Skip to main content
NCBI home page
GeoHealth logoLink to GeoHealth
. 2025 Dec 18;9(12):e2025GH001521. doi: 10.1029/2025GH001521

The Fifth Hurricane Hazard: A Case Study of Heat Risks Faced by Disaster Relief Workers After Hurricane Beryl's Landfall

Andrew Grundstein 1,✉, J Marshall Shepherd 1, Rebecca Stearns 2, Michelle Ritchie 3
PMCID: PMC12715274  PMID: 41426239

Abstract

Hurricanes pose a wide range of health and safety threats, from wind and flooding to less recognized hazards such as heat stress. Although heat exposure has been documented after hurricanes, little research has examined how it affects disaster relief workers during recovery operations. This study evaluated the heat stress conditions faced by emergency response personnel deployed to southeastern Texas following Hurricane Beryl in July 2024, a period marked by prolonged power outages and extreme heat. Heat hazard scenarios were assessed for the Houston area using occupational exposure limits—the Recommended Alert Limit (RAL) and Recommended Exposure Limit—in combination with wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) data and factors like worker acclimatization status, work intensity, work/rest schedules, and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Depending on the scenario, WBGT values exceeded critical safety thresholds throughout this period. For unacclimatized workers engaged in medium to very heavy labor with minimal rest, conditions exceeded the RAL between 74% and 100% of the time. Even heat acclimatized workers deployed outdoors would have faced considerable heat stress, especially during heavy work levels. The presence of restrictive PPE significantly increased heat stress, with all scenarios surpassing safety thresholds. These findings underscore the heightened vulnerability of disaster response personnel to heat‐related health risks in the aftermath of hurricanes. Acclimatization, workload, rest breaks, and PPE use are key factors influencing heat health risks. Tailored heat mitigation strategies are needed to safeguard workers operating in high‐pressure, resource‐limited environments where standard workplace safety practices may be difficult to implement.

Plain Language Summary

Following Hurricane Beryl's landfall in southeastern Texas in July 2024, widespread power outages and extreme heat created hazardous working conditions for disaster relief personnel. This study assessed the level of heat stress experienced by emergency workers during the initial recovery phase, when both environmental conditions and operational demands were most severe. Weather data for the Houston metropolitan area revealed that conditions frequently exceeded established heat safety thresholds in the 3 days following the hurricane. For workers who were not physiologically adapted to cope with heat stress and engaged in moderate to very heavy labor with limited rest, conditions would have been unsafe 74%–100% of the time. Even personnel who were adapted to hot conditions were at risk, particularly during heavy physical activity. The use of restrictive protective gear significantly increased heat stress, resulting in unsafe conditions across all work scenarios evaluated. These findings indicate that disaster relief workers who perform activities outdoors face substantial heat‐related health risks in the aftermath of hurricanes, especially when access to cooling, rest, and other protective measures is limited. Tailored heat management strategies are needed to protect emergency personnel operating in high‐stress environments where conventional workplace safety protocols may not be practical.

Key Points

  • Disaster relief workers in southeast Texas faced significant heat‐related hazards during the first 72 hr after Hurricane Beryl's landfall

  • NIOSH heat safety thresholds were often exceeded, with greater risks for unacclimatized workers and those in restrictive gear

  • Post‐hurricane recovery crews need tailored heat mitigation, as many standard workplace heat protections may not be practical

1. Introduction

Hurricanes pose serious risks to communities, threatening lives and causing substantial economic damage through strong winds, heavy rainfall, storm surges, and tornadoes (WMO, 2021). Often lost in consideration is that hurricane season, particularly the peak activity, aligns with the hottest part of the year in the Gulf Region, Florida, and the Southeast. In fact, some studies suggest that heat stress conditions could be exacerbated post‐landfall due to advection of warm, moisture topical air and increases in solar radiation due to some combination of loss of vegetation cover and reduced cloudiness (Guido et al., 2022; Reesman and Miller, 2023). Hurricane hazards are often intensified by power outages, which account for approximately 90% of major outages in the United States (Alemazkoor et al., 2020). For instance, nearly 1 million lost power after Hurricane Ida (2021) in Louisiana, and Puerto Rico's electric power supply remained under 20% a month after Hurricane Maria (2017) (Montoya‐Rincon et al., 2022). Power loss restricts cooling, medical device use, and medication refrigeration, exacerbating heat stress and health impacts (Guido et al., 2022).

Hurricane‐related disruptions such as widespread power outages, blocked roadways, and infrastructure damage can significantly increase the volume and urgency of physically demanding outdoor tasks. In the aftermath of hurricanes, teams of first responders (e.g. firefighters, law enforcement, emergency medical services personnel), emergency response workers (e.g. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff, National Guard), and utility workers mobilize to manage health emergencies, restore critical services, and support recovery efforts in affected communities. These personnel face significant heat‐related hazards due to the physically demanding nature of their tasks (e.g., life‐saving interventions, repair work), exposure to direct sunlight or un‐airconditioned environments, and the potential need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) that hinders cooling and increases heat stress (Meade et al., 2015; Smart et al., 2022; Tetzlaff et al., 2024). Further, post‐hurricane environments can expose people to contaminated flood waters (e.g., from sewage), increasing the potential for exposure to waterborne and vector‐borne diseases. These conditions often necessitate prolonged use of PPE, including hazardous materials suits, respirators, and gloves, which can restrict the body's ability to cool itself and increase the risk for heat stress.

