Rasoul Hemmatjo1, Majid Motamedzade2, Mohsen Aliabadi3, Omid Kalatpour3, Maryam Farhadian4. 1. Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. 2. Department of Ergonomics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. 3. Department of Occupational Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Abstract
Background: Firefighters often perform multiple tasks during firefighting operations under unknown and unpredictable conditions in hot and hostile environments. Methods: In this interventional study each firefighters engaged in 4 conditions: namely (1) no cooling device; control (NC), (2) cooling gel (CG), (3) cool vest (CV), and (4) CG+CV. Cooling effects of the employed interventions were evaluated based on heart rate (HR), temporal temperature (TT), reaction time (RT), and the correct response (CR). Results: HR and TT values for use of CG+CV (147.47 bpm [SD 4.8]; 37.88°C [SD 0.20]) and CV bpm (147.53 [SD 4.67]; 37.90°C [SD 0.22]) were significantly lower than the CG (153.67 bpm [SD 4.82]; 38.10°C [SD 0.22]) and NC (154.4 bpm [SD 4.91]; 38.11°C [SD 0.23]) at the end of the activity. RT and CR for use of CG + CV (389.87 ms [SD 6.12]; 143.53 [SD 1.24]) and CV (389.53 ms [SD 6.24]; 143.47 [SD 1.18]) were significantly higher than the CG (385.73 [SD 7.25] ms; 143.07 [SD 0.88]) and NC (385.67 ms [SD 7.19]; 143.00 [SD 0.84]) at the end of the activity. Conclusion: It is concluded that CV was more effective than the CG in attenuating physiological responses and cognitive functions during firefighting operations. Furthermore, combining CV with CG provides no additional benefit.
Background: Firefighters often perform multiple tasks during firefighting operations under unknown and unpredictable conditions in hot and hostile environments. Methods: In this interventional study each firefighters engaged in 4 conditions: namely (1) no cooling device; control (NC), (2) cooling gel (CG), (3) cool vest (CV), and (4) CG+CV. Cooling effects of the employed interventions were evaluated based on heart rate (HR), temporal temperature (TT), reaction time (RT), and the correct response (CR). Results: HR and TT values for use of CG+CV (147.47 bpm [SD 4.8]; 37.88°C [SD 0.20]) and CV bpm (147.53 [SD 4.67]; 37.90°C [SD 0.22]) were significantly lower than the CG (153.67 bpm [SD 4.82]; 38.10°C [SD 0.22]) and NC (154.4 bpm [SD 4.91]; 38.11°C [SD 0.23]) at the end of the activity. RT and CR for use of CG + CV (389.87 ms [SD 6.12]; 143.53 [SD 1.24]) and CV (389.53 ms [SD 6.24]; 143.47 [SD 1.18]) were significantly higher than the CG (385.73 [SD 7.25] ms; 143.07 [SD 0.88]) and NC (385.67 ms [SD 7.19]; 143.00 [SD 0.84]) at the end of the activity. Conclusion: It is concluded that CV was more effective than the CG in attenuating physiological responses and cognitive functions during firefighting operations. Furthermore, combining CV with CG provides no additional benefit.
Authors: Alexander Wolkow; Brad Aisbett; John Reynolds; Sally A Ferguson; Luana C Main Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Connie C Duncan; Allan F Mirsky; Christopher T Lovelace; William H Theodore Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2009-05-03 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Roxana Chicas; Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli; Nathan E Dickman; Madeleine L Scammell; Kyle Steenland; Vicki S Hertzberg; Linda McCauley Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 3.079
Authors: Rachel A Malcolm; Simon Cooper; Jonathan P Folland; Christopher J Tyler; Caroline Sunderland Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Coen C W G Bongers; Johannus Q de Korte; Mike Zwartkruis; Koen Levels; Boris R M Kingma; Thijs M H Eijsvogels Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 3.390