Cold protective clothing was studied in 2 European Union projects. The objectives were (a) to examine different insulation calculation methods as measured on a manikin (serial or parallel), for the prediction of cold stress (IREQ); (b) to consider the effects of cold protective clothing on metabolic rate; (c) to evaluate the movement and wind correction of clothing insulation values. Tests were carried out on 8 subjects. The results showed the possibility of incorporating the effect of increases in metabolic rate values due to thick cold protective clothing into the IREQ model. Using the higher thermal insulation value from the serial method in the IREQ prediction, would lead to unacceptable cooling of the users. Thus, only the parallel insulation calculation method in EN 342:2004 should be used. The wind and motion correction equation (No. 2) gave realistic values for total resultant insulation; dynamic testing according to EN 342:2004 may be omitted.

There are very few methods available for the assessment of cold exposure and they rely more or less on complex equations for calculating heat balance; therefore, there is a need for new practical methods for the identification and control of cold hazards in workplaces. In the first study, the aim was to test a checklist which enables cold risk assessment based on observations in the workplace. The checklist has seven main sections of cold related risk factors: ‘cold air’, ‘wind/air movements’, ‘contact with cold surfaces’, ‘exposure to water/ liquids/moisture’, ‘protective clothing against cold’, ‘protection of hands/feet/head from cold’ and ‘the use of personal protective equipment’. A total of 82 evaluation sheets were obtained from the field testing (24 from Sweden and 58 from Finland). The subjects found the observational checklist to be a usable tool for cold risk assessment in terms of the time needed to perform the risk assessment procedure, the interference of the method with the observed work, the adequacy of the instructions and the facility of the checklist. In the second study, the aim was to test the checklist at workplaces in a country representing a different approach to safety culture than the one prevailing in Scandinavian countries. A secondary objective was to test whether there was a learning effect reflected in the results recorded in the evaluation sheets when filled in after conducting the cold risk assessment procedure for the first, second and third time. A total of 277 evaluation sheets were obtained from 116 observers from two sawmills in north-western Russia. The observers, similarly to the ones in Finland and Sweden, found the observational checklist to be a usable tool for cold risk assessment in terms of the time needed to perform the risk assessment procedure; the instructions provided for the checklist and to the summary table; the facility of the checklist and summary table and the suitability of the checklist (in regards to the structure and content) in identify cold- related risk factors. According to the Nordic observers, a workers’ representative responsible for industrial safety and the workers themselves should carry out the assessment procedure at the workplace. On the contrary, the Russian observers mentioned workers only in 7.5% of the evaluation sheets, giving priority to a safety engineer (mentioned in 50.5% of evaluation sheets) and a foreman (mentioned in 22.6% of evaluation sheets). No statistically significant effects of learning were found when three groups of answers (after the first, second and third time) were compared (N=73). In the third study, the objective was to validate the checklist for the identification of cold-related problems under laboratory conditions in terms of whether the checklist generated results were in accordance with the subjects’ physiological measurements and self-reported observations of their thermal state. Eight male subjects were screwing bolts with both gloves and bare hands and stepping in 0C, walking at 3.5 km/hour and 4.9 km/hour in -10C and at 3 km/hour in -25C and standing still at +4C in the climatic chamber. In conclusion, the number of subjects who assessed the particular cold related risk factor by means of the checklist in conformity to their reported thermal sensations and measured skin temperatures varied most often from five to eight subjects. In some rare cases, only one, two or three subjects gave evaluations that were in agreement. In particular, this was the case for risk factors concerning the presence of light work and protection of extremities against cold, when several work tasks were performed under the same experiment. In the fourth study, the aim was to identify cold-related risk factors that people face in their work environment and to investigate whether the region where the checklist was filled in, the type of work (indoor versus outdoor work), ambient temperatures and the sector that the company represented had any influence on the ratings that these factors received. Cold-related risk factors were assessed in 14 companies representing various work activities in construction, stevedoring and storage, tourism, sawmills, fish processing, forestry and road building industries in four countries: Finland, Norway, Sweden and north-western Russia. An observational checklist for the assessment of 13 cold-related risk factors was applied and 164 checklists were filled in by 80 selected observers in the Nordic countries and 277 checklists were completed by 116 selected observers in north-western Russia. The observers consisted of worksite managers, occupational health and safety (OH&S) representatives, occupational nurses and the workers themselves. The majority of the cold-related risk factors were rated differently by Nordic and Russian observers in term of either the chosen severity of the problem (‘no problem’, ‘slight problem’ or ‘considerable problem’) or the frequencies of ratings along these categories. Five factors (‘cold air’, ‘wind/ air movements’, ‘contact with cold surfaces’, ‘water/ liquids/ damp’ and ‘highly varying workload’) were most often rated as slightly problematic and two factors (‘protective clothing against cold’ and ‘light work’) as causing no problems by both groups. The remaining six factors (‘protection of extremities against cold’, ‘use of PPE’, ‘long-term cold exposure’, ‘varying thermal environments’, ‘slipperiness’ and ‘insufficient lighting’) were rated differently by Nordic and Russian observers, and the latter indicated less favourable situations at the observed workplaces. Only a few factors had different ratings if various variables (nature of work, ambient temperatures and sector of economic activities) were taken into account. In the fifth study, the aim was to validate the Edholm scale and the ISO 8996 standard by comparing the metabolic rates estimated for both methods with the actual measured metabolic rate (M_Meas) in six manual material handling tasks simulated under laboratory conditions. The metabolic rate was calculated from the oxygen consumption VO2 (19 participants) according to Standard No. ISO 8996. Additionally, the subjects estimated perceived exertion using the Borg scale. The metabolic rates derived from the Edholm scale (M_Edh) overestimated five of six activities by 34-50% (significance level .05). The metabolic rates derived from ISO 8996 (M_ISO) overestimated all activities by 7-38% (significance level .05).

