Evaluation of anti-vibration interventions for the hand during sheet metal assembly work.

OBJECTIVE: Occupational use of vibrating hand tools contributes to the development of upper extremity disorders. While several types of vibration damping materials are commercially available, reductions in vibration exposure are usually tested in the laboratory rather than in actual work environments. This study evaluated reductions in hand vibration with different vibration damping interventions under actual work conditions. METHODS: Three experienced sheet metal assemblers at a manufacturing facility installed sheet metal fasteners with a pneumatic tool using no vibration damping (bare hand) and each of six anti-vibration interventions (five different gloves and a viscoelastic tool wrap). Vibration was measured with tri-axial accelerometers on the tool and the back of the hand. RESULTS: Unweighted mean vibration measured at the hand showed reduced vibration (p<0.001) for all six interventions (range = 3.07-5.56 m/s(2)) compared to the bare hand condition (12.91 m/s(2)). CONCLUSIONS: All of the interventions were effective at reducing vibration at the hand during testing under usual work conditions. Field testing beyond laboratory-based testing accounts for the influences of worker, tools, and materials on vibration transmission to the body from specific work operations.

Variability and misclassification of worker estimated hand force.

Ergonomic studies often use worker estimated hand force reproduced on a dynamometer to quantify force exposures but this method has not been well-studied in real work settings. This study evaluated the validity of worker estimates of hand force in a field study and determined the misclassification of worker estimated hand force exposures compared to directly measured forces. Eight experienced sheet metal assemblers completed »-inch diameter fastener installations using 6 different pneumatic tools. Grip forces were recorded by a pressure mat and were compared to worker estimated forces demonstrated on a dynamometer. Directly measured and worker estimated readings showed moderate correlations (0.53-0.67) for four installation tools and fair to moderate for two tools. The coefficient for variation of force estimates was 65% within repeated subject trials and 78% between averaged subject trials but 69% between subject trials during actual tool installations. Misclassification of worker estimated exposures varied by two cut-points: 29% using 4.0 kg and 49% using 6.0 kg. The force match procedure may provide adequate differentiation of high and low exposures in some settings, but is likely to result in substantial misclassification in other settings.