Inherent work suit buoyancy distribution:effects on lifejacket self-righting performance

Introduction: Accidental immersion in cold water is an occupational risk. Work suits and life jackets (LJ) should work effectively in combination to keep the airway clear of the water (freeboard) and enable self-righting. We hypothesized that inherent buoyancy, in the suit or LJ, would be beneficial for enabling freeboard, but its distribution may influence LJ self-righting. Methods: Six participants consented to complete nine immersions. Suits and LJ tested were: flotation suit (FLOAT; 85 N inherent buoyancy); oilskins 1 (OS-1) and 2 (OS-2), both with no inherent buoyancy; LJs (inherent buoyancy/buoyancy after inflation/total buoyancy), LJ-1 50/150/200 N, LJ-2 0/290/290 N, LJ-3 80/190/270 N. Once dressed, the subject entered an immersion pool where uninflated freeboard, self-righting performance, and inflated freeboard were measured. Data were compared using Friedman’s test to the 0.05 alpha level. Results: All suits and LJs enabled uninflated and inflated freeboard, but differences were seen between the suits and LJs. Self-righting was achieved on 43 of 54 occasions, irrespective of suit or LJ. On all occasions that self-righting was not achieved, this occurred in an LJ that included inherent buoyancy (11/54 occasions). Of these 11 failures, 8 occurred (73% of occasions) when the FLOAT suit was being worn. Discussion: LJs that included inherent buoyancy, that are certified as effective on their own, worked less effectively from the perspective of self-righting in combination with a work suit that also included inherent buoyancy. Equipment that is approved for use in the workplace should be tested in combination to ensure adequate performance in an emergency scenario

Moving in extreme environments:what’s extreme and who decides?

Humans work, rest and play in immensely varied extreme environments. The term ‘extreme’ typically refers to insufficiency or excess of one or more stressors, such as thermal energy or gravity. Individuals’ behavioural and physiological capacity to endure and enjoy such environments varies immensely. Adverse effects of acute exposure to these environments are readily identifiable (e.g. heat stroke or bone fracture), whereas adverse effects of chronic exposure (e.g. stress fractures or osteoporosis) may be as important but much less discernable. Modern societies have increasingly sought to protect people from such stressors and, in that way, minimise their adverse effects. Regulations are thus established, and advice is provided on what is ‘acceptable’ exposure. Examples include work/rest cycles in the heat, hydration regimes, rates of ascent to and duration of stay at altitude and diving depth. While usually valuable and well intentioned, it is important to realise the breadth and importance of limitations associated with such guidelines. Regulations and advisories leave less room for self-determination, learning and perhaps adaptation. Regulations based on stress (e.g. work/rest cycles relative to WBGT) are more practical but less direct than those based on strain (e.g. core temperature), but even the latter can be substantively limited (e.g. by lack of criterion validation and allowance for behavioural regulation in the research on which they are based). Extreme Physiology & Medicine is publishing a series of reviews aimed at critically examining the issues involved with self- versus regulation-controlled human movement acutely and chronically in extreme environments. These papers, arising from a research symposium in 2013, are about the impact of people engaging in such environments and the effect of rules and guidelines on their safety, enjoyment, autonomy and productivity. The reviews will cover occupational heat stress, sporting heat stress, hydration, diving, extreme loading, chronic unloading and high altitude. Ramifications include factors such as health and safety, productivity, enjoyment and autonomy, acute and chronic protection and optimising adaptation

Considerations for the measurement of core, skin and mean body temperatures

Despite previous reviews and commentaries, significant misconceptions remain concerning deep-body (core) and skin temperature measurement in humans. Therefore, the authors have assembled the pertinent Laws of Thermodynamics and other first principles that govern physical and physiological heat exchanges. The resulting review is aimed at providing theoretical and empirical justifications for collecting and interpreting these data. The primary emphasis is upon deep-body temperatures, with discussions of intramuscular, subcutaneous, transcutaneous and skin temperatures included. These are all turnover indices resulting from variations in local metabolism, tissue conduction and blood flow. Consequently, inter-site differences and similarities may have no mechanistic relationship unless those sites have similar metabolic rates, are in close proximity and are perfused by the same blood vessels. Therefore, it is proposed that a gold standard deep-body temperature does not exist. Instead, the validity of each measurement must be evaluated relative to one\u27s research objectives, whilst satisfying equilibration and positioning requirements. When using thermometric computations of heat storage, the establishment of steady-state conditions is essential, but for clinically relevant states, targeted temperature monitoring becomes paramount. However, when investigating temperature regulation, the response characteristics of each temperature measurement must match the forcing function applied during experimentation. Thus, during dynamic phases, deep-body temperatures must be measured from sites that track temperature changes in the central blood volume