Physical Load Among Construction Workers and Analysis with Objective Ergonomics Research Method

  • Zenija Roja
  • Henrijs Kalkis
  • Ingars Reinholds
  • Inara Roja
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 489)

Abstract

There is growing number of work related musculoskeletal disorders among workers in construction industry. Employees in construction professions admit physical load and discomfort in various body parts after the work. Accordingly to Eurostat statistical data 60 % of total work related diseases are attributed to musculoskeletal disorders in Latvia. The aim of this study was to determine physical load of construction auxiliary workers and bricklayers using objective ergonomics research method HR monitoring and subjective ergonomic risk assessment methods. The research involved full time 8 auxiliary construction workers and 7 bricklayers. Analysis of the heart rate monitoring data proved that objective physical load analysis method is more precise than subjective workload evaluation methods. Results showed that construction workers workload falls into hard and moderate work heaviness category. More experienced workers with longer length of service were subjected to lower work heaviness category.

Keywords

Bricklayers Auxiliary workers Heart rate Physical load Ergonomics 

References

  1. 1.
    Goldsheyder, D., Nordin, M., Weiner, S.S., Hiebert, R.: Musculoskeletal symptom survey among mason tenders. Am. J. Ind. Med. 42(5), 384–396 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marras, W.S., Allread, W.G., Burr, D.L., Fathallah, F.A.: Prospective validation of a low-back disorder risk model and assessment of ergonomic interventions associated with manual materials handling tasks. Ergonomics 43(11), 1866–1886 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armstrong, T., Buckle, P., Lawrence, F., Hagberg, M., Jonsson, B., Kilbom, A., Kuorinka, I., Silverstein, B., Sjogaard, G., Viikari-Juntura, E.: A conceptual model for work-related neck and upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 19, 73–84 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buckle, P.W., Devereux, J.J.: The nature of work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Appl. Ergonomics 33(3), 207–217 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaffin, D.B.: Biomechanical aspects of workplace design. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. pp. 772–789. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dugan, S.A., Frontera, W.R.: Muscle fatigue and muscle injury. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 11(2), 385–403 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forde, M.S., Punnett, L., Wegman, D.H.: Pathomechanisms of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: conceptual issues. Ergonomics 45(9), 619–630 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roja, Z., Kalkis, V., Vain, A., Kalkis, H., Eglite, M.: Assessment of skeletal muscle fatigue of road maintenance workers based on heart rate monitoring and myotonometry. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 1, 20 (2006). doi:10.1186/1745-6673-1-20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Punnett, L., Fine, L.J., Keyserling, W.M.: Back disorders and non neutral trunk postures of automobile assembly workers. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 17, 337–346 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matos, M., Arezes, P.M.: ergonomic evaluation of office workplaces with rapid office strain assessment (ROSA). In: 6th international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the affiliated conferences, pp. 4689–4694. Elsevier Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inbar, O., Oten, A., Scheinowitz, M., Rotstein, A., Dlin, R., Casaburi, R.: Normal cardiopulmonary responses during incremental exercise in 20–70-yr-old men. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 26(5), 538–546 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mantoe, H.I., Kemper, W.M., Saris, M., Wasshburn, R.A.: Measuring Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, Illinois, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borg, G.: Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 14(5), 377–381 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steinberg, U., Caffier, G., Liebers, F.: Assessment of manual material handling based on key indicators—German guidelines. In: Handbook of Standards in Ergonomics and Human Factors, Karwowski, W. (ed.) pp. 319–338. Lawrenz Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, London (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waters, T.R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., Fine, L.J.: Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 36(7), 749–776 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dempsey, P.G.: Usability of the revised NIOSH equation. Ergonomics 45(12), 817–828 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koningsveld, E.A.P., Van der Molen, H.F.: History and future of ergonomics in building and construction. In: Seppälä, P., Luopajärvi, T., Nygård, C.-H., Mattila, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, vol. 6, pp. 136–138. Tampere, Finland (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maritz, J.S., Morrison, J.F., Peters, J., Strydon, N.B., Wyndham, C.H.: A practical method of estimating an individual’s maximum oxygen uptake. Ergonomics 4, 97–122 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brouha, L.: Physiology in Industry. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK (1967)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andersen, J.H., Haahr, J.P., Frost, P.: Risk factors for more severe regional musculoskeletal symptoms: a two-year prospective study of a general working population. Arthritis Rheum. 56(4), 1355–1364 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krause, N., Brand, R.J., Kaplan, G.A., Kauhanen, J., Malla, S., Tuomainen, T.P.: Occupational physical activity, energy expenditure and 11-year progression of carotid atherosclerosis. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 33(6), 405–424 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisenbach, B., Spannhake, B.: Bauarbeitsbedingungen in Ländern der Europäischen Gemeinschaft [Requisites in construction work in EU countries] (Forshungsbericht No 365.) Bundeanstalt für Arbeitsschutz, Dortmund, Germany (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zenija Roja
    • 1
  • Henrijs Kalkis
    • 2
  • Ingars Reinholds
    • 1
  • Inara Roja
    • 3
  1. 1.University of LatviaRigaLatvia
  2. 2.Riga Stradins UniversityRigaLatvia
  3. 3.Riga 1st HospitalRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations