Wear trial assessment of layer structure effects on vapor permeability and condensation in a cold weather clothing ensemble

Abstract

A human physiological study was performed to verify the claim that the structure of a layer, without a change in the component materials, can reduce condensation in a multilayered cold weather clothing ensemble. Two five-layered clothing ensembles were constructed using different array types: an all-separated type and a combined type in which the final insulating layer was mechanically attached to a jacket without an air gap. The materials in the two arrays were identical and 100% polyester. The results showed that the combined type produced significantly less sweat (33.8%), displayed 31.3% improved vapor permeability, and had 25.0% lower sweat accumulation compared to the separated type (p < 0.05). Following exercise, the all-separated type displayed up to a 74% greater cooling rate of skin temperature compared to the combined-type ensemble. There was a tendency to note a warmer, drier, and less clammy condition in the combined clothing ensemble by participants. The results were in good agreement with the simulator results, and suggest that an appropriate layer arrangement, in addition to material selection, should be considered for the design of novel functional clothing for cold conditions.

Keywords

Layer structure effects condensation in clothing vapor permeability physiological test cold weather clothing ensemble

A common strategy for protecting humans from cold is the prevention of cooling and the maintenance of heat balance at acceptable temperature levels. However, the complexity involved in protecting humans against low temperatures increases when excess body heat is produced during high levels of activity when the clothing insulation is designed for no or low work intensity.¹ A garment designed for cold protection generally consists of several layers of highly insulating textiles and a waterproof fabric for an outer shell; accordingly, the clothing system has very low vapor permeability and is susceptible to overheating due to the high insulation, which can cause sweating. Therefore, when the heat production level of the wearer increases due to the physical activity, sweat accumulation/condensation takes place throughout the layers of the cold protective clothing system. Condensation within a cold protective garment deteriorates the insulation and moisture management function of the clothing system, resulting in serious thermo-physiological health problems and discomfort. When using cold protective clothing in a low temperature environment, therefore, the accumulation of moisture within the clothing system has been a major problem, especially when the wearer is exposed to a prolonged period of recess after physical activity, such as winter outdoor sports or military-type exercises.

Condensation takes place somewhere in the clothing system where the vapor concentration is increased to the point of saturation. In cold conditions, therefore, condensation generally takes place where the temperature gradient or the permeability of the clothing drops.² For this reason, attention has been focused on the performance of the textile material, especially on waterproof breathable fabrics as the outermost layer of cold protective ensembles under various temperatures.^3,4 This has also been assessed by different test methods.⁵^–⁷ Ren and Ruckman⁸ suggested a method of reducing condensation on waterproof breathable fabric by changing its hydrophilicity, and Rossi and Gross⁹ examined the effect of a hydrophilic layer underneath the outer shell on the liquid moisture transfer properties. On the other hand, Bakkevig and Nielsen¹ investigated the performance of various types of underwear in relation to sweat accumulation and the activity level. Few studies have explored the effect of a layer array method in a multilayer clothing system on the vapor permeability and condensation, although very recently an attempt was made using a simulator assessment.¹⁰

To understand the condensation phenomena in the clothing system, considerable effort has been made using numerical prediction models of coupled heat and moisture transfer and condensation through the clothing system under various circumstances.^2,11^–¹³ These researchers worked on the determining factors for the prediction of a heat and moisture transfer mechanism when condensation exists at a high level. Because textile materials are a complex body of air and fibers and because they are constructed by diverse methods, the variables are often too subtle to predict clearly. Moreover, regarding the clothing system, the prediction model should include many more variables, such as the clothing design, the interactions between the layers caused by the fit and body movement, and the physiological reaction from the human body, which is not always constant.

To offset the limitations of the models, instruments have been developed to simulate heat and sweat production from the body, the entire clothing system, and designated ambient conditions.^9,14^–¹⁷ The use of these methods is much simpler than the use of a thermal sweating manikin in terms of sample preparation and operation.¹⁶ With the advantages of using the Human-Clothing-Environment (HCE) simulator, we already reported that the layer arrangement of a multiplayer clothing system could alter not only the heat and moisture transfer properties, but also the condensation profile of the clothing system.¹⁰ The findings, however, will be much more likely to be useful for functional clothing designers and customers after physiological validation via human wear trials.^18,19

Therefore, the goal of the present investigation is to verify the effects of the layer array method of the multilayer cold protective clothing using full-size garments and human participants by analyzing the following: (a) physiological data (the sweat amount produced and accumulated in the clothing; the microclimate temperature and humidity within the garment); and (b) perceptual data (perceived thermal and moisture sensation). In addition, the paper discusses the influence of the estimation method for vapor transfer performance of the clothing system in a physiological study. The simulator results mentioned in this study are all from the work of Yoo and Kim,¹⁰ unless otherwise noted; some of the data may be included in the present analysis if needed.

