Influence of Face Masks on Physiological and Subjective Response during 130 Min of Simulated Light and Medium Physical Manual Work-An Explorative Study.

BACKGROUND: Undesirable side effects from wearing face masks during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continue to be discussed and pose a challenge to occupational health and safety when recommending safe application. Only few studies examined the effects of continuously wearing a face mask for more than one hour. Therefore, the influence of wearing a medical mask (MedMask) and a filtering facepiece class II respirator (FFP2) on the physiological and subjective outcomes in the course of 130 min of manual work was exploratively investigated. Physical work load and cardiorespiratory fitness levels were additionally considered as moderating factors. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy subjects (12 females) from three different cardiorespiratory fitness levels each performed 130 min of simulated manual work with light and medium physical workload using either no mask, a MedMask or FFP2. Heart rate, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide partial pressure (PtcO2, PtcCO2) as well as perceived physical exertion and respiratory effort were assessed continuously at discrete time intervals. Wearing comfort of the masks were additionally rated after the working period. RESULTS: There was no difference in time-dependent changes of physiological outcomes when using either a MedMask or a FFP2 compared to not wearing a mask. A stronger increase over time in perceived respiratory effort occurred when the face masks were worn, being more prominent for FFP2. Physical workload level and cardiorespiratory fitness level were no moderating factors and higher wearing comfort was rated for the MedMask. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that using face masks during light and medium physical manual work does not induce detrimental side effects. Prolonged wearing episodes appeared to increase respiratory effort, but without affecting human physiology in a clinically relevant way.

Limitations in evaluating COVID-19 protective face masks using open circuit spirometry systems: respiratory measurement mask introduces bias in breathing pressure and perceived respiratory effort.

Objective.In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting widespread use of protective face masks, studies have been and are being conducted to investigate potential side effects of wearing masks on the performance and physiological parameters of wearers. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether and to what extent the use of a respiratory measurement (RM) mask-which is normally used during open-circuit spirometry-influences the results of these types of studies.Approach.34 subjects were involved in this intra-subject study with a cross-over design. Four different protective face masks, Community Mask, medical Mouth-Nose-Protection Mask, Filtering Face Piece Mask Class 2 (FFP2), and FFP2 with exhalation valve (FFP2ex), were tested at rest and during deep breathing by using or not using a RM mask (RM versus noRM). Breathing pressure inside the protective face masks was measured during inhalation and exhalation, and subjects rated breathing effort using an 11-stage Borg scale.Main results.The use of an additional RM mask-worn over the protective face masks-significantly increased inspiratory pressures under all mask conditions. The respiratory pressure rises to a level that substantially distorts the results. Expiratory pressure was also significantly increased except for the FFP2ex mask condition. The perceived respiratory effort was significantly increased by 1.0 to 2.8 steps on the Borgs scale for all mask conditions compared with noRM.Significance.We strongly recommend avoiding the use of RM masks for evaluating the effects of protective face masks on human physiology and subjective perception.

Using a Back Exoskeleton During Industrial and Functional Tasks-Effects on Muscle Activity, Posture, Performance, Usability, and Wearer Discomfort in a Laboratory Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of using a passive back-support exoskeleton (Laevo V2.56) on muscle activity, posture, heart rate, performance, usability, and wearer comfort during a course of three industrial tasks (COU; exoskeleton worn, turned-on), stair climbing test (SCT; exoskeleton worn, turned-off), timed-up-and-go test (TUG; exoskeleton worn, turned-off) compared to no exoskeleton. BACKGROUND: Back-support exoskeletons have the potential to reduce work-related physical demands. METHODS: Thirty-six men participated. Activity of erector spinae (ES), biceps femoris (BF), rectus abdominis (RA), vastus lateralis (VL), gastrocnemius medialis (GM), trapezius descendens (TD) was recorded by electromyography; posture by trunk, hip, knee flexion angles; heart rate by electrocardiography; performance by time-to-task accomplishment (s) and perceived task difficulty (100-mm visual analogue scale; VAS); usability by the System Usability Scale (SUS) and all items belonging to domains skepticism and user-friendliness of the Technology Usage Inventory; wearer comfort by the 100-mm VAS. RESULTS: During parts of COU, using the exoskeleton decreased ES and BF activity and trunk flexion, and increased RA, GM, and TD activity, knee and hip flexion. Wearing the exoskeleton increased time-to-task accomplishment of SCT, TUG, and COU and perceived difficulty of SCT and TUG. Average SUS was 75.4, skepticism 11.5/28.0, user-friendliness 18.0/21.0, wearer comfort 31.1 mm. CONCLUSION: Using the exoskeleton modified muscle activity and posture depending on the task applied, slightly impaired performance, and was evaluated mildly uncomfortable. APPLICATION: These outcomes require investigating the effects of this passive back-supporting exoskeleton in longitudinal studies with longer operating times, providing better insights for guiding their application in real work settings.

