Eesti päästeteenistujate kaitseriietuse füsioloogiline mõju kuumastressi kujunemisel metsa- ja maastikutulekahju simuleeritud tingimustes
Laen...
Kuupäev
2025
Kättesaadavus
10.09.2025
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Eesti Maaülikool
Abstrakt
Metsa- ja maastikutulekahjude kustutamine on päästeteenistujatele füüsiliselt nõudlik tegevus. Töötamine kaitseriietusega pikki tunde kuumas keskkonnas põhjustab kuumastressi ja suurendab tööõnnetuste riski. Kaitseriietus mõjutab samuti südametööd ning on seotud muutustega metaboolsetes protsessides, mis omakorda mõjutavad füüsilist vastupidavust ja jõudlust. Magistritöö eesmärgiks oli hinnata Eesti Päästeametis kasutusel olevate kaitseriietuste (Red Fox RF-504 ja Taurus), mis vastavad standardile EN 469, ja nende all kantavate välivormi (blusoon ja dressipüksid) mõju päästeteenistujate füsioloogilistele parameetritele ja töövõimele metsa- ja maastikutulekahju kustutamist simuleeriva füüsilise koormuse ajal ja taastumisperioodil.
Metoodika. Katsed viidi läbi Tartu Ülikooli sporditeaduste ja füsioteraapia instituudi kliimakambris. Eksperimentaalgrupi moodustasid meessoost päästeteenistujad (n = 12), kes sooritasid katsed kahe erineva kaitseriietusega: Taurus (n = 6) ja Red Fox RF-504 (n = 6). Katsed viidi läbi n.ö kerge ja raske kaitserõivasüsteemiga. Katseseerial „raske“ korral kandsid katseisikud kaitseriietuse all aluspükse, T-särki, blusooni ja dressipükse ning katseseerias „kerge“ kanti kaitseriietuse all ainult aluspükse ja tööandja poolt väljastatud T-särki. Kuumaga kokkupuude toimus õhutemperatuuril (Ta) 35,9 ± 0,3 ºC ja suhtelise õhuniiskuse (φ) juures 36,0 ± 1,8 %, millele järgnes taastumisperiood väljaspool kliimakambrit toatemperatuuril (Ta = 23,3 ± 0,2 ºC ja φ = 41,9 ± 1,9 %). Õhu liikumisekiirus (va) püsis kogu katse vältel alla 0,15 m/s. Katse koosnes järjestikusest kõndimisest jooksulindil erinevatel kiirustel: 2,1 km/h (0-10 min), 3,5 km/h (10-25 min), 4,5 km/h (25-40 min), 3,5 km/h (40-55 min), 4,5 km/h (55-70 min) ja 2,1 km/h (70-80 min). Taastumisperioodi (80-110 min) algul eemaldasid katseisikud kindad, kiivri, kiivrisuka ja tulekustutusjope ning sellel ajal nad istusid. Katse käigus mõõdeti katseisikute südamelöögisagedust, rektaal- ja nahatemperatuuri ning nende põhjal arvutati keskmine kehatemperatuur, koguti subjektiivseid hinnanguid ning mõõdeti aurumist ja vedelikukaotust kaalumise teel. Samuti mõõdeti katseisikute nahavoldi paksust keha rasvaprotsendi arvutamiseks ja arvutati kehamassiindeks. Neil katseisikutel, kes nõustusid (n = 9), mõõdeti aeroobset ja anaeroobset töövõimet.
Tulemuste analüüs näitas, et raskemad kaitseriietuse süsteemid, nii Red Fox RF-504 kui Taurus, põhjustasid kiiremat rektaal-, naha- ja kehatemperatuuri tõusu, pikemat taastumisaega ning suuremat vedelikukadu. Samas aga kergema alusriietusega kaitseriiete süsteemides olid mõõdetud temperatuurid madalamad ja subjektiivsed hinnangud viitasid suuremale mugavusele. Katsed kinnitasid, et kuumades keskkonnatingimustes tuleks eelistada kergemaid kaitseriietuse lahendusi kui reeglistik seda lubab, ning taastumisperioodil on soovitatav vähendada riidekihtide arvu, et soodustada keha efektiivsemat jahtumist. Oluline on märkida, et katse katkestamised katseisikute hulgas esinesid sagedamini raske alusriietusega kaitseriiete süsteemi tingimustes, mis võivad viidata tegelikust suuremale soojuskoormusele ning piirata tulemuste üldistatavust.
