| 1. |
- Heiden, Marina, et al.
(författare)
-
A comparison of two strategies for building an exposure prediction model
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0003-4878 .- 1475-3162. ; 60:1, s. 74-89
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cost-efficient assessments of job exposures in large populations may be obtained from models in which “true” exposures assessed by expensive measurement methods are estimated from easily accessible and cheap predictors. Typically, the models are built on the basis of a validation study comprising “true” exposure data as well as an extensive collection of candidate predictors from questionnaires or company data, which cannot all be included in the models due to restrictions in the degrees of freedom available for modeling. In these situations, predictors need to be selected using procedures that can identify the best possible subset of predictors among the candidates. The present study compares two strategies for selecting a set of predictor variables. One strategy relies on stepwise hypothesis testing of associations between predictors and exposure, while the other uses cluster analysis to reduce the number of predictors without relying on empirical information about the measured exposure. Both strategies were applied to the same dataset on biomechanical exposure and candidate predictors among computer users, and they were compared in terms of identified predictors of exposure as well as the resulting model fit using bootstrapped resamples of the original data. The identified predictors were, to a large part, different between the two strategies, and the initial model fit was better for the stepwise testing strategy than for the clustering approach. Internal validation of the models using bootstrap resampling with fixed predictors revealed an equally reduced model fit in resampled datasets for both strategies. However, when predictor selection was incorporated in the validation procedure for the stepwise testing strategy, the model fit was reduced to the extent that both strategies showed similar model fit. Thus, the two strategies would both be expected to perform poorly with respect to predicting biomechanical exposure in other samples of computer users.
|
|
| 2. |
- Liljelind, Ingrid, et al.
(författare)
-
Determinants Explaining the Variability of Hand-Transmitted Vibration Emissions From Two Different Work Tasks : Grinding and Cutting Using Angle Grinders
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - : Oxford University Press. - 0003-4878 .- 1475-3162. ; 57:8, s. 1065-1077
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There are numerous factors including physical, biomechanical, and individual that influence exposure to hand-transmitted vibration (HTV) and cause variability in the exposure measurements. Knowledge of exposure variability and determinants of exposure could be used to improve working conditions. We performed a quasi-experimental study, where operators performed routine work tasks in order to obtain estimates of the variance components and to evaluate the effect of determinants, such as machine–wheel combinations and individual operator characteristics.Methods: Two pre-defined simulated work tasks were performed by 11 operators: removal of a weld puddle of mild steel and cutting of a square steel pipe. In both tasks, four angle grinders were used, two running on compressed air and two electrically driven. Two brands of both grinding and cutting wheels were used. Each operator performed both tasks twice in a random order with each grinder and wheel and the time to complete each task was recorded. Vibration emission values were collected and the wheel wear was measured as loss of weight. Operators’ characteristics collected were as follows: age, body height and weight, length and volume of their hands, maximum hand grip force, and length of work experience with grinding machines (years). The tasks were also performed by one operator who used four machines of the same brand. Mixed and random effects models were used in the statistical evaluation.Results: The statistical evaluation was performed for grinding and cutting separately and we used a measure referring to the sum of the 1-s r.m.s. average frequency-weighted acceleration over time for completing the work task (a sa). Within each work task, there was a significant effect as a result of the determinants ‘the machine used’, ‘wheel wear’, and ‘time taken to complete the task’. For cutting, ‘the brand of wheel’ used also had a significant effect. More than 90% of the inherent variability in the data was explained by the determinants. The two electrically powered machines had a mean a sa that was 2.6 times higher than the two air-driven machines. For cutting, the effect of the brand of wheel on a sa was ~0.1 times. The a sa increased both with increasing wheel wear and with time taken to complete the work task. However, there were also a number of interaction effects which, to a minor extent, modified the a sa. Only a minor part (1%) of the total variability was attributed to the operator: for cutting, the volume of the hands, maximum grip force, and body weight were significant, while for grinding, it was the maximum grip force. There was no clear difference in a sa between the four copies of the same brand of each machine.Conclusions: By including determinants that were attributed to the brand of both machine and wheel used as well as the time taken to complete the work task, we were able to explain >90% of the variability. The dominating determinant was the brand of the machine. Little variability was found between operators, indicating that the overall effect as due to the operator was small.
|
|
| 3. |
- Liljelind, Ingrid, 1968-, et al.