Additionally, first response and disaster relief organizations often face high turnover rates (Castle, 2010), partly due to occupational stress and burnout (Bevan et al., 2022), which can complicate the ability to respond effectively and safely in disasters. For example, a Massachusetts study found that more than 55% of Emergency Medical Technicians surveyed were experiencing burnout, associated in part with inadequate opportunities to process trauma (McGarry and O’Connor, 2024). This is important because cognitive impairment from stress and the inexperience of new workers can result in decreased vigilance or an inability to recognize early warning signs of illnesses from heat stress.

Further, Smart et al. (2022) highlight that many National Guard personnel, often reservists, may lack fitness and acclimatization to deployment locations, elevating their risk of heat‐related illnesses. The use of pre, concurrent, or post cooling approaches varied among first responder organizations and 25% of departments offered no cooling (Bach et al., 2018). They observed that availability, cost, logistics, and knowledge were barriers to the use of personnel cooling technologies like cooling vests. While heat and occupational safety have been extensively investigated, less work has been done on disaster relief workers (Garbern et al., 2016; Khatri et al., 2019). Yet, available studies indicate a significant incidence of heat‐related illnesses among disaster responders (e.g., Bach et al., 2018; Dellinger et al., 1996; Erikson et al., 2019; Garbern et al., 2016; Garzon‐Villalba et al., 2016; Rusiecki et al., 2014). Specific to hurricanes, heat emerged as a prominent health concern among U.S. Coast Guard responders and health care professionals deployed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (Rogers and Lawhorn, 2007; Rusiecki et al., 2014).

Building on this context, we examine a recent example of compounding hazards in the Houston metropolitan area that illustrates the intersection of extreme weather, infrastructure vulnerability, and public health risks. In May 2024, southeastern Texas experienced a derecho which led to major societal disruptions including massive power outages. Two months later the region was impacted by Hurricane Beryl, which made landfall just west of Galveston Bay on 8 July 2024 (Figure 1). In addition to widespread rainfall totals of 8–15 cm, Beryl also had sustained winds in the 18–22 m/s (40–50 mph) range with peak wind gust values near 31 m/s (70 mph). In the derecho and hurricane events, the region experienced sustained power outages. The compounded impact of both events compromised the power distribution system in southeastern Texas. More than 2 million customers in the Houston area initially lost power when the hurricane made landfall, and over 1 million were still without electricity as of September 11 (Texas Tribute, 2024). A National Academies report (NAS, 2024) emphasized that power disruptions can amplify weather risks in post‐hurricane landfall environments. This dynamic was clearly evident following Hurricane Beryl, which struck southeastern Texas during an ongoing heat advisory. The National Weather Service warned that “hot temperatures and high humidity may cause heat‐related illnesses,” and emphasized that millions were without power and unable to access adequate cooling. The advisory also recommended that outdoor workers take frequent breaks in shaded or air‐conditioned areas to reduce the risk of heat stress. Houston‐area hospitals reported spikes in treatment of heat‐related illnesses along with heat‐related fatalities (AP News, 2024a, 2024b). There were reports of 553 heat‐related illness encounters in the aftermath of Hurricane Beryl over the period from 9–15 July 2024 (Harris County Health Department, 2024).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Study location with track of Hurricane Beryl (black line) and weather observing stations. EFD is Houston Ellington Airport, HOU is Houston Hobby Airport (used as the reference observing station), IAH is George Bush Intercontinental Airport and SGR is Sugarland Regional Airport.

Although heat exposure is a well‐documented risk among workers in variations occupations such as construction and agriculture (NIOSH, 2016), the extent of heat hazards in post‐hurricane settings remains poorly quantified. Integrating knowledge of ambient thermal conditions with occupational factors (e.g., work intensity, heat acclimatization status, and PPE) is critical for improving heat risk assessment and preparedness. In this study, we characterize post‐landfall heat stress conditions following Hurricane Beryl and evaluate potential heat hazard scenarios relevant to disaster‐relief workers performing response activities outdoors.

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Meteorological and Heat Stress Data

Weather data from the automated surface observing station (ASOS) at the Houston Hobby Airport (HOU) and other nearby weather stations were retrieved from the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM, 2025), which is a platform that aggregates meteorological data. These stations had hourly meteorological data, including air temperature, Relative humidity, dewpoint temperature, wind speed, and cloud cover.

