Individual psychophysical potential test model

Фотографии: 

Dr. Hab., Associate Professor G.V. Rudenko1
PhD, Associate Professor Y.A. Dubroskaya2
I.V. Bobrov1
1St. Petersburg Mining University, St. Petersburg
2St. Petersburg State University of Emergency Situations Ministry (Russia), St. Petersburg

Keywords: life safety, individual psychophysical potential, health monitoring.

Background. Lately the national mining sector operators have given a growing priority to the environmental protection issues in the natural resource development, occupational safety and injury prevention initiatives [2, 3, 6]. The growing difficulties in the mining operations in the North urge the sector management make a special emphasis on the environmental and industrial safety improvement initiatives to protect mining industry workers; with every safety improvement initiative giving a high priority to the integrated health tests and monitoring versus the specific environmental conditions [1, 4, 5].

Objective of the study was to provide substantiations for the set of criteria to rate the environmental safety on an integrated basis, for the purposes of the environmental/ industrial safety improvement and staff health test, monitoring and protection projects.

Methods and structure of the study. To fairly assess the range of effects of different factors of influence on health, we propose a multiplicative model to consolidate all the factors of influence. When N factors of influence on health are considered, the individual safety may be rated by multiplying the factor-specific safety rates as follows:

 

Whereas Si value refers to health variation under an і-risk factor – which depends, in its turn, on the relevant natural, environmental, industrial and social conditions.

The multiplicative model does not apply any precise scoring values, as it takes the dimensionless values varying from zero to one.

Study results and discussion. For the health rating purposes, we apply the individual performance efficiency rate – the so called individual psychophysical potential rate. An individual body status is rated by the actual psychophysical potential rate being benchmarked versus the relevant reference (the maximum level achievable by the relevant population group) as follows:

Ppp = ppp/pr,

Whereas Ppp means the individual psychophysical potential rate under the given conditions; pr means the reference psychophysical potential, with the dimensionless individual psychophysical potential rate varying from zero to one, and with Ppp = 1 meaning the maximum achievable health rate, and Ppp = 0 referring to the minimal health status (i.e. death); with the range of values applied in the proposed multiplicative model.

The psychophysical potential rate is indicative of individual health status depending on the life and job intensity rates. Applied by the model for the benchmarking purposes is the maximal achievable (reference) health rate that is considered an ideal (top) objective for every staff health improvement and protection initiative.

For the integrative psychophysical potential rate being applied to assess the environmental/ industrial safety levels under the proposed multiplicative model, we have proceeded from the following assumptions:

  • Every і-factor has an optimal value characteristic of the ‘absolute healthy’ individual status, provided every other factor of influence is optimal;
  • When N factors of influence affect the individual, their combined effect may be described by the function Ppp ( f1, f2,..., fi ).

Thus the forecast environmental/ industrial safety under the N factors of influence may be rated as follows:

 

Ppp = N i=1 Pppi

Whereas PPP means the forecast individual psychophysical potential rate; Pppi means the actual individual psychophysical potential rate variation under the і-factor versus the reference; Pppr means the reference psychophysical potential rate, with Pppr = 1; ki means the i-factor effect ratio i.e. the ratio indicative of the health sagging under the j-rate of the i-factor, with ki [0; 1], ki (fi). Knowing the correlation ki =  (fi), we may forecast the individual health variation rate when fi value is changed (in percentage or proportional terms).

In every life quality/ health progress rating study, the researcher has to sort out the multiple factors of influence which contributions are not always known or assessable. It is always beneficial in such situations to identify the key factors of influence controllable by the relevant health/ safety project. Benefits of the proposed individual psychophysical potential rating model are largely due to the fact that progress in some environmental aspect may be assessed using a limited number of factors for analysis. Having the correlation ki =  ( fi ), we may profile the Ppp variation under one or few factors of influence.

Therefore, the analyst applies only those factors that need to be changed for the purposes of the health/ safety project, with the input data array being minimized and, hence, the calculations being straightened out and simplified.

We profiled the age-specific variations of the reference psychophysical potential to substantiate the integrated health status calculation model. For this purpose, we made an analysis of the best competitive results in the top-ranking world swimming and track racing events; plus we applied the standing world records as the reference psychophysical potentials for the relevant age groups, with 23 age groups specified for 30 sport disciplines.