(författare)
-
Variability in Hand-Arm Vibration During Grinding Operations
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - : Oxford Journals. - 0003-4878 .- 1475-3162. ; 55:3, s. 296-304
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Measurements of exposure to vibrations from hand-held tools are often conducted on a single occasion. However, repeated measurements may be crucial for estimating the actual dose with good precision. In addition, knowledge of determinants of exposure could be used to improve working conditions. The aim of this study was to assess hand–arm vibration (HAV) exposure during different grinding operations, in order to obtain estimates of the variance components and to evaluate the effect of work postures. Methods: Ten experienced operators used two compressed air-driven angle grinders of the same make in a simulated work task at a workplace. One part of the study consisted of using a grinder while assuming two different working postures: at a standard work bench (low) and on a wall with arms elevated and the work area adjusted to each operator’s height (high). The workers repeated the task three times. In another part of the study, investigating the wheel wear, for each grinder, the operators used two new grinding wheels and with each wheel the operator performed two consecutive 1-min grinding tasks. Both grinding tasks were conducted on weld puddles of mild steel on a piece of mild steel. Measurements were taken according to ISO-standard 5349 [the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration (m s−2) averaged over 1 min]. Mixed- and random-effects models were used to investigate the influence of the fixed variables and to estimate variance components. Results: The equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration assessed when the task was performed on the bench and at the wall was 3.2 and 3.3 m s−2, respectively. In the mixed-effects model, work posture was not a significant variable. The variables ‘operator’ and ‘grinder’ together explained only 12% of the exposure variability and ‘grinding wheel’ explained 47%; the residual variability of 41% remained unexplained. When the effect of grinding wheel wear was investigated in the random-effects model, 37% of the variability was associated with the wheel while minimal variability was associated with the operator or the grinder and 37% was unexplained. The interaction effect of grinder and operator explained 18% of the variability. In the wheel wear test, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted accelerations for Grinder 1 during the first and second grinding minutes were 3.4 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively, and for Grinder 2, they were 3.1 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively. For Grinder 1, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration during the first grinding minute was significantly higher (P = 0.04) than during the second minute. Conclusions: Work posture during grinding operations does not appear to affect the level of HAV. Grinding wheels explained much of the variability in this study, but almost 40% of the variance remained unexplained. The considerable variability in the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration has an impact on the risk assessment at both the group and the individual level.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wahlström, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
Full-Shift Trunk and Upper Arm Postures and Movements Among Aircraft Baggage Handlers
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0003-4878 .- 1475-3162. ; 60:8, s. 977-90
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The present study assessed full-shift trunk and upper arm postural exposure amplitudes, frequencies, and durations among Swedish airport baggage handlers and aimed to determine whether exposures differ between workers at the ramp (loading and unloading aircraft) and baggage sorting areas.METHODS: Trunk and upper arm postures were measured using inclinometers during three full work shifts on each of 27 male baggage handlers working at a large Swedish airport. Sixteen of the baggage handlers worked on the ramp and 11 in the sorting area. Variables summarizing postures and movements were calculated, and mean values and variance components between subjects and within subject (between days) were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood algorithms in a one-way random effect model.RESULTS: In total, data from 79 full shifts (651h) were collected with a mean recording time of 495min per shift (range 319-632). On average, baggage handlers worked with the right and left arm elevated >60° for 6.4% and 6.3% of the total workday, respectively. The 90th percentile trunk forward projection (FP) was 34.1°, and the 50th percentile trunk movement velocity was 8° s(-1). For most trunk (FP) and upper arm exposure variables, between-subject variability was considerable, suggesting that the flight baggage handlers were not a homogeneously exposed group. A notable between-days variability pointed to the contents of the job differing on different days. Peak exposures (>90°) were higher for ramp workers than for sorting area workers (trunk 0.6% ramp versus 0.3% sorting; right arm 1.3% ramp versus 0.7% sorting).CONCLUSIONS: Trunk and upper arm postures and movements among flight baggage handlers measured by inclinometry were similar to those found in other jobs comprising manual material handling, known to be associated with increased risks for musculoskeletal disorders. The results showed that full-shift trunk (FP) and, to some extent, peak arm exposures were higher for ramp workers compared with sorting workers.
|
|
| 5. |
- Wahlström, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
Upper arm postures and movements in female hairdressers across four full working days
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - : Oxford University Press. - 0003-4878 .- 1475-3162. ; 54:5, s. 584-594
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To describe upper arm postures and movements among female hairdressers, including the variability between hairdressers, between days within hairdresser, and between tasks, as a basis for understanding the characteristics of exposures in the job, considering possible sources of variation and recovery, and discussing appropriate exposure assessment strategies.Methods: Data on upper arm postures were collected using inclinometers during four working days the same week from 28 female hairdressers working in 13 salons. Twenty of the hairdressers noted customer on and off times in a diary, to allow separate analyses of customer tasks (CT) and auxiliary non-customer tasks (AT), including breaks. For a number of posture and movement variables, mean values and variance components between subjects (BS) and within subjects between days (BD) were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood algorithms in one-way random effect models.Results: For the 20 hairdressers with diaries, CT accounted for 279 min (58%) (SDBS = 39 min and SDBD = 85 min) of the working day and AT and breaks for 207 min (42%) (SDBS = 46 min and SDBD = 88 min). The hairdressers worked with the right arm elevated >60° for 6.8% of the whole job (SDBS = 2.8% and SDBD = 2.0%). On average, the hairdressers worked with the right arm elevated >60° for 9.0% of the time during CT, compared to 3.7% during AT, resulting in a contrast between tasks of 0.35.Conclusions: Hairdressers may be at risk for developing musculoskeletal disorders in the neck and shoulders due to a considerable occurrence of highly elevated arms, especially during CT. On the other hand, we do not find reasons to classify hairdressing as a job with too little variation. Posture variability between days within hairdressers was in the same order of magnitude as that between hairdressers, suggesting that ‘typical’ workdays do not exist. The exposure contrast between CT and AT for variables describing elevated arm postures indicates that for these variables a simple task-based approach for estimating job exposure could be successful.
|
|
