authority this page is unclassified - apps.dtic.mil · restricted tnvironmental protection division...

UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBERAD020049

CLASSIFICATION CHANGES

TO: unclassified

FROM: restricted

LIMITATION CHANGES

TO:Approved for public release, distributionunlimited

FROM:

Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't.agencies and their contractors;Administrative/Operational Use; 31 AUG1953. Other requests shall be referred toQuartermaster, Research and EngineeringCenter, Natick, MA.

AUTHORITYE.O. 10501, 5 Nov 1953; QRDC ltr, 11 Oct1967

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTED

tNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

CDL.

-- Report No. 220

tMC/-)

PHYSIOLOGY OF LOAD-CARRYING VI

Natick QM Research & Development Laboratory

Research and Development Division

Office of The Quartermaster General

August 1953

RESTRICTED. -- -- lt~l' ir y Ii I1 r I ,

7 - - RESTRICTED -

Security Information

Department of the Army

OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERALResearch and Development Division

Environmental Protection DivisionReport No. 220

ENERGY COST OF TREADMILL WALKINGCOMPARED TO ROAD WALKING

By

Farrington Daniels, Jr., MD

Physiologist

Jan H. Vonderbie Fred R. WinsmannPhysiologist Physiologist

FruNatick QM Research & Development Laboratory

Lawrence, Massachusetts

64- 12-00164-12-002 August 1953

"This document contains information affecting the national defenseof the United States within the meaning of the Espionage Laws,TITLE 18 U. S, C., sections 793 and 794. The transmission or therevelation of its contents in any manner to an unauthorizedperson is prohibited by law."

RESTRICTEDSecurity Information


ENGY COST OF TKEADMILT. WALKING COMPARED TO ROAD WALKING

Abstract: A comparison has been made between subjects walking at 3-1/2mph on the treadmill and walking over roads and cinder tracks at the samespeed. It has been found that the road or cinder track condition involvesan average energy expenditure nine to ten percent greater than that forthe treadmill. This is believed to be caused by a difference in the bodymechanics while walking under these two different conditions. This dif-ference must be taken into account in extrapolating climatic chamber andother treadmill data to field conditions.

Farrington Daniels, Jr., MAD..Physiologist

Jan H. Vanderbie Fred R. WinsmannPhysiologist Phys iologist

Natick Qd Research and Development LaboratoryLawrence, Massachusetts

Foreword: The physiologic response to a standard work task is a wellaccepted and widely used index for estimating a) the ability of man toperform physical work, and b) the degree of deterioration resultingfrom exposure to stresc situations. Miniature work tasks and the motordriven treadmill are the most commonly used methods of presenting astandard work task. The ultimate goal of such research is to estimate,from data derived under controlled laboratory conditions, the degree ofchanges that may be expected to occur under naturally occurring con-ditions of work and exposure to stress. In order to apply the resultsfrom controlled laboratory experiments to natural situations it mustbe either assumed or proved that the r ' sonses of man are the same inthe two instances. This sixth report in the series on the Physiologyof Load-Carrying presents the basic data for comparison of one type ofwork task walking outdoors on a hard surfaced road with walking on amotor-driven treadmill in the laboratory.

AUSTIN HENSCHEL) Ph.D. ALBET H. JACOEANDirector of Research Lt. Colonel, QMC, ChiefEnvironmental Protection Division Environmental Protection Division

APPROVED: WILLIAM D. JACSON.Colonel, Q)I, ChiefResearch & Development Division

ii

RESTRICTEDSecurIty information


EIERGY COST OF TREAEILL WALKING COMPARED TO ROAD WALKNIG

1. Introduction

a. The motQr-driven treadmill provides a convenient, accurate,and consistent means for producing various levels of physical activity.It is a means of exercise which, in effect, contains a built-in correctionfor differences in body size, since the work required of the test subjectis proportional to his own weight. It is a form of exercise which iseasily mastered, and since most subjects are in relatively good physicalcondition for walking they do not require extensive conditioning beforestudies are carried out. The treadmill, by allowing locomotion in onespot, permits exercisa within the confines of climatic chambers or otherindoor test rooms. Because the subject remains in one place, instru-mentation can be connected to him for recording such physiologicalvariables as pulse rate and respiratory rate; and expired air can easilybe collected for determination of metabolic rate. As is evident in thisreport, the control of speed and the maintenance of constant speed areimportant considerations in employing a treadmill rather than an outdoorform of exercise in studies involving physical work.

