Introduction Ergonomics, as defined by the Board of Certification for Professional Ergonomists (BCPE), "is a body of knowledge about human

abilities, human limitations and human characteristics that are relevant to design. Ergonomic design is the a lication of this body of knowledge to the design of tools, machines, systems, tasks, !obs, and environments for safe, comfortable and effective human use" (BCPE, "##$). %he term ergonomics is derived from the &reek word ergos meaning "work" and nomos meaning "natural laws of" or "study of." %he rofession has two ma!or branches with considerable overla . 'ne disci line, sometimes referred to as "industrial ergonomics," or "occu ational biomechanics," concentrates on the hysical as ects of work and human ca abilities such as force, osture, and re etition. ( second branch, sometimes referred to as "human factors," is oriented to the sychological as ects of work such as mental loading and decision making. %he rofession is com rised of racticing and academic engineers, safety rofessionals, industrial hygienists, hysical thera ists, occu ational thera ists, nurse ractitioners, chiro ractors, and occu ational medicine hysicians. )hile many individuals have obtained ergonomics training while ursuing a graduate degree with an ergonomics concentration, colleges and universities around the world are offering ergonomics or human factors courses and degrees. *ome training also is available through conferences and seminars. +ote, -isit the Ergoweb Services Page for u dated conference and seminar information. %he following oints are among the ur ose.goals of ergonomics,

'ccu ational in!ury and illness reduction )orkers/ com ensation costs containment Productivity im rovement )ork 0uality im rovement (bsenteeism reduction &overnment regulation com liance

%he methods by which these goals are obtained involve,

Evaluation and control of work site risk factors 1dentification and 0uantification of e2isting work site risk conditions 3ecommendation of engineering and administrative controls to reduce the identified risk conditions Education of management and workers to risk conditions

Chaffin and (ndersson ("#45), among other authors, succinctly described the activities of the rofession as "fitting the task to the erson."

Workplace Description %he work setting is characteri6ed by an interaction between the following arameters, ". ( worker with attributes of si6e, strength, range of motion, intellect, education, e2 ectations, and other hysical.mental ca acities. 7. ( work setting com rised of arts, tools, furniture, control.dis lay anels and other hysical ob!ects. $. ( work environment created by climate, lighting, noise, vibration, and other atmos heric 0ualities. %he interaction of these arameters determines the manner by which a task is erformed and the hysical demands of the task. 8or e2am le, a 9/ ":", ";:< ound, male worker lifts a $9< ound cabinet from the floor by generating ;:: ounds of force from the low back muscles. (s the hysical demands of a task increase, the risk of in!ury increases. )hen the hysical demands of a task e2ceed the hysiological ca abilities of a worker, an in!ury will likely occur. Work Risk Factors Certain characteristics of the work setting have been associated with in!ury. %hese work characteristics are called risk factors and include, %ask Physical Characteristics ( rimarily interaction between the worker and the work setting)

Posture 8orce -elocity.acceleration 3e etition =uration 3ecovery time >eavy dynamic e2ertion *egmental vibration

Environmental Characteristics ( rimarily interaction between the worker and the work environment)

>eat stress Cold stress )hole body vibration ?ighting +oise

Posture Posture is the osition of the body while erforming work activities. (wkward osture is associated with an increased risk for in!ury. 1t is generally considered that the more a !oint deviates from the neutral (natural) osition, the greater the

risk of in!ury. Posture issues can be created by work methods (bending and twisting to ick u a bo2@ bending the wrist to assemble a art) or work lace dimensions (e2tended reach to obtain a art from a bin at a high location@ kneeling in the storage bay of an air lane because of confined s ace while handling luggage). * ecific ostures have been associated with in!ury. 8or e2am le, )rist

8le2ion.e2tension (bending u and down) Alnar.radial deviation (side bending)

*houlder

(bduction.fle2ion (u er arm ositioned out to the side or above shoulder level) >ands at or above shoulder height

+eck (cervical s ine)

8le2ion.e2tension or bending the neck forward and to the back *ide bending as when holding a tele hone receiver on the shoulder

