UNLABELLED: The location of the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) index measurement may affect heat stress flag category classification. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare WBGT measurements at three locations along the Boston Marathon race course and compare WBGT estimates for meteorological stations and 72-h advanced WBGT forecasts. METHODS: WBGT was measured hourly from 1000 to 1400 h at approximately 7 km, approximately 18 km, and approximately 30 km on the Boston Marathon race course. Simultaneous WBGT estimates were made for two meteorological stations southeast of the course via a commercial online system, which also provided 72-h advanced forecasts. RESULTS: The measurement difference (mean ± SD) among course locations was 0.2°C ± 1.8°C WBGT (ANOVA, P > 0.05). The difference between course and stations was 1.9°C ± 2.4°C WBGT (t-test, P < 0.05). Station values underestimated (n = 98) or overestimated (n = 13) course values by >3°C WBGT (>0.5 flag category) in 111 of 245 paired comparisons (45%). Higher black globe and lower wet bulb temperatures explained over- and underestimates, respectively. Significant underestimates of WBGT resulted in misclassification of green (labeled white) and black (labeled red) course flag categories (χ2, P < 0.05). Forecast data significantly underestimated red (labeled amber) and black (labeled red) course flag categories. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in WBGT index along 23 km of the Boston Marathon race route can be small enough to warrant single measurements. However, significant misclassification of flag categories occurred using WBGT estimates for meteorological stations; thus, local measurements are preferred. If the relation between station WBGT forecasts and the race sites can be established, the forecast WBGT values could be corrected to give advanced warning of approximate flag conditions. Similar work is proposed for other venues to improve heat stress monitoring.
UNLABELLED: The location of the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) index measurement may affect heat stress flag category classification. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare WBGT measurements at three locations along the Boston Marathon race course and compare WBGT estimates for meteorological stations and 72-h advanced WBGT forecasts. METHODS: WBGT was measured hourly from 1000 to 1400 h at approximately 7 km, approximately 18 km, and approximately 30 km on the Boston Marathon race course. Simultaneous WBGT estimates were made for two meteorological stations southeast of the course via a commercial online system, which also provided 72-h advanced forecasts. RESULTS: The measurement difference (mean ± SD) among course locations was 0.2°C ± 1.8°C WBGT (ANOVA, P > 0.05). The difference between course and stations was 1.9°C ± 2.4°C WBGT (t-test, P < 0.05). Station values underestimated (n = 98) or overestimated (n = 13) course values by >3°C WBGT (>0.5 flag category) in 111 of 245 paired comparisons (45%). Higher black globe and lower wet bulb temperatures explained over- and underestimates, respectively. Significant underestimates of WBGT resulted in misclassification of green (labeled white) and black (labeled red) course flag categories (χ2, P < 0.05). Forecast data significantly underestimated red (labeled amber) and black (labeled red) course flag categories. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in WBGT index along 23 km of the Boston Marathon race route can be small enough to warrant single measurements. However, significant misclassification of flag categories occurred using WBGT estimates for meteorological stations; thus, local measurements are preferred. If the relation between station WBGT forecasts and the race sites can be established, the forecast WBGT values could be corrected to give advanced warning of approximate flag conditions. Similar work is proposed for other venues to improve heat stress monitoring.
Authors: Yuri Hosokawa; Douglas J Casa; Juli M Trtanj; Luke N Belval; Patricia A Deuster; Sarah M Giltz; Andrew J Grundstein; Michelle D Hawkins; Robert A Huggins; Brenda Jacklitsch; John F Jardine; Hunter Jones; Josh B Kazman; Mark E Reynolds; Rebecca L Stearns; Jennifer K Vanos; Alan L Williams; W Jon Williams Journal: Int J Biometeorol Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 3.787
Authors: Yuri Hosokawa; William M Adams; Douglas J Casa; Jennifer K Vanos; Earl R Cooper; Andrew J Grundstein; Ollie Jay; Brendon P McDermott; Hidenori Otani; Neha P Raukar; Rebecca L Stearns; Brady L Tripp Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Stefania Di Gangi; Hamdi Chtourou; Christoph Alexander Rüst; Thomas Rosemann; Beat Knechtle Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Beat Knechtle; Stefania Di Gangi; Christoph Alexander Rüst; Elias Villiger; Thomas Rosemann; Pantelis Theo Nikolaidis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.240