1

Author: Gauger, Stephrn, E Title: An t::rgonomlr Assessment ofCompllll)' KYZ'I ll'astepapu Bale Wlr••

CJ11tl11g Proass Th< o<camplllyloc ,_.,.h r<pon is •ubmined to d1o Uah rnllyol Wl><onsln-Stoat, Craduote S<hool ln portia!

completion ofth< r.qulr<m<nu r ... the

Cndwn• OogJ'ffJ Major: MS Risk Control

Rcseurth J\dvbt r: Or. Urian J. Finder, C ll I

Submission Ttrm/Y 1•11 r:

86

~ I •n.dtnland th11 thb rr;orch rtpon auot be oll'klalt) IIJ•pro\td by abe CBduatr \cllool ud ch11 •• ct«tronk (Opy o r tM llppro,·td "tnk)• • Ul be- m.-d~ a\aJb ble tllrough lttt l•h ttJU)

Ubrll') ""'"""' ® 1 aUCJtlhac lht me-arch repon b mt or'a.ln•l • ork (lhillf any copyright~~ bit mattrlnl~ bil\'e btt.n ustd with the l'k'tlllb~hm ur thr or1g1uoll uutho..,), nnd 11 .-urh. h IJ automaticuUy protccced by tbc haws. rules, Mnd teaullulonr or tl1i. u..s. co,>yrl~llt Orner.

STUDENT'S NAMP.:

S11JDENT'S StONA TlJRR;

ADVISER'S 'jAME;

ADVISER'S SIGNATURE; __ DATE:~

This sec1ion forMS f) l.-n A 'Tht;l\ ot F.dS ·rh6i\/fletd Vroj~t t.JJt~'kN cmly Commii.U~e rnt•u~r.t {ochtr th11n your suh·iser ~hCl I~ 11\tfd lu lb" ~t:f!Jon ltbo\'e)

I. CMTE MEMBER'S NIIMI;;

SIGNATURE: OAT£:

Z. CMTE Mt..\!BER'S WAMC:

StONAllJR£: DATE:

3. CMTE MEMBER'S NAM~

SIGNATURE: OAT£:

.. ------·---- - -1'hls tcctlon co bt tOIIIJ)IdM by tbe Graduate: School Thjs linal rcsenroh rtpon h•s bteu appro\'td by the Of3duQIC Sthoul

(Diro<11lr, OO't<O orGnoduate Studies! (Dote)

2

Gauger, Stephen, E. Ergonomic Assessment of Company XYZ’s Scrap Bale Wire Cutting

Process

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the sources of ergonomic-based risk factors

associated with the scrap bale wire cutting task process within the Wastepaper Department at

Company XYZ. The intent was to assist Company XYZ to ascertain the scope of ergonomic

risks present within the task and to subsequently propose recommendations for minimizing or

eliminating the ergonomic risk factors involved with the job. The researcher established a

number of goals in order to help guide this research which included the use of multiple

qualitative and quantitative ergonomic assessment methodologies and tools. Company XYZ is

conversant with the wire cutting ergonomic issue since the employees regularly complain about

performing the wastepaper bale wire cutting process and have experienced varying degrees of

musculoskeletal injuries and discomfort. Based upon the results of this ergonomic analysis

study, multiple engineering and administrative-based recommendations were identified which

may assist with mitigating/eliminating the presence of the ergonomic-based risk factors within

the scrap bale wire cutting task and consequently decrease the potential for developing CTDs and

related human-based losses.

3

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to my mother who has been there for me throughout

this paper writing process and complete graduate school experience providing both support and

love. Without her, this process would not have been possible. I am grateful for my sisters and

brother, for their laughter and encouragement during this phase of my life. I would also like to

thank my fiancé, Anna, for her encouragement and support throughout the long nights and rough

patches and for her unwavering love. A profound thank you goes out to Dr. Brian Finder for his

steadfast guidance, insight and entire support throughout not only writing this paper, but my

whole MS Risk Control graduate school experience. Thank you.

4

Table of Contents

.................................................................................................................................................... Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................8

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................9

Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................11

Goals of the Study ..............................................................................................................11

Background and Significance ............................................................................................12

Assumptions of the Study ..................................................................................................13

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................14

Definition of Terms............................................................................................................14

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................15

Ergonomics Background ....................................................................................................15

Cumulative Trauma Disorders ...........................................................................................16

Ergonomic Risk Factors .....................................................................................................17

Force ...............................................................................................................17

Posture ............................................................................................................18

Duration ..........................................................................................................19

Repetition .......................................................................................................19

Temperature extremes ....................................................................................20

Common Types of Cumulative Trauma Disorders ............................................................20

Tendonitis .......................................................................................................20

5

Tenosynovitis .................................................................................................21

Epicondylitis ...................................................................................................21

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ................................................................................22

Ergonomic Analysis Tools .................................................................................................22

Rapid entire body assessment ........................................................................22

Ergonomic task analysis worksheet ...............................................................24

Force gauge ....................................................................................................25

Manual goniometer .........................................................................................25

Video and photographic analysis ...................................................................26

Review of available occupational injury and illness records .........................26

Employee symptom survey ............................................................................27

Anthropometry ...................................................................................................................28

Ergonomic Control Measures ............................................................................................31

Engineering controls .......................................................................................31

Administrative controls ..................................................................................32

Personal protective equipment .......................................................................33

Summary ............................................................................................................................35

Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................37

Subject Selection and Description .....................................................................................37

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................38

Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................39

Force gauge ....................................................................................................39

Manual goniometer .........................................................................................40

6

Rapid entire body assessment .........................................................................40

Ergonomic task analysis worksheet ...............................................................41

Employee symptom survey ............................................................................42

Injury and illness records review ....................................................................42

Anthropometry ...............................................................................................42

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................43

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................44

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................45

General Workstation Description ......................................................................................46

Presentation of Collected Data...........................................................................................47

Goal number one ............................................................................................47

Rapid entire body assessment ..............................................................47

Ergonomic task analysis worksheet ....................................................48

Force gauge .........................................................................................50

Anthropometric study ..........................................................................52

Goal number two ............................................................................................54

Goal number three ..........................................................................................55

Goal number four ...........................................................................................56

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................58

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................61

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................62

Recommendations ..............................................................................................................65

Engineering controls .......................................................................................65

7

Administrative controls ..................................................................................66

Areas of Further Research .................................................................................................67

References ......................................................................................................................................69

Appendix A: Rapid Entire Body Assessment ................................................................................71

Appendix B: Ergonomic Task Analysis Worksheet ......................................................................72

Appendix C: Employee Symptom Survey .....................................................................................77

Appendix D: Anthropometric Table of U.S. Anthropometric Data...............................................79

Appendix E: Consent to Participate in UW-Stout Approved Research .........................................83

8

List of Tables

Table 1: REBA Scores of the Scrap Bale Wire Cutting Process .......................................47

Table 2: Amount of Force Required to Actuate the Wire Cutter Trigger ..........................50

Table 3: Amount of Force Required to Support the Wire Cutter ......................................51

Table 4: U.S. Anthropometric Data ...................................................................................52

Table 5: Recordable Ergonomic Injuries Related to the Wire Cutting Process ................55

9

Chapter I: Introduction

Ergonomics is the study of how humans interact with the design of a workplace and it

seeks to achieve an optimal relationship between people and the environment in which they

work. Ergonomics takes into account the physiological-based capabilities of humans and

attempts to bridge the gap between what the job task demands of the worker and his/her actual

functional-based capacities (Chengular, Rodgers, & Bernard, 2004). One of the major issues that

ergonomics focuses on is what is referred to as cumulative trauma disorders, or better known as

musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These are injuries that progress gradually over time due to

the presence of one or more risk factors which includes extreme forces, awkward postures,

repetitive motions, temperature extremes, and extended work duration (Vincoli, 2000). When

deficiencies exist in how humans are able to interact with a machine or perform a task, it is likely

that one or more of these factors are inevitably underlying the situation. In 2012, the United

States Bureau of Labor Statistics released statistical data on non-fatal injuries and illnesses

within the United States during calendar year 2011. It was during this year that musculoskeletal

disorders were the cause of at least 33% of all non-fatal injuries and illnesses, totaling 387, 820

cases (BLS, 2012). As a result of the improper design of a workplace or task, this is a significant

amount of human-based loss and therefore should place MSD’s as a serious concern for

employers, especially as it relates to managing the occupational safety and health of their

employees.

Company XYZ is a medium-sized paper mill that recycles wastepaper to produce

marketable products such as pulp, paper, board, and other cellulose-based commodities. Within

the pulp and paper industry, recycling is commonplace and companies are increasing becoming

cognizant of the environmental and economically competitive benefits it provides. By

10

employing recycling practices, Company XYZ’s paper mill creates larger profit margins and is

able to minimize its overall environmental impact as compared to using 100% virgin wood fiber.

At Company XYZ, the act of recycling wastepaper, or a term better known within the industry as

“secondary fiber”, is necessary to create the optimum sheet strength for the reformed finished

product. Company XYZ uses nearly 35% recycled fiber in its pulp blend, which results in

approximately 465,000 tons of recycled fiber being mixed together per year with the virgin fiber

pulp to create the requisite blend. The recycled product Company XYZ utilizes originates from

an assortment of sources, with the most frequent being scrap from box plants. It enters into the

secondary fiber area via semi-trailers and rail cars and is bound together in scrap or wastepaper

bales which individually may weigh nearly two tons. Each wastepaper bale is received with five

steel wire bands securing it and employees within the Waste Department must bisect the wires

before each bale is reduced to pulp with the assistance of water and agitators within the

hydrapulper.