?ow back

Bending at the waist, twisting

Force %ask forces can be viewed as the effect of an e2ertion on internal body tissues (e.g., com ression on a s inal disc from lifting, tension within a muscle.tendon unit from a inch gras ), or the hysical characteristics associated with an ob!ect(s) e2ternal to the body (e.g., weight of a bo2, ressure re0uired to activate a tool, ressure necessary to sna two ieces together). &enerally, the greater the force, the greater the degree of risk. >igh force has been associated with risk of in!ury at the shoulder.neck (Berg et al., "#44), the low back (>errin et al., "#4;), and the forearm.wrist.hand (*ilverstein et al., "#4B). 1t is im ortant to note that the relationshi between force and degree of in!ury risk is modified by other work risk factors such as osture, acceleration.velocity, re etition, and duration. %wo e2am les of the interrelationshi of force, osture, acceleration.velocity, re etition and duration are, ". ( 7:< ound weight lifted in a smooth, slow manner one time directly in front of the body from a 74 inch shelf to a $7 inch shelf will be much less of a risk than a 7:< ound weight lifted 0uickly ;: times in ": minutes from the floor to a ;: inch shelf.

7. ( 59<degree neck fle2ion osition held for one minute will be much less of a risk that a 59<degree neck fle2ion osition held for $: minutes. Better analysis tools (e.g., "##" 3evised +1'*> ?ifting E0uation) recogni6e the interrelationshi of force with other risk factors relative to overall task risk. 8ive additional force<related in!ury risk conditions have been e2tensively studied by researchers and ergonomists. %hey are not "rudimentary" risk factors. 3ather, they are a work lace condition that resents a combination of risk factors with force being a significant com onent. %heir common a earance in the work lace and strong association with in!ury rom ts their introduction here. Static Exertion (lthough defined in a variety of ways, static e2ertion generally means the erformance of a task from one ostural osition for an e2tended duration. %he condition is a combination of force, osture, and duration. %he degree of risk is in ro ortion to the combination of the magnitude of the e2ternal resistance, awkwardness of the osture, and duration. Grip ( gri is the conformity of the hand to an ob!ect accom anied by the a lication of e2ertion usually to mani ulate the ob!ect. >ence, it is the combination of a force with a osture. &ri s are a lied to tools, arts, and other hysical ob!ects in the work setting during task erformance. %o generate a s ecific force, a inch gri re0uires a much greater muscle e2ertion than a ower gri (ob!ect in the alm of the hand). >ence, a inch gri has a greater likelihood of creating in!ury. %he relationshi between the si6e of the hand and the si6e of the ob!ect also influences risk of in!ury. &rant et al. ("##7) found reduced hysical e2ertion when the handle was one cm less than the sub!ects/ gri diameter. Contact Trauma %wo ty es of contact trauma are, ". ?ocal mechanical stress generated from sustained contact between the body and an e2ternal ob!ect such as the forearm against the edge of a counter. 7. ?ocal mechanical stress generated from shock im act such as using the hand to strike an ob!ect. %he degree of in!ury risk is in ro ortion to the magnitude of force, duration of contact, and shar ness of e2ternal ob!ect. Gloves =e ending on material, gloves may affect the gri force generated by a worker for a given level of muscular e2ertion. %o achieve a certain gri force while wearing gloves, a worker may need to generate greater muscular e2ertion than