Experimental details

Test garments

Five layers of garments were constructed in two different arrays, the all-separated type (array A) and the combined type (array C), as shown in Figure 1. Sleeveless polyester knit underwear and three long-sleeved polyester fleece shirts of identical design were worn in order. Over these layers, an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane laminated waterproof breathable jacket was worn as an outer shell. The major difference between the two array types was whether the last insulating fleece was separated from or combined into the outer shell. For array C, the outmost fleece layer was attached to the jacket using hook-and-loop fasteners. They were connected at several positions, including the sleeve, armhole, neckline, and along the hemlines. Clothing fabrics were the same materials used in the simulator test.¹⁰ Their physical properties are listed in Table 1. Materials were deliberately selected from non-hygroscopic materials to prevent the influence of heat absorption of the fibers; the heat is considerable and sufficient to alter the condensation mechanism as well as the heat and moisture transfer characteristics of the clothing system.^20,21 Before any testing was conducted, all of the test garments except the jacket were laundered and air dried to remove any finishing chemicals in the textiles. After each trial, the garments were laundered and stored in a conditioned room (t_a = 25 ± 2°C, rh = 50 ± 5%) for the next trial. Besides test garments, identical cold protective slacks, socks, gloves, and ear protectors were provided to the participants for the test. Participants were allowed to wear their own boxers and athletic type footwear.

Figure 1.

Schematic diagram of the layer arrangement of test garments and the location of the sensors, U: underwear; F1–F3: fleece shirts; O: expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane laminated jacket; a, b, c, d, and e: temperature and humidity sensors.

Table 1.

Fabric characteristics of the test ensemble

Fabric layer	Fiber type	Description	Weight (g/m²)	Thickness^a (mm)	Thermal resistance^b R_ct (m²K/W)	Evaporative resistance^b R_et (m²Pa/W)	Air permeability (cm³/cm²/sec)^c	im	im/clo
Underwear	Polyester	Warp knit (tricot)	143	0.16	–	–	124.4
1st to 3rd Fleeces	Polyester	Fleece	246	1.63	0.083	11.68	103.3	0.43	0.80
Jacket	Polyester	ePTFE laminated	120	0.24	0.019	7.29	0	0.16	1.28

^aASTM:D1774-64; ^bISO 11092; ^cASTM: D 737-96.

Participants

For verification of garment performance that had already been tested using instrumental methods, six to eight participants were recommended as an acceptable number.²² Based on the recommendation and other references,^1,4,23,24 eight healthy male participants were originally selected for this study, and data from seven were used for final analysis because one participant did not complete the test. Because the fit of the test garment may influence the air layer in the clothing system, volunteers were screened based on body mass index (BMI).²⁵ Participants with a BMI = 20 ± 2 were selected for the test. The mean age, height, weight, and BMI values were 22.5 ± 2.4 years, 173.3 ± 2.7 cm, 60.4 ± 6.3 kg, and 20 ± 1.4, respectively. Participants were non-smokers and were instructed against the use of alcohol the day before the test, and against the ingestion of food and caffeine two hours before the test. The entire test procedure and the conditions of the test were explained to each participant clearly, and an informed consent document was reviewed and signed. All experimental procedures were performed under the provision of Institutional Review Committee at Yonsei University in Korea.

Test procedure

Each participant wore each test ensemble once (seven single tests per test garment) and went through the test protocols for 70 minutes (Figure 2). The participants were tested at the same time of day to avoid an influence of the circadian rhythm in their physiological responses, and two tests were scheduled for each participant so as not to exceed a three-day interval to minimize variations due to time. Prior to the test, the participants were guided to drink 400 ml of lukewarm water and were stabilized in a conditioned room (t_a = 25 ± 2°C, rh = 50 ± 5%) for 30 minutes and weighed (W_s₁). After they were equipped with the test garments and sensors, the participants were weighed again (W_t₁) and stayed another 10 minutes in the room. Subsequently, they entered a cold chamber (EBL-5HW2P3A-22, 5120 mm × 2200 mm × 2200 mm, TABAI Espec®, Japan) set at −15°C and were seated upright there for 10 minutes. After the 10 minutes rest, they went through a 20-minute treadmill exercise (J4F, Tunturi®, speed = 7 km/hr, no incline). After the exercise session, the participants remained seated upright in the cold chamber for another 40 minutes. As soon as the test ended, the participants left the test chamber for the final weight measurements (W_t₂ and W_s₂).