The original design of the wastepaper bale hydrapulping task was for the wires to be

bisected by means of an automated cutting device, and not to be performed on a manual basis by

the employees. The task process change developed as a result of encountering problems with the

hydrapulper system. The steel wires bind the wastepaper bales exceptionally tight and over time,

the hydrapulper began to encounter difficultly in effectively processing the material. The

hydrapulper difficultly amounted to numerous jams and overloads, which cost Company XYZ a

significant amount of capital due to expensive repairs and process downtime. It was eventually

determined by upper management that the wires must be pre-cut by an employee in order to

loosen the bales and thus allow for easier processing by the hydrapulper. Observations of the

worker performing this task indicate that it was not designed with the employee in mind. During

11

the initial planning and design phase of the hydrapulper, there was little to no forethought

assigned to the possibility of having a human-machine interface. The bale in-feed system was

built strictly to be run in an automated manner and minimal consideration was given for the

involvement of people in the task.

Company XYZ is conversant with the wire cutting ergonomic issue since the employees

regularly complain about performing the wastepaper bale wire cutting process and have

experienced varying degrees of musculoskeletal injuries and discomfort. A formal ergonomic

assessment which would assist to identify exposures associated with the wastepaper bale wire

cutting process has yet to be performed by a qualified individual. From limited observations of

employees performing the wastepaper bale wire cutting process, the potential for significant

postural, repetition and force-based issues becomes evident. In the past five years at Company

XYZ, of six reported MSD’s, a total of three have required medical treatment and the remaining

three were marked as Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordables.

Therefore, the process of cutting steel wires from scrap wastepaper bales within the Wastepaper

Department at Company XYZ is causing employees to incur musculoskeletal injuries and may

be posing a continued risk for the development of MSDs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to analyze the workstation design and task process in order to

determine the extent of ergonomic risk factors which are present for the employees who cut steel

wires from scrap bales within the Wastepaper Department at Company XYZ.

Goals of the Study

The goals of this study are four-fold and include:

12

1. To perform an assessment of the current ergonomic requirements involved with the scrap

bale wire cutting process by utilizing both qualitative and quantitative measurement

approaches.

2. To perform video and static postural analysis to assist in determining the extent of

ergonomic risk factors which are present.

3. To conduct an analysis of Company XYZ’s occupational injury and illness records.

4. To conduct an ergonomic symptom survey on the employees.

Background and Significance

The management of ergonomic risk factors may be overlooked by businesses who are

intent on maximizing financial profit, when in reality, the resulting injuries and costs associated

with human-based loss can be a significant profit absorber. Underestimating the importance of

an established ergonomics program within an industrial based company can cause unnecessarily

high costs both directly and indirectly related to the human-based loss which stems from poor or

non-existent ergonomic practices. Using the example model of Bird and Germain’s accident cost

iceberg, only a portion of direct costs are clearly visible in an accident or injury situation, while

lying below there exists a host of indirect costs (Bird and Germain 1985). The majority of direct

costs resulting from an ergonomic-based injury are medical and indemnity payments, while the

numerous indirect costs could be lost production, product downgrading, payment for overtime,

or payment for replacement training (Chengular et al., 2004). In addition to the aforementioned

loss areas, there can also be decreased employee morale, negative public perception and

increased attention by OSHA.

Ergonomic injuries can be a significant loss exposure within a company and ultimately

cause an undesirable effect upon the organization’s bottom-line. In a broader sense, as with

13

quality and cost management plans, a well thought out safety management plan allows

companies to maximize profits by proactively controlling workplace health and safety issues. In

this respect, the actualization of a well-established and managed health and safety program

works in cohesion with the other facets of the traditional business model, allowing for greater

financial performance over the long term. This “edge” can be the competitive advantage that

allows one company to rise above another, enabling them greater profit margins and shareholder

wealth.

An ergonomic analysis of Company XYZ’s wastepaper bale wire cutting process is

crucial in order to identify, evaluate, and subsequently control the ergonomic-based issues which

have lead to injuries, ongoing musculoskeletal pain and the foreseeable potential for additional

MSDs. This ergonomic analysis has the ability to serve as a preventative measure to avoid or at

least reduce the ergonomic risk factors associated with this task and subsequently decrease the

likelihood of MSDs, product quality concerns, marginal productivity, as well as legal and

financial issues.

Assumptions of the Study

1. During the ergonomic assessment the worker will perform the task as he or she

typically performs it on a daily basis.

2. The employee responses on the survey will be truthful and representative of what

they are experiencing while performing this job.

3. At Company XYZ, the sample used in this study represents the population of

employees within the paper mill who perform this task.

14

Limitations of the Study

The study is limited to only the wastepaper bale wire cutting process within the

Wastepaper Department at Company XYZ, and the analysis pertains only to the workstation

design and task.

Definition of Terms

Ergonomics. Ergonomics is the study of how people interact with the design of a

workplace or job and it seeks to achieve an optimal relationship between people’s physiological-

based capabilities and the environment in which they work (Chengular, et al., 2004).

Cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs). Injuries and disorders that affect soft tissue,

including muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, and spinal discs. It is considered

an all-inclusive term encompassing other synonymous terms such as musculoskeletal disorders

(MSDs), repetitive stress injury, and repetitive motion injury (Stock, 1991).

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Disorders of the muscles, ligaments, joints,

tendons, cartilage, nerves, blood vessels, or spinal discs. Common examples include muscle

strains and ligament sprains, pinched nerves and joint and tendon inflammation (Chengular, et

al., 2004).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) recordable. An

occupational injury or illness that requires treatment greater than simple first aid and is recorded

on an injury and illness log and must be reported to the government. Recordables include an

injury or illness that causes the death of a worker, a loss of consciousness, job transfer, restricted

or light duty, and/or time away from work (OSHA, 2004).

15

Chapter II: Literature Review

The purpose of this study was to examine the workstation design and task process in

order to ascertain the scope of ergonomic risk factors which are present for the employees who

cut steel wires from scrap bales within the Wastepaper Department at Company XYZ.

The current process of cutting steel wires from wastepaper bales at Company XYZ is causing

employees to incur musculoskeletal injuries and discomfort. Within the Chapter II literature

review, the reviewed topics which relate to the study will include a background on ergonomics,

information on cumulative trauma disorders and ergonomic risk factors, common types of

cumulative trauma disorders, qualitative and quantitative ergonomic analysis tools,

anthropometrics, and ergonomic control measures.

Ergonomics Background

The word “ergonomics” originates from two ancient Greek words, “ergon” meaning

work, and “nomos” meaning laws, hence combined together to refer to work laws (David, 2005).

The foundation of ergonomics can be traced back to the early 1700s when Italian physician

Bernardino Ramazinni studied the ill-effects stemming from poorly designed tools and poor

posture upon worker’s health (Byers, Hirtz & McClintock, 1978). In today’s modern times, the

word is most effortlessly defined as the science of designing the job to fit the worker and

therefore achieve an optimal relationship between humans and the environment in which they

work. Ergonomics is a multidisciplinary activity and takes into account the body of knowledge

on people’s physiological-based abilities and limitations and utilizes such information in

designing workplaces, jobs, products, and equipment that are suited for human interaction

(Tayyari, & Smith, 1997). The key focus of ergonomics is to design jobs, workstations and

workplaces to fit the worker, as opposed to coercing the worker to fit those situations.

16

The principal focus of ergonomics is to reduce unnecessary stress on the interactions

between the operator and the demands of the task being performed (Chengular et al., 2004). The

emphasis is on methods to reduce fatigue by analyzing tasks and designing them so that such fall

within people’s physiological-based abilities. In accomplishing the aforementioned through

sound ergonomic programs, organizations are able to reduce the potential for occupational

injuries and disease by effectively controlling areas of human-based loss. In addition, employee

comfort and job satisfaction are generally increased through the improvements gained from

ergonomic programs. Ergonomics possesses the potential to assist companies by reducing the

amount of product and process errors, thus increasing productivity and efficiency within these

processes, and ultimately increasing potential profitability within the company (David 2005).

Cumulative Trauma Disorders

Cumulative trauma disorder (CTD) is a term used to describe injuries and disorders that

affect the soft tissues of the human body, including muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints,

cartilage, and spinal discs (Stock, 1991). Within the field of safety and health, it is an all-

inclusive term which encompasses other synonymous terms such as musculoskeletal disorders

(MSDs), repetitive stress injuries (RSIs) and repetitive motion injuries (RMIs). Cumulative

trauma disorders develop gradually over a period of time from weeks and months, to even years

as a result of recurring stresses on a specific body part (Putz-Anderson, 1988). An analogy of a

cumulative trauma disorder is water drops entering a catch basin with an expel valve positioned

at the bottom. The water drops represent force, posture, repetition, duration and temperature

extremes and the expel valve represents the body’s healing ability in repairing microtrauma

resulting from the five ergonomic risk factors. If the drops enter faster than the expel valve is

able to eject, “heal”, then the body is not able to mend itself rapidly enough for what it is

17

experiencing from an ergonomic risk factor standpoint and the potential for developing a CTD

results as the basin overflows.

There are many symptoms associated with CTDs, with the most prominent being soft

tissue swelling, pain, and joint movement restriction (Vincoli, 2000). The concept of cumulative

trauma revolves around the aspect of each repetition resulting from a work activity producing

some degree of wear and tear or trauma on the joints and tissues of the body. Given the chance

for repair, the human body possesses astounding recuperative abilities. For adequate recovery to

take place, in most cases the body only needs ample rest time between intervals and periods of

high usage or repetition (Putz-Anderson, 1988). However, when insufficient recovery time is

present, and high repetition is paired with awkward and forceful postures, the body enters into a

zone of high risk for developing a CTD.

Ergonomic Risk Factors

In discussing CTDs, there are five primary ergonomic risk factors that contribute to their

occurrence and prevalence, those being force, posture, duration, repetition, and temperature

extremes. When one or more of these risk factors are evident within a task, the risk for

developing ergonomic injuries is significantly increased.