when not wearing gloves. &reater force is associated with increased risk of in!ury. Bulk Clot!es Bulky clothes, used to rotect the worker from cold or other hysical elements, may increase the muscle effort re0uired to erform tasks. "elocit #$cceleration (ngular velocity.angular acceleration is the s eed of body art motion and the rate of change of s eed of body art motion, res ectively. Carras and *choenmarklin ("##", "##$) found a mean wrist fle2ion.e2tension acceleration of 5#: deg.sec sec in low risk !obs and acceleration of 47: deg.sec sec in high risk !obs. Carras et al. ("##9) associated trunk lateral velocity and trunk twisting velocity with medium and high<risk occu ationally<related low back disorder. Repetition 3e etition is the time 0uantification of a similar e2ertion erformed during a task. ( warehouse worker may lift and lace on the floor three bo2es er minute@ an assembly worker may roduce 7: units er hour. 3e etitive motion has been associated with in!ury (>agberg, "#4"@ (rmstrong et al., "#47) and worker discomfort (Alin, "##:). &enerally, the greater the number of re etitions, the greater the degree of risk. >owever, the relationshi between re etition and degree of in!ury risk is modified by other risk factors such as force, osture, duration, and recovery time. +o s ecific re etition threshold value (cycles.unit of time, movements.unit of time) is associated with in!ury. Duration =uration is the time 0uantification of e2 osure to a risk factor. =uration can be viewed as the minutes or hours er day the worker is e2 osed to a risk. =uration also can be viewed as the years of e2 osure to a risk factor or a !ob characteri6ed by a risk factor. 1n general, the greater the duration of e2 osure to a risk factor, the greater the degree of risk. * ecific duration limits.guidelines have been established for risk factors that can be isolated. %hese include,

)hole Body -ibration < 1*' 7;$", British *tandards 1nstitution +o. == $7 *egmental -ibration < 1*'.=is 9$5#.7, (C&1> %hreshold ?imit -alues for Chemical *ubstances and Physical (gents and Biological E2 osure 1ndices +oise < 1*' 77:5, '*>( *tandard 7# C83 "#":.#9 >eavy Physical E2ertion.)hole body fatigue < Chaffin ("#;;)

=uration limits for risk factors that can not be isolated (e.g., force.re etition. osture during small assembly task) have not been established. >owever, duration has been associated with in!ury for articular tasks that

involve interaction of risk factors (-=% < Damwendo et al., "##"@ grocery clerks < Cargolis and Drause, "#4B@ +1'*> "##"). Recover time 3ecovery time is time 0uantification of rest, erformance of low stress activity, or erformance of an activity that allows a strained body area to rest. *hort work auses have reduced erceived discomfort (>agberg and *undelin, "#4;) and rest eriods between e2ertions have reduced erformance decrement (Caldwell, "#B:). %he recovery time needed to reduce the risk of in!ury increases as the duration of risk factor increases. * ecific minimum recovery times for risk factors have not been established. %eav d namic exertion %he cardiovascular system rovides o2ygen and metabolites to muscle tissue. *ome tasks re0uire long<term.re etitive muscle contraction such as walking great distances, heavy carrying, and re eat lifting. (s hysical activity increases, muscles demand more o2ygen and metabolites. %he body res onds by increasing the breathing rate and heart rate. )hen muscle demand for metabolites can not be met (metabolic energy e2 enditure rate e2ceeds the body/s energy roducing and lactic acid removal rate) hysical fatigue occurs. )hen this ha ens in a s ecific area of the body (shoulder muscle from re eat or long term shoulder abduction), it is termed locali6ed fatigue and is characteri6ed by tired.sore muscles. )hen this ha ens to the body in general (from long<term heavy carrying.lifting.climbing stairs), it is termed whole body fatigue and may roduce a cardiovascular accident. (lso, high heat from the environment can cause an increase in heart rate through body cooling mechanisms. %herefore, for a given task, metabolic stress can be influenced by environmental heat. Segmental vi&ration '%and($rm vi&ration) -ibration a lied to the hand can cause a vascular insufficiency of the hands.fingers (3aynaud/s disease or vibration white finger). (lso, it can interfere with sensory rece tor feedback leading to increased hand gri force to hold the tool. 8urther, a strong association has been re orted between car al tunnel syndrome and segmental vibration (*ilverstein et al., "#4B@ )ieslander et al., "#4#). %eat stress >eat stress is the total heat load the body must accommodate. 1t is generated

