Search

Objectives: To provide perspectives from the HEAT-SHIELD project (www.heat-shield.eu): a multi-national, inter-sectoral, and cross-disciplinary initiative, incorporating twenty European research institutions, as well as occupational health and industrial partners, on solutions to combat negative health and productivity effects caused by working on a warmer world.Methods: In this invited review, we focus on the theoretical and methodological advancements developed to combat occupational heat stress during the last five years of operation.Results: We outline how we created climate forecast models to incorporate humidity, wind and solar radiation to the traditional temperature-based climate projections, providing the basis for timely, policy-relevant, industry-specific and individualized information. Further, we summarise the industry-specific guidelines we developed regarding technical and biophysical cooling solutions considering effectiveness, cost, sustainability, and the practical implementation potential in outdoor and indoor settings, in addition to field-testing of selected solutions with time-motion analyses and biophysical evaluations. All recommendations were adjusted following feedback from workshops with employers, employees, safety officers, and adjacent stakeholders such as local or national health policy makers. The cross-scientific approach was also used for providing policy-relevant information based on socioeconomic analyses and identification of vulnerable regions considered to be more relevant for political actions than average continental recommendations and interventions.Discussion: From the HEAT-SHIELD experiences developed within European settings, we discuss how this inter-sectoral approach may be adopted or translated into actionable knowledge across continents where workers and societies are affected by escalating environmental temperatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a user-friendly tool for footprint calculations of flux measurements in the surface layer. The calculations are based on the analytical footprint model by Kormann, R. and Meixner, F.X. [2001. An analytical footprint model for Non-neutral Stratification. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 99, 207–224]. The footprint density function of a flux sensor is determined using readily available data from standard eddy covariance measurements. This footprint density function is integrated over defined surface areas given as quadrangular polygons representing e.g. agricultural fields. We illustrate the use and performance of the tool by applying it to CO2 flux measurements with three eddy covariance system at the Swiss CarboEurope grassland site. Two flux towers were positioned in the centre of two neighbouring fields, respectively, that showed a very different CO2 flux during the study period. The third tower was located near the border of the two fields and was frequently influenced by both fields to a similar degree. The calculated footprint fractions were used to simulate the latter flux from the other two systems. The measured and simulated fluxes showed a good agreement and thus support the reliability of the footprint calculation. The presented simple footprint tool can be used as a routine quality check for flux monitoring stations influenced by surface areas with varying vegetation covers and/or land-use. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: A novel quantum cascade laser absorption spectrometer (QCL-AS) was tested to monitor N2O exchange fluxes over an intensively managed grassland using the eddy covariance approach. The instrument employs a continuous wave quantum cascade laser to scan over the absorption features of N2O, CH4 and water vapor at 7.8μm. The precision of the N2O flux measurements was determined to be 0.2nmolm−2 s−1 but the accuracy can easily be affected by water vapor interferences twice as large. These water vapor interferences are not only due to the respective gas dilution effect but also due to an additional cross-sensitivity of the N2O analyzer to water vapor (0.3ppb N2O/% H2O). Both effects cause a negative bias of similar magnitude (0.3nmolm−2 s−1 N2O flux/mmolm−2 s−1 H2O flux) in the flux measurements. While the dilution (or density) correction is a well known and routinely applied procedure, the magnitude of the analyzer cross-talk may depend on the specific instrumental setup and should be empirically determined. The comparison with static chamber measurements shows the necessity of the cross-talk correction; otherwise the QCL-AS based eddy covariance system would yield unrealistically large uptake of N2O. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]