Data from HOU was used for analysis due to its data completeness and long‐term record, which is needed for climatological assessment. Meteorological conditions at HOU were also comparable to those at nearby stations (Houston Ellington Airport (EFD), George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), and Sugar Land Regional Airport (SGR)) (Figure 1; Table S1 and Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1). Over the 3‐day study period, SGR recorded the highest average wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) of 27.8°C (WBGT is a metric used to assess heat stress and is discussed below) and IAH the lowest (26.8°C). HOU was representative of area conditions, with a study‐period average WBGT of 27.5°C that closely matched the multi‐station mean (Table S1 in Supporting Information S1).

The WBGT was used to assess heat stress. It combines the influences of air temperature, humidity, radiant heating, and wind speed, and is widely recommended for assessing heat stress in occupational settings (ACGIH, 2022; Hosokawa et al., 2019; NIOSH, 2016). The WBGT was computed hourly using input data from the ASOS and a WBGT model developed by Liljegren et al. (2008). This model can determine values within 1°C of measurements (Liljegren et al., 2008). The WBGT model requires inputs of latitude, longitude, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed at 2 m, and solar radiation. Solar radiation was estimated using the method developed by Kasten and Czeplak (1980), which calculates clear‐sky radiation based on the solar zenith angle derived from date, time, and latitude, and then adjusts it for cloud cover using weather station observations. Wind speed was adjusted from a height of 10 m to 2 m using a logarithmic wind profile (Stull, 2000). The minimum wind speed was set to 0.5 m/s to avoid producing unrealistically high WBGTs that can occur at very low wind speeds (Spangler et al., 2022).

Meteorological conditions and WBGT were assessed for the 3 days following landfall to capture environmental conditions during the initial phase of disaster relief operations. This time period also aligns with a critical time frame for providing relief supplies to disaster victims (Sebatli et al., 2017). Climatological conditions were assessed using 30‐year July climate normals (1991–2020). Based on the mean and standard deviation of these July statistics, z‐scores for WBGT were calculated for each of the three study days to quantify the extremeness of the conditions.

2.2. Heat Hazard Assessment Scenarios

We consider heat hazards based on acclimatization status and on work/rest ratios. Heat hazard scenarios for disaster relief workers were determined using occupational exposure limits from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 2016): Recommended Alert Limit (RAL) for unacclimatized workers and Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) for acclimatized workers (NIOSH, 2016). The heat acclimatization status of a worker is important when considering risk for heat‐related health impacts. With repeated exposure to hot conditions, workers develop physiological changes known as acclimatization that allow them to better tolerate heat stress (NIOSH, 2016). Assuming differences in heat tolerance, we use the different RAL and REL thresholds as a way to understand how heat hazards may vary between acclimatized and unacclimatized workers.

The WBGT‐based thresholds account for the metabolic rates of activity (M) in watts (W) and are calculated as:

RAL[°C−WBGT]=59.9−14.1log10M[W]
REL[°C−WBGT]=56.7−11.5log10M[W]

These thresholds are designed to help workers maintain thermal equilibrium and prevent heat‐related health effects (NIOSH, 2016). Thresholds for RAL are set lower than those for REL to account for the greater heat sensitivity of unacclimatized workers. When conditions exceed the RAL or REL, heat‐related illnesses may occur and appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented. To describe the severity of conditions during the 3‐day study period, we calculated the percentage of hours in which the WBGT exceeded a given RAL or REL threshold. For example, if WBGT values surpassed the threshold in 36 out of 72 hr, the exceedance rate would be reported as 50%.

Here, several combinations of work/rest ratios were determined and then the resulting metabolic rate was used as inputs in computing the RAL and REL values. Metabolic rates were assigned based on activity levels as follows: 180 W for rest, 233 W for light work, 349 W for moderate work, 465 W for heavy work, and 580 W for very heavy work, in accordance with NIOSH guidelines (NIOSH, 2016). The metabolic rate for various combinations of work/rest ratios is computed as a weighted average based on the work/rest ratio, and then used to compute the associated RAL or REL (Table 1). For example, moderate work with 45 min work (75%) and 15 min rest (25%) within an hour would be determined as 0.75 × 349 W + 0.25 × 118 = 290.75 W. This allows us to identify how heat hazards varied based on different work/rest ratios and environmental conditions. By using both RAL and REL thresholds, we can consider the acclimatization status of the disaster relief workers, which has been noted as a potential risk factor in past literature (Bach et al., 2018; Smart et al., 2022). In addition, we assume that workers were wearing a standard work ensemble (long sleeve shirt and pants) and that no clothing adjustment factor (CAF) was needed to compute the effective WBGT (NIOSH, 2016). We also consider a worst‐case scenario when workers are wearing limited use vapor barrier coveralls with hood PPE. ACGIH (2022) indicates that this ensemble, however, does not apply to a fully encapsulating suite, defined by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) as Level A. The CAF for this clothing ensemble is 11°C, indicating that the effective WBGT would be 11°C higher than the ambient WBGT (ACGIH, 2022; NIOSH, 2016).

