Determination and evaluation of acceptable force limits in single-digit tasks

Physical capability limits for right-angle power tool operation

Automotive assembly operations require power tools to secure fasteners and these operations have been linked to increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders. This work was designed to develop physical capability limits for direct current right-angle power tool (RAPT) operations using psychophysics. Forty females fastened joints of different hardness's using three fastening strategies, at three fastening frequencies. Participants chose to fasten, independent of orientation, joints up to 89 (10.6) Nm using Atlas Copco's TurboTight®, compared to 51.8 (8.1) Nm using Atlas Copco's Quickstep and 48.6 (10.2) Nm using Stanley's Automatic Tightening Control. The differences between fastening strategies were not as large when fastening soft joints; 59.2 (16.2), 52.3 (14.6), and 53.5 (11.3) Nm, respectively. As fastening frequency increased, participants chose lower target torque magnitudes to fasten. Based on this work, RAPT manufactures can adjust fastening strategies to improve their tool's ergonomics performance. Practitioner summary: Fastening tasks was identified as posing an injury risk to workers performing automotive assembly, yet presently there are no published physical capability limits for direct current right-angle power tool operation. Using a psychophysical methodology, physical capability limits for RAPT fastenings were established for different joint hardness, fastening frequencies and RAPT position/orientation.

Are psychophysically chosen lifting loads based on joint kinetics?

Tables of maximal acceptable weight limits (MAWL) are used to select safe lifting loads and help reduce workplace injuries. However, their subjective basis provides little information on the underlying load selection rationale, and few studies have examined MAWLs in relation to full-body joint demands. Therefore, link-segment biomechanical modeling was applied for 18 participants during three sagittal 4.3 lifts/minute tasks at chosen MAWL levels. Each lift produced unique kinematics, kinetics, MAWL loads and most highly stressed joints. Lifting from the lowest starting position most heavily challenged the L5/S1 joint, whereas more upright starting postures stressed the shoulder. Lifting loads above and below MAWL level demonstrated consistent joint loading patterns. The normalized peak moments of the highest stressed joint were similar across the lifts at ∼70-75% of the joint maximum. Our results suggest that MAWLs may be chosen based on perception of the most stressed joint for the specific lift.

Grip Type Alters Maximal Pinch Forces in Syringe Use

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine maximum forces during syringe use for different grips found in the field.

BACKGROUND

Prolonged syringe use in chemotherapy drug delivery is associated with pain and injury in nurses and technicians.

METHOD

Twenty healthy female hospital workers generated isometric maximum voluntary force using a 30 cc syringe with four pinch grips (chuck, chuck variation, thenar, two-handed). Both dominant and nondominant hands were used with the syringe plunger fixed in wide (8.3 cm) and narrow (2.5 cm) grip spans. Participants were encouraged to position the apparatus in the most comfortable position and exert a maximal effort for 5 seconds.

RESULTS

Significant interaction effects were found: Grip Span × Pinch Type, Hand × Pinch Type, and Grip Span × Hand × Pinch Type ( p < .05). The results demonstrated that the thenar (103.6 ± 22.9 N) and two-handed (104.7 ± 17.1 N) pinches produced the highest forces.

CONCLUSION

Thenar and two-handed pinch grips may be the preferred pinch type to lower the relative efforts required to use a syringe and may be one strategy to assist with reduction of musculoskeletal disorder risk associated with syringe use.

APPLICATION

Determining maximal syringe press forces allows workers and ergonomists to develop better strategies for managing the cumulative loads during drug delivery and mixing.

The influence of task frequency and force direction on psychophysically acceptable forces in the context of the biomechanically weakest links

This study examined the influence of frequency and direction of force application on psychophysically acceptable forces for simulated work tasks. Fifteen male participants exerted psychophysically acceptable forces on a force transducer at 1, 3, or 5 repetitions per minute by performing both a downward press and a pull toward the body. These exertions were shown previously to be strength and balance limited, respectively. Workers chose acceptable forces at a lower percentage of their maximum voluntary force capacity during downward (strength-limited) exertions than during pulling (balance-limited) exertions at all frequencies (4% to 11%, P = .035). Frequency modulated acceptable hand force only during downward exertions, where forces at five repetitions per minute were 13% less (P = .005) than those at one exertion per minute. This study provides insight into the relationship between biomechanically limiting factors and the selection of acceptable forces for unilateral manual tasks.

Estimating maximum and psychophysically acceptable hand forces using a biomechanical weakest link approach

Accurate estimation of occupational performance capability facilitates better job (re-) design by informing workplace parties about the potential mismatches between job demands and the capability of their labour force. However, estimating occupational performance requires consideration of multiple factors that may govern capacity. In this paper, a novel model is described that uses a stochastic algorithm to estimate how variability in underlying biomechanical constraints affects hand force capability. In addition, the model estimates psychophysically acceptable hand force capacity thresholds by applying a biomechanical weakest link approach. Model estimates were tested against experimentally determined maximal and psychophysically determined hand forces in two exertion directions in constrained postures. The model underestimated maximum hand force capacity relative to measured maximum hand force by 30% and 35% during downward pressing and horizontal pulling, respectively. These values are consistent with those observed using previous two-dimensional models. Psychophysically acceptable hand forces were also underestimated by 29% during both pressing and pulling. Since the psychophysical estimates were scaled as a percentage of the estimated maximum capacity, this suggests that the underestimation in both predictions may be corrected by improving estimates of maximum hand force. Psychophysically acceptable forces were observed to be partially governed by demands at the biomechanical weakest link.

Relationships between psychophysically acceptable and maximum voluntary hand force capacity in the context of underlying biomechanical limitations

This research investigated if proportional relationships between psychophysically acceptable and maximum voluntary hand forces are dependent on the underlying biomechanical factor (i.e. whole body balance or joint strength) that limited the maximum voluntary hand force. Eighteen healthy males completed two unilateral maximal exertions followed by a 30 min psychophysical load-adjust protocol in each of nine pre-defined standing scenarios. Center of pressure (whole body balance) and joint moments (joint strength) were calculated to evaluate whether balance or joint strength was most likely limiting maximum voluntary hand force. The ratio of the psychophysically acceptable force to the maximal force was significantly different depending on the underlying biomechanical factor. Psychophysically acceptable hand forces were selected at 86.3 ± 19.7% of the maximum voluntary hand force when limited by balance (pulling exertions), 67.5 ± 15.2% when limited by joint strength (downward pressing) and 78 ± 23% when the limitation was undefined in medial exertions.

Job Analysis Techniques for Distal Upper Extremity Disorders

Distal upper extremity (DUE) work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are among the most costly injuries suffered in industry today. These WMSDs are reported in both office (computer use) and manufacturing environments. Job physical exposure analysis techniques for DUE WMSDs range from simple checklists to quantitative models. A summary of literature review of biomechanical, physiological, psychophysical and epidemiological bases for job physical exposure risk factors for DUE WMSDs is provided. Several job analysis methods suitable for manufacturing environments are reviewed and discussed. A comparative analysis of Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), Threshold Limit Value for Hand Activity Level (TLV for HAL), and the Strain Index is provided along with results from validation studies and advantages and disadvantages of each method. Three examples from industries are provided to demonstrate applications of RULA, TLV for HAL, and the Strain Index. Last, issues with current job analysis methods when a worker rotates to different jobs and/or when a job consists of several tasks are discussed as well as the need for more robust models to account for these variations in physical exposure in real-world environments.

Effect of cycle time and duty cycle on psychophysically determined acceptable levels in a highly repetitive task

Psychophysical methodology has been used to develop guidelines for lifting and more recently similar methods have been applied to repetitive upper limb movements. While a range of cycle times are usually used, there is often no control for duty cycle. The purpose of this paper is to present psychophysically determined acceptable torques for a common upper limb task, with both cycle time and duty cycle conditions set by the researcher. Eight female participants, sitting at adjustable workstations, performed a simulated in-line screw running task. A computer-controlled torque motor applied a torque every 3, 6, 12 or 20 s with a duty cycle of 25, 50 or 83%. The participants worked with one set of conditions each day and self-selected the highest torque that they felt was acceptable without developing undue pain and discomfort. Duty cycle was found to significantly affect the amount of torque selected. With duty cycle controlled, cycle time was no longer found to have any significant effect on selected torque. Acceptable torques for 25, 50 and 83% duty cycles were 1.09, 0.9 and 0.73 Nm. Discomfort and stiffness were concentrated on the back of the hand and on the thumb web. These findings suggest that increased perception of discomfort with increased frequency (decreased cycle time) may be related to decreased rest/recovery time for muscles.