Effects of a Passive Back-Support Exoskeleton on Knee Joint Loading during Simulated Static Sorting and Dynamic Lifting Tasks.

Due to the load shifting mechanism of many back-support exoskeletons (BSEs), this study evaluated possible side effects of using a BSE on knee joint loading. Twenty-nine subjects (25.9 (±4.4) years, 179.0 (±6.5) cm; 73.6 (±9.4) kg) performed simulated static sorting and dynamic lifting tasks, including stoop and squat styles and different trunk rotation postures. Ground reaction force, body posture and the force between the chest and the BSE's contact interface were recorded using a force plate, two-dimensional gravimetric position sensors, and a built-in force sensor of the BSE, respectively. Using these parameters and the subject's anthropometry, median and 90th percentile horizontal (HOR50, HOR90) and vertical (VERT50, VERT90) tibiofemoral forces were calculated via a self-developed inverse quasi-static biomechanical model. BSE use had a variable effect on HOR50 dependent on the working task and body posture. Generally, VERT50 increased without significant interaction effects with posture or task. HOR90 and VERT90 were not affected by using the BSE. In conclusion, utilizing the investigated exoskeleton is likely to induce side effects in terms of changed knee joint loading. This may depend on the applied working task and the user's body posture. The role of these changes in the context of a negative contribution to work-related cumulative knee exposures should be addressed by future research.

Effects of Face Masks on Physical Performance and Physiological Response during a Submaximal Bicycle Ergometer Test.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires wearing face masks in many areas of our daily life; hence, the potential side effects of mask use are discussed. Therefore, the present study explores whether wearing a medical face mask (MedMask) affects physical working capacity (PWC). Secondary, the influence of a filtering facepiece mask with exhalation valve class 2 (FFP2exhal) and a cotton fabric mask (community mask) on PWC was also investigated. Furthermore, corresponding physiological and subjective responses when wearing face masks as well as a potential moderating role of subjects' individual cardiorespiratory fitness and sex on face mask effects were analyzed. Thirty-nine subjects (20 males, 19 females) with different cardiorespiratory fitness levels participated in a standardized submaximal bicycle ergometer protocol using either a MedMask, FFP2exhal, community mask, or no mask (control) on four days, in randomized order. PWC130 and PWC150 as the mechanical load at the heart rates of 130 and 150 beats per minute were measured as well as transcutaneous carbon dioxide partial pressure, saturation of peripheral capillary oxygen, breathing frequency, blood pressure, perceived respiratory effort, and physical exhaustion. Using the MedMask did not lead to changes in PWC or physiological response compared to control. Neither appeared changes exceeding normal ranges when the FFP2exhal or community mask was worn. Perceived respiratory effort was up to one point higher (zero-to-ten Likert scale) when using face masks (p < 0.05) compared to control. Sex and cardiorespiratory fitness were not factors influencing the effects of the masks. The results of the present study provide reason to believe that wearing face masks for infection prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic does not pose relevant additional physical demands on the user although some more respiratory effort is required.