Table 1.

Recommended Alert Levels (WBGT (°C); Un‐Acclimatized) and Recommended Exposure Level (WBGT (°C); Acclimatized) for Different Work/Rest Ratios With a Typical Work Ensemble

RAL Metabolic rate Work per hour
15 min 30 min 45 min 60 min
Rest 30.8
Light 29.4 28.3 27.3 26.5
Moderate 28.3 26.5 25.2 24.0
Heavy 27.4 25.2 23.6 22.3
V. Heavy 26.5 24.1 22.3 20.9
REL Metabolic rate Work per hour
15 min 30 min 45 min 60 min
Rest 33.0
Light 31.8 30.9 30.2 29.5
Moderate 30.9 29.5 28.4 27.5
Heavy 30.1 28.4 27.1 26.0
V. Heavy 29.5 27.5 26.0 24.9
Open in a new tab

3. Results

3.1. Meteorological Conditions

The aftermath of Hurricane Beryl resulted in persistently hot and humid conditions (Figure 2). From 9 to 11 July, maximum daytime air temperatures ranged from 32.8°C to 36.1°C, with average daily dewpoint temperatures of 22.3–24.3°C. For context, the upper part of this range exceeded the 30‐year normal maximum (33.7 ± 2.3°C) temperature for July and was near or above normal for average daily dewpoint temperature (22.2 ± 1.2°C). These high humidity levels contributed to elevated nighttime air temperatures, which remained near or above 26°C, which exceeds the long‐term July mean of 24.9 ± 1.4°C.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Weather conditions 9–11 July 2024 at Houston Hobby airport. WBGT is the wet bulb globe temperature, Tair is the ambient air temperature, and Tdew is the dewpoint temperature.

3.2. WBGT and Heat Hazards

The hot and humid conditions contributed to elevated Wet Bulb Globe Temperatures (WBGTs) (Figure 2). On 9–10 July, maximum WBGT values exceeded 33°C. On these 2 days, WBGTs persisted for extended periods, with values surpassing 30°C from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the 9 July, and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 10 July. Conditions moderated somewhat on 11 July, with a lower maximum WBGT of 31.5°C and fewer hours exceeding 30°C. Climatologically, maximum daily WBGTs were hotter than normal for July (31.6 ± 1.7°C) with z‐scores of 0.84 and 0.95 on 9–10 July, respectively, and near normal on 11 July with a z‐score of −0.06.

Our modeling analysis suggests that the heat hazard faced by first responders—reflected by exceedances of REL or RAL thresholds—varied depending on factors such as acclimatization status, metabolic rate, work/rest cycles, and clothing ensemble. The critical safety thresholds (RALs) for non‐acclimatized workers are lower than for acclimatized workers, owing to their reduced heat tolerance and increased risk of heat‐related illnesses (Figure 3). In Figure 3, RAL‐WBGT thresholds decrease with increasing work rates from light through very heavy. For instance, the threshold for continuous light work is 26.5°C and decreases to 20.9°C for continuous very heavy work. During the study period, daytime conditions, even for light work with frequent rest breaks (15 min work per hour), exceeded RAL‐thresholds at certain times. The frequency of exceedance through the day increased with greater work rates.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Wet bulb globe temperature with Recommended Alert Limit‐thresholds for work rate and work duration for unacclimatized workers, where (a) light work, (b) moderate work, (c) heavy work, and (d) very heavy work. Labels on the horizontal gray lines correspond to minutes of work per hour (e.g., 15 is 15 min of work and 45 min of rest).

The REL‐WBGT thresholds reflect the increased heat tolerance of acclimatized workers, who can safely withstand higher heat stress levels than un‐acclimatized individuals wearing a standard work ensemble (Figure 4). For example, the threshold for continuous light work is 29.5°C, and for continuous very heavy work it is 24.9° which are both several degrees higher than the corresponding limits for non‐acclimatized workers. Yet, as above, the critical safety thresholds decrease with increasing work rate and duration of work per hour (e.g., 60 vs. 15 min). As with non‐acclimatized workers, conditions were sufficiently hot that there were periods where even light work with frequent rest (15 min work per hour) would exceed REL‐thresholds, especially for 9 and 10 July.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Wet bulb globe temperature with recommended exposure limit‐thresholds for work rate and work duration for acclimatized workers, where (a) light work, (b) moderate work, (c) heavy work, and (d) very heavy work. Labels on the horizontal gray lines correspond to minutes of work per hour (e.g., 15 is 15 min of work and 45 min of rest).

Next, we considered the aggregated conditions over the 3‐day study period (Figure 5). For unacclimatized first responders, conditions were particularly hazardous (Figure 5a). Performing moderate, heavy, or very heavy work with little rest (45 or 60 min of work per hour) would exceed RAL thresholds 74%–100% of the time. Increasing rest breaks can substantially reduce time in excess of these safety thresholds. For instance, at moderate work levels shifting from 60 min of work per hour to 30 min per hour would reduce exceedance by almost 40%.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Exceedance of (a) recommended alert limit for unacclimatized individuals and (b) recommended exposure limit for acclimatized individuals, for different combinations of work/hour and activity levels over the study period 9–11 July 2024.

