Search

Mechanical arm systems are commonly used to support powered hand tools to alleviate ergonomic stressors related to the development of workplace musculoskeletal disorders. However, the use of these systems can increase exposure times to other potentially harmful agents such as hand-transmitted vibration. To examine how these tool support systems affect tool vibration, the primary objectives of this study were to characterize the vibration emissions of typical portable pneumatic grinders used for surface grinding with and without a mechanical arm support system at a workplace and to estimate the potential risk of the increased vibration exposure time afforded by the use of these mechanical arm systems. This study also developed a laboratory-based simulated grinding task based on the ISO 28927-1 (2009) standard for assessing grinder vibrations; the simulated grinding vibrations were compared with those measured during actual workplace grinder operations. The results of this study demonstrate that use of the mechanical arm may provide a health benefit by reducing the forces required to lift and maneuver the tools and by decreasing hand-transmitted vibration exposure. However, the arm does not substantially change the basic characteristics of grinder vibration spectra. The mechanical arm reduced the average frequency-weighted acceleration by about 24% in the workplace and by about 7% in the laboratory. Because use of the mechanical arm system can increase daily time-on-task by 50% or more, the use of such systems may actually increase daily time-weighted hand-transmitted vibration exposures in some cases. The laboratory acceleration measurements were substantially lower than the workplace measurements, and the laboratory tool rankings based on acceleration were considerably different than those from the workplace. Thus, it is doubtful that ISO 28927-1 is useful for estimating workplace grinder vibration exposures or for predicting workplace grinder acceleration rank orders.

For exposure to hand-transmitted vibration (HTV), personal protective equipment is sold in the form of anti-vibration (AV) gloves, but it remains unclear how much these gloves actually reduce vibration exposure or prevent the development of hand-arm vibration syndrome in the workplace. This commentary describes some of the issues that surround the classification of AV gloves, the assessment of their effectiveness and their applicability in the workplace. The available information shows that AV gloves are unreliable as devices for controlling HTV exposures. Other means of vibration control, such as using alternative production techniques, low-vibration machinery, routine preventative maintenance regimes, and controlling exposure durations are far more likely to deliver effective vibration reductions and should be implemented. Furthermore, AV gloves may introduce some adverse effects such as increasing grip force and reducing manual dexterity. Therefore, one should balance the benefits of AV gloves and their potential adverse effects if their use is considered.

Sheet metal workers operating rivet bucking bars are at risk of developing hand and wrist musculoskeletal disorders associated with exposures to hand-transmitted vibrations and forceful exertions required to operate these hand tools. New bucking bar technologies have been introduced in efforts to reduce workplace vibration exposures to these workers. However, the efficacy of these new bucking bar designs has not been well documented. While there are standardized laboratory-based methodologies for assessing the vibration emissions of many types of powered hand tools, no such standard exists for rivet bucking bars. Therefore, this study included the development of a laboratory-based method for assessing bucking bar vibrations which utilizes a simulated riveting task. With this method, this study evaluated three traditional steel bucking bars, three similarly shaped tungsten alloy bars, and three bars featuring spring-dampeners. For comparison the bucking bar vibrations were also assessed during three typical riveting tasks at a large aircraft maintenance facility. The bucking bars were rank-ordered in terms of unweighted and frequency-weighted acceleration measured at the hand-tool interface. The results suggest that the developed laboratory method is a reasonable technique for ranking bucking bar vibration emissions; the lab-based riveting simulations produced similar rankings to the workplace rankings. However, the laboratory-based acceleration averages were considerably lower than the workplace measurements. These observations suggest that the laboratory test results are acceptable for comparing and screening bucking bars, but the laboratory measurements should not be directly used for assessing the risk of workplace bucking bar vibration exposures. The newer bucking bar technologies exhibited significantly reduced vibrations compared to the traditional steel bars. The results of this study, together with other information such as rivet quality, productivity, tool weight, comfort, worker acceptance, and initial cost can be used to make informed bucking bar selections.

UNLABELLED: Motorized vibrating manure forks were used in beach-cleaning operations following the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico during the summer of 2010. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to characterize the vibration emissions of these motorized forks and to provide a first approximation of hand-transmitted vibration exposures to workers using these forks for beach cleaning. METHODS: Eight operators were recruited to operate the motorized forks during this laboratory study. Four fork configurations were used in the study; two motor speeds and two fork basket options were evaluated. Accelerations were measured near each hand as the operators completed the simulated beach-cleaning task. RESULTS: The dominant vibration frequency for these tools was identified to be around 20 Hz. Because acceleration was found to increase with motor speed, workers should consider operating these tools with just enough speed to get the job done. These forks exhibited considerable acceleration magnitudes when unloaded. CONCLUSIONS: The study results suggest that the motor should not be operated with the fork in the unloaded state. Anti-vibration gloves are not effective at attenuating the vibration frequencies produced by these forks, and they may even amplify the transmitted vibration and increase hand/arm fatigue. While regular work gloves are suitable, vibration-reducing gloves may not be appropriate for use with these tools. These considerations may also be generally applicable for the use of motorized forks in other workplace environments.