Using a Passive Back Exoskeleton During a Simulated Sorting Task: Influence on Muscle Activity, Posture, and Heart Rate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate using a back exoskeleton in a simulated sorting task in a static forward bent trunk posture on muscle activity, posture, and heart rate (HR). BACKGROUND: Potentials of exoskeletons for reducing musculoskeletal demands in work tasks need to be clarified. METHODS: Thirty-six healthy males performed the sorting task in 40°-forward bent static trunk posture for 90 seconds, in three trunk orientations, with and without exoskeleton. Muscle activity of the erector spinae (ES), biceps femoris (BF), trapezius descendens (TD), rectus abdominis (RA), vastus laterals (VL), and gastrocnemius medialis was recorded using surface electromyography normalized to a submaximal or maximal reference electrical activity (%RVE (reference voluntary electrical activity)/%MVE). Spine and lower limb postures were assessed by gravimetric position sensors, and HR by electrocardiography. RESULTS: Using the exoskeleton resulted in decreased BF muscle activity [-8.12%RVE], and minor changes in ES [-1.29%MVE], RA [-0.28%RVE], VL [-0.49%RVE], and TD [+1.13%RVE] muscle activity. Hip and knee flexion increased [+8.1°; +6.7°]. Heart rate decreased by 2.1 bpm. Trunk orientation had an influence on BF muscle activity. CONCLUSION: Using the back exoskeleton in a short sorting task with static trunk posture mainly reduced hip extensor muscle activity and changed lower limb but not spine posture. Implications of using a back exoskeleton for workers' musculoskeletal health need further clarification. APPLICATION: The detected changes by using the Laevo® illustrate the need for further investigation prior to practical recommendations of using exoskeletons in the field. Investigating various work scenarios in different kind of workers and long-term applications would be important elements.

A passive back exoskeleton supporting symmetric and asymmetric lifting in stoop and squat posture reduces trunk and hip extensor muscle activity and adjusts body posture - A laboratory study.

The influence of a passive exoskeleton was assessed during repetitive lifting with different lifting styles (squat, stoop) and orientations (frontal/symmetric, lateral/asymmetric) on trunk and hip extensor muscle activity (primary outcomes), abdominal, leg, and shoulder muscle activity, joint kinematics, and heart rate (secondary outcomes). Using the exoskeleton significantly and partially clinically relevant reduced median/peak activity of the erector spinae (≤6%), biceps femoris (≤28%), rectus abdominis (≤6%) and increased median/peak activity of the vastus lateralis (≤69%), trapezius descendens (≤19%), and median knee (≤6%) and hip flexion angles (≤11%). Using the exoskeleton had only limited influence on muscular responses. The findings imply the exoskeleton particularly supports hip extension and requires an adjusted body posture during lifting with different styles and orientations. The potential of using exoskeletons for primary/secondary prevention of musculoskeletal disorders should be investigated in future research including a greater diversity of users in terms of age, gender, health status.

The influence of using exoskeletons during occupational tasks on acute physical stress and strain compared to no exoskeleton - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis determined the effects of using an exoskeleton during occupational tasks on physical stress and strain compared to not using an exoskeleton. METHODS: Systematic electronic database searches were performed and the review was prepared according to the PRISMA guidelines. Treatment effects on the predefined outcomes were calculated using standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes in several meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020168701). RESULTS: 63 articles were included in qualitative syntheses and 52 in quantitative, but most of them did not extensively evaluate musculoskeletal stress and strain and the risk of bias was rated high for all included studies. Statistically significant effects of using back, upper-limb, or lower-limb exoskeletons have been observed in the supported body areas (e.g. reduced muscle activity, joint moments and perceived strain). Studies which did not exclusively focus on the supported body area also showed statistically significant effects in the non-supported areas (e.g. changed muscle activity and perceived strain) and in physiological outcomes (e.g. reduced energy expenditure). CONCLUSIONS: Using an exoskeleton during occupational tasks seems to reduce user's acute physical stress and strain in the exoskeleton's target area. However, impact on workers' health is still unknown, primarily because of missing long-term evaluations under real working conditions. Furthermore, this systematic review highlights a lack of studies (1) following high quality methodological criteria, (2) evaluating various inter-related stress and strain parameters instead of only focusing on one specific, and (3) evaluating non-target body areas instead of only the directly supported body area.