Force. Force, as it specifically relates to ergonomics, is the amount of muscular effort

the human body must exert in order to complete a task. This can be force applied on a tool, a

piece of equipment/material, or on a work surface (Michael, 2002). The impact of force upon

the body will generally depend on the type of hand-related coupling or grip with the object and

the weight of the object. Additionally, the temperature during the task and various forces which

are required to complete the task will also affect the muscular exertion that is required by the

employee. Forces throughout a given task can vary significantly, but one of the paramount high-

18

risk situations which incur damage upon the body is during static loading, which occurs when a

force is held for a significant period of time by a given muscle. This causes extensive fatigue to

occur within the muscle which is experiencing the static loading and the probability of sustaining

a CTD is increased (Stock, 1991). The load or pressure applied to the tissues and tendons of the

body can reach high levels, sometimes in the hundreds of pounds, and the muscle effort must

increase in order to respond to the high task load. During periods of static loading the synovial

fluid is pressed out of the associated joints, resulting in decreased lubrication and increased

friction between joints. Subsequently, the muscle experiences decreased blood circulation and

rapid fatigue, ultimately creating conditions which are conducive to causing a CTD (Putz-

Anderson, 1988).

Posture. Posture is defined as, “the relative arrangement of body parts, specifically the

orientation of the limbs, trunk, and head during a work task” (Chengular et al., 2004, p. 670). As

posture specifically relates to ergonomic risk factors, it pertains to movements of the body that

cause it to deviate from a neutral position. The term neutral posture describes the position of the

body when the muscles remain at their usual length and joint alignment. When the body moves

away from the preferred neutral posture, it is referred to as being awkward or deviated from the

neutral position (David, 2005). Any fixed or constricted body posture is considered an awkward

posture and a few common activities associated with job tasks include excessive flexion,

extension, twisting, and reaching. These postures can negatively affect the spinal column, hips,

shoulders, elbows, wrists, neck and knees by placing significant biochemical stress upon them.

Degraded posture has the ability to affect productivity negatively as it reduces the duration of

work that a person can perform, due to increased fatigue within the muscles.

19

Duration. Duration as it relates to ergonomics is the time quantification exposure to an

ergonomic risk factor (Ergoweb, 2012). Duration of the task is viewed as the amount of minutes

or hours per day that an employee is exposed to an ergonomic risk relating specifically from a

job task. In general terms, the more significant the duration of exposure is to a risk factor, the

greater likelihood the worker will develop a CTD (Ergoweb, 2012). Employee output during

excessive work exposure time beyond eight hours possesses a significant potential to cause

disadvantageous outcomes such as increased risk of accidents, employee absenteeism, the

occurrence of CTDs, and adverse health effects (Grandjean, 1988). In attempting to mitigate

duration-based concerns, employers can institute periodic rest pauses, shift breaks and job

rotation methods. The key principal to decreasing the negative effects of significant duration is

to preserve the equilibrium between the human body’s energy and task-based consumption

(Grandjean, 1988).

Repetition. Repetition discussed in the ergonomic sense is a time quantification of a

similar task exertion during a task cycle (Egoweb, 2012). The chance of sustaining cumulative

trauma disorders is increased in activities containing highly repetitive conditions, even when the

activity may only be paired with small forces (Tayyari, & Smith, 1997). Repetitive motion has

long been linked to musculoskeletal injury and worker discomfort, and with the combination of

force, is an important precursor for the development of CTDs (Keyserling, Armstrong, &

Punnett, 1991). In a general sense, as the number of repetitions increase, so does the degree of

ergonomic risk. Highly repetitive jobs have significant potential to contribute to the

development of CTDs. Essentially, as tasks increase in repetition, the muscle contractions also

become more recurrent and swift. Thus, these tasks demand more effort from the muscles in

20

conjunction with a greater amount of recovery time, and can become sources of trauma when

sufficient rest and recovery periods are not provided (Putz-Anderson, 1988).

Temperature extremes. Temperature extremes can be extremely problematic in causing

or exacerbating ergonomic risk factors. Such conditions possess the ability to cause the

employee to experience trouble with breathing, the development of rapid fatigue, decreased

dexterity and sensory sensitivity (Chengular et al., 2004). Temperature extremes fall under the

categories of cold and heat stress, both of which elicit a variety of negative responses upon the

body. With cold temperature extremes, stress upon the body originates from reduced blood flow

due to vessel constriction, synovial fluid thickening and decreased muscle output. Additionally,

there is short-term coordination loss and tactile sensitivity (Chengular et al., 2004). In dealing

with heat temperature extremes, stress upon the body originates from increased metabolic rates,

which in turn forces blood to the skin to facilitate cooling and subsequently contributes to an

ultimate rise in the core body temperature of an individual. Dehydration can worsen these

conditions and reduced mental alertness and heat stroke can result in acute cases (David, 2005).

Common Types of Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTDs)

In discussing CTDs there are numerous types that exist and which vary in their

prevalence and severity. The following is not considered an exhaustive list, but rather a

presentation of some of the common types of CTDs that result from one or more of the five

aforementioned ergonomic risk factors.

Tendonitis. Tendonitis occurs when a tendon becomes inflamed as a result of a muscle

being repeatedly tensed (Vincoli, 2000). Over exertion of tendons causes the associated fibers to

essentially fray and tear apart. A classic example of tendonitis is that of the wrist, which is an

easily overused tendon and joint in situations of highly repetitive tasks involving various hand

21

motions. The symptoms of tendinitis consist of swelling and a dull ache which exists in the

affected area that is also accompanied by a burning/pain sensation and hampered capacity to use

the affected joint (Tayyari & Smith, 1997). It is crucial that tendons are allowed ample rest and

recovery time to prevent them from entering into a weakened or calcified state (Putz-Anderson,

1988).

Tenosynovitis. Tenosynovitis is a repetitive-induced tendon injury that involves the

hollow tube of the synovial sheath becoming inflamed (Vincoli, 2000). The most likely cause of

tenosynovitis is from rapid and high repetition movements. The disorder is most commonly

associated with activities that are low in force and exceed 1,500 repetitions per hour (Putz-

Anderson, 1988). High repetition causes the sheath to produce excessive amounts of fluid and

subsequently the fluid becomes built up underneath the synovial sheath, resulting in significant

swelling and pain. The symptoms of tenosynovitis entail swelling, discomfort and tenderness in

the affected area. Tayyari and Smith (1997) state that there are additional factors that can effect

and contribute to tenosynovitis, such as gender and age, as well as the presence of certain

systematic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis or calcium apatite.

Epicondylitis. Epicondylitis is a form of tendinitis involving inflammation of the elbow

resulting from overuse or strain of forearm muscles (Tayyari & Smith, 1997). There are two

recognized forms of epicondylitis with the first being lateral epicondylitis (referred to as “tennis

elbow”), and the second being medial epicondylitis (referred to as golfer’s elbow) (Tayyari &

Smith, 1997). The symptoms of either form of epicondylitis involve aches at and around the

elbow, weakness and swelling in the affected area, and sometimes a burning sensation (Putz-

Anderson, 1988).

22

Carpal tunnel syndrome. Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) occurs when the tendons

which pass through the carpal tunnel structure of the wrist become swollen from tendinitis (Putz-

Anderson, 1988). The swollen tendons compress the median nerve of the wrist and circulation

within the median nerve becomes essentially cut off. The symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome

involve pain of the hand, numbness in and around the affected area and a tingling sensation.

Carpal tunnel syndrome is caused by jobs involving significant wrist deviation, high force

exertions and high repetition movements (Bridger, 2009). It is one of the most common CTDs

that can develop within the upper extremities and may be extremely detrimental to an employee

as it can affect his/her gripping ability and hand coordination.

Ergonomic Analysis Tools

The field of ergonomics utilizes a variety of analysis tools to identify ergonomic risk

factors during an assessment. Most notably are the rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and the

ergonomic task analysis worksheet (ETAW). Both are survey methods that serve as screening

tools to identify and assess biomechanical and postural loading upon the body.

REBA. The REBA is an ergonomic screening method that was developed by Dr. Sue

Hignett and Dr. Lynn McAtamney, both of whom are ergonomists from the University of

Nottingham in the United Kingdom (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000). The REBA survey (located

in Appendix A) is a postural method that targets and estimates the ergonomic risks of work-

related full body disorders, such as CTDs. The REBA provides a systematic and prompt

assessment of the total body postural risks incurred by an employee and was developed to be

used during initial workplace ergonomic investigations. When utilizing this ergonomic analysis

tool, no specific equipment is needed other than a writing device and the single page REBA

survey form. In order to be conversant with the form, the user should obtain training as needed

23

in order to correctly complete the various sections and associated procedures. The REBA can be

completed in a relatively rapid manner and is especially valuable in circumstances where time is

of the essence. Resulting from the survey is a numeric output that presents a quick overview of

the postures of the whole body, along with aspects of muscle function and external loads as

experienced by the body (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000). Two shortcomings of the REBA are

that it does not generate a combined score for both the left and right sides of the body, therefore,

the REBA should be conducted on both sides of the body. In addition, the REBA does not take

into account factors such as age, medical history, or gender (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000).

