Advertisement

Thumb Plastic Guard Effect on the Insertion of Push Pins Using Psychophysical Methodology

  • Alejandro Iván Coronado Ríos
  • Delcia Teresita Gamiño Acevedo
  • Enrique Javier De la Vega Bustillos
  • Francisco Octavio Lopez Millan
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

The present study was made through the usage of the psychophysical methodology applied to 14 women previously being trained for 4 days making insertion tests with the usage of their thumb finger on time frames of 8 h for five days to obtain knowledge. Maximum strength level in the insertion of 1 to 4 Push-pins using a thumb splint. During the investigation 14 workstations with push pins involved on the labor operation were selected, more than 90% were above the recommended acceptance limit of strength, which is of 10 lb from 1–7 push pins and 7 lb from 8–12 (Longo et al. 2004). This research evaluates the usage of a thumb plastic guard customized to plant population to implement new protective personal equipment in order to increase the strength of this muscular group in workstation with push pins.

Test was divided into 4 weekly sessions; First is an inclusion per minute with dominant hand, non-dominant and both thumbs per minute, Second: two insertions per minute with dominant hand, non-dominant and both thumbs, Session 3: three insertions per minute with dominant hand, non-dominant and both thumbs, Session 4: four insertions per minute with dominant hand and non-dominant. It showed that performance with splint increase since without this device applied force does not exceed 11 lb.

Keywords

Psychophysical methodology Maximum strength level 

References

  1. Chapelot D, Pichon A (2013) Improvement of energy expenditure prediction from heart rate during running. Physiol Meas 35:253–266. IOP ScienceGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaves A (2008) Tenosinovitis estenosante, SCieloGoogle Scholar
  3. De Diego F (2008) Lesiones Tendinosas de mano y muñeca en el ámbito laboral, pp 30–35Google Scholar
  4. Kroemer K, Kroemer H, Kroemer-Elbert K (2001) Ergonomics how to design for ease and efficiency. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. LaDou J (2007) Diagnóstico y tratamiento en medicina laboral y ambiental. McGraw-Hill, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  6. Longo N, Potvin J, Stephens A (2004) A psychophysical analysis to determine aceptable forces for repetitive thumb insertionsGoogle Scholar
  7. Muñoz JE (2011) Ergonomía. Universidad de Antioquia, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Niebel B, Freivalds A (2009) Ingeniería Industrial Métodos, estándares y diseño del trabajo, vol 12. Editorial McGraw HillGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro Iván Coronado Ríos
    • 2
  • Delcia Teresita Gamiño Acevedo
    • 1
  • Enrique Javier De la Vega Bustillos
    • 1
  • Francisco Octavio Lopez Millan
    • 1
  1. 1.Industrial Engineer DepartmentInstituto Tecnológico de HermosilloHermosilloMexico
  2. 2.Ford Stamping and Assembly PlantHermosilloMexico

Personalised recommendations