Wildland firefighting presents significant physiological challenges due to extreme environmental conditions and prolonged operations. Working for extended periods in hot environments while wearing protective clothing induces heat stress and increases the risk of occupational injuries. Protective clothing also affects cardiovascular function and is associated with changes in metabolic processes, which in turn influence physical endurance and performance. The aim of this master’s thesis was to assess the impact of protective clothing systems used by Estonian firefighters (Red Fox RF-504 and Taurus), both compliant with the EN 469 standard, as well as the undergarments worn beneath them (station wear), on firefighters’ physiological responses and work capacity during a wildland firefighting simulation. Methods. The experiment was conducted in a climate controlled chamber at the Institute of Sports Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Tartu. The experimental group consisted of male professional firefighters (n = 12), who participated in the trial wearing two different protective clothing systems: Taurus (n = 6) and Red Fox RF-504 (n = 6). The tests were conducted with two types of protective clothing configurations: in the “heavy” series, participants wore underwear shorts, a T-shirt, and station wear (blouson and sweatpants) underneath the protective clothing, and in the “light” series, they wore only underwear shorts and a T-shirt provided by the employer under the turnout gear. Heat exposure took place at an ambient temperature (Ta) of 35,9 ± 0,3 ºC and relative humidity (φ) of 36,0 ± 1,8 %, followed by a recovery phase outside the chamber at Ta = 23,3 ± 0,2 ºC and φ = 41,9 ± 1,9 %. Air velocity (va) remained below 0,15 m/s throughout the trial. The test protocol consisted of continuous treadmill walking at varying speeds: 2,1 km/h (0–10 min), 3,5 km/h (10–25 min), 4,5 km/h (25–40 min), 3,5 km/h (40–55 min), 4,5 km/h (55–70 min) and 2,1 km/h (70–80 min). After exiting the heat, the test persons removed their gloves, helmet, baclava and firefighting jacket. During the recovery period (80–110 min), they were seated. The recorded data included heart rate, rectal (representing body core temperature), and skin temperature, and based on these the mean body temperature was calculated, subjective ratings were collected and sweat evaporation and fluid loss were assessed by weighing the test persons with and without clothes. Skinfold thickness was measured for calculation of body fat percentage, and body mass index (BMI) was calculated. Aerobic and anaerobic work capacity was measured in these test persons who agreed to do the maximal capacity test (n = 9). The analysis of the results showed that protective clothing systems with the station wear (heavy) caused greater increases in rectal, body, and skin temperatures, longer recovery times, and greater fluid loss compared to light one (p < 0,05). In contrast, light protective clothing systems were associated with lower measured temperatures and subjective ratings indicated greater comfort. The results confirmed that, in hot environmental conditions, lighter protective clothing should be preferred, and that reducing the number of clothing layers during the recovery phase is advisable to promote more efficient body cooling. It is important to note that the higher number of test terminations in the protective clothing conditions with station wear suggests that the additional clothing layers caused greater discomfort and earlier cessation during heat exposure, likely hindering heat dissipation.
Wildland firefighting presents significant physiological challenges due to extreme environmental conditions and prolonged operations. Working for extended periods in hot environments while wearing protective clothing induces heat stress and increases the risk of occupational injuries. Protective clothing also affects cardiovascular function and is associated with changes in metabolic processes, which in turn influence physical endurance and performance. The aim of this master’s thesis was to assess the impact of protective clothing systems used by Estonian firefighters (Red Fox RF-504 and Taurus), both compliant with the EN 469 standard, as well as the undergarments worn beneath them (station wear), on firefighters’ physiological responses and work capacity during a wildland firefighting simulation. Methods. The experiment was conducted in a climate controlled chamber at the Institute of Sports Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Tartu. The experimental group consisted of male professional firefighters (n = 12), who participated in the trial wearing two different protective clothing systems: Taurus (n = 6) and Red Fox RF-504 (n = 6). The tests were conducted with two types of protective clothing configurations: in the “heavy” series, participants wore underwear shorts, a T-shirt, and station wear (blouson and sweatpants) underneath the protective clothing, and in the “light” series, they wore only underwear shorts and a T-shirt provided by the employer under the turnout gear. Heat exposure took place at an ambient temperature (Ta) of 35,9 ± 0,3 ºC and relative humidity (φ) of 36,0 ± 1,8 %, followed by a recovery phase outside the chamber at Ta = 23,3 ± 0,2 ºC and φ = 41,9 ± 1,9 %. Air velocity (va) remained below 0,15 m/s throughout the trial. The test protocol consisted of continuous treadmill walking at varying speeds: 2,1 km/h (0–10 min), 3,5 km/h (10–25 min), 4,5 km/h (25–40 min), 3,5 km/h (40–55 min), 4,5 km/h (55–70 min) and 2,1 km/h (70–80 min). After exiting the heat, the test persons removed their gloves, helmet, baclava and firefighting jacket. During the recovery period (80–110 min), they were seated. The recorded data included heart rate, rectal (representing body core temperature), and skin temperature, and based on these the mean body temperature was calculated, subjective ratings were collected and sweat evaporation and fluid loss were assessed by weighing the test persons with and without clothes. Skinfold thickness was measured for calculation of body fat percentage, and body mass index (BMI) was calculated. Aerobic and anaerobic work capacity was measured in these test persons who agreed to do the maximal capacity test (n = 9). The analysis of the results showed that protective clothing systems with the station wear (heavy) caused greater increases in rectal, body, and skin temperatures, longer recovery times, and greater fluid loss compared to light one (p < 0,05). In contrast, light protective clothing systems were associated with lower measured temperatures and subjective ratings indicated greater comfort. The results confirmed that, in hot environmental conditions, lighter protective clothing should be preferred, and that reducing the number of clothing layers during the recovery phase is advisable to promote more efficient body cooling. It is important to note that the higher number of test terminations in the protective clothing conditions with station wear suggests that the additional clothing layers caused greater discomfort and earlier cessation during heat exposure, likely hindering heat dissipation.
Kirjeldus
Magistritöö
Ergonoomika õppekaval
Märksõnad
magistritööd, metsa- ja maastikutulekahjud, kaitseriietus, kuumastress, soojusisolatsioon, füsioloogiline koormus