e2ternally from environment tem erature and internally from human metabolism. E2cessive heat can cause heat stroke, a condition that can be life threatening or result in irreversible damage. ?ess serious conditions associated with e2cessive heat include heat e2haustion, heat cram s, and heat<related disorders (e.g., dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, loss of hysical.mental work ca acity). Cold stress Cold stress is the e2 osure of the body to cold such that there is a lowering of the body/s dee core tem erature. *ystemic sym toms that a worker can resent when e2 osed to cold include shivering, clouded consciousness, e2tremity ain, dilated u ils, and ventricular fibrillation. Cold can also reduce hand gri strength and coordination. (s mentioned earlier in the section on 8orce, bulky clothes and gloves used to rotect the worker from cold e2 osure can increase the muscle effort re0uired to erform tasks. W!ole Bod "i&ration E2 osure of the whole body to vibration (usually through the feet.buttocks when riding in a vehicle) has some su ort as a risk for in!ury. Boshui6en et al. ("##:) found the revalence of re orted back ain to be a ro2imately ": ercent higher in tractor drivers than in workers not e2 osed to vibration, and the revalence of back ain increased with vibration dose. =u uis ("#4B) re orted that o erators of earth<moving machines with at least ": years of e2 osure to whole body vibration showed lumbar s ine mor hological changes earlier and more fre0uently than non<e2 osed eo le. *ig!ting )ith industriali6ation, the trend regarding lighting has been to rovide a higher lighting level. %his has roven ha6ardous within certain work settings such as in offices in which roblems with glare and eye sym toms have been associated with levels above "::: lu2 (&rand!ean, "#44). Barreiros and Carnide ("##") found differences in visual functions over the course of a workday among -=% o erators and money changers who worked in badly lighted environments. %he current recommended trend in office lighting is to have low background lighting (from $:: to B:: lu2) cou led with nonglare task lighting which can be controlled with a rheostat. %his is consistent with Eearout and Don6/s ("#4#) findings of o erator reference regarding lighting. )ork that re0uires high visual acuity and contrast sensitivity needs high levels of illumination. 8ine and delicate work should be illuminated at ",::: to ":,::: lu2 (&rand!ean, "#44). +oise +oise is unwanted sound. 1n the industrial setting, it may be continuous or intermittent and resent in various ways (bang of a rifle, clatter of a neumatic wrench, whirl of an electric motor). E2 osure to noise can lead to tem orary and ermanent deafness, tinnitus, aracusis, or s eech mis erce tion. %he louder the noise and the greater its duration, the greater the risk to hearing. (lso, noise

well below thresholds that cause hearing loss may interfere with the ability of some eo le to concentrate. ,t!er Workplace Risks %he risk factors addressed by industrial ergonomics are a artial list of ha6ards resent in the work setting. 'thers include,

Fob stress Fob invariability Cognitive demands )ork organi6ation )orkload )orking hours (shift work, overtime) =is lays and control anels *li and falls 8ire Electrical e2 osures Chemical e2 osures Biological e2 osures 1oni6ing radiation 3adiofre0uency.microwave radiation

Professionals such as industrial hygienists, human factors analysts, safety engineers, occu ational medicine hysicians, and occu ational nurses evaluate and control these other risks. %he ergonomist must recogni6e the skills and ca abilities of these individuals. ( working relationshi is essential for o timum work site health and safety. Workstation Design "ideo Displa Terminal Workstations &eneral ostural guidelines have been develo ed for video dis lay terminal workstations. (ccording to (+*1.>8* "::<"#44, (merican +ational *tandard for >uman 8actors Engineering of -isual =is lay %erminal (-=%) )orkstations, acce table engineering for video dis lay terminals allows for,

%he angle between the u er arm and the forearm at B: degrees to "$9 degrees %he angle between the torso and the thigh at #: to at least ":: degrees %he angle between the u er and lower leg at ;: to ":: degrees %he feet flat on the floor

%he standard also rovides great detail on -=% workstation dimensions such as range of ad!ustability of chair height, work surface height, and knee room height.width. (+*1.>8* "::<"#44 is currently being revised in coo eration with the Business and 1nstitutional 8urniture Canufacturers (ssociation (B18C(). 1t also should be noted that o inions differ as to the "ideal" video dis lay terminal workstation design. 8or e2am le, historically, the recommended height of the

