Search

Aim: The inter-relationships between mean body and local skin temperatures have previously been established for controlling hand and foot blood flows. Since glabrous skin contains many arteriovenous anastomoses, it was important to repeat those experiments on non-glabrous regions using the same sample and experimental conditions., Methods: Mild hypothermia (mean body temperature 31.4 °C), normothermia (control: 36.0 °C) and moderate hyperthermia (38.3 °C) were induced and clamped (climate chamber and water-perfusion garment) in eight males. Within each condition, five localised thermal treatments (5, 15, 25, 33, 40 °C) were applied to the left forearm and right calf. Steady-state forearm and calf blood flows were measured (venous occlusion plethysmography) for each of the resulting 15 combinations of clamped mean body and local skin temperatures., Results: Under the normothermic clamp, cutaneous blood flows averaged 4.2 mL 100 mL(-1) min(-1) (±0.28: forearm) and 5.4 mL 100 mL(-1) min(-1) (±0.27: calf). When mildly hypothermic, these segments were unresponsive to localised thermal stimuli, but tracked those changes when normothermic and moderately hyperthermic. For deep-body (oesophageal) temperature elevations, forearm blood flow increased by 5.1 mL 100 mL(-1) min(-1) °C(-1) (±0.9) relative to normothermia, while the calf was much less responsive: 3.3 mL 100 mL(-1) min(-1) °C(-1) (±1.5). Three-dimensional surfaces revealed a qualitative divergence in the control of calf blood flow, with vasoconstrictor tone apparently being released more gradually., Conclusion: These descriptions reinforce the importance of deep-tissue temperatures in controlling cutaneous perfusion, with this modulation being non-linear at the forearm and appearing linear for the calf.

The purpose of this review is to describe the unique anatomical and physiological features of the hands and feet that support heat conservation and dissipation, and in so doing, highlight the importance of these appendages in human thermoregulation. For instance, the surface area to mass ratio of each hand is 4-5 times greater than that of the body, whilst for each foot, it is ~3 times larger. This characteristic is supported by vascular responses that permit a theoretical maximal mass flow of thermal energy of 6.0 W (136 W m(2)) to each hand for a 1 °C thermal gradient. For each foot, this is 8.5 W (119 W m(2)). In an air temperature of 27 °C, the hands and feet of resting individuals can each dissipate 150-220 W m(2) (male-female) of heat through radiation and convection. During hypothermia, the extremities are physiologically isolated, restricting heat flow to <0.1 W. When the core temperature increases ~0.5 °C above thermoneutral (rest), each hand and foot can sweat at 22-33 mL h(-1), with complete evaporation dissipating 15-22 W (respectively). During heated exercise, sweat flows increase (one hand: 99 mL h(-1); one foot: 68 mL h(-1)), with evaporative heat losses of 67-46 W (respectively). It is concluded that these attributes allow the hands and feet to behave as excellent radiators, insulators and evaporators.

Purpose: Much is known about the control of blood flow, yet gaps remain concerning the interactions of deep-body and peripheral thermal feedback. In this experiment, changes in the vascular tone of the hands and feet were mapped to demonstrate the separate and combined influences of mean body and local skin temperature changes., Methods: Eight males participated in three trials. Three pre-experimental conditions were established via water immersion (oesophageal temperatures: 36.1, 37.0, 38.5 °C), with core and mean skin temperatures then clamped (water-perfusion garment) whilst five thermal treatments were applied to the right hand and left foot (5, 15, 25, 33, 40 °C). This yielded 15 thermal combinations under which hand and foot blood flows were measured (displacement plethysmography)., Results: Lower volume-specific blood flows were observed at the foot for almost all temperature combinations. When thermoneutral and moderately hyperthermic, the cutaneous thermosensitivity of the hand was significantly greater: thermoneutral: 0.2 vs. 0.1 (foot) mL 100 mL(-1) min(-1) °C(-1) (P < 0.05); moderate hyperthermia: 0.4 vs. 0.2 (foot) mL 100 mL(-1) min(-1) °C(-1) (P < 0.05). The hand was 13 times more responsive to core temperature elevations than an equivalent local skin temperature change. For the foot, this thermosensitivity differed by a factor of 26., Conclusion: These observations identified the hands as heat radiators, with the feet resisting heat loss, and reinforce the dominance of central thermal feedback, particularly in controlling foot blood flow. However, thermosensitivity to local skin temperature changes was highly plastic, site-specific and dictated by thermal and regional variations in vaso- and venoconstrictor tone.