2007, Piran, Slovenia
2007, Piran, Slovenia 2007, Piran, Slovenia
Environmental Ergonomics XII Igor B. Mekjavic, Stelios N. Kounalakis & Nigel A.S. Taylor (Eds.), © BIOMED, Ljubljana 2007 radiation or outdoor situations) the compared assessment leads to a dramatic situation. According to data reported in Fig. 2B, both WBGT and PHS limit curves fall in the 30 ≤ HD ≤ 39 area. This means that microclimatic conditions judged by HD as only slightly uncomfortable, are judged inconsistent with healthy work by both a rational approach (PHS), and an empirical index (WBGT). DISCUSSION The comparative assessment of the thermal environment carried out in accordance with the regulations in force and Humidex, has revealed a substantial disagreement between the two approaches, both in moderate and in extreme environments. Concerning moderate environments, Humidex provides a good estimation of thermal comfort only in a narrow range of thermohygrometric conditions (i.e. higher temperature and summer conditions or lower temperature and winter conditions) and at low metabolic rates. The assessment of extremely hot environments has revealed underestimation the hazard of such conditions. In conclusion, bioclimatic indices such as Humidex, although easy to interpret, can only be used by media to give some useful information regarding the type of clothing recommended for given weather conditions, specifically clothing most likely to provide thermal comfort. In other situations (thermal comfort in buildings or thermal stress induced by the combination between the microclimate and the particular work activity) their use should be strongly restricted since they fail when used outside the narrow validated range. Also, they do not take into account the physiological response of the subject to the thermal environment. REFERENCES Fanger PO (1970). Thermal Comfort. New York, USA, McGraw-Hill. d’Ambrosio Alfano FR, Palella BI, Riccio G. (2005). TEE (Thermal Environment Assessment): a friendly tool for thermal environment evaluation. Proceedings of 11th International Conferences on Environmental Ergonomics, Ystad (Sweden) 2005 May 22- 26; 503-506. Masterton, JM, Richardson, FA. (1979). HUMIDEX: A Method of Quantifying Human Discomfort Due to Excessive Heat and Humidity. CLI 1-79. Downside Ontario, CANADA: Environment Canada. 1-45. Conti S, Meli P, Minelli G, Solimini R, Toccaceli V, Vichi M, Beltrano MC, Perini L. Epidemiologic study of mortality during the Summer 2003 heat wave in Italy. Environm. Res. 2005; 98(3): 390-399. Ministry of Labour of Canada: Health and Safety Guideline April 2003. Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Risk assessment strategy for the prevention of stress or discomfort in thermal working conditions – ISO Standard 15265 – Geneva: International Standardization Organization. Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Estimation of thermal insulation and water vapour resistance of a clothing ensemble. ISO/FDIS 9920, January, 2007. 508
Invited presentation Universal Thermal Climate Index THE UNIVERSAL THERMAL CLIMATE INDEX UTCI GOAL AND STATE OF COST ACTION 730 Gerd Jendritzky, George Havenith, Philipp Weihs, Ekaterina Batchvarova, Richard DeDear 1 Meteorological Institute, Univ of Freiburg, Germany, 2 Loughborough Univ, Loughborough, U.K., 3 Univ Soil Culture, Vienna, Austria, 4 Nat. Inst. Meteorology Hydrology, Sofia, Bulgaria, 5 Dept. Physical Geography, Macquarie Univ, Sidney, Australia Contact person: gerd.jendritzky@meteo.uni-freiburg.de INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental issues in human biometeorology is the assessment and forecast of the outdoor thermal environment in a sound, effective and practical way. This is due to the need for human beings to balance their heat budget in any climate to a state very close to thermal neutrality in order to optimise their comfort, performance and health. The heat exchange between the human body and its environment takes place by sensible and latent heat fluxes, radiation and (generally negligible) conduction. Consequently dealing with the thermo- physiologically significant assessment of the thermal environment requires the application of a complete heat budget model that takes all mechanisms of heat exchange into account. Input variables include air temperature, water vapour pressure, wind velocity, mean radiant temperature including the short- and long-wave radiation fluxes of the atmosphere, in addition to metabolic rate and clothing insulation. Based on current advances in science of heat budget modelling there is a need for harmonisation of the development and dissemination of a universally valid health related climate index. ISB recognised this issue some years ago and established a Commission ”On the development of a Universal Thermal Climate Index UTCI”. Since 2005 the COST Action 730 (Cooperation in Science and Technical Development) provides the basis that at least the European scientists can join together on a regular basis in order to achieve significant progress to derive such an index as a standard (www.utci.org). The main objective of the Action is to develop and make easily available a physiologically relevant assessment model of the thermal environment in order to significantly enhance applications related to health and well-being. The core issues of human biometeorology range from daily forecasts and warnings of extreme weather, to bioclimatic mapping, urban and regional planning, environmental epidemiology and climate impacts research. This covers the fields of public weather service, the public health system, and precautionary planning. The model to be developed will be based on the-state-of-the-art in the cause-effect related assessments of the outdoor thermal environment. The Universal Thermal Climate Index UTCI (working title) must meet the following requirements: 1)Thermo-physiological significance in the whole range of heat exchange conditions of existing thermal environments 2)Valid in all climates, seasons, and scales 3)Useful for key applications in human biometeorology (see later). 509
- Page 457 and 458: Manikins REFERENCES Bogerd, C.P., H
- Page 459 and 460: Modelling RESULTS From this kind of
- Page 461 and 462: Modelling (T , T , V& , ) = 1. 0 +
- Page 463 and 464: NORMALIZED CVCL 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 M
- Page 465 and 466: Modelling illustrated in Figure 1.