monitor has been that the to of the screen be at a ro2imately eye level. (nkrum and +emeth ("##9) suggest a significantly lower osition. Standing Workstation (ccording to &rand!ean ("#44), o timum work surface height for a standing workstation u on which handwork is erformed is de endent on the elbow height of the worker and the nature of the work. 8or recision work, work surface height should be two to four inches above elbow height, which allows for forearm su ort to reduce static loads in the shoulders. 8or light work, work surface height should be from four to si2 inches below elbow height to allow for s ace for small bins, tools, and materials. 8or heavy work, work surface height should be from si2 to si2teen inches below elbow height to allow for muscular advantage of the u er e2tremity. &rand!ean ("#44) recommends the following standing work surface heights based on the 9:th ercentile male.female and ty e of work. %y e of )ork &ender Precision )ork ?ight )ork >eavy )ork 8emale $B.5" < 5".$" $$.9" < $9.5" 7B.;" < $$.9" Cale $#.5" < 5$.$" $9.5" < $B.5" 7#.9" < $9.5" $ssessing t!e Workplace -or Ergonomic Risk Conditions Evaluation of ergonomic risk conditions generally involves two ste s, ". 1dentification of the e2istence of ergonomic risks 7. Guantification of the degree of ergonomic risk Identi-ication o- ergonomic risk conditions *everal a roaches are used to identify the e2istence of ergonomic risks. %he method used de ends on the managerial hiloso hy of the com any (getting workers involved through a artici atory rocess versus to .down rocess), level of analysis (one !ob versus com any wide evaluation), and ersonal reference. %here is no one correct a roach. .uanti-ication o- ergonomic risk conditions 'nce the resence of risk factors is established, the degree of risk associated with those factors is evaluated. %his is done through the a lication of analytical ergonomic tools and the utili6ation of s ecific guidelines. Ergonomic (nalytical %ools %here are a great variety of analytical tools. %he tools are fre0uently orientated to a s ecific ty e of work (e.g., manual material handling) or a articular body art (e.g., wrist, low back). (nalytical tools also vary greatly in their style of conclusions. %hey may rovide !ob rioriti6ation for intervention, 0uantification of activities associated with increased risk of in!ury, or recommendation for a load weight limit for lifting. %he

e2aminer determines which analytical tool is best for evaluation of the identified risks based on an understanding of the tool/s a lications, strengths, and weaknesses. (n analytical tool can, at best, rovide an a ro2imation of the degree of risk. -ariation in individual hysiology, history of in!ury, work methods, and numerous other factors influence whether a erson will sustain an in!ury. 8urther, many tools have not been tested ade0uately for reliability and validity. %his status reflects the youth of the rofession. =es ite these shortcomings, tools still offer a standard method of analysis and reasonable assessment of risk. E2am les of analytical tools include,

3A?( < 3a id A er ?imb (ssessment < (ssesses the risk of cumulative trauma disorder through osture, force, and muscle<use analysis. ')(* < 'vako )orking Posture (nalysis *ystem < Provides intervention rioriti6ation based on osture and loads (Darhu et al., "#BB). 3e etitive Cotion Evaluation < (naly6es osture, re etition, and discomfort to reveal the erformance of high<risk motions (=rury, "#4B). 'bservation (nalysis of the >and and )rist < Guantifies hand e2ertions associated with risk factors of inch gri , high force, wrist fle2ion.e2tension.ulnar deviation, ower tool e2ertion, and use of hand to strike ob!ect (*tetson et al., "##"). Atah Back Com ressive 8orce Codel < Evaluates the risk of low back in!ury for a one<time lifting task based on lumbar disc com ression. Atah *houlder Coment Codel < Evaluates the risk of shoulder in!ury for a one<time lifting task com aring task moment to an individual/s ca acity. 3evised +1'*> ?ifting E0uation ("##5) < Evaluates the risk of a lifting task based on e2 anded +1'*> arameters. ?iberty Cutual %ables < Based on sycho hysical e2 erimentation, determines the ma2imum acce table weight for a lifting.lowering task, ush. ulling task, and carrying task given selected !ob characteristics. ((C( Cetabolic Codel < Evaluates the risk of hysical e2ertion strain for a task. (nthro ometry (nalysis < =etermines ro er work lace dimensions for various body si6es. =etailed Checklist 8or Com uter (-=%) )orkstation 3isk (nalysis < Presents the recommended characteristics of a -=% workstation. +1'*> )ork Practices &uide ("#4") < Evaluates the risk of a lifting task based on +1'*> arameters.

