Search

Background: Exposure to whole body vibration (WBV) is common in construction, agriculture, mining, and transportation. There is strong epidemiological evidence linking WBV with adverse health outcomes in the long-term, including low back pain. Fortunately, WBV exposure guidelines to prevent long-term musculoskeletal disorders and discomfort exist. In the shorter-term, it has been speculated that occupational levels of WBV may lead to increased risk of vehicle accidents and falls during egress; however, the acute effects of different vibration intensities remain poorly understood and it is uncertain whether established standards protect the worker from injurious short-term effects., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the acute sensorimotor, physical, and cognitive effects of occupationally-relevant, simulated whole body vibration (WBV) at levels equivalent to international standard guideline thresholds for long-term discomfort and musculoskeletal disorder risk., Method: Eighteen participants were recruited to perform four, 60-min conditions: (i) Control-no vibration, (ii) Low vibration-equivalent to the exposure action value, (iii) Shock-transient impacts at 1-min intervals superimposed on the Low condition, and (iv) High vibration-equivalent to the exposure limit value. Whole body vibration was simulated using data based on field-collected accelerations experienced by rural workers while operating an all-terrain vehicle. This vibration signal was manipulated to achieve required intensities for each condition and simulated with a 6 degree-of-freedom hexapod platform. Before and after each condition, we collected: rating of perceived body discomfort, rating of perceived headache, postural sway, blink frequency, King-Devick test, and psychomotor vigilance task. Pre- and post-condition data in each condition were submitted to either a paired t-test (parametric) or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (non-parametric). To determine differences between conditions, each condition's post-condition data was normalized to its pre-condition value and entered as the dependent variable in a repeated measures analysis of variance., Results: All conditions, including Control, led to increased upper body discomfort when compared to pre-exposure baseline. The Low condition led to increased discomfort in seven body locations, headache (91% increase from baseline; t = -2.44, P = 0.03), and postural imbalance (53% increase from baseline; t = -2.88, P = 0.01), but the effect on cognitive functioning was less clear. Shock condition led to whole body discomfort, specifically at nine upper body and lower body locations. The High condition led to increased whole body discomfort at all 10 body locations, headache (154% increase from baseline; t = -2.91, P = 0.01), postural imbalance (61% increase from baseline; t = -2.57, P = 0.02), and decrements in vigilance (mean reaction time: 6% increase from baseline, t = -3.27, P = 0.005; Number of lapses: 100% increase from baseline, S = -42.5, P = 0.002)., Conclusion: Although the number of pre-post condition effects increased with higher vibration intensity, these effects were not significantly different from sitting without vibration. Therefore, current guideline thresholds might not protect the worker from acute WBV effects. However, further research is needed to discern these effects from other sources of WBV. Based on this study, future WBV interventions and action controls should not only address vibration reduction, but also consider potential effects from prolonged sitting.

Direct workplace whole-body vibration exposure assessment provides ecological validity for evaluating health risk in epidemiological studies, yet it is complex and expensive in practical applications. Exposure prediction modeling could be a cost-efficient alternative to directly assessing occupational vibration exposures. The objective of this study was to model directly measured whole-body vibration exposures with predictors from machinery, farm, and self-reported characteristics among Canadian prairies farmers. As per ISO 2631-1, whole-body vibration data were measured on the seat surface at three axes (x, y, z), then summarized into vector sums of the root-mean-squared (RMS) acceleration and the vibration dose value (VDV). All candidate predictors were obtained via questionnaires and onsite observations. A total of 87 whole-body vibration measurements were collected from 40 male farm workers located at 21 central Saskatchewan farms. Using log-transformed RMS and time-standardized VDV outcomes, modeling started from the bivariate analysis where predictors with P-values < 0.2 were considered eligible for multivariate analysis. With random effects of 'farm' and 'farmer', a series of mixed-effects models were constructed through the manual backward elimination method. Final models were internally validated by 1000 bootstrapped samples. The RMS model explained 47.7% of the variance in the directly measured RMS vector sum, with 42.7% obtained from five predictors of 'horsepower', 'transmission', 'vehicle year', 'jerk/jolt frequency', and 'seat bottom-out frequency', while the VDV model explained 19.5% of the variance in the directly measured VDV vector sum, with 11.6% described by the same five predictors as the RMS model. Predictive ability of the RMS model among 1000 bootstrapped samples can be anticipated to range from 14.3 to 69.1%, which may be considered adequate as exposure assessment tool for uses of epidemiological studies. The percentage of variance explained ranged from 0 to 40.5% for the VDV model, which is not robust and therefore likely not appropriate for use in survey-based exposure prediction. Whole-body vibration exposure modeling remains valuable, but is challenging in farming; the described model variance may increase with a more comprehensive list of candidate variables collected and quantified at machinery, farm, and farmer level. Predictors identified in the current and future models may provide a better understanding of how whole-body vibration exposure is modified, guide farmer's future decision on updating equipment, and allow for the development and initiation of interventions., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society.)

