Experimental investigation of the effects of personal protective equipment on thermal comfort in hot environments

Mao, Yudong; Zhu, Yong; Guo, Zhisheng; Zheng, Zhimin; Fang, Zhaosong; Chen, Xiaohui

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109352

Cited by 19 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HCWs, who serve as front‐line warriors, are susceptible to various skin conditions due to prolonged use of PPE (Westermann et al, 2022). The individuals' feelings of heat and humidity increased dramatically, and their airflow was constrained when wearing PPE (Mao et al, 2022). We committed to integrating pertinent measures to enhance the health of HCWs and shed light on the prevention of occupational skin injury caused by PPE that was covered by various recommendations, expert consensus, etc., in various databases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of skin damages related to personal protective equipment among healthcare workers: Summary of best‐evidence practiced strategies

Liu

Chen

Liu

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo conduct a quality evaluation of the literature for the prevention of skin damage caused by personal protective equipment among healthcare workers and to summarise the best‐evidence practice strategies to prevent it.DesignReview.MethodsTwo researchers retrieved the literature from Web of Science, Public Medicine, etc., from the establishment of the database until 24 June 2022. Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II was used to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Expert consensus was assessed by the 2016 version of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence‐based Health Care Center corresponding evaluation standards. By tracking the original study, the quality of practice recommendations and best‐practice evidence information sheets were evaluated by the 2016 version of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence‐based Health Care Center corresponding evaluation standards. The classification of evidence and recommendation level adopted the 2014 version of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute evidence pre‐grading and recommending level system.ResultsA total of 5476 studies were retrieved after duplications were eliminated. After the quality evaluation, 10 qualified studies were finally included. All consisted of two guidelines, one best practice information sheet, five practice recommendations, and one expert consensus. The evaluation results of the guidelines were both B‐level recommendations. The consistency strength of expert consensus was moderate (Cohen's kappa coefficient = .571). Thirty best‐evidence practised strategies were compiled for four elements, including cleaning, moisturising, prophylactic dressings and others.ConclusionOur study evaluated the quality of the included studies and summarised the preventive measures of PPE‐related skin lesions according to the recommendation level. The main preventive measures were divided into 4 parts and 30 items. However, the associated literature was rare, and the quality was slightly low. More high‐quality research is needed to focus on healthcare workers' health and not just skin in the future.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of skin damages related to personal protective equipment among healthcare workers: Summary of best‐evidence practiced strategies

Liu

Chen

Liu

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More than that, since the COVID epidemic broke out in 2019, numerous countries around the world have managed to develop several specific measures to curb the spread of novel coronavirus [ 8 ]. Wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is essential to protect healthcare workers during the COVID-19 epidemic [ 9 , 10 ] and PPE mainly includes work clothes, masks, gloves, goggles, and shoe covers [ 11 ]. In the background of consistently high global temperatures, people are required to wear different PPE depending on the specific location, such as masks in shopping malls, medical protective clothing in hospitals, and so on [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the background of consistently high global temperatures, people are required to wear different PPE depending on the specific location, such as masks in shopping malls, medical protective clothing in hospitals, and so on [ 12 ]. Using these items may cause significant physical and psychological stress to the wearer, especially for healthcare workers who are required to wear them for long periods [ 9 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as mentioned above, previous studies have been limited to exploring the thermal comfort of personnel in a single protective state and have not considered the specificity of space use and outbreak prevention and control requirements during a current crown pneumonia outbreak [ 9 , 10 ]. The exact psychological and physiological effects of PCM-CC have not been sufficiently elucidated, so additional research is needed, and a rigorous understanding of their psychological and physiological effects in the context of an epidemic environment will facilitate optimal design and improved performance [ [47] , [48] , [49] ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of the cooling clothing integrating with phase change material on the thermal comfort of healthcare workers with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19

Wang

et al. 2023

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to this study, the average time spent by healthcare workers treating patients with Ebola virus disease under hot conditions in West Africa was 65.7 min, during which they were not at risk of heat stress. However, approximately 4 of every 25 healthcare workers had core temperatures that exceeded the recommended working limit of 38.5 • C. Using experiments and surveys, Mao et al [20] determined the thermal comfort and physiological indices of participants wearing and not wearing PPE when collecting nucleic acid samples outdoors. The comfort temperature zones of participants before wearing PPE were found to be 17.4-21.5 • C; meanwhile, participants wearing PPE required a cooler working environment to maintain thermal comfort.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermophysiological and Perceptual Responses of Amateur Healthcare Workers: Impacts of Ambient Condition, Inner-Garment Insulation and Personal Cooling Strategy

Zhao

Meng

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers from viruses, it also increases the risk of heat stress. In this study, the effects of environmental heat stress, the insulation of the PPE inner-garment layer, and the personal cooling strategy on the physiological and perceptual responses of PPE-clad young college students were evaluated. Three levels of wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT = 15 °C, 28 °C, and 32 °C) and two types of inner garments (0.37 clo and 0.75 clo) were chosen for this study. In an uncompensable heat stress environment (WBGT = 32 °C), the effects of two commercially available personal cooling systems, including a ventilation cooling system (VCS) and an ice pack cooling system (ICS) on the heat strain mitigation of PPE-clad participants were also assessed. At WBGT = 15 °C with 0.75 clo inner garments, mean skin temperatures were stabilized at 31.2 °C, Hskin was 60–65%, and HR was about 75.5 bpm, indicating that the working scenario was on the cooler side. At WBGT = 28 °C, Tskin plateaued at approximately 34.7 °C, and the participants reported “hot” thermal sensations. The insulation reduction in inner garments from 0.75 clo to 0.37 clo did not significantly improve the physiological thermal comfort of the participants. At WBGT = 32 °C, Tskin was maintained at 35.2–35.7 °C, Hskin was nearly 90% RH, Tcore exceeded 37.1 °C, and the mean HR was 91.9 bpm. These conditions indicated that such a working scenario was uncompensable, and personal cooling to mitigate heat stress was required. Relative to that in NCS (no cooling), the mean skin temperatures in ICS and VCS were reduced by 0.61 °C and 0.22 °C, respectively, and the heart rates were decreased by 10.7 and 8.5 bpm, respectively. Perceptual responses in ICS and VCS improved significantly throughout the entire field trials, with VCS outperforming ICS in the individual cooling effect.

show abstract

Experimental investigation of the effects of personal protective equipment on thermal comfort in hot environments

Cited by 19 publications

References 69 publications

Prevention of skin damages related to personal protective equipment among healthcare workers: Summary of best‐evidence practiced strategies

Prevention of skin damages related to personal protective equipment among healthcare workers: Summary of best‐evidence practiced strategies

Effect of the cooling clothing integrating with phase change material on the thermal comfort of healthcare workers with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19

Thermophysiological and Perceptual Responses of Amateur Healthcare Workers: Impacts of Ambient Condition, Inner-Garment Insulation and Personal Cooling Strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About