Figure 2.

Test protocol for wear trials (*rh (%) is not available at subzero temperatures).

Weight loss and produced sweat (M_p)

The participants in their underwear and socks were weighed (AC-100AC, CAS, Korea) before (W_s₁) and after (W_s₂) the test. The total weight was also measured with the participants wearing test garments and sensors before (W_t₁) and after (W_t₂) the test. Because the participants wore identical slacks and socks (made of polyester fiber), the differences in the data obtained were due only to the array type of the test garments.

The sweat volume each participant produced (M_p) was calculated from the participant’s weight loss values (ΔW_s) after correction for respiratory weight loss (m_r)⁴ and normalization according to the body surface area of the participant (S_B):²⁶

(1)

Accumulated sweat in the garment (M_a)

The accumulated moisture on each layer (M_ai) was calculated from the weight difference of each test garment before and after the test (XT 2200C; Precisa Instruments Ltd, Switzerland).

Vapor permeability (WVT) and evaporated sweat (M_e)

Water vapor transfer through the ensembles (WVT) was assessed by Equation (2):

(2)

where M_e is the amount of evaporated sweat.

The ratio of evaporated sweat to sweat produced, M_e/M_p, represents how much of the sweat produced can evaporate through the clothing system. M_e/M_p is a powerful tool for assessing differences in the physiological property of the clothing systems if the test conditions are exactly equal for all tested samples.²⁷

The amount of evaporated sweat, M_e (g/m²), can be estimated in two different ways in physiological wear trials, as follows.

(a) From the total weight loss (ΔW_t): M_e_.wt

(3)

In this assessment, M_e_.wt was calculated from the simple measurement of the total weight differences of the participants before and after the test (ΔW_t = W_t₁ – W_t₂).

(b) From the sweat produced (M_p) and total accumulated moisture (M_at): M_e_.at

(4)

where M_at is the sum of the accumulated sweat on each layer (M_ai) corrected by the estimated surface area of each element of the ensemble (S_Gi). As each garment was made of a single material, S_Gi was calculated by dividing the measured garment weight (G_w, g) by the unit weight of the fabric (F_w, g/m²). Here, subscript ‘ _i ’ ranged from 1 (underwear) to 5 (outer jacket).

From Equations (1)–(4), WVT₍ _wt ₎ and WVT₍ _at ₎ were calculated:

(5)

(6)

The results from Equations (5) and (6) were compared with the simulator results in order to discuss the impact of the physiological analysis method on the vapor permeability evaluation of cold protective ensembles.

Temperature and humidity profile in the microclimate

The temperature and humidity on the skin and in the microclimates were assessed using sensors (MSR® SHT15, Prospective Concepts AG, Zurich, Switzerland) and recorded every 10 seconds through a data logging system. The sensors were placed on the flat area between the scapula and spine to minimize the effects of ventilation due to wearer movement (chimney effects). They were attached to the skin and to corresponding locations in each garment layer. Measured relative humidity (%) was converted to the vapor pressure (kPa) and vapor concentration (g/m³)²⁸ for analysis.

Subjective perceptions

Perceived clamminess, as well as moisture and thermal sensation, was assessed. A seven-point Likert-type scale was used, ranging from 1 = very wet to 7 = totally dry for measuring moisture sensation; from 1 = totally felt to 7 = no sensation for clammy sensation; and from 1 = cold to 7 = hot for thermal sensation.^29,30 During each evaluation period, participants were asked to check the designated rating scale that best described their perceived sensations while wearing the test garments.

Statistical analysis

In order to figure out the significant differences between the two array types, a paired t-test was used.