This study investigated whether rural workers who have higher workplace satisfaction are less likely to report quad bike loss of control events (LCEs). Two independent samples of farmers completed a survey regarding LCEs and workplace satisfaction. In the first sample (n = 130) analysis revealed no relationship (p = 0.74) between workplace satisfaction and LCEs but lower rates of LCEs were reported by employees (IRR 0.52, 95%CI 0.31-0.86) compared to self-employed participants. In the second sample (n = 112), workplace satisfaction was weakly related to LCEs (IRR 1.04, 95%CI 1.00, to 1.09) with participants who found their job more psychologically demanding more likely to have had an LCE (IRR 1.14, 95%CI 1.05-1.23). Exploring the role of psychological demands on safety behaviour with respect to quad bike use, may help to address this important safety issue., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine whether whole-body vibration (WBV) and mechanical shock exposure from quad bike use are associated with the prevalence of neck and low back pain (LBP) in New Zealand farmers and rural workers., Methods: Full-day WBV and mechanical shock exposures were gathered from 130 farmers and rural workers. Participants were surveyed for a history of neck or LBP in the past 7 days and in the past 12 months. Anthropometric, personal, and workplace data were also gathered., Results: Physical exposures (mechanical shocks), employee status, and low levels of workplace satisfaction are all significantly associated with the 12-month prevalence of LBP in this rural workforce that regularly use quad bikes. Both vibration and mechanical shock exposure were strongly associated with 12-month prevalence of neck pain. The 7-day prevalence of neck pain showed a non-significant association with mechanical shock and vibration., Conclusions: Knowledge of these findings will be valuable information for those who teach and advise on safe driving techniques for such vehicles in the rural workplace where reduction of physical exposures and injury rates is of high importance.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) and mechanical shock in rural workers who use quad bikes and to explore how personal, physical, and workplace characteristics influence exposure., Methods: A seat pad mounted triaxial accelerometer and data logger recorded full workday vibration and shock data from 130 New Zealand rural workers. Personal, physical, and workplace characteristics were gathered using a modified version of the Whole Body Vibration Health Surveillance Questionnaire. WBVs and mechanical shocks were analysed in accordance with the International Standardization for Organization (ISO 2631-1 and ISO 2631-5) standards and are presented as vibration dose value (VDV) and mechanical shock (S(ed)) exposures., Results: VDV(Z) consistently exceeded European Union (Guide to good practice on whole body vibration. Directive 2002/44/EC on minimum health and safety, European Commission Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. 2006) guideline exposure action thresholds with some workers exceeding exposure limit thresholds. Exposure to mechanical shock was also evident. Increasing age had the strongest (negative) association with vibration and shock exposure with body mass index (BMI) having a similar but weaker effect. Age, daily driving duration, dairy farming, and use of two rear shock absorbers created the strongest multivariate model explaining 33% of variance in VDV(Z). Only age and dairy farming combined to explain 17% of the variance for daily mechanical shock. Twelve-month prevalence for low back pain was highest at 57.7% and lowest for upper back pain (13.8%)., Conclusions: Personal (age and BMI), physical (shock absorbers and velocity), and workplace characteristics (driving duration and dairy farming) suggest that a mix of engineered workplace and behavioural interventions is required to reduce this level of exposure to vibration and shock.

Whole body vibration (WBV) and mechanical shock were measured in 12 New Zealand farmers during their daily use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). As per the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidelines for WBV exposure, frequencies between 0 and 100Hz were recorded via a seat-pad tri-axial accelerometer during 20min of ATV use. The farmers were also surveyed to estimate seasonal variation in daily ATV usage as well as 7-day and 12-month prevalence of spinal pain. Frequency-weighted vibration exposure and total riding time were calculated to determine the daily vibration dose value (VDV). The daily VDV of 16.6m/s(1.75) was in excess of the 9.1m/s(1.75) action limit set by ISO guidelines suggesting an increased risk of low back injury from such exposure. However, the mean shock factor R, representing cumulative adverse health effects, was 0.31 indicating that these farmers were not exposed to excessive doses of mechanical shock. Extrapolation of daily VDV data to estimated seasonal variations of farmers in ATV riding time demonstrated that all participants would exceed the ISO recommended maximum permissible limits during the spring lambing season, as compared to lower exposures calculated for summer, autumn and winter. Low back pain was the most commonly reported complaint for both 7 day (50%) and 12 month prevalence (67%), followed by the neck (17% and 42%) and the upper back (17% and 25%) respectively. The results demonstrate high levels of vibration exposure within New Zealand farmers and practical recommendations are needed to reduce their exposure to WBV., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