Acclimatized first responders who have less heat sensitivity than those who are unacclimatized are capable of performing more strenuous work with fewer rest breaks before exceeding REL thresholds (Figure 5b). Nevertheless, moderate, heavy, and very heavy work with little rest (45 and 60 min of work per hour), for instance, still resulted in 39%–80% exceedance. As above, the results also highlight the importance of modulating work/rest ratios to reduce the likelihood of exceeding the REL threshold. At moderate work levels, for example, exceedance falls from almost half (47%) to about a quarter (26%) of the time when reducing work from continuous to 30 min per hour. In addition, the protective effect of acclimatization at reducing heat‐related hazards can be seen in the difference between these two figures. Acclimatized individuals, under the same environmental conditions, had 13%–46% reductions in the exceedance of heat safety thresholds.

Finally, we assessed the heat hazard for workers wearing limited use vapor barrier coveralls with hood PPE, which may be necessary when conditions pose a risk of exposure to hazardous materials (Figure 6). This ensemble greatly impedes heat exchange and would increase the effective WBGT by 11°C, resulting in values that ranged from a low of 34.4°C to high of 44.1°C during the study period. As shown in Figure 6, these values would exceed the 31.8°C REL threshold values, even for light work and frequent rest breaks (15 min work per hour). The conditions surpass the RAL threshold of 29.4°C for this level of activity and work by an even wider margin for non acclimatized workers. Thus, in all scenarios (i.e., acclimatized and acclimatized; light through very heavy work, all work/rest ratios), an individual in this suit would exceed heat safety thresholds.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) with recommended exposure limit‐thresholds for work rate and work duration for acclimatized workers, where (a) light work, (b) moderate work, (c) heavy work, and (d) very heavy work. The labels on the horizontal gray lines indicate minutes of work per hour, with the top line representing 15 min, followed by 30, 45, and 60 min at the bottom. WBGT represents the ambient conditions in standard work ensemble and WBGT personal protective equipment is the WBGT adjusted +11°C to account for the clothing adjustment for vapor barrier coveralls with hood.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The heat hazards faced by disaster relief workers, particularly during hurricane recovery operations, are a critical but underexplored aspect of emergency response. Despite the high physical and mental demands placed on these workers, there has been limited research focused specifically on the heat hazards they encounter, especially in the aftermath of hurricanes. This gap in knowledge is concerning, as it leaves a significant portion of disaster relief operations unaddressed in terms of worker safety. The findings from our case study underscore the importance of incorporating heat risk assessment and management into disaster response planning.

Disaster relief workers who were deployed following Hurricane Beryl faced significant heat hazards, with variations in heat risk influenced by factors such as acclimatization status, work rate, and work/rest cycles. Notably, even on a climatically normal day such as 11 July, heat stress thresholds were exceeded for much of the day, even for light work with 30 min or more of labor per hour. This finding highlights that in certain climate regions, heat hazards should be expected and incorporated into planning. Workers who were not acclimatized to the hot and humid climate, or who engaged in high‐intensity tasks without adequate rest, would have encountered increased heat risks. Additionally, our findings suggest that the use of highly restrictive PPE would be unsustainable in such an environment. Such PPE though crucial for certain disaster response operations, exacerbates heat stress by trapping heat and moisture. This raises a critical challenge for disaster relief organizations: how to balance the need for protective equipment with the need to mitigate heat hazards. The use of such gear in extreme heat environments, without appropriate cooling measures or adjustments, could impact the health and effectiveness of response teams.

The implications of these findings are that heat must be explicitly considered into future hurricane disaster relief planning. There are established occupational heat safety policies and strategies that consider factors such as heat acclimatization, hydration, body cooling, environmental monitoring, work/rest schedules and emergency procedures, among others that can be leveraged (e.g., CDC, 2018; Morrisey et al., 2021; NSC, 2022; Tustin et al., 2021). In Table 2, we present a summarized version of the recommendations for heat acclimatization, breaks/cooling, and PPE, categorized by the target audience: workers and employers. From an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) perspective, incorporating practices aligned with their National Emphasis Program (NEP) on heat could be instrumental in enhancing heat stress management of disaster relief workers (OSHA, 2022). The NEP encourages employers to implement protective measures such as acclimatization protocols and the development of a written heat illness and injury program.

Table 2.

