Comparative accuracy of instrumented and app-based WBGT for heat-stress screening in agricultural environments in Taiwan.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Hui-Yu Chen, Jou-Chun Lung, Szu-Yu Lin, Hsin-Yi Wu, Yun-Ru Huang, Po-Wen Li, Li-Wen Liu, Shih-Wei Tsai
{"title":"Comparative accuracy of instrumented and app-based WBGT for heat-stress screening in agricultural environments in Taiwan.","authors":"Hui-Yu Chen, Jou-Chun Lung, Szu-Yu Lin, Hsin-Yi Wu, Yun-Ru Huang, Po-Wen Li, Li-Wen Liu, Shih-Wei Tsai","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2657310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This pilot research assessed the reliability of wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) screening tools and examined how different microenvironments might affect worker-level WBGT in Taiwanese agriculture. In July 2024, WBGT was recorded at six locations using a QUESTemp monitor with sensors positioned at the head, abdomen, and ankle (weighted 1:2:1), along with portable Kestrel and AZ (AZ) devices and the AIHA<sup>®</sup> app. The AZ devices were evaluated for within-site variations across various work environments, including soil, shade, ground-cover cloth, grassland, asphalt, and ridges. Agreement analyses and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare methods. Median WBGT values ranged in the low to mid-30s°C, with four sites having 50% or more of measurements at or above 32 °C. The Kestrel device demonstrated the closest agreement (bias +0.32 °C; RMSE 0.80 °C), the AZ device tended to underestimate (-0.94 °C; RMSE 1.28 °C), and the AIHA app showed the largest errors (bias -0.83 °C; RMSE 1.82 °C). Microenvironmental factors caused WBGT shifts between -1.25 and +2.87 °C, with decreases caused by working in shaded areas and increases caused by working in reflective ground covers. When screened against the operational WBGT benchmarks (30 °C and 32 °C), the QUESTemp monitor frequently recorded values at or above these thresholds, indicating high-heat conditions. However, the systematic underestimation by the wearable AZ device resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of the high-heat conditions, highlighting the risk of false-negative safety assessments when using uncorrected personal monitors. Overall, the portable/wearable Kestrel and AZ devices showed closer agreement with the QUEST than the weather-station-based app estimates. Given the limitations of regional weather data observed in this pilot study, effective heat-risk management in agriculture requires site-specific monitoring to account for microenvironmental variations, rather than relying solely on app-based estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"596-606"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2026.2657310","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This pilot research assessed the reliability of wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) screening tools and examined how different microenvironments might affect worker-level WBGT in Taiwanese agriculture. In July 2024, WBGT was recorded at six locations using a QUESTemp monitor with sensors positioned at the head, abdomen, and ankle (weighted 1:2:1), along with portable Kestrel and AZ (AZ) devices and the AIHA® app. The AZ devices were evaluated for within-site variations across various work environments, including soil, shade, ground-cover cloth, grassland, asphalt, and ridges. Agreement analyses and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare methods. Median WBGT values ranged in the low to mid-30s°C, with four sites having 50% or more of measurements at or above 32 °C. The Kestrel device demonstrated the closest agreement (bias +0.32 °C; RMSE 0.80 °C), the AZ device tended to underestimate (-0.94 °C; RMSE 1.28 °C), and the AIHA app showed the largest errors (bias -0.83 °C; RMSE 1.82 °C). Microenvironmental factors caused WBGT shifts between -1.25 and +2.87 °C, with decreases caused by working in shaded areas and increases caused by working in reflective ground covers. When screened against the operational WBGT benchmarks (30 °C and 32 °C), the QUESTemp monitor frequently recorded values at or above these thresholds, indicating high-heat conditions. However, the systematic underestimation by the wearable AZ device resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of the high-heat conditions, highlighting the risk of false-negative safety assessments when using uncorrected personal monitors. Overall, the portable/wearable Kestrel and AZ devices showed closer agreement with the QUEST than the weather-station-based app estimates. Given the limitations of regional weather data observed in this pilot study, effective heat-risk management in agriculture requires site-specific monitoring to account for microenvironmental variations, rather than relying solely on app-based estimates.

仪器化与app化WBGT在台湾农业环境热应力筛选之比较准确度。
本研究评估全球湿球温度(WBGT)筛选工具的可靠性,并检视不同微环境如何影响台湾农业工人层面的湿球温度。在2024年7月,使用QUESTemp监视器在六个地点记录了WBGT,传感器位于头部,腹部和脚踝(加权1:2:1),以及便携式Kestrel和AZ (AZ)设备和AIHA®应用程序。AZ设备在各种工作环境(包括土壤,阴影,地面覆盖布,草地,沥青和山脊)中进行了现场变化评估。采用一致性分析和Bland-Altman图对方法进行比较。WBGT值的中位数在30°C至30°C之间,有4个站点有50%或更多的测量值在32°C或以上。Kestrel设备显示出最接近的一致性(偏差+0.32°C, RMSE 0.80°C), AZ设备倾向于低估(-0.94°C, RMSE 1.28°C), AIHA应用程序显示出最大的误差(偏差-0.83°C, RMSE 1.82°C)。微环境因素导致WBGT在-1.25和+2.87℃之间变化,在阴影区域工作导致WBGT下降,在反射地被层工作导致WBGT增加。当对运行WBGT基准(30°C和32°C)进行筛选时,QUESTemp监视器经常记录的值等于或高于这些阈值,表明高温条件。然而,可穿戴式AZ设备的系统性低估导致高温条件下的检测率显著降低,凸显了使用未校正的个人监视器时安全评估假阴性的风险。总的来说,便携/可穿戴的Kestrel和AZ设备比基于气象站的应用程序估计的更接近QUEST。鉴于本试点研究中观测到的区域天气数据的局限性,有效的农业热风险管理需要对特定地点进行监测,以考虑微环境变化,而不是仅仅依赖基于应用程序的估计。
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
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene ( JOEH ) is a joint publication of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA®) and ACGIH®. The JOEH is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to enhancing the knowledge and practice of occupational and environmental hygiene and safety by widely disseminating research articles and applied studies of the highest quality. The JOEH provides a written medium for the communication of ideas, methods, processes, and research in core and emerging areas of occupational and environmental hygiene. Core domains include, but are not limited to: exposure assessment, control strategies, ergonomics, and risk analysis. Emerging domains include, but are not limited to: sensor technology, emergency preparedness and response, changing workforce, and management and analysis of "big" data.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书