Literature DB >> 3618476

The effect of temperature and humidity levels in a protective mask on user acceptability during exercise.

R Nielsen, A R Gwosdow, L G Berglund, A B DuBois.   

Abstract

Subjective and physiological responses were obtained from six subjects wearing a ventilated face mask while exercising (3.8 met) for 15 min on a bicycle ergometer. Different combinations of ambient air temperatures (7 degrees, 16 degrees, 25 degrees C) and mask air temperatures (22 degrees, 27 degrees, 33 degrees C) were studied together with two different air humidities inside the mask (61% and 86% RH). Control experiments were performed without the mask at the same ambient temperatures. Skin temperatures, heart rates and skin wettedness were monitored during exercise. The subject's acceptance of the mask and thermal environment, thermal sensation, sensations of discomfort, sweating and skin wettedness, and their judgment of the work of breathing were assessed at the end of the 15 min exercise period. The acceptance of both the ambient thermal environment and of the thermal microclimate in the mask primarily was determined by the ambient air temperature, but it was influenced by the air temperature and humidity inside the mask. At ambient temperatures of 7 degrees C and 25 degrees C, the acceptance of the thermal work conditions decreased. In the warm environment a mask air temperature less than or equal to 27 degrees C was 100% acceptable and increased the acceptance of thermal environment. In the cool environment, a mask air temperature greater than or equal to 27 degrees C was 100% acceptable. The humidity content of the mask air was only important when the mask air was warm. Warm humid air significantly decreased acceptance of the mask conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3618476     DOI: 10.1080/15298668791385336

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J        ISSN: 0002-8894


  14 in total

1.  Two year follow up of pulmonary function values among welders in New Zealand.

Authors:  R Erkinjuntti-Pekkanen; T Slater; S Cheng; D Fishwick; L Bradshaw; M Kimbell-Dunn; L Dronfield; N Pearce
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  The effects of two kinds of mask (with or without exhaust valve) on clothing microclimates inside the mask in participants wearing protective clothing for spraying pesticides.

Authors:  C Hayashi; H Tokura
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2003-08-30       Impact factor: 3.015

3.  Effect of inspiratory resistance to prolonged exercise in a hot environment wearing protective clothing.

Authors:  M Jetté; J Quenneville; J Thoden; S Livingstone
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 3.787

4.  Effect of wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator on superomedial orbital infrared indirect brain temperature measurements.

Authors:  Travis DiLeo; Raymond J Roberge; Jung-Hyun Kim
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Thermoregulatory and subjective responses of clothed men in the cold during continuous and intermittent exercise.

Authors:  D C Gavhed; R Nielsen; I Holmér
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1991

6.  [Intraoperative stress in orthopaedic spine surgery : Attending surgeon versus resident].

Authors:  J Kremer; M Reinhold
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Effects of Face Mask Use on Objective and Subjective Measures of Thermoregulation During Exercise in the Heat.

Authors:  Ayami Yoshihara; Erin E Dierickx; Gabrielle J Brewer; Yasuki Sekiguchi; Rebecca L Stearns; Douglas J Casa
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 4.355

8.  A laboratory-based study examining the properties of silk fabric to evaluate its potential as a protective barrier for personal protective equipment and as a functional material for face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Adam F Parlin; Samuel M Stratton; Theresa M Culley; Patrick A Guerra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  The Physiological Impact of Masking Is Insignificant and Should Not Preclude Routine Use During Daily Activities, Exercise, and Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Rebecca H Haraf; Mark A Faghy; Brian Carlin; Richard A Josephson
Journal:  J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 3.646

10.  Commentary: Physiological and Psychological Impact of Face Mask Usage during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Jennifer L Scheid; Shannon P Lupien; Gregory S Ford; Sarah L West
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-12       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.