Anderlined tools are available in Ergoweb/s Fob Evaluator %oolbo2 (FE%) software. %o learn more about Ergoweb/s FE% software see /o& Evaluator Tool&ox Guidelines -or Evaluation o- Environmental Risk Conditions *trong associations have been develo ed between environmental risk conditions and worker in!ury. &uidelines, instead of analytical tools, have been develo ed by rofessional societies and used to determine the degree of risk.

%he guideline for each environment risk resents methods for measuring and evaluating the environmental condition. Control suggestions are also fre0uently made. &uidelines, categori6ed by environmental risk condition, include,

>eat *tress %he (merican Conference of &overnmental 1ndustrial >ygienists ((C&1>) %hreshold ?imit -alues for Chemical *ubstances and Physical (gents and Biological E2 osure 1ndices. Cold *tress (C&1> %hreshold ?imit -alues for Chemical *ubstances and Physical (gents and Biological E2 osure 1ndices. *egmental -ibration 1*' 9$5# ("#4;), &uide for the Ceasurement and the (ssessment of >uman E2 osure to >and %ransmitted -ibration. (+*1 *$.$5 ("#4;), &uide for the Ceasurement and Evaluation of >uman E2 osure to -ibration %ransmitted to the >and. (C&1>/s %hreshold ?imit -alues for Chemical *ubstances and Physical (gents and Biological E2 osure 1ndices. )hole Body -ibration 1*' 7;$" ("#B5), &uide for the evaluation of human e2 osure to whole body vibration. ?ighting &rand!ean ("#44). %his is not a guideline but the te2t offers lighting suggestions for various work settings. +oise '*>( *tandard 7# C83 "#":.#9

,t!er Ergonomic $nal tical Tools Cany more ergonomics tools are listed in the literature. >agber et al. ("##9) and ?ouhevaara ("##9) rovide information on several of them. Prevention and Control o- Ergonomic Risk Conditions %hree ty es of solutions reduce the magnitude of risk factors, ". Engineering controls 7. (dministrative controls $. )ork ractice controls Engineering controls Engineering controls involve altering the hysical items in the work lace, including actions such as modifying the workstation, obtaining different e0ui ment, or changing tools. %he focus of engineering controls involves identifying the underlying stressor (risk factor of awkward osture, force, re etition, etc.) and eliminating it through changing the hysical environment.

8or e2am le, a video dis lay terminal worker who sustains a shoulder.neck com laint from long<term ty ing may need forearm su orts or a keyboard tray to reduce the long<term, static e2ertion of neck.shoulder muscles. Engineering controls are the referred method of risk control because they ermanently reduce or eliminate the risk. $dministrative controls (dministrative controls involve altering work organi6ation. %hese a roaches usually are less e2 ensive than engineering controls but are less de endable. E2am les of administrative controls include,

3otating workers 1ncreasing the fre0uency.duration of breaks (ssigning a second worker to assist in erforming select tasks Ensuring ro er work techni0ues are followed Conditioning workers for the hysical e2ertion of task demands Enlarging !ob res onsibilities such that the same task is not re eatedly erformed Enacting a reventive maintenance rogram for mechanical and ower tools and e0ui ment =evelo ing a housekee ing rogram ?imiting overtime work

Work practice controls )ork ractice controls involve training and encouraging a s ecific method of task erformance to reduce worker e2 osure to the ergonomic risk. (n e2am le of work ractice control is training workers in ro er lifting techni0ues. Standards and guidelines 1n the A*, several standards and guidelines are available. '*>( Ergonomics Program *tandard *tandards (e.g., 1*' ;$49, Ergonomic rinci les in the design of work systems) and &uidelines (e.g., (+*1 B"" %3 "<"##$, Ergonomic &uidelines for the =esign, 1nstallation and Ase of Cachine %ools, (+*1 H<$;9, Control of )ork<3elated Cumulative %rauma =isorders) note a risk of in!ury is associated with ostural osition.