高原体力劳动强度评价指标研究
|
摘要
[目的]探讨高原地区心率(HR)、肺通气量(VE)与摄氧量(VO_2)之间的关系,并拟合最优函数,以探索用于高原体力劳动强度评价的简易指标。[方法]选取不同海拔高度的78名在岗男性工人,用功率车模拟劳动负荷,心肺功能测试系统记录不同劳动负荷下的VE、HR、VO_2。用曲线拟合VO_2与HR、VE的关系,建立最优回归方程。[结果]同等劳动强度下,不同海拔的工人VO(2P=0.505)和HR(P=0.306)的差异没有统计学意义,VE的差异有统计学意义(P<0.001);相同海拔高度,不同劳动强度的工人VO_2、HR、VE的差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001)。曲线拟合显示,VE与VO_22、HR与VO_2的最大决定系数(R)分别为0.903、0.583,可看出VE与VO_2的幂函数效果最佳。进一步分析发现标准状况下的肺通气量(VE2STPD)与VO_2的拟合效果更好;拟合的函数为?VO_2=0.06,R=0.930。[结论]进行高原体力劳动强度评价时,VESTPD可作为替代VO_2的简易评价指标。建立的函数可对作为现行体力劳动强度国家标准的补充和优化。
[Objective] To assess the relationship among heart rate(HR), minute ventilation(VE), and oxygen uptake(VO_2), and choose an optimal fitting function to find simple indicators for the evaluation of physical workload in plateau.[Methods] Seventy-eight healthy males working at different altitudes were recruited in the study. An incremental cycle ergometer test until volitional fatigue was performed on all participants. Physiologic parameters, including VO_2, VE, and HR, were recorded in a computerized test system. The optimal regression equation was chosen from fitting curves between VO_2 and VE and between VO_2 and HR.[Results] Under the same physical workload and at varied altitudes, VO_2(P=0.505) and heart rate(P=0.306) did not show differences, but VE were significantly different(P < 0.001). At the same altitude and under varied physical workloads, VO_2, HR, and VE were statistically different among the workers(P < 0.001). The optimal regression equation showed that the relationship between VE and VO_2(R2=0.903) was stronger than that between HR and VO_2(R2=0.583), which indicated that the power function of VE and VO_2 was the best in data fitting. Further analysis found that VE under standard temperature and pressure, dry(VESTPD) was better fitted with VO_2 than VE. The resulted fitting function was ?VO_2=0.06, R2=0.930.[Conclusion] VESTPD could replace VO_2 to assess physical workload in plateau. The established function may supplement and improve existing national standard of physical workload.
[Objective] To assess the relationship among heart rate(HR), minute ventilation(VE), and oxygen uptake(VO_2), and choose an optimal fitting function to find simple indicators for the evaluation of physical workload in plateau.[Methods] Seventy-eight healthy males working at different altitudes were recruited in the study. An incremental cycle ergometer test until volitional fatigue was performed on all participants. Physiologic parameters, including VO_2, VE, and HR, were recorded in a computerized test system. The optimal regression equation was chosen from fitting curves between VO_2 and VE and between VO_2 and HR.[Results] Under the same physical workload and at varied altitudes, VO_2(P=0.505) and heart rate(P=0.306) did not show differences, but VE were significantly different(P < 0.001). At the same altitude and under varied physical workloads, VO_2, HR, and VE were statistically different among the workers(P < 0.001). The optimal regression equation showed that the relationship between VE and VO_2(R2=0.903) was stronger than that between HR and VO_2(R2=0.583), which indicated that the power function of VE and VO_2 was the best in data fitting. Further analysis found that VE under standard temperature and pressure, dry(VESTPD) was better fitted with VO_2 than VE. The resulted fitting function was ?VO_2=0.06, R2=0.930.[Conclusion] VESTPD could replace VO_2 to assess physical workload in plateau. The established function may supplement and improve existing national standard of physical workload.
引文
[1]张世杰,李建国,宋长平,等.高原体力劳动强度分级标准研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,1994,12(2):112-114.
[2]West J B,Boyer S J,Graber D J,et al.Maximal exercise at extreme altitudes on Mount Everest[J].J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol,1983,55(3):688-698.
[3]李岳,吴扬帆.高原地区养路工体力劳动强度分级调查研究[J].环境与职业医学,2006,23(4):355-356.
[4]工作场所物理因素测量第10部分:体力劳动强度分级:GBZ/T 189.10—2007[S].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[5]Pugh L G,Gill M B,Lahiri S,et al.Muscular exercise at great altitudes[J].J Appl Physiol,1964,19:431-440.
[6]李文选,汪济民,窦兰君,等.军事体力劳动强度评价和分级标准的研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,1997,15(2):97-99.
[7]铁道行业体力劳动强度分级:TB/T 2607—2006[S].北京:中国铁道出版社,2006.
[8]石油野外作业体力劳动强度分级:SY/T 6358—2008[S].北京:石油工业出版社,2008.
[9]工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素:GBZ 2.2—2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[2]West J B,Boyer S J,Graber D J,et al.Maximal exercise at extreme altitudes on Mount Everest[J].J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol,1983,55(3):688-698.
[3]李岳,吴扬帆.高原地区养路工体力劳动强度分级调查研究[J].环境与职业医学,2006,23(4):355-356.
[4]工作场所物理因素测量第10部分:体力劳动强度分级:GBZ/T 189.10—2007[S].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[5]Pugh L G,Gill M B,Lahiri S,et al.Muscular exercise at great altitudes[J].J Appl Physiol,1964,19:431-440.
[6]李文选,汪济民,窦兰君,等.军事体力劳动强度评价和分级标准的研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,1997,15(2):97-99.
[7]铁道行业体力劳动强度分级:TB/T 2607—2006[S].北京:中国铁道出版社,2006.
[8]石油野外作业体力劳动强度分级:SY/T 6358—2008[S].北京:石油工业出版社,2008.
[9]工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素:GBZ 2.2—2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.