As the REBA is strictly observational in nature, the user performing the analysis must

ensure that the task being executed is observed with substantial focus. Completing the survey is

accomplished by using a numbering-based methodology that creates an action item list. From

this, the level of intervention required to decrease the effects of ergonomic risks upon the

operator is indicated. The REBA survey uses human postural diagrams to provide the user a

sense of what to identify from an ergonomic risk standpoint and to determine the degree of

ergonomic risk which is present. Ultimately, three scoring tables are used to evaluate the

exposure to risk factors, described as external load factors, which include:

1. Force

2. Static muscle work

3. Number of movements

4. Work postures determined by the equipment

5. Time worked without a break (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000).

The user must score the postures and demands required by the task activities performed by the

employee when conducting the REBA. The body parts assessed include the wrists, forearms,

24

elbows, shoulders, neck, trunk, back, legs and knees (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000). The

process of conducting the REBA assessment includes the following six steps:

1. Observe the task being performed

2. Select the identified postures for assessment

3. Numerically score the identified postures

4. Process the scores

5. Establish the REBA final score and,

6. Confirm the action level with respect to the urgency for intervention by use of control

measures (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000, p. 7).

The REBA is a functional tool for evaluating an array of body movements used in

performing a task. The REBA aids in determining the extent of injury risk through the final

scoring system and consequently assists with priority setting. With a forthright format and a

swift completion time, the REBA serves as an acceptable screening tool to utilize during a task

analysis and provides the user with a reasonable concept of the degree of ergonomic risk present

within the job being performed.

Ergonomic task analysis worksheet. The ergonomic task analysis worksheet was

developed by the Great American Insurance Group and is an eight-page document (see Appendix

B) that provides the user with methods for identification, evaluation, and control of ergonomic

risk factors relating to conditions which are conducive for the development of CTDs. The task

analysis worksheet contains various sections containing recognized risk factors such as

repetition, posture, force, static loading, and the general work environment conditions. The user

completing the task analysis worksheet must observe the task by the preferred means of video

record playback or by viewing the task in person. Subsequently, the user must complete the

25

analysis by comparing the conditions of the present task to the descriptions of each section of the

worksheet. The severity of the risk factor observed within the task is ranked on three separate

levels, ranging from ideal, to warning level, to take action. All conditions falling into the take

action category are recommended for the implementation of an action plan and therefore should

be abated as soon as practical. The ergonomic task analysis worksheet is comprehensive in

nature as it covers a broad area of ergonomic risk factors and remains relatively unadorned in

nature, making it an effective and adaptable assessment tool.

Force gauge. The force gauge is a quantitative ergonomic analysis tool that allows for

the user to measure the muscular output exerted by the employee who is performing a specific

task. This analysis method does not employ a survey as aforementioned with the REBA and

ergonomic task analysis worksheet. The gauge assists the user by quantifying the push, pull, or

lifting demands of an activity and measures the output in pounds or kilograms (Michael, 2002).

The device operates by internally causing a spring to be compressed through the application of a

sustained weight, which is then confirmed by a digital readout gauge that displays the force in

either pounds or kilograms. The force gauge is typically employed in ergonomic assessments

that involve quantifying forces directly related pulling, pushing, tensile tests, and static tests

(Michael, 2002). The force gauge aids the user to reasonably determine the amount of force that

is involved in a particular task and therefore exerted by an employee.

Manual goniometer. The manual goniometer is a form of ergonomic instrumentation

that allows the user to accurately measure the various angles of joints and/or range of motion of a

given posture. The traditional goniometer consists of a minimum of two arms which are

connected to a center pivot point for positioning onto the central axis of one body segment

(Stramler, 1992). The manual goniometer is utilized in conjunction with recorded video or

26

photographs to measure the angles of motion arising out of a given movement or posture during

a task cycle. Through observations, the user is able to track the extent of joint angles and/or

range of motion to aid in quantifying the degree of ergonomic risk when compared to the

reasonable physiological-based limits of humans.

Video recording and photographic analysis. Video recording and photographs allow

for both dynamic and static analysis and measurements to be completed by the user. Video

records and photographs ensure the researcher is able to record and document the full task cycle

and interactions among the employee and equipment. It allows the user to take a process and

subsequently break it down step-by-step through the analysis and documentation of the various

postures, motions and potential ergonomic risk factors. Video recording and photographs

provide the user a significantly more reliable method of documenting and recording movements

as compared with solely observing the task in person (Fernandez & Marley, 2009).

Review of available occupational injury and illness records. In order to effectively

evaluate the scope of CTD issues existing within a workplace, it is crucial to analyze the existing

medical, insurance and safety records for any evidence indicating injuries related to repeated

trauma (Putz-Anderson, 1988). The OSHA 300 log is the most widely recognized form for

employers to track work-related injuries/illnesses. In addition, employers must also record days

away from work, restricted work or work transfer, any fatalities, any loss of consciousness and

any medical treatment beyond standard first-aid (OSHA, 2004). A review of the OSHA 300 log

aids in determining the extent of recordable injuries relating to CTDs and can help paint a picture

of the degree of ergonomic loss occurring within an organization. One aspect to be mindful of

when conducting a review of an OSHA 300 log is that not all ergonomic injuries will necessarily

be recordables, as some of them may be dealt with directly through minimal medical treatment or

27

temporary task reassignment approaches. Therefore, it is important to review any available

medical and workers compensation records in addition to the OSHA 300 log. Additionally, any

safety records indicating potential ergonomic issues prove beneficial in gathering the scope of

ergonomic issues within a workplace or specific task (Bridger, 2009).

Two benchmarking techniques exist that assist with evaluating an ergonomic-based issue

from a review of available records standpoint. The first technique is reactive benchmarking,

which is essentially a review of the existing loss-based data pertaining to ergonomic

injuries/illnesses (Bridger, 2009). It provides insight into an ergonomic problem from generally

a post-loss standpoint and requires the collection and reporting of quality data. Examples of

reactive benchmarking methods available for review are the OSHA form 300, 301, OSHA

incidence rate, CTD worker compensation loss rate, OSHA lost workday and DART rates

(David, 2005). The second benchmarking technique is active benchmarking, which is a more

proactive review of ergonomic loss-based data. It provides insight into an ergonomic issue from

a pre-loss approach and includes a variety of methods that assist with identifying areas of

concern prior to an ergonomic loss (Bridger, 2009). Examples of this method include symptom

surveys/questionnaires, medical screening exams, task/hazard analysis, and behavioral

observation sampling (Putz-Anderson, 1988).

Employee symptom survey. A survey is an excellent and widely used method for

identifying jobs or tasks where potential CTD issues exist (Putz-Anderson, 1988). Through

surveys, the user is able to gain insight into the number of employees who are experiencing

discomfort from an ergonomic standpoint, and subsequently pinpoint areas where the most

significant risk factors inevitably leading to a CTD exist. Surveys allow the researcher to

identify areas or jobs which contain ergonomic risk factors through the reported pain symptoms

28

of employees. Typical questions reveal the conditions of pain, tingling, stiffness, and swelling,

additionally, the specific locations of these symptoms (Putz-Anderson, 1988). The University of

Wisconsin-Madison developed a symptom survey (see Appendix C) that addresses potential

CTDs. This survey asks questions that relate to the location and degree of pain as experienced

by the employee. Additionally, it asks questions pertaining to the employee’s medical history,

which is an effective way of searching for any potential related disorders. The survey itself

contains a list of body parts positioned on a map that allows the employees to mark down where

exactly they are experiencing discomfort or pain. Symptom surveys are effective tools for

gathering data relating to the extent of ergonomic issues within a given workplace or group of

employees.

Anthropometry

Anthropometry is defined as a science that deals with human physical traits and the

collection and application of such traits for use in accommodating variations in body size among

individuals, genders and races (Chengalur et al., 2004). The study of anthropometrics involves

the physical dimensions, compositions, and proportions of humans in addition to any related

variables affecting them (Stramler, 1992). Anthropometry utilizes human-based data in

workplace design criteria with the goal of accommodating a wide range of the population

(workforce) into the design. It possesses the ability to minimize the occurrence of human-based

loss (injuries/illnesses), to decrease the extent of product downgrading and to improve upon

process efficiency and functioning (Stramler, 1992). Many anthropometric tables, figures, and

data have been published are broken down into categories based upon different percentiles of

populations, such as the 5th, 10th, 50th, 90th and 95th percentiles (Chengalur et al., 2004). The

table of U.S. anthropometric data (see Appendix D) presents the data of several thousand people

29

who were studied. Within the tables and figures are various measurements for both men and

women signifying reach and clearance ranges for varying positions and movements of the human

body (Chengalur et al., 2004).

The two main categories of anthropometric data which are employed within ergonomics

consist of structural and functional dimension measurements. In structural or static

measurements, the dimensions are obtained with the body at stationary positions, examples

include sitting height, hip breadth and upper arm length (Tayyari & Smith, 1997). With

structural measurements it is crucial to consider the clearance dimensions which essentially

ascertain the minimum tolerable space required to accommodate the largest population within a

workplace. In functional or dynamic measurements, the dimensions are obtained with the body

during physical activity, examples include range of angular joint movement, reach envelopes and

vision envelopes. With functional measurements, the focus is on the reaching-based capabilities

of the body and thus to ascertain the maximum tolerable reaching distance required to

accommodate the smallest population within a workplace (Tayyari & Smith, 1997). Reach

dimensions establish what the maximum tolerable space is for the human being operating a piece

of equipment or performing a task, and subsequently these dimensions suggest a design range for

the product or equipment (see Appendix D) (Tayyari & Smith, 1997). Horizontal and vertical

reach ranges establish range of motion envelopes for joints, tendons, and muscles of the human

body. The most efficient work is performed within the initial third of the range of motion for a

given movement (Chenglur et al., 2004). In a general sense, as an individual approaches the

extreme of the range, there is a greater amount of stress upon the affected joint and its supporting

muscles.