We believe that the competitive accomplishments in the top-ranking swimming and racing events are fairly representative of the ideal (reference) statuses of the key psychophysical systems for the reason that they set the topmost mental and physical endurance and musculoskeletal, respiratory and cardiovascular system performance standards.

The individual psychophysical potential Ppp is calculated in dimensionless values by the following formula:

Ppp = tmin/t,

Whereas t means the competitive result in the swimming/ racing events; and tmin means the absolute world record regardless of the age group. Having analyzed the competitive results, we profiled the psychophysical potential rate variation with age, with the progress classified into the following 5 psychophysical potential rate variation stages: see Table 1 hereunder.

Table 1. Age-specific psychophysical potential rate variation stages

Stage

Age

Average gradient of psychophysical potential rate variation in the age of 10 years

1

0-16

0,66

2

16-35

0

3

35-55

0,065

4

55-75

0,09

5

75-105

0,18

Conclusion. The reference psychophysical potential rate variation curve produced by the study may be applied to find the age limits achievable under the ideal living standards, with the age limits estimated at 100 and 107 years for women and men, respectively. On the whole, the gender-specific psychophysical potential rate variations, as demonstrated by the competitive data analyses, are close enough. The psychophysical potential rate variations may be fairly forecasted using the variation curve, with the accuracy of 5.7% for the age period of 30-100 years.

References

  1. Davidenko D.N., Rudenko G.V., Chistyakov V.A., Kim John Kil Metodika otsenki mobilizatsii funktsionalnykh rezervov organizma po ego reaktsii na dozirovannuyu nagruzku [Technology to assess mobilization of bodily functional reserves by reaction to graduated exercise]. Uchenye zapiski un-ta im. P.F. Lesgafta, 2010, no. 12 (70), pp. 52-57.
  2. Kozlitin A.M., Popov A.I., Kozlitin P.A. Analiz bezopasnosti i praktika snizheniya ekologicheskikh riskov avariy na magistralnom truboprovodnom transporte [Safety analysis and practice of reducing environmental risks of accidents on major pipeline transport]. Zapiski Gornogo instituta, 2001, vol. 149, pp. 285-288.
  3. Maslennikova I.S., Soroko V.E. Upravlenie ekologicheskoy bezopasnostyu v oblasti vosproizvodstva prirodnykh resursov i ikh kompleksnogo ispolzovaniya [Management of environmental safety in reproduction of natural resources and their integrated use]. Zapiski Gornogo instituta, 2002, vol. 151, pp. 162-165.
  4. Rudenko G.V., Bakhvalova S.V. Rol fizicheskoy kultury v podderzhanii i vosstanovlenii rabotosposobnosti gornykh inzhenerov [Role of physical culture in maintaining and restoring working condition of mining engineers]. Zapiski Gornogo instituta, 2006, no. 167, pp. 290-291.
  5. Chistyakov V.A., Rudenko G.V. Faktornaya struktura psikhofizicheskoy podgotovlennosti vypusknika – gornospasatelya [Factor structure of mental capacity and physical fitness of graduate - mine-rescuer]. Uchenye zapiski un-ta im. P.F. Lesgafta, 2012, no. 5(87), pp. 159-163.
  6. Shuvalov Yu.V., Mikhaylova N.V. Otsenka i upravlenie riskom travmatizma rabotnikov gorno-dobyvayuschey promyshlennosti [Assessment and management of risk of injury to workers in mining industry]. Zapiski Gornogo instituta, 2002, vol. 152, pp. 103-106.

Corresponding author: gena391@mail.ru

Abstract

In the context of the increasingly challenging conditions for the mining industry in the North, the mining companies give a growing priority to the projects to improve the environmental and industrial safety standards in the sector, with a special emphasis on the integrated health monitoring and tests with account of the specific environmental conditions. In every life quality/ health rating study, the researcher has to sort out the multiple factors of influence which contributions are not always known or assessable. It is always beneficial in such situations to identify the key factors of influence controllable by the relevant project. Benefits of the proposed individual psychophysical potential test and rating model are largely due to the fact that progress in some environmental aspects may be assessed using a limited number of factors for analysis.