| Literature DB >> 27213422 |
Xiaoli Hao1,2, Chenxin Guo3, Yaolin Lin4, Haiqiao Wang5,6, Heqing Liu7,8.
Abstract
Movable refuge chambers are a new kind of rescue device for underground mining, which is believed to have a potential positive impact on reducing the rate of fatalities. It is likely to be hot and humid inside a movable refuge chamber due to the metabolism of trapped miners, heat generated by equipment and heat transferred from outside. To investigate the heat stress experienced by miners trapped in a movable refuge chamber, the predicted heat strain (PHS) model was used to simulate the heat transfer process between the person and the thermal environment. The variations of heat stress with the temperature and humidity inside the refuge chamber were analyzed. The effects of air temperature outside the refuge chamber and the overall heat transfer coefficient of the refuge chamber shell on the heat stress inside the refuge chamber was also investigated. The relationship between the limit of exposure duration and the air temperature and humidity was numerically analyzed to determine the upper limits of temperature and humidity inside a refuge chamber. Air temperature of 32 °C and relative humidity of 70% are recommended as the design standard for internal thermal environment control of movable refuge chambers.Entities:
Keywords: PHS model; ergonomics; heat stress; movable refuge chamber; thermal environment
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27213422 PMCID: PMC4881143 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13050518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Photograph of a movable refuge chamber, inside (left) and outside (right).
Figure 2Variation of rectal temperature with exposure time.
Figure 3Variation of water loss with exposure time.
Duration limit of exposure (min) for various air temperature and humidity inside the refuge chamber.
| Relative Humidity (RH) | Air Temperature | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 32 | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | ||
| DLE_DH | WL | WL | WL | 363 | 325 | 320 | |
| DLE_HS | WL | WL | 200 | 83 | 53 | 39 | |
| DLE_DH | WL | WL | 392 | 329 | 320 | 319 | |
| DLE_HS | WL | 322 | 94 | 56 | 40 | 32 | |
| DLE_DH | WL | 462 | 339 | 321 | 319 | 318 | |
| DLE_HS | WL | 119 | 63 | 43 | 33 | 31 | |
| DLE_DH | WL | 363 | 322 | 321 | 319 | 318 | |
| DLE_HS | 181 | 75 | 48 | 36 | 33 | 31 | |
WL, without limit.
The duration limit of exposure (min) for various air temperatures outside the refuge chamber (t) and inside the refuge chamber (t).
| Air Temperature Inside Refuge Chamber | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | ||
| DLE_DH | 337 | 332 | 328 | 325 | 323 | |
| DLE_HS | 63 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 50 | |
| DLE_DH | WL | 446 | 410 | 384 | 366 | |
| DLE_HS | 122 | 108 | 96 | 86 | 78 | |
| DLE_DH | WL | WL | WL | WL | WL | |
| DLE_HS | WL | WL | 405 | 255 | 190 | |
The duration limit of exposure (min) for various overall heat transfer coefficient of the wall of refuge chamber (K) and air temperature inside refuge chamber (t).
| Air Temperature Inside Refuge Chamber | K (W/m2-K) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | ||
| DLE_DH | 328 | 326 | 324 | 323 | 322 | |
| DLE_HS | 55 | 53 | 51 | 49 | 48 | |
| DLE_DH | 409 | 389 | 374 | 362 | 353 | |
| DLE_HS | 95 | 88 | 82 | 77 | 72 | |
| DLE_DH | WL | WL | WL | WL | WL | |
| DLE_HS | 432 | 286 | 217 | 177 | 150 | |
Figure 4The relationship between the duration limit of exposure and the air temperature and humidity.
The upper limits of temperature and humidity for protection time of 96 h.
| RH | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35.7 | 33.9 | 32.3 | 30.8 | 29.6 | 28.4 |