same Abeysekera, J.D.A.; Shahnavaz, H. 1988. Ergonomics
evaluation of modified industrial helmets for use in
for the side-impact and the standard helmets. tropical environments. Ergonomics 31: 1317–
Similarly, perception of whole body heat 1329.
stress and perceived exertion during exercise American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1986.
were not different for the three conditions. ANSI Z89.1-1986. Type I Protective Headwear
All helmet conditions resulted in similar in- for Industrial Workers. Washington, D.C.
creases in core body temperature. The psy- Borg, G.A. 1982. Psychological bases of perceived
chomotor dimensions involved in motor exertion. Medicine and Science in Sport and
Exercise 14: 377–381.
performance were not adversely affected by
Canadian Standards Association (SCA). 1992 CAN/
the helmet manipulations. The results of this CSA Z94.1-92 Industrial Protective Headwear.
study show that the type of protective head- Rexdale, Ont.
gear did not affect heat accumulation during
Vol. 3 No. x
4 December 2002 Advantage

You might also like