b . Some of the parameters of response to treadmill walking, in-cluding the training factor, have been studied and discussed by Erickson,et al. o

c. - Some of the early treadmills used for studies of locomotionconsisted of a belt moving over a series of rollerso4 More recenttreadmills have had a leather or fabric belt moving over a hardwoodslipvay. The slipway apparently requires less training and providesbetter stability during walking. 5

,8

d. Nany of the classic studies on the energy cost of walking atdifferent speeds and with different loads were conducted on treadmills 2,3In one of these extensive studies, Smith1 1 commented that differencespresumably existed between treadmill walking and ordinary walking.His additional comment on the subject is appreciated by the presentauthors, "the problem of the difference in effect of walking in the openair as compared to walking on a treadmill in a well-ventilated room canonly be solved by the use of impeccable technique." Smith mentionedthat Durig had found treadmill walking to be more eceoomical than for-ward walking; however, Duig-'s reports4,5 appear to indicate that histreadmill (belt over rollers) requirod a higher energy expenditure thanroad walking. Atzler and Herbst report a comparison of treadmillwith road walking using one subject and concluded that the treadmillwas about 1.2 percent higher than the road. Two readings were takenin each situation, one of the open road readings at a considerably lowervalue than the other three.

1RESTRICTEDSecurity Information

J , ,,t,

RESTRICTED -

Security Information

e. In the course of studies on load-carrying conducted at thisLaboratory, we have compared a group of subjects carrying a 46-poundload at 3-i/2 mph on a treadmill with the same group carrying the sameload and wearirg the same clothing while walking over a lc ±, asphaltroad out of d'.ors. An additional group of subjects were compared whilewearing eight-pound nylon vest armor on the treadmill and on a cindertrack.

2. Methods

a. Metabolic rate during walking on the treadmill was measuredwith a closed system Tissot spirometer supplying pure oxygen and havingsoda lime to reabsorb carbon dioxide. The studies conducted in thefield were done by the Douglas Bag method, the volume of expired air inthe Douglas Bag was measured with a dry gas meter, and the air analyzedfor oxygen and carbon dioxide by the Ealdane method. A systematic com-parison, using two subjects, was made between the closed system Tissotspirometer and the open system Douglas Bag method to assure the equiva-lence of these methods in this Laboratory. While the subject walked onthe treadmill the mouthpiece was first connected to the closed system,then the Douglas Bag, then the closed system again in continuity. Bythis means two closed system readings were obtained which immediately

bracketed the open system collection.

b. The treadmill studies were carried, out at a room temperatureof 190c (660F.). The outdoor stadies were conducted on sunny days inNovember 1951, with air temperatures from -4o to 100C. (250 to 500 F.)

Co The outdoor walking course was a "black-top" road. The sub-jects walked over 2400 feet of surface which was apparently level (lessthan 1/8 percent grade by clinometer), 600 feet of a two percent grade,and 2400 feet of a i/4 percent grade. The Douglas Bag collections weremade on the level stretch, the direction of travel being alternated.

d. The speed of the treadmill was calculated by measurement ofthe belt length and counting revolutions. In the outdoor portion ofthe study, speed was controlled in the following manner. markers wereplaced at 800-foot intervals; an observer practiced pacing these in-tervals at 3-1/2 mph (93.48 meters/minute). This investigator thenpaced the subjects, his time being checked by another observer with astop clock. The exact time required to walk 800 feet at 3-1/2 mphwas 2 minutes and 35.8 seconds. If the subjects failed to completethe 800 feet within 2 minutes 35 seconds and 2 uinutes 37 seconds, theruA was discardedo With practice and constant time checks, the pacingof this procedure became quite consistent and accurate.