Summary of Established Workplace Recommendations for Workers and Employers

Category Key recommendations Audience References a
Heat Acclimatization (HA) Gradually acclimatize over 5–14 days Workers 1–2
Heat Acclimatization (HA) Implement formal plans; train supervisors/workers in HA procedures; monitor unacclimatized staff for signs of heat illness; develop HA programs tailored to the job Employers 1–3
PPE and Cooling Use body cooling strategies during breaks; remove layers; use cooling PPE; hydrate every 15–20 min in hot conditions; electrolyte drinks for prolonged exertion and/or heavy sweating Workers 1–4
PPE and Cooling Provide shaded/cooling areas; ensure portable cooling if power not available; use engineering controls; supply PPE that promotes heat dissipation; monitor for signs of illness and provide immediate access to medical help; hydration stations Employers 1–4
Breaks Take rest breaks when needed; remove PPE if possible Workers 1–2
Breaks Encourage and mandate breaks in shaded/cooled areas; assign lighter work for new workers; adjust work/rest ratios by heat and PPE; ensure ability to remove clothing during breaks for optimal cooling Employers 1–3
Open in a new tab
a

References: 1 = CDC (2018); 2 = Morrissey et al. (2021); 3 = NSC (2022); 4 = Tustin et al. (2021).

The recommendations in Table 2 are designed for standard work environments and may be challenging to apply in disaster relief operations. Yet, there are key elements that can be adapted. In line with the above recommendations and those by Rogers and Lawhorn (2007), pre‐deployment screenings should be implemented to identify workers at higher risk of heat‐related illnesses due to factors such as age, pre‐existing medical conditions, or lack of heat acclimatization. Employers should consider adjusted deployment strategies for workers from cooler climates or those with limited prior exposure to heat (i.e., unacclimatized). Training programs also need to focus on the importance of monitoring environmental conditions and responding to early signs of heat stress and heat‐related illness. These workers must be equipped with knowledge and tools to recognize the symptoms of heat‐related illnesses, such as heat exhaustion or heat stroke, and to take immediate action to prevent further harm. Further, there is an opportunity for greater and more effective utilization of personnel cooling among disaster relief workers (Bach et al., 2018), especially in conditions without power and when there are limitations to rest/cooling breaks or the removal of PPE. Morrisey et al. (2021) provides cooling modalities that can be used for various scenarios where power is available or not available, and PPE can or cannot be removed. For example, in scenario where a worker cannot safety remove PPE and there is no power, conductive cooling vests and cold wet towels stored in coolers can be used. Recognizing barriers to the use of cooling approaches, such as logistical challenges, cost, or lack of awareness, can help identify solutions and promote the adoption of these methods among emergency workers (Bach et al., 2018). Finally, real‐time weather data should inform dynamic adjustments to work and rest schedules, allowing responders to work more safely during high‐risk periods and to avoid unnecessary overexertion.

Of course, the urgency of rescue operations, however, often conflicts with the need for rest and recovery, and poses a significant challenge to heat management. In the face of extreme temperatures, rescue workers may have limited access to shade, air conditioning, or hydration, increasing their vulnerability to heat stress. Developing strategies and plans that balance the critical need for timely rescue operations with the safety and well‐being of the workforce will be essential. Decision‐makers must carefully consider these limitations and seek ways to integrate rest and recovery periods into the operational schedule without compromising the mission. For example, anticipating staffing needs in different disaster scenarios can facilitate better rotation of personnel, ensuring adequate rest and recovery. Finally, the involvement of various public and private organizations in disaster relief efforts adds another layer of complexity. Different organizations may have distinct worker populations (e.g., firefighters, law enforcement, utility workers, medical personnel, etc.), policies, training programs, and resources for managing heat‐related risks.

As climate change accelerates, weather disasters requiring emergency response coupled with extreme heat are becoming more frequent (Ebi et al., 2021; NAS, 2016). These escalating conditions require a shift in how emergency responses are planned and executed. As disaster relief efforts coincide with periods of extreme heat, the need for comprehensive heat safety strategies for workers on the front lines is increasingly urgent to safeguard their health and ensure effective operations.

A limitation of our study is that the analysis was based on modeled scenarios rather than direct worker‐level exposure data‐and to acknowledge. Thus, continued on‐the‐ground data collection on heat‐related impacts to the diverse workforce that provides disaster relief and engagement with disaster relief groups is needed to understand the unique circumstances of their workers and to develop tailored heat safety strategies.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Supporting information

Supporting Information S1

GH2-9-e2025GH001521-s001.docx (80.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

None.

Grundstein, A. , Shepherd, J. M. , Stearns, R. , & Ritchie, M. (2025). The fifth hurricane hazard: A case study of heat risks faced by disaster relief workers after hurricane beryl's landfall. GeoHealth, 9, e2025GH001521. 10.1029/2025GH001521

Data Availability Statement

Weather data were obtained from the Iowa State University's Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM) ASOS‐AWOS‐METAR data archive: https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtml?network=TX_ASOS. The modeled wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGTs) at each Houston‐area weather station are available at Grundstein et al. (2025).

