A comparison of five different hypothermia enclosure systems in a cold environment
| dc.contributor.author | Dutta, Ramesh | |
| dc.contributor.examiningcommittee | Gardiner, Phillip F. (Kinesiology and Recreation Management) Steinman, Alan M. (USPHS/USCG retired) | en_US |
| dc.contributor.supervisor | Giesbrecht, Gordon G. (Kinesiology and Recreation Management) | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-09-07T13:02:55Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-09-07T13:02:55Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.degree.discipline | Kinesiology and Recreation Management | en_US |
| dc.degree.level | Master of Science (M.Sc.) | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | This study compared the thermal physiological and subjective responses of five subjects (1 female) to five hypothermia enclosure systems (HES) (with chemical heat sources) during 60 minutes of exposure to a -22°C climate. The five systems were: 1) user-assembled (Control); 2) Wiggy’s Victims Casualty Hypothermia Bag (W); 3) Doctor Down® Rescue Wrap® (DD); 4) MARSARS Hypothermia Stabilizer Bag (M); 5) Hypothermia Prevention and Management Kit (HPMK®). Total heat flux was significantly higher with the HPMK, W and M compared to the Control and DD (p<0.05). Net heat gain was higher with the Control and DD compared to W and M (p<0.05). Although all systems provide insulation and heat, the user-assembled and DD HES were more effective. | en_US |
| dc.description.note | October 2017 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1993/32483 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
| dc.rights | open access | en_US |
| dc.subject | Hypothermia enclosure systems | en_US |
| dc.subject | Sleeping Bag | en_US |
| dc.subject | Doctor Down | en_US |
| dc.subject | MARSARS | en_US |
| dc.subject | HPMK | en_US |
| dc.subject | Wiggy's | en_US |
| dc.title | A comparison of five different hypothermia enclosure systems in a cold environment | en_US |
| dc.type | master thesis | en_US |