Citation

Niedermann R, Psikuta A, Rossi RM. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2014; 58(6): 1069-1075.

Affiliation

Laboratory for Protection and Physiology, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA), Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, 9014, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, International Society of Biometeorology, Publisher Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s00484-013-0697-0

PMID

23824222

Abstract

Scientists use passive heat flow meters to measure body heat exchanges with the environment. In recent years, several such sensors have been developed and concerns about their proper calibration have been addressed. However, calibration methods have differed in the geometry of the heated device as well as in the heat transfer mechanism. Therefore, a comparison of calibration methods is needed in order to understand the obtained differences in calibration lines. We chose three commercially available heat flux sensors and placed them on four different heated devices: a hot plate, double hot plate, nude cylinder and a cylinder covered with a spacer material. We found differences between the calibration line of the manufacturer and our own measurements, especially when forced convection was involved as the main heat transfer mechanism. The results showed clearly that the calibration method should be chosen according to the intended purpose of use. In addition, we recommend use a thin, light heat flux sensor with good thermal conduction in human subject studies.

Language: en