References

  1. Alemazkoor, N. , Rachunok, B. , Chavas, D. R. , Staid, A. , Louhghalam, A. , Nateghi, R. , & Tootkaboni, M. (2020). Hurricane‐induced power outage risk under climate change is primarily driven by the uncertainty in projections of future hurricane frequency. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 15270. 10.1038/s41598-020-72207-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) . (2022). Heat stress and strain: TLV® physical agents.
  3. AP News . (2024a). Heat‐related Texas deaths climb after Beryl left millions without power.
  4. AP News . (2024b). Houston hospitals report spike in heat‐related illness during widespread storm power outages.
  5. Bach, A. J. E. , Maley, M. J. , Minett, G. M. , & Stewart, I. B. (2018). Occupational cooling practices of emergency first responders in the United States: A survey. Temperature (Austin), 5(4), 348–358. 10.1080/23328940.2018.1493907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bevan, M. P. , Priest, S. J. , Plume, R. C. , & Wilson, E. E. (2022). Emergency first responders and professional wellbeing: A qualitative systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), 14649. 10.3390/ijerph192214649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Castle, N. , Jones, C. B. , Hubble, M. W. , Carr, M. , Weaver, M. D. , Engberg, J. , & Castle, N. (2010). The longitudinal study of turnover and the cost of turnover in EMS. Prehospital Emergency Care, 14(2), 209–221. 10.3109/10903120903564514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2018). Heat stress–Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/heatstress/recommendations.html
  9. Dellinger, A. M. , Kachur, P. S. , Sternberg, E. , & Russell, J. (1996). Risk of heat‐related injury to disaster relief workers in a slow‐onset flood disaster. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 38(7), 689–692. 10.1097/00043764-199607000-00011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ebi, K. L. , Vanos, J. , Baldwin, J. W. , Bell, J. E. , Hondula, D. M. , Errett, N. A. , et al. (2021). Extreme weather and climate change: Population health and health system implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 42(1), 293–315. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-012420-105026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Erickson, E. A. , Engel, L. S. , Christenbury, K. , Weems, L. , Schwartz, E. G. , & Rusiecki, J. A. (2019). Environmental heat exposure and heat‐related symptoms in United States Coast Guard deepwater horizon disaster responders. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 13(3), 561–569. 10.1017/dmp.2018.120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Garbern, S. , Ebbeling, L. , & Bartels, S. (2016). A systematic review of health outcomes among disaster and humanitarian responders. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 31(6), 635–642. 10.1017/s1049023x16000832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Garzon‐Villalba, X. P. , Mbah, A. , Wu, Y. , Hiles, M. , Moore, H. , Schwartz, S. W. , & Bernard, T. E. (2016). Exertional heat illness and acute injury related to ambient wet bulb globe temperature. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 59(12), 1169–1176. 10.1002/ajim.22650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Grundstein, A. , Shephard, J. M. , Stearns, R. , & Ritchie, M. (2025). Modeled wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT) at Houston‐area weather stations [Dataset]. figshare. 10.6084/m9.figshare.30727244 [DOI]
  15. Guido, Z. , Allen, T. , Mason, S. , & Méndez‐Lázaro, P. (2022). Hurricanes and anomalous heat in the Caribbean. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(21), e2022GL099740. 10.1029/2022GL099740 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Harris County Public Health Department . (2024). Health impacts of excessive heat in Harris County, TX. Retrieved from https://publichealth.harriscountytx.gov/Portals/hcph/Documents/Reports/REPORT_Heat‐2024‐FINAL.pdf
  17. Hosokawa, Y. , Casa, D. J. , Trtanj, J. M. , Belval, L. N. , Deuster, P. A. , Giltz, S. M. , et al. (2019). Activity modification in heat: Critical assessment of guidelines across athletic, occupational, and military settings in the USA. International Journal of Biometeorology, 63(3), 405–427. 10.1007/s00484-019-01673-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Iowa Environmental Mesonet. (IEM) . (2025). ASOS‐AWOS‐METAR data archive [Dataset]. Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtml?network=TX_ASOS
  19. Kasten, F. , & Czeplak, G. (1980). Solar and terrestrial radiation dependent on the amount and type of cloud. Solar Energy, 24(2), 177–189. 10.1016/0038-092x(80)90391-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Khatri, J. , Fitzgerald, G. , & Chhetri, M. B. P. (2019). Health risks in disaster responders: A conceptual framework. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 34(2), 209–216. 10.1017/s1049023x19000141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Liljegren, J. C. , Carhart, R. A. , Lawday, P. , Tschopp, S. , & Sharp, R. (2008). Modeling the wet bulb globe temperature using standard meteorological measurements. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5(10), 645–655. 10.1080/15459620802310770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McGarry, E. , & O’Connor, L. (2024). Assessing burnout rates and contributing factors in emergency medical services clinicians. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 39(3), 288–301. 10.1080/15555240.2023.2292119 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Meade, R. D. , Lauzon, M. , Poirier, M. P. , Flouris, A. D. , & Kenny, G. P. (2015). An evaluation of the physiological strain experienced by electrical utility workers in North America. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12(10), 708–720. 