Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 2, 2025
Thermal Limits Determination for Zooplankton Using a Heat Block
Published on: November 18, 2022
Excellent Rectal Temperature Cooling Rates in the Polar Life Pod Consistent With Stationary Tubs
Kevin C Miller1, Noshir Yazdi Amaria2
1Department of Health and Human Performance, Texas State University, San Marcos.
Context:
Several tools exist to reduce rectal temperature (TREC) quickly for patients experiencing exertional heatstroke (EHS). Stationary tubs effectively treat EHS but are bulky and impractical in some situations. More portable cold-water immersion techniques, such as tarp-assisted cooling with oscillation, are gaining popularity because of their benefits (eg, less water needed, portability). The Polar Life Pod (PLP) may be another portable way to reduce TREC, but few researchers have examined its effectiveness.
Objectives:
To determine whether the PLP and stationary tub reduced TREC at acceptable or ideal rates, whether TREC cooling rates differed by method, and how participants felt before, during, and after cooling.
Design:
Randomized crossover study.
Setting:
Laboratory.
Patients Or Other Participants:
Thirteen individuals (8 men, 5 women; age = 21 ± 2 years, mass = 73.99 ± 11.24 kg, height = 176.2 ± 11.1 cm).
Intervention(S):
Participants exercised in the heat until TREC was 39.5°C. They immersed themselves in either the PLP (202.7 ± 23.8 L, 3.2 ± 0.6°C) or a stationary tub (567.8 ± 7.6 L, 15.0 ± 0.1°C) until TREC was 38°C. Thermal sensation and environmental symptom questionnaire (ESQ) responses were recorded before, during, and after exercise and cooling.
Main Outcome Measure(S):
Rectal temperature cooling rates, thermal sensation, and ESQ responses.
Results:
Participants had similar exercise durations (PLP = 41.6 ± 6.9 minutes, tub = 42.2 ± 9.3 minutes, t12 = 0.5, P = .31), thermal sensation scores (PLP = 7.0 ± 0.5, tub = 7.0 ± 0.5, P > .05), and ESQ scores (PLP = 25 ± 13, tub = 29 ± 14, P > .05) immediately postexercise each day. Although TREC cooling rates were excellent in both conditions, the PLP cooled faster than the stationary tub (PLP = 0.28 ± 0.09°C/min, tub = 0.20 ± 0.09°C/min, t12 = 2.5, P = .01). Thermal sensation in the PLP condition was lower than that in the tub condition halfway through cooling (PLP = 1 ± 1, tub = 2 ± 1, P < .05) and postcooling (PLP = 2 ± 1, tub = 3 ± 1, P < .05). The ESQ scores were higher for PLP than for the stationary tub postcooling (PLP = 25 ± 14, tub = 12 ± 9, P < .05).
Conclusions:
The PLP and the stationary tub cooled individuals with hyperthermia at ideal rates for treating patients with EHS (ie, >0.16°C/min). The PLP may be an effective tool for treating EHS when limited water volumes and portability are concerns. Clinicians should have rewarming tools and strategies (eg, heating blankets) available to improve patients' comfort after PLP use.
Related Concept Videos
01:27Assessing Body Temperature - Rectal
Follow these steps for rectal temperature assessment:
Step 1: Perform hand hygiene and don clean gloves to prevent cross-infection.
Step 2: Position the patient in a side-lying position to better visualize the rectal...
01:14Assessing Body Temperature - Oral
Step 1:
Start by practicing proper hand hygiene to prevent the spread of microorganisms.
Step 2:
Take the thermometer out of the charging unit, switch it on, and wait for the ready sign.
Step 3:
Gently slide the probe cover until a click is heard. This simple action prevents cross-contamination and ensures the correct placement of the probe cover.
Step 4:
Instruct the patient to open their mouth and place...
01:23Physical Methods for Controlling Microbial Growth: Temperature
01:29Decreased Body Temperature
01:14Temperature Measurement Sites
Oral: When assessing oral temperature, the thermometer tip should be placed under the tongue in the posterior sublingual pocket. It offers accurate readings and can be...
01:27Factors Influencing Microbial Growth: Temperature