Results and discussion

Amount of produced sweat (M_p)

The weight loss (ΔW_s) of the participants ranged from 120 to 340 g. Following correction for respiratory mass loss and normalization according to body surface area (S_B = 1.72 ± 0.09 m²), the amount of sweat production during the test ranged from 55 to 180 g/m². These values were comparable to the levels of moisture applied in the simulator test (65 and 160 g/m²hr).¹⁰ When comparing the two types of clothing ensembles, the participants wearing the combined type produced significantly less sweat than those wearing the separated ensemble (p ≤ 0.05) (array C: M_p = 117 ± 39 g/m²; array A:M_p = 156 ± 23 g/m²).

Vapor permeability (WVT)

To investigate the influence of the method of evaporation assessment, vapor permeability was calculated using two different methods: WVT₍ _wt ₎ by Equation (5) and WVT₍ _at ₎ by Equation (6). The results were then compared to the simulator test results (Figure 3). WVT₍ _wt ₎ showed that the combined type (array C) transferred more moisture vapor than the separated type, in good agreement with the simulator results (WVT₍ _simulator ₎). WVT₍ _at ₎ gave larger values than WVT₍ _wt ₎ and WVT₍ _simulator ₎, and did not indicate any differences between the two clothing ensembles.

Figure 3.

Water vapor transfer (WVT) through the cold weather ensembles with two array types assessed by different calculating methods of sweat evaporation. M_e.wt is sweat evaporation assessed by total weight loss (ΔW_t); M_e.at is calculated from sweat produced (M_p) and the summation of accumulated sweat in the ensembles (M_at). *denotes the value is from the simulator test.¹⁰

For the evaporation assessment, WVT₍ _at ₎ followed an identical procedure to that applied in the simulator test, based on the calculated differences between the supplied and accumulated moisture. In the majority of cases, this is the method of choice for evaporation assessment through a clothing system. However, when measuring sweat accumulation from each garment, the inclusion of more complex variables than those used in the instrumental test, such as the removal of wet garments and sensors from the participants, is required. During these procedures, unintended moisture loss can occur. As these values may not be included in the sweat accumulation measurements on the garment, evaporation (M_e.at) can be overestimated in human wear trial tests when applying this method. For this reason, WVT₍ _at ₎ displayed larger values than WVT₍ _simulator ₎. An evaporation estimate based on the total weight loss assessment (M_e._wt) requires a simple weighing procedure. Hence, WVT₍ _wt ₎ was deemed more plausible. The results show that the method of evaporation assessment in human wear trial tests is an influential factor when estimating the vapor transfer performance of a clothing system when condensation occurs.

Accumulated sweat (M_a)

The absolute values of total moisture accumulation significantly differed between the types of clothing ensembles, with significantly less sweat accumulating in the combined ensemble (p < 0.05) (array C: 8.5 ± 5.4 g; array A: 12.9 ± 9.0 g). When analyzing the individual layers (M_ai, Figure 4), the layers within type A showed significantly greater sweat accumulation. The accumulation of sweat occurred primarily in the third fleece layer: 35–39% of the total accumulation occurred in the third fleece, while only 13% accumulated in the outer jacket. The condensation profile for each garment layer agreed with the results obtained from the drying stage of the simulator test; the third fleece layer accumulated more moisture compared to the other layers. As the material characteristics of the garment layers were identical in both tested ensembles, it is apparent that the layer array method influenced the condensation characteristics. When the outermost insulating fabric was combined with the waterproof breathable jacket without an air gap, a lower level of condensation occurred. However, as no condensation differences were evident at the underwear layer, the advantages of the combined clothing ensemble (array C) due to its lower condensation levels may not be clearly identified by the participants.

Figure 4.

Amount of accumulated sweat per unit area (g/m²) for each garment layer of the cold weather ensembles constructed by two different layer array methods.

Skin temperature and microclimate temperature profiles across the ensemble

Figure 5 demonstrates the changes of skin temperature over time. After entering the cold chamber, the skin temperature decreased rapidly while the participants were seated for the first 10 minutes. During this period, the lowest temperature remained above 33°C, indicating that the test ensemble provided sufficient insulation. During the exercise session, the skin temperature initially increased moderately, and then decreased for both clothing ensembles 5 minutes after the end of the activity. Owing to the differences in construction, the separated clothing ensemble provided a more effective air layer (array A), as indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 5.

Skin temperature profiles over time for cold protective ensembles constructed by two different layer array methods.

As a result, a slightly higher skin temperature was observed in array A before and during the exercise session. When the skin temperature started to drop during the rest period after running, however, the decrease was more rapid in array A than in the combined type (array C). After a 15-minute rest under cold conditions after the exercise session, the rate of decrease was greater in array A than in array C. Specifically, a 74% greater cooling rate was observed in 55–80 minutes. This finding indicates that when the wearer is exposed to cold after sweat-producing activities, such as winter sports or military-type exercises, a combined ensemble (array C) provides better thermo-physiological protection.

