• 한국의류산업학회지
• /
• 제22권6호
• /
• pp.862-872
• /
• 2020

This study explores the effects of facemasks on respiratory, thermoregulatory, cardiovascular responses during exercise on a treadmill and at rest. Five male subjects (25.8 ± 0.8 y, 171.8 ± 9.2 cm in height, 79.8 ± 28.1 kg in weight) participated in the following five experimental conditions: no mask, KF80, KF94, KF99, and N95. Inhalation resistance was ranked as KF80 < KF94 < N95 < KF99 and dead space inside a mask was ranked as KF80 = KF94 < N95 < KF99. The surface area covered by a mask was on average 1.1% of the total body surface area. The results showed no significant differences in body core temperature, oxygen consumption (VO2), carbon dioxide production (VCO2), heart rate or subjective perception among the five experimental conditions; however, cheek temperature, respiratory ventilation and blood pressure were greater for KF80 or KF94 conditions when compared to KF99 or N95 conditions (p<0.05). The differences among mask conditions are attributed to the dead space or specific designs (cup type vs pleats type) rather than the filtration level. In addition, the results suggest that improving mask design can help mitigate respiratory resistance from increased filtration.

• 한국의류산업학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.123-136
• /
• 2024

This study aimed to assess the mobility and thermal comfort of personal protective equipment (PPE) among female healthcare workers, taking into account wearers' physique and PPE protection levels. A total of 16 participants (age: 26.3 ± 8.3 y, height: 161.5 ± 7.3 cm, body weight: 57.1 ± 11.0 kg, BMI: 21.9 ± 3.6), representing diverse body types, underwent four PPE conditions: L (Low_Plastic gown ensemble), M (Medium_Tyvek 400), H (High_Tyvek 800J with Powered Air Purifying Respirator [PAPR]), and E (Extremely high_Tychem 2000 with PAPR, Bib apron, and Chemical-resistant gloves). The mobility protocol consisted of 10 different tasks in addition to donning and doffing. The 10 tasks were repeated twice at an air temperature of 24.3 ± 0.1℃, 59±4%RH. Findings revealed a disproportionate relationship between PPE protection and wearer discomfort. Significant differences in clothing microclimate and total sweat rate were observed between the lowest (L) and highest (E) protection levels (p < 0.01), while distinctions among medium levels were inconclusive. Subjective evaluations favored conditions H and L over M and E (p < 0.05), indicating reduced heat, and humidity, increased comfort, and lower exertion. Instances of mobility discomfort, specially in the small body type group, underscored the need for a suitable PPE size system for Korean adult female medical workers. Furthermore, enhancements in gloves, shoe cover, and PAPR hood designs are essential for improving ease of movement and preventing hindrance.

• 한국의류산업학회지
• /
• 제24권5호
• /
• pp.655-665
• /
• 2022

This study evaluated the validity of a newly developed mobility protocol examining the comfort functions and requirements of personal protective equipment (PPE) for COVID-19 healthcare workers. Eight males (age: 24.7 ± 3.0 y, height: 173.4 ± 2.3 cm, and body weight 69.9 ± 3.7 kg) participated in the following three PPE conditions: (1) Plastic gown ensemble, (2) Level D ensemble, and (3) Powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) ensemble. The mobility protocol consisted of 10 different tasks in addition to donning and doffing. The 10 tasks were repeated twice at an air temperature of 25oC with 74% RH. The results showed significant differences among the three PPE conditions in mean skin temperature, local skin temperatures (the forehead, thigh, calf, and foot), clothing microclimate (the chest and back), thermal sensation, thermal comfort, and humidity sensation, while there were no significant differences in heart rate or total sweat rate. At rest, the subjects felt less warm and more comfortable in the PAPR than in the Level D condition (P<0.05). However, subjective perceptions in the PAPR and Level D conditions became similar as the tasks progressed and mean skin and leg temperature became greater for the PAPR than the Level D condition (P<0.05). An interview was conducted just after completing the mobility test protocol, and suggestions for improving each PPE item were obtained. To sum up, the mobility test protocol was valid for evaluating the comfort functions of PPE for healthcare workers and obtaining requirements for improving the mobility of each PPE item.