Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T05:17:03.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Core Temperature Monitoring of Firefighters During Hazardous Materials Training Sessions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Roger Menze ,
Mary Jo McMullen ,
Lynn J. White  and
James M. Dougherty
Roger Menze
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency Program, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio
Mary Jo McMullen
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency Program, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio Summit County Hazardous Materials Response Team, Akron, Ohio
Lynn J. White*
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency Program, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio
James M. Dougherty
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency Program, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, 400 Wabash Avenue, Akron, OH 44307USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine core temperature (Tc) elevations in hazardous materials (HazMat) technicians wearing level-A fully encapsulated, chemically resistive suits (FECRSs) during training scenarios.

Design:

Cross-sectional, observational feasibility study with Institutional Review Board approval.

Setting:

HazMat training scenarios held during the summer of 1994. Weather conditions included both rainy and sunny days, with a mean ambient temperature of 75.8°F(24.3°C) (range 69–83° F [20.6–28.3°C).

Participants:

Nine male firefighters participating in training scenarios in the Midwestern United States.

Interventions:

Each volunteer swallowed a capsule containing a Tc sensor developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The capsule continuously monitored Tc and stored data in an ambulatory recorder worn under the level-A FECRS during training.

Results:

Mean age of the volunteers was 34 years, mean weight was 92.6 kg, and average baseline Tc was 36.7°C (97.1°F) (range 35.3–38.2°C [95.5–100°F]). Time in the FECRS averaged 25.4 minutes (range 14–35 minutes). All subjects demonstrated increased Tc while in the suit; the mean Tc increase was 0.8°C (1.4°F) (range 0.2–1.3°C [0.4–2.3°F]). The Tc continued to increase during wet decontamination procedures and after suit removal. Mean heat storage values (ΔTcx LBMx 3.47 kJ) were calculated, and found to be moderately elevated to 3.6 kJ/kg (range 2.1–4.6 kJ/kg).

Conclusion:

These observations support the validity and significance of implementing prophylactic measures for firefighters using protective clothing. Simple protective measures include enforced time limitations, hydration, and efforts to minimize heat buildup by avoiding both direct sunlight and unnecessary time encapsulated in the suit.

Keywords

chemically resistive suitscore temperatureemergency medical servicesencapsulatedhazardous materialsheat illnessheat storage valuesprotective clothingsafety monitoringwork
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 108 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*Presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Research Forum, San Francisco, California, February 1995

References

1. Borak, J, Callan, M, Abbott, W: Hazardous Materials Exposure: Emergency Response and Patient Care, New York: Brady, 1991.Google Scholar
2. Ashley, J: Chemical spill closes highway and businesses. The Inter-Mountain, Elkins West Virginia. 1994 July 19;Sect A:1.Google Scholar
3. McMullen, MJ, McMahon, P: Medical surveillance guidelines: In: Tokle, G (ed), Hazardous Materials Response Handbook, Supplement 13, 2nd ed. Quincy, Mass: National Flight Paramedic Association, 1993, pp 938–947.Google Scholar
4. Personal protective equipment. In: Tokle, G (ed), Hazardous Materials Response Handbook, 2nd ed. Quincy, Mass: National Flight Paramedic Association 471, 1993, p 54.Google Scholar
5. Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab Technical Digest, 1988;9:16–21.Google Scholar
6. Vallerand, AL, Savourey, G, Hanniquet, AM, et al. : How should body heat storage be determined in humans: By thermometry or calorimetry? Eur J Appl Physiol 1992;65:286–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Gledhill, N, Jamnik, VK: Characterization of the physical demands of fire fighting. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences 1992;17:207–213.Google Scholar
8. Dempsey, JA, Gledhill, N, Reddan, WG, et al. : Pulmonary adaptation to exercise: Effects of exercise type and duration, chronic hypoxia and physical training. In: Milvy, P (ed.), The Marathon: Physiological, Medical, Epidemiological and Psychological Studies. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1977, p 301.Google Scholar
9. Tonwe, MM, Sawka, MN, Foley, ME, Pandolf, KB: Effects of body mass and morphology on thermal responses. J Appl Physiol 1986;60:521–525.Google Scholar
10. Occupational Exposure to Hot Environments. Criteria for a Recommended Standard. Revised Criteria 1986. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986, p 18.Google Scholar