30

There are three core anthropometric design philosophies used by ergonomists or

designers and they include designing for the average, for the extremes and for a range. The first

method, designing for the average, involves designs for public facilities and other facilities used

by a large range of people. One shortcoming of this method is that the design may end up not

fitting anyone, as no one is truly average in all dimensions (Tayyari & Smith, 1997). Designing

for the extremes involves design considerations for those who fall as outliers. This method is

relatively costly and not generally feasible in most situations, as designing for the smallest or

largest person essentially leaves no space for any other sized individual. The third method,

designing for a range of the population is accepted as the most universal design philosophy. A

generally agreed upon range is between the 5th to 95th percentile of the population and

accordingly it is expected to accommodate 90% of a design population (Tayyari & Smith, 1997).

In applying anthropometric data for design-based purposes, there are general guidelines as

follows:

Define the workplace and equipment’s potential user population.

Determine the proportion of the population to be accommodated by the design (e.g. 95%

and 90% are the most common).

Establish the body dimensions crucial for the design.

Determine the type of accommodation (e.g. reach or clearance situation).

Ascertain the correct percentile values of the dimensions for the defined proportion of the

population.

Determine the type of clothing and PPE worn by the employee and make necessary

clothing allowances (Tayyari & Smith, 1997, p. 57).

31

Ergonomic Control Measures

In controlling workplace hazards and risks, there is a hierarchal approach that is

traditionally used for delineating a given control method. The hierarchy is a means of stating

which controls are most preferred from the standpoint of initially controlling workplace hazards

and risks. Ergonomists are likely to heavily focus on which approach can be employed to

control the largest degree of risks that are present on a given work process or workstation. The

traditional three-tier hierarchy consists of engineering controls, administrative controls, and

personal protective equipment (Chen, Gjessing, Fine, Bernard, & McGlothlin, 1997).

Engineering controls. Engineering controls are the preferred methods for preventing the

occurrence of cumulative trauma disorders and are the physical changes to the job, equipment,

workstation or facility, that control the exposure to ergonomic risk (Keyserling, Armstrong, &

Punnett, 1991). The initial design of a workstation or job is centered upon a human interface,

therefore demanding a need to eliminate most ergonomic risks such as bending, twisting,

reaching, and repetitious actions. Engineering controls act directly on the apparent hazard and

control the exposure to the employee, instead of the employee having to intervene or take self-

protective action. Common examples of engineering controls related to controlling CTD hazards

include but are not limited to modifying or redesigning equipment, workstations, processes, tools

and facilities. By employing engineering controls, the hazard is eliminated by means of

designing the process or equipment to fit the employee. Engineering controls employ strategies

to abate ergonomic risks through the following approaches:

Altering the manner in which parts, products and materials are transported,

utilizing such methods as mechanical hoists, handles or slotted hand holes.

32

Directly modifying the actual product or process to decrease exposure to

ergonomic risk factors by the worker. Examples include automating highly

repetitive processes and employing force minimization techniques.

Modifying containers, storage locations and layout of materials by means of

adjustable height benches and material bins.

Altering the manner in which tools, parts and materials are maneuvered utilizing

such methods as counterbalance weights, custom tool grips and anti-vibration

gloves (Chen et al., 1997).

Generally accepted as the preferred method of control in the hierarchy of controls, engineering

approaches may perform an acceptable job of eliminating or mitigating workplace ergonomic

hazards. Engineering controls make changes that affect the source of the hazard and do not rely

on employee skill or awareness (Stock, 1991).

Administrative controls. Administrative controls are generally carried out by the

employer and typically consist of management policies, work practices, and/or procedures which

have a significant impact in reducing the daily exposure to ergonomic risk factors (Keyserling et

al., 1991). This approach essentially changes the way in which work is performed by typically

removing the employee from the task or limiting the exposure time. Examples of administrative

controls related to managing CTD hazards include but are not limited to:

Utilizing job or employee rotation by attempting to limit the amount of time that

employees are involved with tasks that expose them to ergonomic risk factors.

Through the rotation approach, the employee is still able to continue to work, but

he/she will operate on a task that does not require the same demands from a

33

physiological standpoint. Therefore, muscles and other parts of the body will receive

a chance to recuperate and heal during the period of performing the other task.

Instituting rest breaks to ease tired or overworked tendon and muscle groups by

allowing time for recovery and rest. In addition, this is an opportune time for the

worker to hydrate and possibly eat a small snack, which will aid in maintaining the

body’s metabolic rate and energy reserves.

Allowing employees to engage in alternative tasks to offset particular ergonomic risk

factors such as repetition, force, posture, and duration. By including an array of

alternative tasks that the employee can perform, the exposure to a certain set of

ergonomic risks may be alleviated by cross training the worker to perform multiple

jobs.

Redesigning work methods such as lifting with the aid of another co-worker,

reducing the amount of overtime work and adding restricted or modified duty jobs.

Work pace modification through adjusting the pace of work or a process as it relates

to the overall production speed, in order to accommodate the worker’s capabilities

and limitations (Chen, et al., 1997).

Administrative controls are generally implemented without much difficulty and can have an

immediate effect in reducing ergonomic risks associated with a particular task. An important

aspect to remember in discussing administrative controls is that such approaches are only

temporary in nature and do not actually eliminate the hazard, and therefore management must

ensure the procedures and policies are implemented and subsequently adhered to.

Personal protective equipment. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is considered any

item that is worn by an employee to aid in reducing or controlling apparent risk factors during a

34

task (Vincoli, 2000). This final stage in the hierarchy of controls is the least desirable from a risk

control standpoint, as it only places a barrier between the hazard and the worker. Ergonomic

PPE does offer some limited protection in situations where engineering or administrative

controls cannot be implemented, but it does possess negative aspects as well. The most

significant capability of ergonomic PPE is in minimizing force-based issues through pads, gloves

and grips. Vibration-absorbing gloves are beneficial in minimizing force-induced injuries for

workers using vibrating tools (Chengular, 2004). General ergonomic PPE consists of anti-

vibration gloves, heating and cooling clothing, non-slip footwear, custom tool grips (such as non-

slip and insulated tool handles), finger guards, knee pads, hand pads, and back belts (Tayyari &

Smith, 1997).

When utilizing PPE, it is important to train the employees on the proper selection, use

and maintenance of PPE. The negatives of using PPE are that it can be cumbersome to wear and

can create a hindrance when performing particular job tasks (Chen et al., 1997). In some cases,

by utilizing PPE, the employee has to fight or struggle with the device in order to effectively

accomplish a task. Personal protective equipment can also result in additional ergonomic

stressors. For instance, back belts are considered a form of PPE in manual material handling

(MMH) tasks, but should be heeded with caution as they are not considered an effective method

of preventing overexertion injuries. Back belts provide a false sense of security and can restrict

lifting mobility, ultimately requiring an employee to exert a greater amount of force in

completing the lifting-based task (Kromer, Kromer, Kromer, 1994). Additionally, hard hats, a

traditional form of PPE, can add some degree of weight to the head and neck, and therefore

cause increased strain upon the neck during flexion and extension situations. Hence, there are

situations where ergonomic PPE is beneficial in decreasing an exposure, but also instances where

35

it may essentially increase or create a new exposure (Chen et al., 1997). In addition, there are

situations where PPE can prove costly as well, whereas an engineered design may be a single

cost. PPE typically is a recurring cost as supplies become worn out or diminished.

Summary

This Chapter II literature review provided insight into the background of ergonomics,

information on what cumulative trauma disorders and ergonomic risk factors are, the common

types of cumulative trauma disorders, different qualitative and quantitative ergonomic analysis

tools, anthropometrics, and ergonomic control measures. It is apparent that ergonomics is a

multidisciplinary science that involves aspects of various disciplines and that it ultimately seeks

to optimize the relationship between the workplace and the employee. Ergonomics strives

toward the employee being the main consideration when designing workstations and processes,

and values the human being as an integrated part of the system. Identifying ergonomic risk

factors in processes and attempting to abate or eliminate them is paramount is minimizing

human-based loss. Minimizing human-based loss, such as injuries and illnesses, increases

employee comfort and job satisfaction, which in turn enhances productivity and quality,

ultimately leading to positively affecting the bottom-line. Stemming from poor ergonomics, the

development of cumulative trauma disorders is the cause for far reaching implications not only

directly upon the employee, but within the organization as well from a financial standpoint.

There are several acknowledged ergonomic analysis tools that are able to be utilized in

ergonomic workplace investigations. These include assessments such as the ergonomic task

analysis worksheet and REBA form, as well as the employee symptom survey. Additionally,

tools such as the force gauge and manual goniometer assist with quantifying the degree of

ergonomic risk, and video record and photographic analysis allow for focused and repeated

36

analysis to occur. These qualitative and quantitative-based tools allow for data to be gathered

and ergonomic risk factors to be identified, documented, evaluated, analyzed, and subsequently

controlled. Loss-based analysis techniques such as reviewing existing injury and illness records

allow one to gather the full scope of ergonomic issues plaguing an organization, and also allows

for financial quantification of the costs of ergonomic loss occurring. Anthropometrics assists the

ergonomic assessment process by utilizing human-based data in workplace design criteria

considerations. The goal of anthropometry is to accommodate a wide range of the workforce

into the initial design of equipment and products, and to minimize ergonomic-based risks. From

the data and observations gained through ergonomic assessments, the most beneficial and

reasonable control can be implemented by employing ergonomic control methods, either through

engineering, administrative or personal protective equipment considerations.

37

Chapter III: Methodology

The purpose of this study was to examine the sources of ergonomic-based risk factors

associated with the scrap bale wire cutting task process within the Wastepaper Department at

Company XYZ. The intent was to assist Company XYZ to determine the scope of ergonomic

risks present within the task and to subsequently propose recommendations for minimizing or

eliminating the ergonomic risk factors involved with the job. Within this chapter is a discussion

on the actions the researcher performed in order to collect and analyze the gathered data. The

methodology discussed in this chapter includes subject selection and description, instrumentation

used, data collection procedures, data analysis, and the limitations to the analysis.

