RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Agricultural workers are at risk of heat-related illness, which is preventable. Few field studies have compared farmworker-relevant heat exposure in different conditions. We examined heat exposure over time in different potential shade and work locations to inform future occupational heat prevention approaches. METHODS: We assessed heat exposure in Eastern Washington State (WA) cherry and grape fields in August 2022. QUESTemp° monitors recorded Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) and Black Globe Temperature (BGT) every 10 min from approximately 07:00-14:00 for three days in the center of crop rows (mid-row), under portable shade structures (shade), and in open field (open) locations. Linear mixed effects regression (LMER) models compared WBGT and BGT among field locations. Hourly time-weighted average WBGT and comparisons with occupational exposure limits (OELs) were computed for different hypothetical work-rest cycles during the hottest sampling hours, assuming different worker effort levels, rest locations (mid-row versus shade), and acclimatization statuses. RESULTS: Across all crops and locations during the study period, the mean/SD air temperature was 31°C (88°F)/3.9°C (6.9°F), with a maximum temperature of 39°C (102°F) and a mean/SD relative humidity of 30%/9.6%. LMER models suggested no significant difference in mid-row versus open WBGT but significantly lower WBGT in shade versus open locations for both cherries (main effect -5.14: 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.97,-3.32) and grapes (-6.20: 95%CI -7.73,-4.67), though this difference diminished over the course of the day. BGT was significantly higher in the mid-row than the shade (cherries main effect 14.33: 95%CI 9.52,19.13 and grapes 17.10: 95%CI 13.44,20.75). During the hottest sampling hour, the exceedances of OELs were reduced with assumptions of increased shaded break lengths, reduced effort level, and acclimatization. CONCLUSIONS: Shade canopies, but not the crops studied, provided significant reductions in heat exposure. We observed increased protection from heat assuming longer shaded breaks and reduced effort levels. Results highlight the need for additional field research on the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of different shade types and work-rest cycles to guide employer optimization of best practices for worker protections, including acclimatization before high heat, sufficient shaded rest time, reduced effort levels as the day warms, and avoiding work in peak heat.
RESUMEN
The dose-response effects of exercise in reduced gravity on musculoskeletal health have not been well documented. It is not known whether or not individualized exercise prescriptions can be effective in preventing the substantial loss in bone mineral density and muscle function that have been observed in space flight and in bed rest. In this study, typical daily loads to the lower extremities were quantified in free-living subjects who were then randomly assigned to control or exercise groups. Subjects were confined to 6-degree head-down bed rest for 84 days. The exercise group performed individually prescribed 1 g loaded locomotor exercise to replace their free-living daily load. Eleven subjects (5 exercise, 6 control) completed the protocol. Volumetric bone mineral density results from quantitative computed tomography demonstrated that control subjects lost significant amounts of bone in the intertrochanteric and total hip regions (p < 0.0125), whereas the exercise group showed no significant change from baseline in any region (p > 0.0125). Pre-and post-bed rest muscle volumes were calculated from analysis of magnetic resonance imaging data. The exercise group retained a larger percentage of their total quadriceps and gastrocnemius muscle volume (- 7.2% ± 5.9, - 13.8% ± 6.1, respectively) than their control counterparts (- 23.3% ± 5.9, - 33.0 ± 8.2, respectively; p < 0.01). Both groups significantly lost strength in several measured activities (p < 0.05). The declines in peak torque during repeated exertions of knee flexion and knee extension were significantly less in the exercise group than in the control group (p < 0.05) but work done was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). The decline in VO2max was 17% ± 18 in exercising subjects (p < 0.05) and 31% ± 13 in control subjects (p = 0.003; difference between groups was not significant p = 0.26). Changes in blood and urine measures showed trends but no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). In summary, the decline in a number of important measures of musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health was attenuated but not eliminated by a subject-specific program of locomotor exercise designed to replace daily load accumulated during free living. We conclude that single daily bouts of exposure to locomotor exercise can play a role in a countermeasures program during bed rest, and perhaps space flight, but are not sufficient in their own right to ensure musculoskeletal or cardiovascular health.