e. In both indoor and outdoor studies the subjects wore cottonshorts, T-shirts, and herringbone twill fatigue uniforms. Footwearconsisted of one pair each of cushion sole socks and leather combat


14'


'boots. In the comparison of the treadmill with walking on the hard-surfaced road, a load of 46 pounds consisting of a packboard with ahigh placed gravel load in metal cans and steel oxygen cylinder wereused.

f. In a further study, four subjects walked indoors on a tread-mill with a belt speed of 3-1/2 mph and outdoors on a cinder track atthe same speed. In addition to herringbone twill fatigue uniforms andleather combat boots, the subjects wore eight-pound nylon vest armor.

This second group of subjects did not carry pack loads.

g. The physical characteristics of the subjects used in thesetwo studies are given in Table I.

TABLE I: CHARACTEISTICS OF SUBJECTS

Subject Age Height Weight Body Fat* Surface Area

(yrs.) (cm.) (lbs.) (kg.) % m2

Ma 22 168 138 63 7.6 1.70Ca 22 178 177 80 13.4 1.92

Mi 23 170 148 67 5.8 1.78Hd 22 170 136 62 7.3 1.68

Hc 23 169 165 75 7.8 1.86Sm 20 172 158 72 14.7 1.85My 30 167 112 51 1.2 1.54

Br 24 170 135 61 7.9 1.70Va 28 179 149 68 2.5 1,86Wi 27 176 164 74 10.0 1.91Gi 22 171 147 67 4.6 1.78Pe 22 169 141 64 6.9 1.74

Me 23 169 137 62 2.5 1.70

*Determined by the skin-fold method

3. Results

a. A comparison of metabolic rate determinations by the closedsystem Tissot spirometer and the Douglas Bag and Haldane methods isgiven in Table II. Since no statistically significant systematicerror between the two methods was found, comparison of data collectedby the two different methods appeared justifiable.


L.!


TABLE II: CCMPARISON OF OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEM OF XETABOLICRATE DETERMINAT1ONS CN TWO SUBJECTS WALKING ON A

MTOR-IVEN TREA14ILL AT 3-3/2 MPH(in cc. of oxygen per minute)

Subject Va

Tissot Douglas Bag Differenceaverage

963 975 918 +57

81o8 889 981 -92

947 956 945 + 11965

962890 926 924 +2

905 896 931 -35887 ,

936892 914 905 +9

938 938 921 +17

880 880 844 +36

Mean 921.8 921.1 +0.7 -

t - .03 difference not significant

Subject Wi

1057 978 114 -136

1126 1126 1071 +55

1072 1072 1002 +701072

148 1o48 1042 +6

Mean 1056 1057.2 -0.8

t - no difference


I *.. -


b." In all subjects a higher energy cost was found for walking onthe level road than on the 'treadmill. The results expressed as cc. ofoxygen consumed per minute are given in Table III.

ZATI I AVERAGE METABOLIC RATES (-in cc 02 /mino) ONREAJ)ILL AND ROAD AT 3-1/2 )PH WIM 46

POUND (20.9 kg.) PACKS

Subject Road Treadmill

Xa 1364* 1227Ca 1498 1463**Mi 14o7" 1 ***

Hd 145166**

He 152314"Sm 1365 1349"My 1240 1212*

Br 1593 i368***

Mean 1426.9 1313.0Difference Means - 113.9Percent Difference - 5t a 3.508P < .01 Highly Significant

•Mean of two determinationsMean of three determinations

Mean of four or more determinations

co The metabolic rate expressed as Calorie /hr . is givenin Table IV And Figure 1.

d. Using four kilograms es a common veight of clothing andcombat boots for all men, the mtabolic rate expressed as cc. ofoxygen per borizontal kilogrammeter is given 'in, Table V.

o The second experiment in which menewalking at 3-1/2 mphon the treadill were compared with themselves walking at the samespeed on a cinder track again demonstrated the greater energy re-quirewmt for forward locomotion than for ialking at the samenominal speed on a motor-driven horizontal treadmill. The outdoorstiWas were done at 210 and 180 c. (70 ° azu 640 F.). The results6btaine& are given in Table V1. The cost of valking on the cindertrack aveMed 10.3 percent higher than walking on a treadmill withsame belt speed.