Subject Selection and Description

The subject selection for this study consisted of identifying subjects who routinely

perform this task at Company XYZ. The two subjects analyzed in this study represented both

the male and female gender, and each possessed a high degree of experience in working the

scrap bale wire cutting task. Both subjects were asked to perform the scrap bale wire cutting

process as they normally would on a regular work shift. Data for both subjects was gathered on

the same day during a single work shift. By using the aforementioned criteria, it ensured that the

data obtained served as an accurate representation of the scrap bale wire cutting process

performed by various workers.

When the subjects were selected, the University of Wisconsin-Stout Implied Consent

Statement (see Appendix E) was provided to the subjects to review and sign, after any questions

were answered pertaining to its content. The researcher issued verbal reassurance to the subjects

that the documentation being gathered was to be used for the purpose of the study only, to be

viewed only by the researcher, and to be destroyed following completion of the study. The

38

researcher explained the complete data recording process to the subjects and reiterated that the

study was voluntary and that no names or personal information would be documented. The

researcher also reviewed the assessments and equipment used to record the data in conducting

the analysis with the subjects and ensured there were no questions before they agreed to take part

in the study.

Instrumentation

Throughout the duration of performing the study, several ergonomic assessment tools

were utilized in order to identify and analyze the extent of ergonomic stressors present within the

scrap bale wire cutting process. Both qualitative and quantitative ergonomic assessment tools

were employed. The four qualitative data collection processes used were the REBA assessment,

the ergonomic task analysis worksheet, an employee symptom survey, and a review of

regulatory-required injury and illness records. The quantitative tools used were the force gauge

and manual goniometer. The force gauge provided data on the static load which was

experienced by the wire cutter while the tool was being grasped, and the force required to actuate

the trigger mechanism. The manual goniometer provided angular measurements of postural

deviation from a preferred neutral posture while performing the task. The total weight of the

cutter was also obtained by placing it upon a calibrated standard scale and recording the

numerical readout value. Other instrumentation used in completing this analysis included a

digital video recorder and digital camera. In order to accurately complete the assessments, the

complete scalp bale wire cutting process was captured on a digital video recorder. The

researcher also captured a number of photographs of the subjects performing the task in order to

obtain static images for specific postural examination. Both of these methods allowed for further

39

analysis to occur in an office setting where the researcher was able to document the various

motions, postures, and extent of ergonomic risk factors which were present.

Data Collection Procedures

The subject was informed regarding the arrangement of what would occur from a data

collection standpoint and was subsequently asked to perform the scrap bale wire cutting task

procedures. The task steps consisted of traversing a platform and bisecting the wires of the scrap

bales as they moved down a conveyor belt and into the hydrapulper. The assessment

commenced by initially viewing the task in-person and subsequently video recording the entire

process, which had a duration of approximately two minutes. The video camera was positioned

so that the researcher could gain a clear sight of the worker at all times during the process. At

this time, a digital camera was also employed to photograph the task in order to enhance

resolution at specific positions and postures of the subject. The subjects were not asked to

engage in any procedures that were beyond the normal operating scope of their job.

Force gauge. Data was collected on the static load produced by the pneumatic wire

cutter while the subject held it and the amount of force required to actuate the trigger of the

device. For obtaining both of these values, the force gauge was utilized by measuring the

amount of force that it quantified and recording the readout value. Force values for the static

load of the wire cutter were obtained by suspending it from the force gauge and five samples

were obtained at differing angles. The force values for the effort required to actuate the trigger

mechanism of the wire cutter were attained by attaching the force gauge directly to the trigger to

quantify the amount of force required to activate the cutter, and a total of five samples were

collected.

40

Manual goniometer. The manual goniometer was used during video playback of the

scrap bale wire cutting task and was placed up against the laptop computer screen with the

paused video at various stages. At these times, the goniometer arms were manipulated much like

a protractor in order to accurately measure the various angles arising from the postures of the

employee during the wire cutting process.

REBA assessment. In performing the REBA assessment, following are the steps which

assisted with the completion of this form:

1. The researched used a laptop computer and played the video back to determine the task

duration and frequency.

2. The subject’s most extreme positions were identified and served as the postures to

analyze on the REBA form.

3. The postures of the leg, trunk and neck were examined and measured with the manual

goniometer. The numerical score was assigned to each respective body part score box

based on the degrees measured by the goniometer. The resulting postural scores were

placed into Table A of the REBA survey.

4. Based on the respective force gauge readings, the muscle use score and the force/load

score were added into the leg, trunk and neck total score from Table A. The score was

then marked in Table C of the REBA survey.

5. The postures of the wrist, lower arm and upper arm were measured with the manual

goniometer. The numerical score was assigned based on the degrees measured by the

manual goniometer to each respective body part score box as laid by the REBA survey.

The postural scores were placed into Table B of the REBA survey.

41

6. The numerical values from the wrist, lower arm and upper arm body part score box were

then added up and the posture score was obtained by using Table B within the REBA

survey.

7. The coupling score, which was determined by the quality of the handle of the tool being

utilized, was added to the Table B score. The score was then marked down in Table C of

the REBA survey.

8. With two scores marked in Table C, the Table C score was determined. The resulting

score from Table C then had an activity score added onto it based upon the amount of

exertion the task required, which then produced the final REBA score. Based on the final

REBA score, different routes of action were recommended, ranging from the task

possessing acceptable postures to further investigation and intervention through

implementing changes.

Ergonomic task analysis worksheet. The ergonomic task analysis worksheet was

utilized in order to ascertain the potential ergonomic risk factors associated with the scrap bale

wire cutting task. The risk factors include repetition, vibration, posture, force, reaching and

proper height, and additional environmental risk factors relating to workplace conditions. The

ergonomic task analysis worksheet displayed a series of drawings in each section that allowed

the researcher to observe the given risk factor and then determine the severity, as scored among

three separate risk-based levels. The levels were ideal (1, 2, 3…30), warning (1A, 2A,

3A…30A), or take action (1B, 2B, 3B…30B). Both the warning and take action levels indicate

there is a certain degree of ergonomic risk present, with the only difference between the two

being that the take action level holds a degree of higher risk and therefore requires immediate

attention to abate the identified hazards.

42

Employee symptom survey. The employee symptom survey developed by the

University of Wisconsin-Madison (see Appendix C) is based on identifying areas of

pain/discomfort upon the body. The survey consists of multiple short answer questions that aid

the employee in identifying his/her regions of discomfort/pain and areas where potential or

existing CTD injuries may be present. The subjects were asked to complete this section based

upon what they were experiencing when performing the scrap bale wire cutting task. The survey

also contains a map of human body parts where the subjects were told to mark any body parts

which experience pain/discomfort. Five employees who were involved in this survey encompass

workers that perform the scrap bale wire cutting process. The researcher fully explained the

survey after handing it out to each participant and reiterated that the survey was completely

voluntary and that no personal identifiers would be used. Upon completion of the form the

employees were instructed to drop the surveys into an enclosed box with a slit on the top of it in

order to maintain their anonymity.

Injury and illness records review. The review of Company XYZ’s injury and illness

records related to the scrap bale wire cutting process was conducted in order to ascertain the

scope of any potential trends based upon the occurrence of CTDs. Company XYZ’s safety

director obtained and presented the researcher with the OSHA 300 log for the past five years

which did not contain any employee names or other types of identifiers. The researcher gleaned

information from the log pertaining to the scrap bale wire cutting task and noted the injuries that

had resulted in either medical treatment or marked as an OSHA recordable.

Anthropometry. Measurements of the workstation were collected in order to determine

the fit between the workers and the scrap bale wire cutting process design. The following is a

43

description of general guidelines in how the workstation measurement data was collected and

analyzed:

Define the workplace and equipment’s potential user population.

Determine the proportion of the population to be accommodated by the design

Establish the body dimensions crucial for the design.

Determine the type of accommodation

Ascertain the correct percentile values of the dimensions for the defined proportion of the

population.

Determine the type of clothing and PPE worn by the employee and make necessary

clothing allowances (Tayyari & Smith, 1997, p. 57).

The researcher measured both the structural and functional dimensions utilizing a normal tape

measure. The same tool was employed to measure and collect data on the workstation to

determine maximum and minimum dimensions. The workstation was analyzed with respect to

accommodating the smallest (5th) and the largest (95th) of the population. The gathered data in

the form of vertical and horizontal reach demands was then examined and benchmarked against

the anthropometric data table (See Appendix D).

Data Analysis

With the data gathered as previously discussed, the researcher was able to assess the

extent of ergonomic risk factors present within the activity. The REBA and ergonomic task

analysis worksheet assessment tools identified the ergonomic risk factors that existed within the

wire cutting process and the subsequent assigned scores were used to develop appropriate

recommendations. The symptom survey and review of available records aided in determining

the scope of human-based loss which is occurring from the scrap bale wire cutting process.

44

From the quantitative measures of the force gauge, the researcher calculated averages from the

recorded readings to benchmark the degree of force within the task. Measuring the angles of

postural deviation from a neutral posture was accomplished by using the manual goniometer.

The collected anthropometric data allowed for a comparison of the analysis results against the

established anthropometric guidelines. From the ascertained data, the researcher was able to

quantify the extent of ergonomic postural risks present within the scrap bale wire cutting task.

Other data analysis included viewing the video recordings and photographs and analyzing the

process steps in order to quantify task cycle time and repetition. Through a thorough review of

the data gathered during the complete task analysis, the researcher was able to identify the

ergonomic risk factors present within the task and determine what the most significant

ergonomic risk factors and exposures were.

Limitations of the Study

This analysis is limited to only the scrap bale wire cutting process at Company XYZ.

There will be no considerations made for anything outside of this defined research area. The

willingness of the employees to actively participate in this study could affect the data and

ultimate results. Lastly, the analysis, results, conclusions, and recommendations for this study

are only applicable to Company XYZ’s scrap bale wire cutting process.

