2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physical ergonomic hazards in highway tunnel construction: Overview from the Construction Occupational Health Program

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
28
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the non-trivial marginal costs of data collection mean there are still practical limitations to the number of measurements that can be included in a study. This can be seen in published reports on biomechanical exposure assessments using observational or technical measurements in occupational life, where samples of approximately 100 work shifts are somewhat common [19,26,27], but samples of 200 or more are rare [28]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the non-trivial marginal costs of data collection mean there are still practical limitations to the number of measurements that can be included in a study. This can be seen in published reports on biomechanical exposure assessments using observational or technical measurements in occupational life, where samples of approximately 100 work shifts are somewhat common [19,26,27], but samples of 200 or more are rare [28]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previously collected data using the PATH—Postures, Activities, Tools, and Handling— observation method to assess tunnel and highway construction (Tak et al , 2011) were utilized as the parent data set for this methodological study. PATH (Buchholz et al , 1996) is a work sampling tool to estimate biomechanically relevant exposure variables.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the present paper, the primary biomechanical exposure of interest was trunk posture, which was recorded as a categorical variable with four divisions: neutral (<20° flexion), mild flexion (between 20° and 45°), severe flexion (>45°), and twist (with or without flexion). Trunk posture was selected because it is an important risk factor for back disorders (Punnett et al , 1991) and because non-neutral postures of the trunk were frequently observed in all of the operations represented in the large construction data set (Tak et al , 2011). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Trunk bending >45 degrees was moderately frequent while moving dead pigs (3.5/min) and high while counting and sorting piglets (8.2/min). High levels of trunk bending have been reported in many occupations, 28,30 and back bending has been identified as a particularly relevant hazard in agriculture. 31 A study of Danish pig farmers performing various tasks and found that in most tasks workers had trunk bending more than 20 degrees for about 40% of the time, 5 and a Dutch study found workers exhibited trunk bending over half of working time.…”
Section: Biomechanical Exposuresmentioning
confidence: 99%