Noise exposed of the operators of combine harvesters with and without a cab

Sümer, Sarp Korkut; Say, Sait M.; Ege, Fikri; Sabanci, Alaettin

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.11.006

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Gellerstedt (2002), 4,000 control inputs per hour have to be carried out by the operator, due to the lack of automatic functions of the boom and harvester head. Despite the ergonomic design of the cabs, the operators of mobile machinery are exposed mainly to noise (Hansson 1990;Axelsson 1998;Marsili et al 1998;Nieuwenhuis, Lyons 2002;Messingerová et al 2005;Sümer 2006;Beuk et al 2007;Gerasimov, Sokolov 2009;Aybek et al 2010;Bilski 2013), whole-body vibrations (Boileau, Rakheja 1990;Burdorf, Swuste 1993;Magnusson et al 1993;Hansson 1995;Huston et al 1999;Hinz et al 2002;Paddan, Griffin 2002;Hostens, Ramon 2003;Chen et al 2003;Sherwin et al 2004a,b;Deprez et al 2005;Kolich et al 2005;Tiemessen et al 2007;Li et al 2008;Gerasimov, Sokolov 2009), microclimatic conditions -mostly temperature, and airflow velocity inside the cab (Gao, Niu 2004;Kaynakli, Kilic 2005;Huang et al 2006;Mezrhab, Bouzidi 2006;Cengiz, Babalik 2007;Farzaneh, Tootoonchi 2008;Kim et al 2009;Zhang et al 2009a,b;Alahmer et al 2011), and severe mental and sensory load (Axelsson, Pontén 1990;Poschen 1993;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Martin¹,

Messingerová²,

Ferenčík³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article was aimed at assessment of selected factors of the work environment, which influenced the operators of harvesters and forwarders. The selection of the work environment factors was based on a thorough literature survey. From the survey exposure to whole-body vibrations, noise (equivalent and peak), microclimatic conditions and mental load were selected for detailed observations. The measurements were conducted according to international standards and assessed according to European or national legislation. Subjective assessment of the effects of the work environment was conducted through a structured interview. The exposure to whole-body vibrations was 0.5 m·s -2 . The equivalent noise exposure was 78 dB, peak noise exposure was 130 dB. The average temperature inside the machine cabs was 17.9°C and average airflow velocity was 0.06 m·s -2 . Mental load was high according to the Meister questionnaire, three operators considered the load inadequate, two considered it adequate. Subjective assessment showed that operators considered other factors to be light or no load.Keywords: noise exposure; whole-body vibrations; microclimate; mental load Work environment is a set of all conditions in which workers carry out their work. It consists of all workers and factors present at the workplace, or of those who have to do with the work and influence the health or comfort of workers. The worker is exposed to many harmful factors which interact and their joint effect can be synergistic or complementary (Schwartz et al. 2013).Operators of multi-operational machinery carry out their tasks in ergonomically designed cabs capable of partial attenuation of noise and vibrations caused by the machine movement, driving gear, and working parts of the machine. Cabs are also equipped with air conditioning and glare reducing windows. Some factors (e.g. electromagnetic, ionising radiation, various chemical factors, or energy expenditure) do not apply to the jobs of multioperational machinery operators. Their assessment would only consume time with no significant effect on the overall outcome of the assessment. The nature of work in mechanized logging partially shifted from physical to mental after employment of multi-operational machinery. The need for muscular activity decreased and the need to stay concentrated and alert through long periods grew in importance. Harvester operators have to be able to process a lot of information, react quickly, and retain their concentration in monotonous, repetitive operations (Axelsson, Pontén 1990;Poschen 1993;Gellerstedt 1997;Gellestedt et al. 1999;Tsioras 2012). Operating the machines is quite demanding. According to Gellerstedt (2002), 4,000 control inputs per hour have to be carried out by the operator, due to the lack of automatic functions of the boom and harvester head. Despite the ergonomic design of the cabs, the operators of mobile machinery are exposed mainly to noise (Hans-

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Martin¹,

Messingerová²,

Ferenčík³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar results were found in studies that compared open-cab with closed-cab agricultural equipment. 15,34 Moreover, it is recommended that windows and doors of existing enclosed cabs on ride-on equipment be completely closed when in use. 20 Regular maintenance of equipment and tools to reduce worksite noise is also recommended in many industries, particularly in construction, 12,32,33 and may also apply to groundskeeping.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Occupational Noise Exposure among Groundskeepers in North Carolina Public Universities

Balanay

Kearney

Mannarino

2016

Environ�Health�Insights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groundskeepers may have increased risk to noise-induced hearing loss due to the performance of excessively noisy tasks. This study assessed the exposure of groundskeepers to noise in multiple universities and determined the association between noise exposure and variables (ie, university, month, tool used). Personal noise exposures were monitored during the work shift using noise dosimetry. A sound level meter was used to measure the maximum sound pressure levels from groundskeeping equipment. The mean Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) time-weighted average (TWA) noise exposures were 83.0 ± 9.6 and 88.0 ± 6.7 dBA, respectively. About 52% of the OSHA TWAs and 77% of the NIOSH TWAs exceeded 85 dBA. Riding mower use was associated with high TWA noise exposures and with having OSHA TWAs exceeding 85 and 90 dBA. The maximum sound pressure levels of equipment and tools measured ranged from 76 to 109 dBA, 82% of which were >85 dBA. These findings support that groundskeepers have excessive noise exposures, which may be effectively reduced through careful scheduling of the use of noisy equipment/tools.

show abstract

“…For instance, the effects of low-frequency noise in the cab environment, inducing stress, fatigue, depression and errors of judgement, has been studied. [8][9][10][11] The interdependency of tilt angle in tilting trains, and various anthropometric parameters of passengers in motion sickness propagation, have been reported by Beard and Griffin. 12 Similarly, the relationship between user-centred cab component design, and driver workload and performance, has been explored by Hitchcock et al, 13 Sumpor et al 14…”

Section: Rail Human Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of system design-related factors on the safety performance of metro drivers

Rjabovs

Palacín

2016

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is accepted that system design affects train driver performance, the literature related to this phenomenonin relation to urban railways and metro systems in particular-is scarce. Metro systems differ significantly from mainline railways, being closed systems, with shorter headways, a greater number of stations and more signals encountered. This paper aims to investigate the effects of design-related performance shaping factors on metro driver performance, by analysing historical incident records for the 2011-2013 period on the Tyne & Wear (T&W) Metro (UK). Bivariate statistical analysis has been used, to assess the potential inter-dependency of the performance shaping factors and other common causal factors, for various driver-related incident types. In addition to category A signals passed at danger incidents, station overruns, and incidents associated with station procedures have also been assessed. The results show the significant importance of the location (design) based performance shaping factors in incident propagation mechanisms in the Metro. The two years under investigation display increased consistency between driver-related incidents and locations, rather than time of day, or season. In addition, the highest correlation between incidents has been found in terms of locations. Deviations from a standardised T&W Metro station design were found to associate with either an increase or decrease in incident rates, depending on whether additional complexity or simplicity was introduced. Although the features of metro systems suggest improved route knowledge and system familiarity among drivers, the results show that this can actually lead to an unsatisfactory safety-related performance during non-routine operations, e.g. engineering works, or driving in sidings.

show abstract

Noise exposed of the operators of combine harvesters with and without a cab

Cited by 21 publications

References 2 publications

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Assessment of Occupational Noise Exposure among Groundskeepers in North Carolina Public Universities

The influence of system design-related factors on the safety performance of metro drivers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About