All employers and self employed people have a legal duty to assess risks from their work activities, and for many persons in various occupations cold is a source of risks to their health and well-being. Questionnaire surveys conducted in the Nordic countries have indicated that 14 - 16% of employees experience cold as a hazard in their work. In this thesis an observational checklist for cold risk assessment was developed as a part of the four step strategy (screening, observation, analysis and expertise) for evaluation and prevention of risks due to work in thermal environments. The usability of the checklist was tested (N=82 times) by workers' representatives in the work safety committees, OH&S representatives, occupational nurses, foremen and the workers themselves, who served as observers. The results of the testing showed that the checklist is an observational method that is easy to use according to the provided instructions. It does not require comprehensive training or knowledge. It takes about a half an hour to conduct, and causes no interference with work activities of the observed persons. Furthermore, the developed checklist was used to identify and compare cold related risk factors that indoor and outdoor workers face during their work activities. According to the observers who were assessing cold risks (N=164 times) during various work activities in construction, stevedoring and storage, tourism, fish processing, forestry and road building companies, 8 risk factors (cold air, wind/ air movements, touching cold surfaces, water/ liquids/ damp, protection of extremities against cold, highly varying workload, varying thermal environments and slipperiness) were found to lead most often to some kind of a problem, while 5 other factors (protective clothing against cold, use of PPE, long-term cold exposure, light work and lighting) were found to cause no problems. Three cold related risk factors: water/ liquids/ damp, protection of extremities against cold and long-term cold exposure were rated differently depending on whether the observed work activities were carried out indoors or outdoors. In the group of outdoor work, the ratings of three factors: cold air, varying thermal environments and slipperiness were found to be partly dependent on whether the observed work activities were conducted under cold or very cold temperatures. Finally, it was investigated whether the integration of cold protection with the protection against occupational hazard was achieved successfully by the industrial workers operating in cold outdoor environments. The interviewed workers (N=30) indicated the protection of hands against cold as the most problematic along with feet and head protection.

The aim of this study was to validate the Edholm scale (Edholm, 1966) and the ISO 8996 standard (International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 1990) by comparing the metabolic rates estimated for both methods with the actual measured metabolic rate (MMeas) in 6 manual material handling tasks simulated under laboratory conditions. The metabolic rate was calculated from oxygen consumption VO2 (19 participants) according to Standard No. ISO 8996 (ISO, 1990). Additionally, the participants estimated perceived exertion using the Borg scale. The metabolic rates derived from the Edholm scale (MEdh) overestimated 5 of 6 activities by 34-50% (alpha = .05). The metabolic rates derived from ISO 8996 (MISO) overestimated all activities by 7-38% (alpha = .05).