All terrain vehicle (ATV) (i.e. quad bike) loss of control (LOC) events are a major cause of injury and death on New Zealand and Australian farms. ATV LOC history, work experience, anthropometric data and vehicle pitch, roll and velocity data were recorded from 30 farmers. The terrain induced 95th percentiles were forward pitch 27.8 degrees , backward pitch 28.7 degrees and 20.8 degrees for left and right roll. Nineteen participants (mean 42.4 years) had experienced 53 LOC events and were on average 9.5 years younger than the 11 participants (mean 51.9 years) who had not previously experienced LOC. Peak pitch, roll and velocity were not associated with LOC; however, at peak left roll the non-LOC group had a pitch of 3.1 degrees downhill, while the LOC group had a pitch of 2.1 degrees uphill. Results indicate ATV LOC prevalence is considerably underestimated, while increased risk for LOC may be influenced by a combination of personal, mechanical or terrain factors. The ATV pitch, roll and slope traverse data may help in the better understanding of why LOC events occur, may help in the development of safety equipment such as a tilt warning device and will contribute to national safety guidelines. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: Approximately 80,000 ATVs are used in rural New Zealand and ATV accidents are the single most common cause of work-related fatalities, apart from road accidents. This fieldwork research provides pitch, roll and velocity data and considers how these data might contribute to risk of ATV accidents.

Sheep shearing is the most demanding occupation in the wool harvesting industry and is known to have a high prevalence of low back pain. While use of a commercially available trunk harness reduces load on the low back, the extreme trunk flexion associated with shearing still remains. A novel, upright posture shearing technique has been designed to allow a more neutral spine posture. This study assessed this upright technique and found significant reductions in both trunk flexion and cumulative low back loading when compared to either the traditional method or the use of the trunk harness. Moments about the shoulder tended to be higher while using the upright shearing technique and further investigation of shoulder kinetics will be required to assess whether this creates injury risk to the upper extremity. Despite increased shoulder moments, the reduction in flexion and cumulative loading with the use of the upright technique has the potential to reduce risk of low back pain among shearers.