TABLE IV: COMPARISON o, METABOLIC COST (in Ca./3 2/br.)OF WALKING ON TREADMILL WITH ROAD AT 3-1/2

MPH CARRYING 46-POUND PACKS

Subject Road Treadmili

Ma 230 206Ca 224 219Mi 227 206Rd 244 200Hc 236 224Sm 214 211

My 232 226Br 270 232

ean 2314.6 215.5

Difference Means A- 19.1Percent Difference x 8.9t 3-.87P < .01 Highly Significant

ENERGY COST OF CARRYING A 46-POUND LOAD ON A MOTOR-DRIVENTREADMILL COMPARED TO CARRYING THE SAME LOAD ON A LEVEL

ASPHALT ROAD AT 3-V/2 mph

270 - WALKING ON TREADMILL

260 LI WALKING ON ROAD

AVERAGE DIFFERENCE250. LD -7 6% 164'%

240 j230 52% 23%

N E11 220 23% T 22 2%U) 106%

o 0-1,,%-J

o 200

I90

80

170-

Subject Ma Go Mi Hd Hc Sm My Br

FIGURE 1

RESRICTEDSecurity Information


TABLE V: MKTABOLIC RATE IN CC. OF OXYGEN PERHORIZONTAL XILOGRAIOEER*

Subject Road Treadmill

Ma .1662 .1492Ca •1555 .1521Mi .1601 .148Hd .1791 .1467Bc .1678 .1596Sm .1521 .1503My .1769 •1729Br .1981 .1702

Mean .1695 .1557

Percent Difference - 8.9t - 3.374P < .02 Significant

*Man + Clothing + Load moved forward one meter

TABLE VI: COMPARISON OF ENEGY EXPENDITURE AT 3-1/2 M WHILEWALXING ON A TREADMILL AND ON A CINDR TACK WIE

EIGHT-POUND VEST ARMOR

Subject cc. O minute

Treadmill Mean Track Mean

Gi 98o,lOO6, 1020,985 998 1121,1252 1186Pe 1317,1298,1165 1260 1289,1218 1254Ma 1086,1021,969,1016 1023 1165,llkl 1153Me 1077,1055,1130,1258,1262,1129 1152 1355,1210 1283

Mean 1108.2 1219.0

Difference Means a 111.8 t - 2.689

Percent Difference - 10.0 P < Not Significant

Calories /m. 2/hou

Gi 163 19Pe 208 208

Ma 173 195Me 195 217

Mean 181.8 203.5

Difference Means - 18.7 t 3 2.841

Percent Difference 1 10.1 P < Not Significant


- RESTRICTEDSecurity Information J

4. Discussion

a. It may be argued that the difference between load-carryingon a horizontal treadmill and on a road surface resulted from small ir-regularities o:f road surfa*e as compared to the belt moving over thesmooth wooden slipway. The asphalt road had very few loose pebblesand very little gross unevenness. Ideally, this comparison should bemade between a subject walking on a moving treadmill and also on thesame treadmill belt over a solid wooden floor of the same elasticproperties as the bed of the treadmill. Despite these limitations,it is the consensus of the authors, based on their findings in thisreport and general observation of subjects walking on treadmills,that there is a distinct difference in the body m*echanics of tread-mill walking and of walking under normal conditions.