Figure 6 shows the microclimate temperature profile across the test garment layers; ▪ and □ indicate the microclimate temperatures measured in the garment during exercise and cooling-down sessions, respectively. The temperatures were compared with the results assessed from the simulator test; • and ○ denote the temperatures in the fabric layers measured during sweat simulation (water supply) and drying (the end of the test) sessions, respectively. Accordingly, ▪ and • denote the microclimate temperatures measured during the sweating session, in which condensation occurred in both the human and simulator tests, and □ and ○ denote the cooling-down or drying sessions. The thickness was estimated from the differences between the girths of the garment layers. A linear temperature profile was estimated based on the temperature gradients between the skin and the environment (solid line in Figure 6). During sweating sessions (▪ and •), the measured temperatures were higher than the linear profile. During the cooling-down or drying period at the end of the test (□ and ○), the measured temperature distribution followed a theoretical linear profile. The temperature profiles assessed in the human tests were in good agreement with the results from the simulator in both types of clothing arrays.

Figure 6.

Temperature distributions across the cold protective ensembles: (a) separated type (array A); (b) combined type (array C). Comparisons of the results from wear trials and the simulator¹⁰ in terms of the time point of the measurement.

Vapor concentration and vapor pressure profiles within the clothing ensembles

The vapor concentration in the microclimate across the garment layers was assessed to investigate the condensation distribution in each layer (Figure 7). The saturation lines²⁸ of the vapor concentrations were calculated for both exercise (solid line in Figure 7) and cooling-down sessions (broken line in Figure 7). As the microclimate temperatures changed over time, the saturation line during the exercise session was moderately higher than during the cooling-down session. The vapor concentration between the skin and underwear during the exercise session (▪, 0–5 mm from the skin) did not reach the saturation line (solid line). During the cooling-down period, the vapor concentration between the skin and underwear (□, 0–5 mm from the skin) fell below the saturation line (broken line). Consequently, little condensation was expected to occur at the underwear layer during both exercise and cooling-down sessions (circled area in Figure 7). The separated clothing ensemble displayed similar results.

Figure 7.

Measured vapor concentration distributions and estimated saturation lines across the combined type ensemble (array C) during the exercise and cooling down periods.

Figure 8 shows the vapor pressure within the microclimate, measured at different locations in the garment layers. Figure 8(a) denotes the vapor pressure between the skin and underwear (sensor a in Figure 1), whilst Figure 8(b) denotes the vapor pressure between the second and third fleeces (sensor d in Figure 1). The average vapor pressure between the second and the third fleece layers of the combined clothing ensemble remained significantly less than that of the separate type ensemble throughout testing (Figure 8(b)). However, significant differences were not evident near the skin (Figure 8(a)).

Figure 8.

Average vapor pressure profiles within the two different array type ensembles (separated type (array A) and combined type (array C)). (a) Between the skin and the underwear, location of sensor ‘a’ in Figure 1. (b) Between the second and the third fleeces, location of sensor ‘d’ in Figure 1.

Subjective thermal and moisture perception

The perceived thermal and moisture sensations for the two clothing ensembles were compared to examine whether the differences in condensation and vapor permeability influenced the participants’ perception (Figures 9 and 10). The thermal sensation for the combined clothing ensemble generally scored higher than the separated type. Twenty minutes after the exercise session, the combined type (array C) received a significantly higher (p < 0.05) rating score of thermal perception compared to array A (Figure 9). This was the period when the skin temperature of array A began to drop below that of array C (see Figure 5). Regarding the moisture and clammy sensations (Figure 10), there was a tendency to note a drier and less clammy condition in the combined clothing ensemble (array C), but these differences were not prominent. A significant difference was observed 10 minutes after exercise for the moisture sensation (p < 0.05). As discussed, the clear effects of the array method on the condensation were primarily observed in the outer layers (the third fleece and the outer jacket, see the ‘Accumulated sweat (M_a)’ section). Near the skin area, where the participants perceived the sensations, a relatively small variation in the levels of moisture accumulation and vapor pressure were observed between the two types of clothing ensembles. For this reason, the differences in subjective perception may not be as large as when compared to those of an objective assessment. As the difference in the condensation and vapor permeability were apparent for the two types of clothing ensembles, a test protocol with heavier exercise and a prolonged cooling period may manifest in more distinct perception from the participants.