45

Chapter IV: Results

The purpose of this study was to investigate the sources of ergonomic-based risk factors

associated with the scrap bale wire cutting task process within the Wastepaper Department at

Company XYZ. The intent was to assist Company XYZ to ascertain the scope of ergonomic

risks present within the task and to subsequently propose recommendations for minimizing or

eliminating the ergonomic risk factors involved with the job. The researcher established the

following goals in order to help guide the ergonomic assessment and the results of the study:

1. To perform an assessment of the current ergonomic requirements involved with the scrap

bale wire cutting process by utilizing both qualitative and quantitative measurement

approaches.

2. To perform video and static postural analysis to assist in determining the extent of

ergonomic risk factors which are present.

3. To conduct an analysis of Company XYZ’s occupational injury and illness records.

4. To conduct an ergonomic symptom survey on the employees.

The methodology used to gather the required data included a REBA and ergonomic task analysis

worksheet. Within these assessments, a force gauge, manual goniometer, and

video/photographic analysis were utilized in order to ascertain the activities/workstation

parameters which may cause human-based loss. Workstation anthropometric measurements and

comparisons were completed to assist with determining to extent of deficiencies existing within

the scrap bale wire cutting task. Lastly, an employee ergonomic symptom survey was distributed

and a review of pertinent OSHA 300 log injury and illness records was conducted. Within this

chapter is a presentation of the collected data utilizing the procedures as outlined in Chapter III

of this study.

46

General Workstation Description

The scrap bale wire cutting task is located in the secondary fiber procurement area which

is within the Wastepaper Department at Company XYZ. At this location, the wastepaper bales

are loaded onto a conveyor belt by a powered industrial truck and the employees must bisect the

steel wires which secure the bales together while such travel down the conveyor before entering

the hydrapulper. The wire-cutting tool is a pneumatic cutter, which is attached to a suspended air

line that generates the force required to sever the wires. The worker bisects five wires on the

bales which are stacked two high, and a full load is comprised of twelve separate stacks. In an

eight-hour shift, approximately 575 bales will be processed, thus translating into an estimated

2,880 wires severed each day by the employee. The wire cutting process is a predominantly

manual task utilizing extensive repetitive motion of the upper limbs. When employees are not

performing this task, the majority of their time is spent either cleaning the workplace or pulling

the metal scrap tails out of the hydrapulper.

Cutting steel wires is the primary function of the job and it is performed from a standing

position. It is required that the employee traverses a platform to bisect the wires in a rapid

manner to minimize the amount of time which is spent on the raised area. The speed of the bale

conveyor system is decreased when employees traverse the platform via monitoring by a light

sensor. Although this assists the worker by slowing down the scrap bales to be severed, the

overall production efficiency is protracted due to the operator’s proficiency at performing the

task. The workstation is completely fixed and the work platform is protected by steel guard rails

which prevent the bales from falling onto the platform. The spacing between the rails allows for

the employees to reach inward to the conveyor to bisect the wires by extending the wire cutter

47

into the conveyor area, starting on the highest wire and progressing downward to the bottom

strand.

Presentation of Collected Data

Goal number one. The first goal of the study was to perform an assessment of the

current ergonomic requirements involved with the scrap bale wire cutting process by utilizing

both qualitative and quantitative measurement approaches. Involved within this objective was

the utilization of the REBA assessment, ergonomic task analysis worksheet (both of which

required the use of the manual goniometer and force gauge), video/photographic analysis, and

anthropometric data.

Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). The REBA assessment (see Appendix A) was

used to evaluate the entire scrap bale wire cutting process and to assess the movements and

postures of the employee while performing the task. Using paused video and photographs, the

manual goniometer was utilized to measure the varying degrees of postural deviation resulting

from the employees performing the scrap bale wire cutting task. Table 1 below presents the

score for the respective section of each body part as well as the final score.

Table 1

REBA Scores of the Scrap Bale Wire Cutting Process

REBA Neck Trunk Leg Score Upper Lower Wrist Score Score Activity Final score score score A arm arm score B C score score score score Wire Cutting 2 4 2 6 4 2 2 7 9 2 11 Task

As illustrated above in Table 1, the scores for the neck and trunk were two and four respectively,

as the workers performed the task from a standing position and thus were required to assume

48

approximately 20° of neck flexion and 20° to 60° of lumbar and cervical spine flexion from

vertical. The score for the leg was a two, as there was minimal knee flexion (10° or less) while

the worker was leaning forward to bisect the wires. The score A tally of six included the neck,

trunk, and leg scores, while the force/load score was not included because the load of the wire

cutter was less than eleven pounds. The upper arm position score was a four, as the workers

incur approximately 45° to 90° of arm flexion, paired with upper arm abduction. The lower arm

position score was rated a two as the elbow sustained approximately 60° to 80° of extension

when paired with forearm supination. The wrist position received a score of two as this joint

sustained significant extension of approximately 30° to 35° degrees and was also ulnar deviated.

The score B tally of seven included the upper arm, lower arm, and wrist scores, as well as the

coupling score which received a “fair” rating. The activity score received a two, as there were

repeated small range actions (more than 4 of them per minute), as well as rapid large range

changes in postures. The C score was determined by using both the A and B scores, and

subsequently the final REBA score was ascertained by adding the C score to the activity score to

produce the final score of eleven. A score of this degree indicates a high level of ergonomic and

musculoskeletal risk for the scrap bale wire cutting task employees, and consequently suggests

further investigation with ensuing modification through the implementation of necessary

changes.

Ergonomic task analysis worksheet. The ergonomic task analysis worksheet (see

Appendix B) was utilized in order to ascertain the potential ergonomic risk factors associated

with the scrap bale wire cutting task. The severity of the risk factor observed within the task was

ranked on three separate levels which included ideal, warning and take action levels. The results

of the ergonomic task analysis worksheet (see Appendix B) indicate that conditions exist that

49

may be conducive for workers to develop CTDs. Following are the identified working

conditions which correspond to the most significant (Take Action) risks:

Repetition (1B – repetitive cycle of less than 30 seconds)

Posture (6A – wrist flexion or extension >20° or >30 times per minute; 6B – wrist

radially or ulnar deviated >20° or >30 times per minute)

Reach (9C – elbow flexion or extension >25% above or below ideal position >3

hours/day)

Reach (10B – reach/forward flexion >45° or >4 times/minute or >2 hours/day without

support)

Force (11B – object lifted weighs >1 lb. or lifting occurs >20 times/hour)

Force (13A – pinch grip utilized with >2 lbs. of force used)

Force (15B – finger activated control)

Static Loading and Fatigue (18B – constant position, tool held >10 seconds)

Static Loading and Fatigue (19B – more than 50% of the task is repetitive)

Environment (30B – standing >50% of shift without floor mats or other relief for the

back and legs)

In addition to the above take action issues, presented are a number of conditions which

correspond to moderate (Warning Level/Monitor) risks:

Posture (2A – knees partially bent; 4A – head and neck flexion <20°; 4B – head and neck

extension <10°; 4C – head and neck bent sideways <20°; 4D – head and neck twisting

<20°; 5A – hands/palms rotated <20°)

Reach (9A – arm extension up to 45°; 9D – elbows abducted up to 45°; 10A – twisting up

to 45° or 2 to 4 times per minute; 10C – reaching/forward flexion to the side up to 20°)

50

Force (14A – power grip with <10 lbs. of force; 16A – tool has awkward handles; 17A –

gloves are needed but fit adequately)

Lifting and Materials Handling (21A – occasional lifting or lowering of materials)

Environment (24A – worker has some control over workplace; 26A – temperature

slightly too cold and/or hot; 27A – work area is too noisy; 28A – flooring is slightly

slippery; 29A – slight stress to back and legs from insufficient floor padding)

The ergonomic task analysis worksheet results indicate that within the scrap bale wire

cutting task, there were eleven risk factors which fall under the severe risk (Take Action)

category. These eleven conditions were within the ergonomic risk factor categories of repetition,

posture, force, reach, static loading/fatigue, and environment. All conditions falling within the

take action category are recommended for the implementation of an action plan to abate the

ergonomic issues as soon as practical.

Force gauge. The force gauge was specifically utilized to quantify the degree of force

required by the employee to actuate the trigger of the pneumatic wire cutter and the static load

produced by the device while it was being held by the employee. The force values for the extent

of effort required to actuate the wire cutter were attained by attaching the force gauge directly to

the single finger trigger to quantify the amount of force required to activate the cutter. A total of

five samples were collected and are displayed below in Table 2.

Table 2

Amount of Force Required to Actuate the Wire Cutter Trigger

Test Number Force (lbs)

1 9.5

2 10.2

51

3 9.8

4 9.8

5 10.0

Average 9.86

On average, the employee must generate 9.86 pounds of force in order to actuate the trigger of

the wire cutter. As the employee reaches forward with the cutter to bisect the wires of the scrap

bales, the non-dominant hand is used in the supinated position to support the weight of the

device. The force values for the static load produced by the wire cutter were obtained by

suspending it from the force gauge and a total of five samples were collected and are displayed

below in Table 3.

Table 3

Amount of Force Required to Support the Wire Cutter

Test Number Force (lbs)

1 7.5

2 8.1

3 7.7

4 6.9

5 7.9

Average 7.62

Note. The wire cutter was weighed at 8 pounds.

On average, the employee must produce 7.62 pounds of upward force in order to counter the

weight (or downward force) of the wire cutter.

