Literature DB >> 26771198

Balancing ballistic protection against physiological strain: evidence from laboratory and field trials.

Nigel A S Taylor1, Catriona A Burdon1, Anne M J van den Heuvel1, Alison L Fogarty2, Sean R Notley1, Andrew P Hunt2, Daniel C Billing2, Jace R Drain2, Aaron J Silk1, Mark J Patterson2, Gregory E Peoples1.   

Abstract

This project was based on the premise that decisions concerning the ballistic protection provided to defence personnel should derive from an evaluation of the balance between protection level and its impact on physiological function, mobility, and operational capability. Civilians and soldiers participated in laboratory- and field-based studies in which ensembles providing five levels of ballistic protection were evaluated, each with progressive increases in protection, mass (3.4-11.0 kg), and surface-area coverage (0.25-0.52 m(2)). Physiological trials were conducted on volunteers (N = 8) in a laboratory, under hot-dry conditions simulating an urban patrol: walking at 4 km·h(-1) (90 min) and 6 km·h(-1) (30 min or to fatigue). Field-based trials were used to evaluate tactical battlefield movements (mobility) of soldiers (N = 31) under tropical conditions, and across functional tests of power, speed, agility, endurance, and balance. Finally, trials were conducted at a jungle training centre, with soldiers (N = 32) patrolling under tropical conditions (averaging 5 h). In the laboratory, work tolerance was reduced as protection increased, with deep-body temperature climbing relentlessly. However, the protective ensembles could be grouped into two equally stressful categories, each providing a different level of ballistic protection. This outcome was supported during the mobility trials, with the greatest performance decrement evident during fire and movement simulations, as the ensemble mass was increased (-2.12%·kg(-1)). The jungle patrol trials similarly supported this outcome. Therefore, although ballistic protection does increase physiological strain, this research has provided a basis on which to determine how that strain can be balanced against the mission-specific level of required personal protection.

Entities:  

Keywords:  armure; ballistic protection; body armour; core temperature; mobility; mobilité; personal protective equipment; protection balistique; température centrale; équipement de protection individuelle

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26771198     DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2015-0386

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Physiol Nutr Metab        ISSN: 1715-5312            Impact factor:   2.665


  5 in total

Review 1.  Occupational heat stress in Australian workplaces.

Authors:  Ollie Jay; John R Brotherhood
Journal:  Temperature (Austin)       Date:  2016-07-27

Review 2.  The Impact of Load Carriage on Measures of Power and Agility in Tactical Occupations: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Aaron Joseph; Amy Wiley; Robin Orr; Benjamin Schram; J Jay Dawes
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-01-07       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Associations between Fitness Measures and Change of Direction Speeds with and without Occupational Loads in Female Police Officers.

Authors:  Robin M Orr; Filip Kukić; Aleksandar Čvorović; Nenad Koropanovski; Radivoje Janković; Jay Dawes; Robert Lockie
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Burn Injury Does Not Exacerbate Heat Strain during Exercise while Wearing Body Armor.

Authors:  Mads Fischer; Matthew N Cramer; M U Huang; Luke N Belval; Joseph C Watso; Frank A Cimino; Craig G Crandall
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2020-10

5.  The impact of body armor on physical performance of law enforcement personnel: a systematic review.

Authors:  Colin Tomes; Robin Marc Orr; Rodney Pope
Journal:  Ann Occup Environ Med       Date:  2017-05-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.