10.1080/15459624.2015.1043054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Montoya‐Rincon, J. P. , Azad, S. , Pokhrel, R. , Ghandehari, M. , Jensen, M. P. , & Gonzalez, J. E. (2022). On the use of satellite nightlights for power outages prediction. IEEE Access, 10, 16729–16739. 10.1109/access.2022.3149485 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Morrissey, M. C. , Casa, D. J. , Brewer, G. J. , Adams, W. M. , Hosokawa, Y. , Benjamin, C. L. , et al. (2021). Heat safety in the workplace: Modified Delphi consensus to establish strategies and resources to protect the US workers. GeoHealth, 5(8), e2021GH000443. 10.1029/2021GH000443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) . (2016). Attribution of extreme weather events in the context of climate change. The National Academies Press. 10.17226/21852 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) . (2024). Compounding disasters in Gulf Coast communities 2020–2021: Impacts, findings, and lessons learned. The National Academies Press. 10.17226/27170 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. National Safety Council . (2022). Position/policy statement: Extreme temperatures. Retrieved from https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/0b1f4f14‐0a80‐4ca7‐9b1d‐9e483c46a55e/w%20extreme%20temperatures%20173
  29. NIOSH . (2016). NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: Occupational exposure to heat and hot environments. In Jacklitsch B., Williams W. J., Musolin K., Coca A., Kim J.‐H., et al. (Eds.), U.S. department of health and human services, centers for disease control and prevention, national institute for occupational safety and health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication; [Google Scholar]
  30. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) . (2022). National emphasis program – Outdoor and indoor heat‐related hazards. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_03‐00‐024.pdf
  31. Reesman, C. , & Miller, P. (2023). Elevated heat indices resulting from hurricane‐related defoliation: A case study. International Journal of Biometeorology, 67(8), 1323–1333. 10.1007/s00484-023-02499-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rogers, B. , & Lawhorn, E. (2007). Disaster preparedness: Occupational and environmental health professionals’ response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. AAOHN Journal, 55(5), 197–207. 10.1177/216507990705500506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rusiecki, J. A. , Thomas, D. L. , Chen, L. , Funk, R. , McKibben, J. , & Dayton, M. R. (2014). Disaster‐related exposures and health effects among US Coast Guard responders to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: A cross‐sectional study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(8), 820–833. 10.1097/jom.0000000000000188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sebatli, A. , Cavdur, F. , & Kose‐Kucuk, M. (2017). Determination of relief supplies demands and allocation of temporary disaster response facilities. Transportation Research Procedia, 22, 245–254. 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Smart, D. A. , Graves, J. M. , Lindsey Eberman, M. S. , Rowa, S. , & Stephanie, R. (2022). Application of Haddon's Matrix in the exploration of factors related to exertional heat illness in disaster responders in the US National Guard. Journal of Environmental Health, 84(8), 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  36. Spangler, K. R. , Liang, S. , & Wellenius, G. A. (2022). Wet‐bulb globe temperature, universal thermal climate index, and other heat metrics for US Counties, 2000–2020. Scientific Data, 9(1), 326. 10.1038/s41597-022-01405-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Stull, R. (2000). Meteorology for Scientists and engineers. Brooks/Cole. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tetzlaff, E. J. , Cassan, C. , Goulet, N. , Gorman, M. , Hogya, B. , & Kenny, G. P. (2024). “Breaking down in tears, soaked in sweat, and sick from the heat”: Media‐based composite narratives of first responders working during the 2021 heat dome. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 67(5), 442–452. 10.1002/ajim.23576 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Texas Tribute . (2024). Texans heading into a second week without electricity are battling heat, frustration and boredom. Retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/15/texans‐power‐outages‐hurricane‐beryl/
  40. Tustin, A. , Sayeed, Y. , Berenji, M. , Fagan, K. , McCarthy, R. B. , Green‐McKenzie, J. , et al. (2021). Prevention of occupational heat‐related illnesses. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(10), e737–e744. 10.1097/jom.0000000000002351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. World Meteorological Organization . (2021). WMO Atlas of mortality and economic losses from weather, climate and water extremes (1970–2019) vol WMO‐No. 1267 (WMO).

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Citations

  1. Grundstein, A. , Shephard, J. M. , Stearns, R. , & Ritchie, M. (2025). Modeled wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT) at Houston‐area weather stations [Dataset]. figshare. 10.6084/m9.figshare.30727244 [DOI]
  2. Iowa Environmental Mesonet. (IEM) . (2025). ASOS‐AWOS‐METAR data archive [Dataset]. Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtml?network=TX_ASOS

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information S1

GH2-9-e2025GH001521-s001.docx (80.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Weather data were obtained from the Iowa State University's Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM) ASOS‐AWOS‐METAR data archive: https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtml?network=TX_ASOS. The modeled wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGTs) at each Houston‐area weather station are available at Grundstein et al. (2025).

Articles from GeoHealth are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES