Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Ideal Ergonomical Design for Light Hand Activities in Standing


Affiliations
1 Terna Pt College,Navi Mumbai, India
2 Talegaon Pt College Pune, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


AIM: To find out ideal ergonomic position for light hand work activities in standing.

Objectives: 1. To find out the co-relation between person's height and distance of the platform for performing hand activities in standing. 2. To find out the common area of pain for three different platforms for different distances.

Purpose of Study: The purpose of the study is to know whether hand activities which are involved in standing are causing any musculoskeletal discomfort or not.

Methodology: a) Study Design: Cross sectional study, b) Sample Population: PCMC Area&Sample Size: 100, c) Sampling Technique: Random sampling, d) Inclusion Criteria: Healthy subjects (both males&females) between the of 25-50 years are selected&further divided in 4 groups.

Exclusion Criteria: 1.Acute injury to back 2. Infection (unhealed / healing ) 3. Congenital deformities 4. Spinal upper and lower limb deformities 5. Neurological deficit e) Outcome Measures : VAS, Timing, Repetitions and Area of pain f) Data Collection&Analysis: ANOVA and POST HOC TEST is used for seeing correlation between person's height and distance of the platform for performing hand activities in standing.

Results: a) Subjects in group 1, performed better at distance of 4 inch on 30&32 inch platforms (p values are 0.000&0.032), b) Subjects in group 2, performed better at distance of 4 inch on 32 inch platform (p value 0.032), c) Subjects in group 3, performed better at distance of 4 inch on 32&34 inch platforms ( p values are 0.032&0.690), d) For 4th group people no platform was found to be comfortable.

Conclusion: The study concluded that,light handwork activities if performed at waist level and at nearest distance;activities can be performed comfortably without causing much of musculoskeletal discomfort.The commonest area of pain noticed was lowback pain.

Clinical Significance : The study can be implemented while designing a platform for hand activities.The height of platform at which the activities are going to be performed should be at subject's waist level.


Keywords

30, 32 and 34 Inches Heighted Platforms, 12,8 and 4 Inches Distances, Quarter Kg Weight and Repetitions
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • International Labour Organization (www. itcilo.it).

  • Board of certification of professional Ergonomics:Certification for ergonomists and human factorsProfessionals,Bellingham,wash 1993.

  • Grandjean E(1988),Fitting the task to man(4edt),London,Taylor and Francis.

  • Chaffin DB; Occupational Biomechanics,ed2,1991, John Wily and Sons.

  • Konz SA:industrial ergonomics ed 3,Worthingtonohio 1990,Publishing Horizons.

  • Canadian center for occupational health andsafety(www.ccohs.org).

  • Allaert FA,Causse C et at cenbiotechCHRU,Dijion,France:Int Angiol, 2005sep;24(3):265-71.

  • Mohseni-Bandpei ma et al Rehablitaton dept.,Mazandaran uni.Iran:Br.J Nurs.2006 sep 28-oct11;15(17):914-7.

  • Planning by E and OE New forts data.

  • Joseph De Chiara and John HancockCallender(1973)-time saver standards forbuilding types.

  • Grandjean E(1973) Ergo.of the home.NewYork:John Wiley and sons.

  • Saunders MS and MC Cornick EJ (1993),Humanfactors in engineering and design.(7 ed).

  • Dictionary of occupational titles,Secretary 20,CFRA 416.967(b),USA.

  • Bao S,Howard N et al,safety and healthassessment and research for preventionprogram,usa:ergo.2006 mar 15;49(4) 381-92.

  • Schierhout GH,Meyers JE Community healthdept. South Africa:occup.environ med.1995 jan;52(1) 146-50.

  • Sinacore,DR and Delitto A:Recovery from a 1min.bout of fatiguing exs.Phy Ther 74:234-241,1994.

  • Eastman Kodak company:Ergonomic Design forpeople at work,vol1,New York 1983,VanNorstrand Reinhold.

  • Al haboubi MH, Baig A. Systems engineeringdept. Saudi Arabia :Hum Ergol (Tokyo)1997 Jan;26(1):39-50.

  • Lacey RJ et al Primary Care Sciences ResearchCentre, UK : Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005 July.

  • Trinkoff Am at al Dept of Family & Community. Health, Maryland, USA: AM J Ind. Med 2006. Nov; 49 (11): 964 – 7121.

  • Pop MH et at Liberty safe work Research CenterUni. of Aberdan, Scotland UK: Annu Rev. BiomedEng. 2002, 4 : 49 – 68 Epub 2002 March 22.

  • Grant KA, Harbes DJ, NIOSH, USA Appl. Ergon. 1994 October 25 (5): 310-823.

  • Choobineh A. et al dept. of Occupation health,Iran App. Ergon. 2006 September 2324.

  • Lee SW, Chan CK et al Dept. of Rehab. Sciences,Kowloon Hong Kong: Spine 2006 September 1,31(91): 2258-62.

  • Gagnon M, Smyth G Dept. of physical Edu. Uni. of Montreal, PQ Canada; J Biomech 1991, 24 (3-4)191-203.

