Can the PHS model (ISO7933) predict reasonable thermophysiological responses while wearing protective clothing in hot environments?
Abstract
In this paper, the prediction accuracy of the PHS (predicted heat strain) model on human physiological responses while wearing protective clothing ensembles was examined. Six human subjects (aged 29 ± 3 years) underwent three experimental trials in three different protective garments (clothing thermal insulation I(cl) ranges from 0.63 to 2.01 clo) in two hot environments (40 °C, relative humidities: 30% and 45%). The observed and predicted mean skin temperature, core body temperature and sweat rate were presented and statistically compared. A significant difference was found in the metabolic rate between FIRE (firefighting clothing) and HV (high visibility clothing) or MIL (military clothing) (p < 0.001). Also, the development of heart rate demonstrated the significant effects of the exposure time and clothing ensembles. In addition, the predicted evaporation rate during HV, MIL and FIRE was much lower than the experimental values. Hence, the current PHS model is not applicable for protective clothing with intrinsic thermal insulations above 1.0 clo. The results showed that the PHS model generated unreliable predictions on body core temperature when human subjects wore thick protective clothing such as firefighting clothing (I(cl) > 1.0 clo). The predicted mean skin temperatures in three clothing ensembles HV, MIL and FIRE were also outside the expected limits. Thus, there is a need for further extension for the clothing insulation validation range of the PHS model. It is recommended that the PHS model should be amended and validated by individual algorithms, physical or physiological parameters, and further subject studies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Occupational Heat Stress Assessment by the Predicted Heat Strain Model
MALCHAIRE, J. B. M. (2006) · Industrial Health · doi:10.2486/indhealth.44.380 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thermal Indices and Thermophysiological Modeling for Heat Stress
Havenith, G., & Fiala, D. (2015) · Comprehensive Physiology · doi:10.1002/cphy.c140051 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Occupational heat stress assessment and protective strategies in the context of climate change
Gao, C., Kuklane, K., Östergren, P.-O., & Kjellstrom, T. (2018) · International Journal of Biometeorology · doi:10.1007/s00484-017-1352-y · Cited by 198 · see citing works
“Some limitations of the PHS model, when dealing with protective clothing (insulation and evaporative resistance) used in hot environments, can be found in recent studies (Wang et al. 2011, 2013; d’Ambrosio Alfano et al. 2015).”
MethodSelf-citationBR^|^Ouml;DE, P., BLAZEJCZYK, K., FIALA, D., HAVENITH, G., HOLM^|^Eacute;R, I., JENDRITZKY, G., KUKLANE, K., & KAMPMANN, B. (2013) · Industrial Health · doi:10.2486/indhealth.2012-0098 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationClimatic and psychosocial risks of heat illness incidents on construction site
Jia, Y. A., Rowlinson, S., & Ciccarelli, M. (2016) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.08.008 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, F., Kuklane, K., Gao, C., & Holmér, I.
- Affiliations
- Lund University (SE)
- Venue
- Physiological Measurement
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2010-12-22
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 239-249
- ISSN
- 0967-3334 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6579
- OpenAlex
- W2066584678
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Physiological Measurement (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Thermoregulation and physiological responses
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Polymers and Plastics › Textile materials and evaluations
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
- Keywords
- ISO 7933, protective clothing, hot environment, high-visibility clothing, military clothing, clothing insulation, core body temperature, skin temperature, sweat rate, heart rate, metabolic rate, evaporation rate, model validation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Environment, Heart Rate, Hot Temperature, Humans, Male, Models, Biological, Protective Clothing, Rectum, Skin Temperature, Sweating
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review