The use of riveting hammers can expose workers to harmful levels of hand-transmitted vibration (HTV). As a part of efforts to reduce HTV exposures through tool selection, the primary objective of this study was to evaluate the applicability of a standardized laboratory-based riveting hammer assessment protocol for screening riveting hammers. The second objective was to characterize the vibration emissions of reduced vibration riveting hammers and to make approximations of the HTV exposures of workers operating these tools in actual work tasks. Eight pneumatic riveting hammers were selected for the study. They were first assessed in a laboratory using the standardized method for measuring vibration emissions at the tool handle. The tools were then further assessed under actual working conditions during three aircraft sheet metal riveting tasks. Although the average vibration magnitudes of the riveting hammers measured in the laboratory test were considerably different from those measured in the field study, the rank orders of the tools determined via these tests were fairly consistent, especially for the lower vibration tools. This study identified four tools that consistently exhibited lower frequency-weighted and unweighted accelerations in both the laboratory and workplace evaluations. These observations suggest that the standardized riveting hammer test is acceptable for identifying tools that could be expected to exhibit lower vibrations in workplace environments. However, the large differences between the accelerations measured in the laboratory and field suggest that the standardized laboratory-based tool assessment is not suitable for estimating workplace riveting hammer HTV exposures. Based on the frequency-weighted accelerations measured at the tool handles during the three work tasks, the sheet metal mechanics assigned to these tasks at the studied workplace are unlikely to exceed the daily vibration exposure action value (2.5 m s(-2)) using any of the evaluated riveting hammers.

To provide a means for comparing impact wrenches and similar tools, the international standard ISO 8662-7 prescribes a method for measuring the vibrations at the handles of tools during their operations against a cotton-phenolic braking device. To improve the standard, alternative loading mechanisms have been proposed; one device comprises aluminum blocks with friction brake linings, while another features plate-mounted bolts to provide the tool load. The objective of this study was to evaluate these three loading methods so that tool evaluators can select appropriate loading devices in order to obtain results that can be applied to their specific workplace operations. Six experienced tool operators used five tool models to evaluate the loading mechanisms. The results of this study indicate that different loads can yield different tool comparison results. However, any of the three devices appears to be adequate for initial tool screenings. On the other hand, vibration emissions measured in the laboratory are unlikely to be fully representative of those in the workplace. Therefore, for final tool selections and for reliably assessing workplace vibration exposures, vibration measurements should be collected under actual working conditions. Evaluators need to use appropriate numbers of tools and tool operators in their assessments; recommendations are provided.

In the interest of providing more effective evaluations of impact wrench vibration exposures and the development of improved methods for measuring vibration emissions produced by these tools, this study focused on three variables: acceleration measured at the tool surface, vibration exposure duration per test trial, and the amount of torque required to unseat the nuts following a test trial. For this evaluation, six experienced male impact wrench operators used three samples each of five impact wrench models (four pneumatic models and one battery-powered model) in a simulated work task. The test setup and procedures were based on those provided by an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee overseeing the revision of ISO 8662-7. The work task involved the seating of 10 nuts onto 10 bolts mounted on steel plates. The results indicate that acceleration magnitudes vary not only by tool type but also by individual tools within a type. Thus, evaluators are cautioned against drawing conclusions based on small numbers of tools and/or tool operators. Appropriate sample sizes are suggested. It was further noted that evaluators could draw different conclusions if tool assessments are based on ISO-weighted acceleration as opposed to unweighted acceleration. As expected, vibration exposure durations varied by tool type and by test subject; duration means varied more for study participants than they did for tool types. For the 12 pneumatic tools evaluated in this study, torque varied directly with tool handle acceleration. Therefore, in order to reduce vibration exposure, tools should be selected and adjusted so that they produce no more than the needed torque for the task at hand.

Objectives: Prolonged exposure to severe chipping hammer vibration may cause hand–arm vibration syndrome. A reliable test method is required to select appropriate tools and assist in the development of better chipping hammers. In the present study, the ISO standardized test method (ISO 8662-2, 1992) was examined through an investigation of the vibration characteristics of chipping hammers operating on the energy absorber specified in the standard. Methods: The energy absorber and test setup were designed and constructed based on those specified in the standard. The experiment employed six subjects and used two pneumatic chipping hammers and three different feed forces (50, 100 and 200 N). The subject posture was the same as that specified in the standard. Results: The vibration emission at the tool dominant frequency (or air blow rate) generally declined with an increase in feed force, thus decreasing the frequency-weighted accelerations. The increase in feed force, however, resulted in an increase in the unweighted vibration emission at high frequencies. The chipping hammer vibration emission operating on the energy absorber at the high feed force (200 N) was inconsistent. Conclusions: The measurement method has a good repeatability except at a high feed force. The feed force has a significant effect on the vibration emission. The single feed force specified in the standard may not be sufficient to test the tool behaviors. Multiple levels of feed force should be used for the chipping hammer test. Doing so may provide a more appropriate basis for tool screening.