  • Matherson LN, Melhorn JN et al WashingtonUniversity School of Medicine, USA, J Bone JointSurg Am 2006 August; 88 (8) : 1782 –7.

  • Price at el 1983, Jensen et al 1986, Pain, MLZACK& WALL

  • Phasant S (1991), Ergonomics, Eork & Heath,Gaithersburg, MD Aspen.

  • NIOSH (1989), Criteria for recommendedstandard Occupational exposure to hand armvibration.

  • Putz Anderson V (Ed) 1988, Cumulative traumadisorders: A manual for musculoskeletal diseaseof the upper limb, London, Taylor & Francis.

  • Kroemar E (2001) Fitting the task to the person(5th edition), Philadelphia, Taylor & Francis.

  • Journal of engineering design published byTaylor & Francis, Vol 17.

  • Musculoskeletal disorders & the workplace: Lowback & upper entremities. By institute ofmedicine national research couneil.

  • Scandinavian Journal of Rehrblitation medicine(1989) Biering Sorensen J Hilden.

  • Pheasant S (1996) Bodyspace: Anthrometryergonomics & the design of work (2nd ed.) LondonTaylor & Francis.

  • Isernhagen SJ, work injury: management &prevention Rockville, Md, 1988 Aspen Publishes.

  • Pheasant S: Ergonomics: work & health,Gaithersburg Md. 1991, Aspen Publishers.

  • Snook SH, White AH: Education & training inOccupational Low Back pain, Pope MH,Frymoyer J editors, Philadelphia 1983.

  • Stubbs DA et al: Back pain in the Nursingprofession: the effectiveness of training,Ergonomics 26 (8) : 767 – 779 1983.

  • Melton B: Back injury prevention Meanseducation, Occupational health & safety 52 : 20 –23 1983.

  • Ritul D, Aelen R: Value of work, professional safty23 – 25, November 1988.

  • Alters D:A growing pain in the workplace, startribune, Minneapolis, Minn March 8 1992.

  • Bullock MI: Ergonomics, the physiotherapists inthe work place, Churchill / Livingston New York1990.

  • Caplan SH et al: Ergonomic Design for people atwork, Eastman Vol 1983.

  • Hertz RP, EA: Risk factors for occupational Handinjury, J occupational Medicine 28 (1): 36, Jan 1986.

  • Macleod D: good ergonomics is good economics,preventing injury 2:(3): 14, summer 1993.

  • Rodgers Recovery time needs for Repetitivework, sem occupational medicine 2 : 19-24, 1987.

  • Clarke J: office Ergonomics: the wimp factor?Occupational, P 234 August 1991.

  • Armstrong TJ et al, Repetitive trauma DisordersJob evaluation & design, human factors 325-336:1986.

  • Yevng SS et al Department of Rehab. Sciences,Hong Kong: Ergonomics 2003 May 15, 46 (6)574 –597.


Abstract Views: 536

PDF Views: 0




  • Ideal Ergonomical Design for Light Hand Activities in Standing

Abstract Views: 536  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Manoj Agnihotri
Terna Pt College,Navi Mumbai, India
Snehal Ghodey
Talegaon Pt College Pune, India

Abstract


AIM: To find out ideal ergonomic position for light hand work activities in standing.

Objectives: 1. To find out the co-relation between person's height and distance of the platform for performing hand activities in standing. 2. To find out the common area of pain for three different platforms for different distances.

Purpose of Study: The purpose of the study is to know whether hand activities which are involved in standing are causing any musculoskeletal discomfort or not.

Methodology: a) Study Design: Cross sectional study, b) Sample Population: PCMC Area&Sample Size: 100, c) Sampling Technique: Random sampling, d) Inclusion Criteria: Healthy subjects (both males&females) between the of 25-50 years are selected&further divided in 4 groups.

Exclusion Criteria: 1.Acute injury to back 2. Infection (unhealed / healing ) 3. Congenital deformities 4. Spinal upper and lower limb deformities 5. Neurological deficit e) Outcome Measures : VAS, Timing, Repetitions and Area of pain f) Data Collection&Analysis: ANOVA and POST HOC TEST is used for seeing correlation between person's height and distance of the platform for performing hand activities in standing.

Results: a) Subjects in group 1, performed better at distance of 4 inch on 30&32 inch platforms (p values are 0.000&0.032), b) Subjects in group 2, performed better at distance of 4 inch on 32 inch platform (p value 0.032), c) Subjects in group 3, performed better at distance of 4 inch on 32&34 inch platforms ( p values are 0.032&0.690), d) For 4th group people no platform was found to be comfortable.

Conclusion: The study concluded that,light handwork activities if performed at waist level and at nearest distance;activities can be performed comfortably without causing much of musculoskeletal discomfort.The commonest area of pain noticed was lowback pain.

Clinical Significance : The study can be implemented while designing a platform for hand activities.The height of platform at which the activities are going to be performed should be at subject's waist level.


Keywords


30, 32 and 34 Inches Heighted Platforms, 12,8 and 4 Inches Distances, Quarter Kg Weight and Repetitions

References