Figure 9.

Subjective responses to thermal perception of cold protective ensembles constructed using different array methods.

Figure 10.

Subjective responses to moisture and clammy sensation of cold protective ensembles constructed with different array methods.

Summary and conclusions

The claim that the layer array method of the multilayer cold weather clothing systems can affect the moisture transfer and condensation profiles was verified with full-size garment wear trials using human participants. A physiological analysis revealed that, when multiple insulation layers are involved, the combined construction of an outer insulating garment and waterproof breathable jacket enhanced the moisture transfer performance through the ensemble. The combined construction also diminished the accumulation of moisture within the clothing system, providing improved thermo-physiological and moisture comfort for the wearer under subzero conditions. The results from this study confirmed the findings from the simulator test¹⁰ performed at the fabric level.

The participants produced 33.8% less sweat with a clothing array type of insulating layer combined with a waterproof breathable outer jacket compared to a separated clothing ensemble. The combined-type ensemble also provided 31.3% better water vapor transfer and 25.0% lower total sweat accumulation within the ensemble. The majority of the moisture accumulated on the outermost insulating garment and jacket. As the vapor concentration near the skin did not reach the saturation line, only a small level of moisture accumulated in the underwear. Regarding the subjective perceptions, the participants noted that the combined clothing ensemble provided better thermal insulation and a drier and less clammy condition, although the differences were not prominent.

In addition, we found that the vapor permeability function of cold weather protective clothing systems can be overestimated when determined using the difference between produced and accumulated sweat. By assessing the difference in total weight (human, clothing, and sensors) before and after the test, the vapor permeability of the clothing systems was more plausible and comparable to the simulator test results.¹⁰

Consequently, when the outermost insulating fabric is combined with a waterproof breathable jacket without an air gap, the wearer produces significantly less sweat, and stays drier due to the improved vapor permeation and lower amount of condensation under subzero conditions. These results provide a practical insight into the novel product design of multilayered functional clothing systems for cold/sweating conditions, such as winter active sports and/or military service.

The conclusions were based on the assumption that the total thickness of the two array types was similar because the size of the outer garment (total volume) and the component layers (same R_ct and R_et) were identical. Accordingly, the enhancement of moisture transfer of the combined-type structure was attributed to the differences of the ensemble structure. However, the sustained air layer during movement may have differed for the two array types because the construction of the air layer within the ensemble was different. Measuring precise thermal resistance and evaporative resistance of two arrangements using a sweating thermal manikin with walking motion could provide valuable information for an in-depth discussion. In the current study, however, we could not conduct the thermal manikin test. It is a limitation of this study and should be a topic for further research.

The tests described in this study are short-term tests; the results were obtained from trials lasting only an hour. A prolonged period of trials and/or heavier sweat rates should also be considered, improving the applicability of the results to real-use situations.

Footnotes

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Korea through the National Research Laboratory Program (M1-0203-00-0077).

References

Bakkevig

Nielsen

. The impact of activity level on sweat accumulation and thermal comfort using different underwear. Ergonomics 1995; 38: 926–939.

Lotens

Van de Linde

FJG

Havenith

. Effect of condensation in clothing on heat transfer. Ergonomics 1995; 38: 1114–1131.

Havenith

Hartog

Heus

. Moisture accumulation in sleeping bags at −7 and −20°C in relation to cover material and method of use. Ergonomics 2004; 47: 1424–1431.

Bartels

Umbach

. Water vapor transport through protective textiles at low temperatures. Text Res J 2002; 72: 899–905.

Ren

Ruckman

. Effect of condensation on water vapour transfer through waterproof breathable fabrics. J Coated Fabrics 1999; 29: 20–36.

Ren

Ruckman

. Water vapour transfer in wet waterproof breathable fabrics. J Coated Fabrics 2003; 32: 165–175.

Gretton

Brook

Dyson

. Moisture vapor transport through waterproof breathable fabrics and clothing systems under a temperature gradient. Text Res J 1998; 68: 936–941.

Ren

Ruckman

. Condensation in three-layer waterproof breathable fabrics for clothing. Int J Cloth Sci Tech 2004; 16: 335–347.

Rossi

Gross

. Water vapour transfer and condensation effects in multilayer textile combinations. Text Res J 2004; 74: 1–6.

