Comparison of Biomechanical Outcome Measures From Characteristically Different Blast Simulators and the Influence of Exposure Location
Abstract
Simulation of blast exposure in the laboratory has been inconsistent across laboratories. This is primarily because of adoption of the shock wave–generation techniques that are used in aerodynamic tests as opposed to application of blast exposures that are relevant to combat and training environments of a Warfighter. Because of the differences in blast signatures, characteristically different pathological consequences are observed among the preclinical studies. This is also further confounded by the varied exposure positioning of the animal subject (e.g., inside the blast simulator vs. at the mouth of the simulator). In this study, we compare biomechanical responses to blast exposures created in an advanced blast simulator (ABS) that generates “free-field”-like blast exposure with those produced by a traditionally applied cylindrical blast simulator (CBS) that generates a characteristically different blast signature. In addition, we have tested soft-armor vest protective responses with the ABS and CBS to compare the biomechanical responses to this form of personal protective equipment in each setting in a rodent model.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Pub Defense Publication
- Publication Date
- Nov 01, 2023
- Source ID
- 10.1093/milmed/usad111
Entities
People
- Donna Wilder
- Elizabeth McNeil
- Joseph Long
- Richard Shoge
- Stephen Van Albert
- Venkatasivasai Sajja
Organizations
- Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs
- Defense Health Agency
- Walter Reed Army Institute of Research