b. On i~spection, it appears that treadmill walking includessome features which may explain the lesser energy cost when comparedto road walking. These are only speculative until further studieshave been conducted. With treadmill walking the center of gravityof the body, instead of progressing forward in a series of arcs ofrise and fall in relation to the surface of the ground, oscillatesback and forth in an arc over a fixed distance. It is suggested thatby this means there is recovery of kinetic energy from the oscillatingextremities on a larger scale than in ordinary walking and that lessextra force from the ground for forward motion of the center ofgravity, as described by Elftmann, 6,7 is required. When observing asubject walking on a treadmill one is struck with the somewhat slappinggait, and the amount of vertical rise of the body. It is conceivablethat some of the energy used in the vertical rise is derived from themotion of the treadmill. The subject slaps his foot down in the for-ward position, locks his knee, ,aMd, as his foot is carried backward bythe treadmill, there is a vertical component to the resultant force.Part of the energy elevating the body may therefore be derived fromthe power of the motor which moves the treadmill belt.

c. MullerlO studied the efficiency of treadmill walking anddetermined a value for the energy requirement of forward progressionby applying forward and backward pull at the hips. He found minimalexpenditure at about three to four kilograms of forward pull. Hefurther observed that forward pull in excess of this amount up toseven kilograms did not lead to an increased energy requirement forbraking. This was explained by the fact that the subjects compen-sated for the forward pull by leaning backward. It is of interestin this connertion that some men may be observed to lean somewhatbackward and "ride" the treadmill. This suggests that anotherfeature of the body mechanics which differs in treadmill and ordinarywalking may be that the treadmill contributes energy for the rota-tion of the body about the center of gravity in its transverse axis,applying a torque in a clockwise direction as viewed from the sub-. l right. This would be similar to the contribution to vertical


RESTRICTEDSecurity Informotion

lift from thie 'trearill belto

d The impressions of the bod-)y mechanies given are p),iilimiuary.Analyrsis of body mecha:nies dux ng, wilking is uot easy and zi~i1lids forsuch analysis are not routinely dveloped. 6 p7 'Frther vork v-1,1thereforo, be necessary before the causes of the difference I.. energyTcost here reported are oompletely explained.

e. The fact that treadmill and road valkirng differ i a ene~rgycost aad apparently in body mechanics is unimportant iu mo.t uses oftreaiaills, such as providinig a standaid exercise period for :cewarmingduring a cold rooma experiment. The error does become importent in a&Vsituation vhere a comparisoni with 1field observations is deicired. Itappear*~ that the trea4mil1 is probably at raininal expeitire! forwalkiY4g and that valking ovwer natural1 terraink vi2.l 74e higi er by vary-ing degrees, depending upon the vaevenness, sp'rn~ elasticity,and other charateristics of the aatural For aCmp ll:asovand MZJler 9 found that valking o'irar a freshly plo~wed f elo, reaquire'd a90 t, :.70 pereent grewter experditure of energy tha:-- ,uaLktg ;-nver snasphalt road.~

5- CouclUsion-

It l~ been demonstrated tbat subjects carrying loads oyf--r caasphalt road and a cinder track at 3-l/2 mph. have an aireraEge energyexpendituire xtine to ten percent greater than, they do when cza-r~YJigthe same l1oad ou a treadmill vith a belt speed of, 31-l/2 zpa.

6. Recommiendation

That, uztil complete nomographs are worked out for tbh (;oversionaof 1reallmiil. data to field conditions at different speeds and ondiffereat surfaces,, a ten percent correction be applied fr, treadmilldata to obtain an estimate of a minimal energy expendi Lw ! foi, wr-11ingat -the i ,amne -velocity under field condi-cions.

7- Relerences

1,, Atzler, E. and R.t R4.'bst A- eaitsphysio;'.ogi-che GtudleD 111.Tell. Pfl(gers Axchly.. PP25K:.-91. .?

-'2. Benedict,, P a,. '.M0 Mu~rschauiser. Xhargy Trasfarmationzdurngc:izonltal ;. a ngie Izst., VWa;"x., Publtoa'~ ion No. 231,

1915.,

.3 F Z"N De R2 i Eergieuiset bx.i derGeharbeil; 1, Ube VItr~ a auf horizontale Bahn. Biocatm M Ztschr.