- Page 467 and 468: Modelling MODELLING PATIENT TEMPERA
- Page 469 and 470: Modelling Figure 1: Blood and mean
- Page 471 and 472: Modelling simulations the additiona
- Page 473 and 474: Modelling Table 1. Descriptive summ
- Page 475 and 476: Modelling concomitant increase in b
- Page 477 and 478: Modelling REFERENCES 1. U.S. Depart
- Page 479 and 480: Modelling from the 1988 population.
- Page 481 and 482: Modelling somatotypes in multivaria
- Page 483 and 484: Modelling Each scan data was first
- Page 485 and 486: Modelling The line through the data
- Page 487 and 488: Hip( width) −Waist ( width ) HW
- Page 489 and 490: Modelling measurements are extracte
- Page 491 and 492: Measurement methods not included in
- Page 493 and 494: Measurement methods humidity. The o
- Page 495 and 496: Measurement methods DISCUSSION Base
- Page 497 and 498: Air film Skin surface Skin layer δ
- Page 499 and 500: Measurement methods and calculated
- Page 501 and 502: Rectal temperature ( o C) 39.5 39.0
- Page 503 and 504: Measurement methods work rates, and
- Page 505 and 506: Measurement methods HUMIDEX: CAN TH
- Page 507: Measurement methods highlighted. In
- Page 511 and 512: Universal Thermal Climate Index dat
- Page 513 and 514: Universal Thermal Climate Index DYN
- Page 515 and 516: Universal Thermal Climate Index DIS
- Page 517 and 518: Universal Thermal Climate Index COM
- Page 519 and 520: Skin temperature (°C) Universal Th
- Page 521 and 522: Universal Thermal Climate Index PRO
- Page 523 and 524: Universal Thermal Climate Index The
- Page 525 and 526: Universal Thermal Climate Index ASS
- Page 527 and 528: Universal Thermal Climate Index ima
- Page 529 and 530: Universal Thermal Climate Index min
- Page 531 and 532: Working environment EFFECTS OF LIGH
- Page 533 and 534: Working environment It is interesti
- Page 535 and 536: 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 25 12 Working en
- Page 537 and 538: Working environment ERGONOMICS OPTI
- Page 539 and 540: Working environment astigmatism, an
- Page 541 and 542: Working environment RESULTS The hig
- Page 543 and 544: Working environment hearing protect
- Page 545 and 546: Working environment Redistribution
- Page 547 and 548: Working environment DISCUSSION Thes
- Page 549 and 550: Working Environment over the phone
- Page 551 and 552: Working Environment DISCUSSION Diff
- Page 553 and 554: Working Environment results, conclu
- Page 555 and 556: Working Environment BP as the refer
- Page 557 and 558: Working Environment significantly a
Environmental Ergonomics XII<br />
Igor B. Mekjavic, Stelios N. Kounalakis & Nigel A.S. Taylor (Eds.), © BIOMED, Ljubljana <strong>2007</strong><br />
radiation or outdoor situations) the compared assessment leads to a dramatic situation.<br />
According to data reported in Fig. 2B, both WBGT and PHS limit curves fall in the 30 ≤ HD<br />
≤ 39 area. This means that microclimatic conditions judged by HD as only slightly<br />
uncomfortable, are judged inconsistent with healthy work by both a rational approach (PHS),<br />
and an empirical index (WBGT).<br />
DISCUSSION<br />
The comparative assessment of the thermal environment carried out in accordance with the<br />
regulations in force and Humidex, has revealed a substantial disagreement between the two<br />
approaches, both in moderate and in extreme environments. Concerning moderate<br />
environments, Humidex provides a good estimation of thermal comfort only in a narrow<br />
range of thermohygrometric conditions (i.e. higher temperature and summer conditions or<br />
lower temperature and winter conditions) and at low metabolic rates. The assessment of<br />
extremely hot environments has revealed underestimation the hazard of such conditions.<br />
In conclusion, bioclimatic indices such as Humidex, although easy to interpret, can only be<br />
used by media to give some useful information regarding the type of clothing recommended<br />
for given weather conditions, specifically clothing most likely to provide thermal comfort. In<br />
other situations (thermal comfort in buildings or thermal stress induced by the combination<br />
between the microclimate and the particular work activity) their use should be strongly<br />
restricted since they fail when used outside the narrow validated range. Also, they do not take<br />
into account the physiological response of the subject to the thermal environment.<br />
REFERENCES<br />
Fanger PO (1970). Thermal Comfort. New York, USA, McGraw-Hill.<br />
d’Ambrosio Alfano FR, Palella BI, Riccio G. (2005). TEE (Thermal Environment<br />
Assessment): a friendly tool for thermal environment evaluation. Proceedings of 11th<br />
International Conferences on Environmental Ergonomics, Ystad (Sweden) 2005 May 22-<br />
26; 503-506.<br />
Masterton, JM, Richardson, FA. (1979). HUMIDEX: A Method of Quantifying Human<br />
Discomfort Due to Excessive Heat and Humidity. CLI 1-79. Downside Ontario,<br />
CANADA: Environment Canada. 1-45.<br />
Conti S, Meli P, Minelli G, Solimini R, Toccaceli V, Vichi M, Beltrano MC, Perini L.<br />
Epidemiologic study of mortality during the Summer 2003 heat wave in Italy. Environm.<br />
Res. 2005; 98(3): 390-399.<br />
Ministry of Labour of Canada: Health and Safety Guideline April 2003.<br />
Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Risk assessment strategy for the prevention of stress<br />
or discomfort in thermal working conditions – ISO Standard 15265 – Geneva:<br />
International Standardization Organization.<br />
Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Estimation of thermal insulation and water vapour<br />
resistance of a clothing ensemble. ISO/FDIS 9920, January, <strong>2007</strong>.<br />
508