Does living and working in a hot environment induce clinically relevant changes in immune function and voluntary force production capacity?

Effects of living and working in a hot environment on cognitive function in a quiet and temperature-controlled room: An oil and gas industry study

We investigate the effects of seasonal heat stress on cognitive function in outdoor workers. Thirty-nine workers from an oil and gas industry in the Middle-East volunteered for cognitive testing before (5.30 to 7.00 am) and after (3.30 to 5.00 pm) their daily work-shift in hot (August - average daily temperature: ~41°C) and temperate (January - average daily temperature: ~22°C) seasons. While physical activity was reduced in hot compared to temperate season (average normalized acceleration: 96 ± 33 vs. 112 ± 31 × 10^-3 g; -12.5 ± 4.7%; P = 0.010), the average core temperature during the work-shift was higher in the hot season (37.4 ± 0.2 vs. 37.2 ± 0.2°C; P = 0.002). Peak core temperature was 38.0 ± 0.1°C and 37.8 ± 0.1°C in hot and temperate seasons, respectively. Cognitive performance did not differ between seasons for tests of recognition memory (P = 0.169), working memory (P = 0.797) and executive function (P = 0.145), independent of testing time. Whereas there was no significant main effect of testing time for tests of recognition memory (P = 0.503) and working memory (P = 0.849), the number of problems solved on the first choice for the executive function test was lower in the afternoon than the morning (-9.2 ± 5.3%; P = 0.039). There was no season × testing time interaction for any cognitive tests (P ≥ 0.145). In the absence of hyperthermia, living and working in a hot environment does not alter cognitive function in oil and gas industry workers tested in a quiet and temperature-controlled room, with reduced clothing encumbrance (relative to work). Conclusions should not be extrapolated to more stressful situations (i.e., thermal stressor present, pronounced dehydration, noise).

A Field Evaluation of Construction Workers' Activity, Hydration Status, and Heat Strain in the Extreme Summer Heat of Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

Assess the impact of summer heat exposure (June-September) on residential construction workers in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia by evaluating (i) heart rate (HR) responses, hydration status, and physical workload among workers in indoor and outdoor construction settings, (ii) factors related to physiological responses to work in hot conditions, and (iii) how well wet-bulb globe temperature-based occupational exposure limits (WBGTOELs) predict measures of heat strain.

METHODS

Twenty-three construction workers (plasterers, tilers, and laborers) contributed 260 person-days of monitoring. Workload energy expenditure, HR, fluid intake, and pre- and postshift urine specific gravity (USG) were measured. Indoor and outdoor heat exposures (WBGT) were measured continuously and a WBGTOEL was calculated. The effects of heat exposure and workload on heart rate reserve (HRR), a measure of cardiovascular strain, were examined with linear mixed models. A metric called 'heat stress exceedance' (HSE) was constructed to summarize whether the environmental heat exposure (WBGT) exceeded the heat stress exposure limit (WBGTOEL). The sensitivity and specificity of the HSE as a predictor of cardiovascular strain (HRR ≥30%) were determined.

RESULTS

The WBGTOEL was exceeded frequently, on 63 person-days indoors (44%) and 91(78%) outdoors. High-risk HRR occurred on 26 and 36 person-days indoors and outdoors, respectively. The HSE metric showed higher sensitivity for HRR ≥30% outdoors (89%) than indoors (58%) and greater specificity indoors (59%) than outdoors (27%). Workload intensity was generally moderate, with light intensity work more common outdoors. The ability to self-pace work was associated with a lower frequency of HRR ≥30%. USG concentrations indicated that workers began and ended their shifts dehydrated (USG ≥1.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Construction work where WBGTOEL is commonly exceeded poses health risks. The ability of workers to self-pace may help reduce risks.

Workers' health and productivity under occupational heat strain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Occupational heat strain (ie, the effect of environmental heat stress on the body) directly threatens workers' ability to live healthy and productive lives. We estimated the effects of occupational heat strain on workers' health and productivity outcomes.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines for this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed and Embase from database inception to Feb 5, 2018, for relevant studies in any labour environment and at any level of occupational heat strain. No restrictions on language, workers' health status, or study design were applied. Occupational heat strain was defined using international health and safety guidelines and standards. We excluded studies that calculated effects using simulations or statistical models instead of actual measurements, and any grey literature. Risk of bias, data extraction, and sensitivity analysis were performed by two independent investigators. Six random-effects meta-analyses estimated the prevalence of occupational heat strain, kidney disease or acute kidney injury, productivity loss, core temperature, change in urine specific gravity, and odds of occupational heat strain occurring during or at the end of a work shift in heat stress conditions. The review protocol is available on PROSPERO, registration number CRD42017083271.

FINDINGS

Of 958 reports identified through our systematic search, 111 studies done in 30 countries, including 447 million workers from more than 40 different occupations, were eligible for analysis. Our meta-analyses showed that individuals working a single work shift under heat stress (defined as wet-bulb globe temperature beyond 22·0 or 24·8°C depending on work intensity) were 4·01 times (95% CI 2·45-6·58; nine studies with 11 582 workers) more likely to experience occupational heat strain than an individual working in thermoneutral conditions, while their core temperature was increased by 0·7°C (0·4-1·0; 17 studies with 1090 workers) and their urine specific gravity was increased by 14·5% (0·0031, 0·0014-0·0048; 14 studies with 691 workers). During or at the end of a work shift under heat stress, 35% (31-39; 33 studies with 13 088 workers) of workers experienced occupational heat strain, while 30% (21-39; 11 studies with 8076 workers) reported productivity losses. Finally, 15% (11-19; ten studies with 21 721 workers) of individuals who typically or frequently worked under heat stress (minimum of 6 h per day, 5 days per week, for 2 months of the year) experienced kidney disease or acute kidney injury. Overall, this analysis include a variety of populations, exposures, and occupations to comply with a wider adoption of evidence synthesis, but resulted in large heterogeneity in our meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation analysis revealed moderate confidence for most results and very low confidence in two cases (average core temperature and change in urine specific gravity) due to studies being funded by industry.

INTERPRETATION

Occupational heat strain has important health and productivity outcomes and should be recognised as a public health problem. Concerted international action is needed to mitigate its effects in light of climate change and the anticipated rise in heat stress.

FUNDING

EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.