Determining Cold Strain in Cold Air: A Comparison of Two Methods of Partitional Calorimetry to Calculate Heat Storage and Debt in Cold Air with Mild hypothermia.

Phillip Wallace, Geoff Hartley, Stephen S Cheung
{"title":"Determining Cold Strain in Cold Air: A Comparison of Two Methods of Partitional Calorimetry to Calculate Heat Storage and Debt in Cold Air with Mild hypothermia.","authors":"Phillip Wallace, Geoff Hartley, Stephen S Cheung","doi":"10.1139/apnm-2024-0204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We compared two methods of partitional calorimetry to calculate heat storage and heat debt during cold air (0°C) exposure causing mild core cooling. Twelve participants performed a 5-min baseline in thermoneutral conditions (~22.0°C, ~50% relative humidity) followed by cold air exposure (~0°C) until rectal temperature was reduced by ∆-0.5°C. Partitional calorimetry was used to calculate avenues of heat exchange (radiative, convective, and evaporative), heat storage, and heat debt continuously throughout cold exposure. We compared deriving these variables using prediction equations based on environmental and participant characteristics (PCALPRED) versus using measurement tools such as humidity sensors and heat flux discs (PCALHF). There were significant differences between methods (all p ≤ 0.001) for determining heat exchange, heat storage, and heat debt. At ∆-0.5°C, PCALHF had greater levels of radiative and convective heat exchange (PCALHF: -143.0 ± 16.8 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: -123.0 ± 12.9 W∙m2, p ≤ 0.001), evaporative heat exchange (PCALHF: -9.0 ± 1.7 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: -4.1 ± 0.0 W∙m2, p ≤ 0.001), heat storage (PCALHF: -15.0 ± 31.0 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: +6.0 ± 25.9 W∙m2, p = 0.020), and heat debt (PCALHF: -692.0 ± 315.0 kJ vs PCALPRED: -422.0 ± 136.0 kJ, p ≤ 0.001). Overall, this study found the largest discrepancies between the two methods was when the environmental conditions and skin temperature were in high flux, as well as when core temperature was reduced by ∆-0.5°C. The use of PCALHF may be more advantageous to use in the cold to provide a higher resolution measurement of cold strain.</p>","PeriodicalId":93878,"journal":{"name":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2024-0204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We compared two methods of partitional calorimetry to calculate heat storage and heat debt during cold air (0°C) exposure causing mild core cooling. Twelve participants performed a 5-min baseline in thermoneutral conditions (~22.0°C, ~50% relative humidity) followed by cold air exposure (~0°C) until rectal temperature was reduced by ∆-0.5°C. Partitional calorimetry was used to calculate avenues of heat exchange (radiative, convective, and evaporative), heat storage, and heat debt continuously throughout cold exposure. We compared deriving these variables using prediction equations based on environmental and participant characteristics (PCALPRED) versus using measurement tools such as humidity sensors and heat flux discs (PCALHF). There were significant differences between methods (all p ≤ 0.001) for determining heat exchange, heat storage, and heat debt. At ∆-0.5°C, PCALHF had greater levels of radiative and convective heat exchange (PCALHF: -143.0 ± 16.8 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: -123.0 ± 12.9 W∙m2, p ≤ 0.001), evaporative heat exchange (PCALHF: -9.0 ± 1.7 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: -4.1 ± 0.0 W∙m2, p ≤ 0.001), heat storage (PCALHF: -15.0 ± 31.0 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: +6.0 ± 25.9 W∙m2, p = 0.020), and heat debt (PCALHF: -692.0 ± 315.0 kJ vs PCALPRED: -422.0 ± 136.0 kJ, p ≤ 0.001). Overall, this study found the largest discrepancies between the two methods was when the environmental conditions and skin temperature were in high flux, as well as when core temperature was reduced by ∆-0.5°C. The use of PCALHF may be more advantageous to use in the cold to provide a higher resolution measurement of cold strain.

测定冷空气中的冷应变:比较用部分量热法计算轻度体温过低的冷空气中热量储存和消耗的两种方法。
我们比较了两种分区热量计方法,以计算暴露于冷空气(0°C)导致轻度核心冷却时的热储存和热负债。12 名参与者在温度中性条件下(约 22.0°C,相对湿度约 50%)进行了 5 分钟的基线测试,然后暴露在冷空气中(约 0°C),直到直肠温度降低 ∆-0.5°C。在整个冷暴露过程中,我们使用部分量热法计算热交换途径(辐射、对流和蒸发)、热储存和热负债。我们比较了使用基于环境和参与者特征的预测方程(PCALPRED)和使用湿度传感器和热通量盘等测量工具(PCALHF)得出这些变量的方法。在确定热交换、热储存和热负债方面,不同方法之间存在明显差异(所有 p 均小于 0.001)。在 ∆-0.5°C 时,PCALHF 的辐射和对流热交换(PCALHF:-143.0 ± 16.8 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED:-123.0 ± 12.9 W∙m2, p ≤ 0.001)、蒸发热交换(PCALHF:-9.0 ± 1.7 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: -4.1 ± 0.0 W∙m2, p ≤ 0.001)、蓄热(PCALHF: -15.0 ± 31.0 W∙m2 vs PCALPRED: +6.0 ± 25.9 W∙m2, p = 0.020)和热债(PCALHF: -692.0 ± 315.0 kJ vs PCALPRED: -422.0 ± 136.0 kJ, p ≤ 0.001)。总之,这项研究发现,当环境条件和皮肤温度处于高通量时,以及核心温度降低 ∆-0.5°C 时,两种方法之间的差异最大。在寒冷环境中使用 PCALHF 可能更有利于提供更高分辨率的冷应变测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信