Search

Aims: To explore the precision of task based estimates of upper arm elevation in three occupational groups, compared to direct measurements of job exposure., Methods: Male machinists (n = 26), car mechanics (n = 23), and house painters (n = 23) were studied. Whole day recordings of upper arm elevation were obtained for four consecutive working days, and associated task information was collected in diaries. For each individual, task based estimates of job exposure were calculated by weighting task exposures from a collective database by task proportions according to the diaries. These estimates were validated against directly measured job exposures using linear regression. The performance of the task based approach was expressed through the gain in precision of occupational group mean exposures that could be obtained by adding subjects with task based estimates to a group of subjects with measured job exposures in a "validation" design., Results: In all three occupations, tasks differed in mean exposure, and task proportions varied between individuals. Task based estimation proved inefficient, with squared correlation coefficients only occasionally exceeding 0.2 for the relation between task based and measured job exposures. Consequently, it was not possible to substantially improve the precision of an estimated group mean by including subjects whose job exposures were based on task information., Conclusions: Task based estimates of mechanical job exposure can be very imprecise, and only marginally better than estimates based on occupation. It is recommended that investigators in ergonomic epidemiology consider the prospects of task based exposure assessment carefully before placing resources at obtaining task information. Strategies disregarding tasks may be preferable in many cases.

Three work station design studies in forestry machines were carried out with regard to shoulder/arm muscle load. (1) In an arm rest study, a movable (in the sagittal plane) arm rest was compared with a fixed one; (2) in a lever study, a mini lever with a small deflection was compared with an ordinary hand lever; (3) in a boom control study, a computer controlled boom system was compared with an ordinary boom system. In the arm rest study eight male subjects carried out lever operations in the laboratory. In the lever and boom studies, 15 male forestry students operated forwarders. Muscle load, cycle time, skill, perceived exertion, heart rate and preferred set up were recorded. The muscle loads on the upper trapezius, infraspinatus, extensor carpi ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis were recorded by electromyography. With mini lever and movable arm rest the upper trapezius load was reduced with preserved or decreased cycle time, although the grand mean of the 'static' load level was only about 2% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and the effects of the new designs were small (about 0.7% MVC). The subjects preferred the lever/arm rest also giving the lowest muscle load. No differences between levers or arm rests were found in skill, perceived exertion or heart rate. It was not possible to draw any definitive conclusions regarding effects of the boom control system, due to technical problems. According to the literature, the duration of lever operation has increased considerably in forestry during recent years as part of a rationalization process. Partly due to this, it is suggested that the investigated work station improvements may not be sufficient to eliminate the risk for shoulder-neck disorders.

The electromyographical (EMG) response to isometric ramp contractions of the right arm, the left arm, and both arms was studied using four pairs of surface electrodes above the right upper trapezius muscle (UT) of six men and six women. Contractions were made against gravity with the active arm(s) in eight positions, ranging from flexion to abduction. To describe arm positions, new, simple terminology was developed. Root mean square (rms)-converted EMG-signals were normalized (EMGnorm) with respect to a reference contraction. The EMGnorm corresponding to a 15 N.m torque in the right glenohumeral (GH) joint was strongly related to the position of the right arm (P less than 0.001). The shape of this relationship depended on the electrode position (P less than 0.001). The ratio between EMGnorm at 30 N.m and 15 N.m GH torques was related to arm position (P less than 0.001) and differed between electrodes (P less than 0.001). A left-side GH torque resulted in right-side (contralateral) EMG activity, typically corresponding to 20%-30% of that obtained during similar right-side GH torque. Bilateral GH torque implied 0%-50% increase in EMG activity as compared to that obtained with the right arm alone. The results have shown that signals from one pair of surface electrodes above UT cannot be taken as representative of the EMG activity from electrodes located elsewhere above UT. The EMG recordings reflected a complex pattern of muscular activation, significantly related to both outwardly visible factors (arm position, GH torque), and within-body servosystems (motor control reflexes).