1270, LO',h.

9

RESTRIGTE-',',Securily I nform it -on

I. Durig, A. Contribution to the. php cK..o4-y of hunu-, vr.z*hiGh altitudes. Arch f.d. gem. PbysioA , -,2J.3, i.9o6.

5. Duig, A. Ueber dern Gasvechal beim Clebe awf' v~ -lr

TIO3-1w. Vienna. IC. Akad.. der Wissenschedterb. ~ah

6. Elftan, HI. The rotation of thit tody J :Jit tspyi1L: 477, 1939.

7'. Elftmano H. The force erxert-d 'oy td grour.,f n 41i.Irbetphysiol. 10:I48r, I'93

8. Erc'~~ .. ~ ~ f~.T, rd 2~eandA~. Keys. tk jae- r'- Val.~i ~djuvg ~~ on the motor-

9i~ G7~AJ , 17. KC4 PDyaV 4U39, Y kq" verscheidenen Boden.

X. *r 'A. Der Wirkwungsgrsd des Gebe,,ua Arbeitaphysiol.

I ,w' t, HJA. Gaseous Exchanges in Phyviologi~al Req -remntsf,4, Lewv a .*ri '3lh Walking. Carnegie Inst., Wa Publication No.

10.1RES'fNIICTEDS cU j' Inf o rma t io n


DISTRIBUTION LIST "0"

QUARTERMASTER CORPS DICAL SERVICE

5 The QX General, RkD Division, 1PD Lia. Off, I Chairman, Med. Ros. • DeY. Board, Rm 2634 A, ro. Navy,2nd & T Ste., S.W. Washington 25, D.C. Washington 26, D.C.

Teoh. Information Off., 1741 Main Navy, 1TashinCton 25, D.C.Chief, QN R&D Laboratories, Phila. 1 Army *,dioal Library, Pentagon, Washington 25, D.C.

QM Depot, 2800 S. 20th St., Phila. Pa. 5 CO, ArmV Medical Research Laboratories, Ft. Knox, Ky.25 Attn. Chief, Technical Library 1 Medical Nutrition Lab., 1819 W. Pershing Rd., Chicago 9,1 Attn Patent@ Service Illinois1 Attn. rioneering Research Laboratories Attn. Dr. Friodmann

Commandant, (W Food & Container Inst., 1 Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington 25, D.C.1819 W. Pershing Rd., Chicago 9, Ill. Attn Dr. Haymaker

2 (File - 1, Dr. Spector - 1) 1 The Chief, Armed Services Medical Procurement Agency,Commanding Oeneral, Ft. Lee, Virginia 84 Sends St., Brooklyn 1, N.Y.

1 Attnt Q0M Techniol Training Service Library Attn. Property Officer5 President, The Q~artermaster Board, Fort Lee, Ta. Uerked, Req. No. D.U.B.D. #151

QM Liaison Officer, MCIA0M. X, Wright API,Dayton, Ohio ZIRAROH AND DEVLOP T BOARD

1 Attn. Aero-Mod Lab.2 Attn. tag. Div. (Dr.. Henry 4 Wilson) 5 Seereteriat, Con. on Geophys. & Geog., Pentagon, Washington 25,2 Nmj. We. C. Deekli, Jr., UI Tech. Rep., D.C.

s/ DID, 224 Wellington It., Ottara, 5 Secretariat, Com. on Medical Sciences, (R&D)Ontario, Canada Office of the Secretary of Defense,

S Col. Frank . Steadvin W Representative, The Pentagon, Rm. 3D1076, Washington 26, D.C.Officer Group M. 1, U.S. Ar, c/o U.S.Navy 100, PBO, N.Y. AIR PC=

3 Army Liaison Officer, Office of Naval Research,Se. 2714, Bldg T-5. Washimgton 25, D.C. 1 DC/I TIRIEL, AFMSS, Hq, USAF, Pentagon, Washington 26, D.C.

