CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CHANG, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by KING, F. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by CHANG, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by KING, F. G.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 31, 690-694, Copyright © 1984 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

Calorimetrical Comparison of Insulative Properties of Metalized Plastic, Clear Polyethylene, and Polyester Blanket

K. S. CHANG PHD1, R. T. FARRELL BSC1, J. W. SNELLEN MD PHD1, and F. G. KING MD FRCP(C)1

1 Calorimetry Laboratory, Basic Sciences Division and Discipline of Anaesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Address correspondence to: Dr. K.S. Chang, Calorimetry laboratory, Basic Sciences Division, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland A1B 3V6.

The thermal insulation properties of metalized plastic sheeting (MPS), clear polyethylene sheeting (CPS) and 100 per cent polyester thermal bed blanket (TBB) were tested and compared quantitatively using direct calorimetry. The experiments were carried out on individual subjects sitting in a whole body calorimeter and covered first with a TBB bag up to the neck. Then the three materials were tested, one at a time, over the original TBB up to the neck. The temperature of the calorimeter was set at normal operating room temperature of 18°C. MPS provided the greatest reduction in sensible heat loss (SHL) of all three materials tested. The total SHL saving provided by an MPS over TBB was 29.7 per cent and was statistically highly significantly different from that provided by a CPS or TBB over TBB (the difference is 9.6 and 9.9 per cent, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). While the SHL saving provided by a CPS over TBB was 20.1 per cent, and a TBB over TBB was 19.8 percent, the difference of 0.3 per cent is statistically not significant (p > 0.5). An additional finding was that MPS is electrically conductive on one side. Precautions must be taken when it is used on patients connected to electrical devices. Also, insensible perspiration trapped inside the bag can be as much as 10 g·hour-1 and may become a problem when the patient is wrapped in MPS for an extended period of time.

Key Words: MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: DIRECT CALORIMETRY EQUIPMENT: metalized plastic sheeting






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1984 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.