10.

Yoo

Kim

. Effects of multilayer clothing system array on water vapor transfer and condensation in cold weather clothing ensemble. Text Res J 2008; 78: 189–197.

11.

Farnworth

. A numerical model of the combined diffusion of heat and water-vapour through clothing. Text Res J 1986; 56: 653–665.

12.

Fan

Luo

. Heat and moisture transfer with sorption and condensation in porous clothing assemblies and numerical simulation. Int J Heat Mass Tran 2000; 43: 2989–3000.

13.

Fukazawa

Kawamura

Tochihara

. Experiment and analysis of combined heat and water vapor through clothes with condensation. Text Res J 2003; 73: 774–780.

14.

Meinander

. Clothing physiological measurements on winter workwear materials with a sweating cylinder. J Text Inst 1988; 79: 620–633.

15.

Meinander

Hellsten

. The influence of sweating on the heat transmission properties of cold protective clothing studied with a sweating thermal manikin. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2004; 10: 263–269.

16.

Kim

Yoo

Kim

. Development of a human-clothing-environment simulator for dynamic heat and moisture transfer properties of fabrics. Fiber Polym 2003; 4: 215–221.

17.

Fukazawa

Lee

Matsuoka

. Heat and water vapour transfer of protective clothing systems in a cold environment, measured with a newly developed sweating thermal manikin. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004; 92: 645–648.

18.

Umbach

. Physiological tests and evaluation models for the optimization of the performance of protective clothing. In: Mekjavic

Banister

Morrison

(eds). Environmental ergonomics. New York/London: Taylor & Francis, 1988; 139–161.

19.

Bartels

. Thermal comfort of aeroplane seats: influence of different seat materials and the use of laboratory test methods. Appl Ergon 2003; 34: 393–399.

20.

Fourt

Hollies

NRS

. Clothing comfort and function. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1970; 12–12.

21.

Tanaka

Hirata

Kamata

. Heat of sorption induced by sweating affects thermoregulatory responses during heat load. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001; 84: 69–77.

22.

Goldman RF. Personal communication, 9 October 2002.

23.

Karlsson

Rosenblad

. Evaluating functional clothing in climatic chamber tests versus field tests: a comparison of quantitative and qualitative methods in product development. Ergonomics 1998; 41: 1399–1420.

24.

Okamoto-Mizuno

Tsuzuki

Ohshiro

. Effects of electric blanket on sleep stages and body temperature in young men. Ergonomics 2005; 48: 749–757.

25.

McArdle WD, Katch FI and Katch VL. Exercise physiology: nutrition, energy, and human performance, 7th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009, p.726.

26.

DuBois

. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Intern Med 1916; 17: 863–871.

27.

Givoni

Goldman

. Predicting rectal temperature response to work, environment, and clothing. J Appl Physiol 1971; 30: 429–433.

28.

Bolton

. The computation of equivalent potential temperature. Mon Weather Rev 1980; 108: 1046–1053.

29.

Yoo

Barker

. Comfort properties of heat resistant protective work wear in varying conditions of physical activity and environment. Part II: perceived comfort response to garments and its relationship to fabric properties. Text Res J 2005; 75: 531–539.

30.

Yoo

Yeo

Hwang

. Application of a NiTi alloy two-way shape memory helical coil for a versatile insulating jacket. Mater Sci Eng A-Struct 2008; 481–482: 662–667.

Wear trial assessment of layer structure effects on vapor permeability and condensation in a cold weather clothing ensemble

Abstract

Keywords

Experimental details

Test garments

Participants

Test procedure

Weight loss and produced sweat (Mp)

Accumulated sweat in the garment (Ma)

Vapor permeability (WVT) and evaporated sweat (Me)

Temperature and humidity profile in the microclimate

Subjective perceptions

Statistical analysis

Results and discussion

Amount of produced sweat (Mp)

Vapor permeability (WVT)

Accumulated sweat (Ma)

Skin temperature and microclimate temperature profiles across the ensemble

Vapor concentration and vapor pressure profiles within the clothing ensembles

Subjective thermal and moisture perception

Summary and conclusions

Footnotes

Funding

References

Weight loss and produced sweat (M_p)

Accumulated sweat in the garment (M_a)

Vapor permeability (WVT) and evaporated sweat (M_e)

Amount of produced sweat (M_p)

Accumulated sweat (M_a)