OfIXRAL STAFF, U.S. AIM! 1 /s MV., AFRD-HW, Hq, USAF, Pentagon, Washington 25, D.C.

08, Asit. Chief/itaff, G-3, The Pentagon, Washington 25, D.C. I AIR UNIVERSITY, Maxwell AFB, Ala.,1 Attu, Operations Division Attn. Library1 ,' Attn. Orgeanisation A Training Division1 Attn. Plans Division 2 SCHOOL OF AVIATION MDICINE, Randolph AFB, Texas

,Aet. Chief/Staff, -41 Res. A Dev. Division,,9nte Pentagon, Washington 25, D.C. 1 ARCTIC AIR MEDICAL LAB., APO 731, Seattle, Washington

2 Attn, Research Br., Invir. Res. Section1 CrFICR 0' Thi AIR SURGIOW, Med. Ret. Div., 40165A, Pentagon,

Washington 25, D.C.ARMY PIELD FCRCI8 Attn. Col. Gagge

1 Office, Chief of Army Field Forc., Ft. Monroe, Va. NAVY1 A"T Board No. 1, Ft. Bragg, N.C.1 AF Boa4d No. 2, Ft. Knox, Xy. 2 U5X ARCTIC RZSZAR5 LWM., 2516 T-3, Washington 25, D.C.3 A" Board No. 3, Ft. Benning. 0. Attn. Code 4071 AFF Board No. 4, Ft. bliss, Texas

1 USX BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE DIV., 2704 T-3, Washington 25, D.C.Attn, Dr. ReynoldsCHECAL CORR

1 NAY . M.,. Library of Congress, Washington 25, D.C.Army Cheical Center, M ryland Attu@ Mr. J. H. Heald

1 Attn. Chief, Medical Labs.I Attn. Applied Physiology Banch 1 NAVY SCHOOL O AVIATION MEDICINE, U.S. Naval Air Station,1 Attn. Tech. Inforotion Offioe Pensacola, Fla.1 Chief, Chemical & Radiologicel lAbomrtories, Attn. C.O.

Army Chenioal Center, Maryland1 Director, Biological Labs., Army Cheical Center, Md. 1 NAVAL MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Biochemical Div., National

Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MarylandAttn, Lt. Bodenlo., MSC, USX

2 DIRECTOR, ARMY LIBRARY, The Pentagon, Washington 26, DC.Attn. Natl. Defense Revie - I MARINE CORS

1 USIC, Div. of Plans & Policies, Res. & Dav. Sec., Washington1 COMMANDANT, NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE, Pt. Moair, Washington 28, 25, D.C.

D.C. 1 USIC Supply Depot, 1100 5. Broad St., Philadelphia 46, Pa.

1 Medical Field Re.. Lab., Camp 19sjune, N.C.Attn. Cmdr. Webster

3 COMMANDING ORAL, USARAL, APO 942, Seattle, Washingtonte

QM - 11 Army Arctic Indoctrination School - 11 ArcticTest Branch - 1 C I LIAN

1 COIMLNDANT, COMAND & GEN. STAFF COLLIE, Ft. Leavenworth, 4 IFT A EXCHANO DIVISION, Library of Congress. Washington 25, D.C.Kansas 1 CIVIL DEFENSE ADMINISTRATIO, Washington 25 D.C.

Attn. Research Coordinator, Office al Plans & PoliciesI COMMNDANT, U.S. MILITARY ACAIW, West Point, N.Y. 17 NATIL RSEARH COUNCIL, 2101 Coost. Ave., Washington 26, D.C.

Attn, Dr. W. George Parks, Director, Advisory Board on1 COMANDART, AIY WAR COLLEGE, Carlisle Barracks, Pa. QM Research & Development


authority this page is unclassified - apps.dtic.mil · restricted tnvironmental protection division...

Documents