Background: As the sustainability of the agricultural workforce has been threatened by the high prevalence of back pain, developing effective interventions to reduce its burden within farming will contribute to the long‐term health and productivity of workers. Passive back‐support exoskeletons are being explored as an intervention to reduce the physical demands on the back muscles, and consequently mitigate the risk of back pain, in many industrial sectors. Methods: This study investigated whether exoskeleton use could reduce farmers' low back muscle load. Electromyography was used to evaluate exoskeleton use in field and laboratory settings. A total of 14 farmers (13 males and 1 female) with a mean age of 49 (SD = 12) years and 6 female nonfarmers (mean age 28, SD = 5 years) performed a standardized set of tasks that included symmetric and asymmetric lifting and sustained trunk flexion. Following the standardized tasks, 14 farmers also performed regular, real‐world, farm tasks with and without use of the exoskeleton at their farms. Results: Exoskeleton use decreased back muscular load during farming activities up to 65%, 56%, and 48% in static, median, and peak muscle activity, respectively. This indicates potential benefits of exoskeleton use to help farmers work under less muscular load. Paradoxically, exoskeleton use during standardized tasks increased muscle activity for some participants. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the potential effects of using passive exoskeletons in agriculture through observational and experimental research, and is among the first that explores the potential for using exoskeletons during actual work tasks in farm settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: All-terrain vehicles (ATV's) are a hazardous source of injury in many contexts and geographical regions, but to date have not been investigated in Saskatchewan. Methods: Baseline surveys from the Saskatchewan Farm Injury Project were examined at two time points in terms of: (1) rates and correlated characteristics of reported ATV use; and (2) qualitative content analysis of injury events involving ATVs. The sample of eligible farmers was 2,972 in 2007 and 1,702 in 2013. Findings: Self-reported ATV use increased on Saskatchewan farms over the five-year period, both in terms of the number of individuals using ATV's on the farm and the days per year of operation. ATV use is significantly more common on farms with livestock, among male farmers, and among younger farmers. Farmers with low back pain were also more likely to report ATV use. Qualitative content analysis of farmers' reported “most serious injury” on the farm revealed themes related to: (1) tasks undertaken with ATV's at the time of the incident (e.g., stock work and personal transport); (2) contributing factors (vehicle, environmental and driver); and (3) safety reflections. Conclusion: The apparent trends of increasing ATV use on Saskatchewan farms and serious nature of the injury incidents reported indicate that this is an issue worthy of further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intensification of modern swine production has led to many new technologies, including needleless injectors. Although needleless injectors may increase productivity (by reducing injection time) and reduce needlestick injuries, the effect on risk for musculoskeletal disorders is not clear. This project will compare conventional needles with needleless injectors in terms of cost, productivity, injury rates, biomechanical exposures, and worker preference. Muscle activity (EMG) and hand/wrist posture will be measured on swine workers performing injection tasks with both injection methods. Video recordings during the exposure assessments will compare the duration and productivity for each injection method using time-and-motion methods. Injury claim data from up to 60 pig barns will be analyzed for needlestick and musculoskeletal injuries before/after needleless injector adoption. Workers and managers will be asked about what they like and dislike about each method and what helps and hinders successful implementation. The information above will be input into a cost-benefit model to determine the incremental effects of needleless injectors in terms of occupational health, worker preference, and the financial “bottom line” of the farm. Findings will be relevant to the swine industry and are intended to be transferable to other new technologies in animal production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whole body vibration is a significant physical risk factor associated with low back pain. This study assessed farmers’ exposure to whole body vibration on the Canadian prairies according to ISO 2631-1. Eighty-seven vibration measurements were collected with a triaxial accelerometer embedded in a rubber seat pad at the operator-seat interface of agricultural machinery, including tractors, combines, pickup trucks, grain trucks, sprayers, swathers, all-terrain vehicles, and skid steers. Whole body vibration was highest in the vertical axis, with a mean (range) frequency-weighted root mean squared acceleration of 0.43 m/s2(0.19−1.06 m/s2). Mean crest factors exceeded 9 in all 3 axes, indicating high mechanical shock content. The vertical axis vibration dose value was 7.55 m/s1.75(2.18−37.59 m/s1.75), with 41.4% of measurements within or above the health guidance caution zone. These high exposures in addition to an ageing agricultural workforce may increase health risks even further, particularly for the low back. Practitioner Summary: Agricultural workers are frequently exposed to whole body vibration while operating farm equipment, presenting a substantial risk to musculoskeletal health including the low back. Assessing vibration exposure is critical in promoting a safe occupational environment, and may inform interventions to reduce farmer’s exposure to vibration. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Direct workplace whole-body vibration exposure assessment provides ecological validity for evaluating health risk in epidemiological studies, yet it is complex and expensive in practical applications. Exposure prediction modeling could be a cost-efficient alternative to directly assessing occupational vibration exposures. The objective of this study was to model directly measured whole-body vibration exposures with predictors from machinery, farm, and self-reported characteristics among Canadian prairies farmers. As per ISO 2631-1, whole-body vibration data were measured on the seat surface at three axes (x, y, z), then summarized into vector sums of the root-mean-squared (RMS) acceleration and the vibration dose value (VDV). All candidate predictors were obtained via questionnaires and onsite observations. A total of 87 whole-body vibration measurements were collected from 40 male farm workers located at 21 central Saskatchewan farms. Using log-transformed RMS and time-standardized VDV outcomes, modeling started from the bivariate analysis where predictors with P-values < 0.2 were considered eligible for multivariate analysis. With random effects of 'farm' and 'farmer', a series of mixed-effects models were constructed through the manual backward elimination method. Final models were internally validated by 1000 bootstrapped samples. The RMS model explained 47.7% of the variance in the directly measured RMS vector sum, with 42.7% obtained from five predictors of 'horsepower', 'transmission', 'vehicle year', 'jerk/jolt frequency', and 'seat bottom-out frequency', while the VDV model explained 19.5% of the variance in the directly measured VDV vector sum, with 11.6% described by the same five predictors as the RMS model. Predictive ability of the RMS model among 1000 bootstrapped samples can be anticipated to range from 14.3 to 69.1%, which may be considered adequate as exposure assessment tool for uses of epidemiological studies. The percentage of variance explained ranged from 0 to 40.5% for the VDV model, which is not robust and therefore likely not appropriate for use in survey-based exposure prediction. Whole-body vibration exposure modeling remains valuable, but is challenging in farming; the described model variance may increase with a more comprehensive list of candidate variables collected and quantified at machinery, farm, and farmer level. Predictors identified in the current and future models may provide a better understanding of how whole-body vibration exposure is modified, guide farmer's future decision on updating equipment, and allow for the development and initiation of interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Few studies have explored behavioural risk factors for agricultural quad bike use. [•] 51% of farmers had unrealistic optimism regarding the risk of quad bike incident. [•] Farmers with unrealistic optimism report fewer quad bike incidents. [•] Realistic training to highlight rider capabilities and vulnerabilities is proposed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]