Advertisement

The temperature responses of men after two methods of acclimatization

  • C. H. Wyndham
  • N. B. Strydom
  • H. M. Cooke
  • J. S. Maritz
Article

Summary

The risks are assessed of African labourers developing heat-stroke levels of body temperature, i. e. a mouth temperature of 105 ° F, while working moderately hard in a saturated air temperature of 92 ° F and an average wind velocity of 450 ft/min on thefirst day after the Chamber of Mines two-stage method of acclimatization (12 days) and after an abbreviated form comprising 3 days in cool and 3 days in hot air conditions.

Approximately 100 men were studied in each method of acclimatization. The mean mouth temperatures of both groups, the standard deviations and the distributions of mouth temperatures on the first day in the cool area during acclimatization were not significantly different. Hence it can be assumed that the two samples were from the same population in terms of their temperature responses to work in heat.

On thefirst day after acclimatization, the means and standard deviations of the mouth temperatures of both groups were similar but the number of mouth temperatures in the upper range was greater after 6-day than after 12-day acclimatization. From the confidence limits to the curves fitted to the mouth temperatures we are 95% sure that the risk of a mouth temperature of 105 ° F being exceeded is less than 1/1,000,000 on thefisrt day after 12-day acclimatization, and 4/1,000 on thefirst day after 6-day acclimatization.

Keywords

Standard Deviation Human Physiology Body Temperature Sport Medicine Wind Velocity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Eichna, L. W., W. F. Ashe, W. B. Bean andW. B. Shelley: J. Ind. Hyg. Tox.27, 59 (1945).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellis, F. P.: Ann. roy. Coll. Surg. Engl.13, 369 (1953).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horvath, S. M., andW. B. Shelley: Amer. J. Physiol.146, 336 (1946).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kerrich, J. E.: Nature (Lond.)164, 1089 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McArdle, B., W.Dunham, H.Holling and J.Weiner: Rep. 47/391 to R. N. P. R. C. London, Medical Research Council 1947.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wyndham, C. H., W. v. d. M.Bouwer, H. E.Paterson and M. G.Devine: Chem. Met. Min. Soc. of S. A., p. 287. April 1953.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wyndham, C. H., N. B. Strydom, J. F. Morrison, F. D. du Toit andJ. G. Kraan: Arbeits-physiologie15, 373 (1954).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1960

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. H. Wyndham
    • 1
  • N. B. Strydom
    • 1
  • H. M. Cooke
    • 1
  • J. S. Maritz
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Physiology Laboratory of the Transvaal and Orange Free State Chamber of MinesJohannesburg

Personalised recommendations