52

Anthropometric study. The anthropometric study was performed in order to ascertain the

current fit which exists between the workers and the scrap bale machine/workstation. Initial

design observations made by the researcher indicated that the scrap bale wire cutting interface

does not adequately fit its users and an anthropometric analysis was conducted in order to

determine the extent of the problem. The scrap bale wire cutting employees perform their job

from a standing position and repetitively sustain reaching and flexion with their shoulders/arms

and spine. The static body dimensions of the scrap bale wire cutting employees’ were obtained

for both the tallest and shortest employees in order to represent the range of size. The

measurements collected pertained specifically to the setup of this task and thus only certain

measurements were taken that were relevant to this study. Presented below in Table 4 are the

results of these measurements and also shown is a comparison against U.S. anthropometric data

(see Appendix D) for the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles.

Table 4

Scrap Bale Wire Cutting Employees’ Static Dimensions and U.S. Anthropometric Data

Measurement U.S. Employee #1 Employee #2

anthropometric data

5th

50th

95th

1a-Body depth at shoulder 27.2 30.7 35.0 37 30

1b-Acromial process to functional pinch 22.6 25.6 29.3 27 22

1c-Abdominal ext. to functional pitch 19.1 24.1 29.3 30 26

2-Abdominal ext. depth 7.1 8.7 10.2 12 11

8-Eye height 56.8 62.1 67.8 70 62

9-Stature 60.8 66.2 72.0 74 66

10-Functional overhead reach 74.0 80.5 86.9 93 84

53

The scrap bale wire cutting employees’ body static dimensions represented data relevant to a

stationary or static job task, which was not applicable in the case of this particular job that

requires dynamic movements. The static measurements did aid the researcher in identifying

aspects of horizontal and vertical job demands, but dynamic measurements were heavily

preferred in this study. While the spine was flexed, the dynamic horizontal forward reach

distance beyond the employee’s abdomen was measured at 31”. The highest vertical reach

distance was measured at 59”.

The collected data (vertical and horizontal reach demands of the employee) was

benchmarked against the U.S. anthropometric data table (see Appendix D). In order to represent

the minimum allowable dimensions (clearance) needed to accommodate the largest population

performing this task, the 95th percentile was chosen. Additionally, to represent the maximum

allowable dimensions (reach) needed to accommodate the smallest population performing this

task the 5th percentile was chosen. Thus by accomplishing the aforementioned measurement and

analysis criteria, the scrap bale wire cutting task will be analyzed with the intention of

accommodating the largest (95th) and smallest (5th) of the population. Resulting from the

analysis and utilizing the U.S. anthropometric data table, the maximum forward functional reach

of abdominal extension for the 5th percentile was identified to be 19.1” (see Appendix D). The

estimate was based upon the maximum allowable distance for a forward reach envelope to

accommodate the smallest (or shortest) population while reaching forward to bisect the bale

wires without assuming a detrimental spine flexion posture. Therefore, based upon the dynamic

forearm extension-based measurement of 31” which was collected from the employee, the

difference between the ideal forward reach distance of 19.1” is exemplified and results in the

54

employee sustaining significant spinal flexion and thus poses a risk for the development of CTDs

and pain.

The highest vertical reach distance dictated that workers should not perform reaching

above their shoulders and thus the allowable vertical reach distance based upon the 5th percentile

to accommodate the smallest population performing the task was 48.4” (see Appendix D). The

collected data on the employee for the vertical reach measurement was 59” and therefore

indicates another major difference which indicates a substandard fit between the user and the

task. The results of the anthropometric analysis conducted on the scrap bale wire cutting task

indicated that this workstation is exceeding previously identified U.S. anthropometric vertical

and horizontal reach demand values. Therefore, this task is causing the employees to work

outside of the preferred reach envelopes and is contributing to the extent of ergonomic risk

factors.

Goal number two. The second goal of this study was to perform video and static postural

analysis to determine the extent of ergonomic risk factors which are present. This objective was

accomplished by viewing the recorded video and photographs of the scrap bale wire cutting task

and conducting a postural examination and quantification of repetition. From the analysis, the

following major physical observations were identified:

Spinal (thoracic and lumbar) flexion, with minor rotation

Cervical flexion and extension, with minimal rotation

Shoulder flexion with horizontal abduction

Significant forward reaching of the arms

Substantial wrist ulnar deviation, with occasional slight radial deviation

Significant wrist extension

55

Bilateral grip/pinch (trigger)

Supination and extension of the non-dominant hand/arm

The quantification of repetition was also performed as a result of the video analysis

process. The employees bisect five wires on each bale and in an eight-hour shift, approximately

2,880 wires will be cut during that time period. This translates into an estimated 30 wires cut per

minute by the employees. Thus it becomes apparent that significant repetition concerns are

inherent within this task.

Goal number three. The third goal of this study was to conduct an analysis of Company

XYZ’s occupational injury and illness records. This objective was accomplished by reviewing

the Company’s OSHA 300 log to identify all ergonomic-based injuries associated with the scrap

bale wire cutting task. Upon completion of the review, it was determined that Company XYZ

has experienced a total of three recordable ergonomic injuries over the past five years which can

be attributed to the scrap bale wire cutting process. Displayed below in Table 5 is the injury type

and date for ergonomic injuries which are likely to have been caused by the cutting of scrap bale

wires.

Table 5

Recordable Ergonomic Injuries Related to the Scrap Bale Wire Cutting Task

Employee Date Injury Type

1 4/12/11 Right shoulder strain

2 1/23/11 Lower back strain

3 8/18/09 Right shoulder strain

56

Table 4 presents the ergonomic-based injuries Company XYZ has experienced as a result of the

substandard job design of the scrap bale wire cutting task. The right shoulder strains are

believed to be CTDs attributed to the repetitive abduction of the shoulder and arm, as well as

flexion and extension movements while reaching inward to bisect the steel wires. The lower

back strain was believed to be a result of the sustained substantial lumbar flexion while reaching

forward to cut the steel wires. These three OSHA recordable injuries are significant because

they represent sources of human-based loss arising out of the substandard scrap bale wire cutting

task. Not only are these injuries detrimental to the employee’s health and well-being, but they

also represent significant and direct financial losses associated with workers compensation and

medical costs, as well as the indirect costs which relate to other production-based issues due to

the individual being away from work.

Goal number four. The fourth and final goal of this study was to conduct an ergonomic

symptom survey (See Appendix C) on the employees who perform the scrap bale wire cutting

task. Accomplishing this activity allowed the researcher to quantify the extent of employee

discomfort which existed and therefore assisted with gaining the full picture of the degree of

ergonomic risks and human-based loss associated with the job. The data gathered from the

surveys identified the number of employees who have experienced discomfort associated with

performing the scrap bale wire cutting task and also the areas where ergonomic-based risks may

be present. Among the participants in the survey, the time on the scrap bale wire cutting job

ranged from one to five years.

The ergonomic symptom survey first asked the subjects to check the areas of the body

where musculoskeletal discomfort was present. Among the five respondents, the top three areas

checked were the shoulder, hand/wrist and lower back. The following question asked the

57

subjects to place a check by the words that best described their symptoms. Among the five

respondents, the top three areas marked were pain, numbness/tingling and stiffness. The third

question asked how long ago the participants first noticed the problem. Two respondents

indicated the issue occurred in the past year, and one subject said within the past six months,

while two other respondents said within the past two years. The fourth question asked the

subjects to check how long each episode lasted for. Two participants stated one hour to 24

hours, and the remaining three reported 24 hours to one week.

The fifth question of the ergonomic symptom survey asked how many episodes of

musculoskeletal pain/discomfort the subjects experienced in the last year. Two respondents

indicated they have had one episode in the last year, and one respondent reported two episodes in

the last year, while the remaining two subjects reported none. Question number six asked the

participants to list what they think caused the problem. Three subjects indicated repetitive wire

cutting actions, while the remaining two reported repetitive bending down and reaching. The

seventh question asked if the problem has occurred in the last seven days, to which all of the

respondents reported no. The eighth question allowed the participants to rate the level of

physical discomfort they have experienced (both at the current and worse levels) resulting from

performing this job. For the “at its worse” feeling, three subjects reported a severe level of

discomfort, and two subjects indicated a mild level of discomfort. For the “right now” feeling,

four respondents reported a low to mild level of discomfort, while only one indicated a moderate

level of discomfort.

The ninth question on the ergonomic symptom survey asked whether the subjects had

undergone medical treatment resulting from the problem. Three respondents answered yes and

their diagnoses were two shoulder strains and a lower back strain. The tenth and eleventh

58

questions asked if the subjects had lost any work or were on modified duty in the last year

because of the problem. One participant responded that two days of work were missed and a

second employee stated that three days of worked were missed. Another participant reported

three days of modified duty and the remaining two had nothing to report. No subjects reported

changing any jobs because of this problem on question number twelve. Lastly, the subjects were

provided the opportunity to shade the areas of discomfort they had in the past year on a body

diagram. The results indicated that three respondents specified the shoulder region, one

respondent indicated the lower back region and one respondent denoted the hand/wrist regions.

Resulting from this ergonomic symptom survey, the researcher was able to determine the extent

of ergonomic pain/discomfort existing within the scrap bale wire cutting task.

Discussion

Results of the ergonomic analysis which was conducted on the scrap bale wire cutting

process indicate that numerous ergonomic risk factors and potential loss exposures are present.

With a final score of 11, the REBA assessment identified the arms, shoulders and back are at a

high level of ergonomic and musculoskeletal risk due to the significant postural-based issues and

repetitious actions within the scrape bale wire cutting task. Consequently, this analysis

technique suggests further investigation and implementation of changes to abate the identified

concerns. The ergonomic task analysis worksheet results indicated that within the scrap bale

wire cutting task, there were eleven risk factors which fell under the severe risk (Take Action)

category. These eleven conditions were within the ergonomic risk factor categories of repetition,

posture, force, reach, static loading/fatigue, and environment, which are consistent with the

major risk factors identified by Tayyari and Smith (1997) within the Chapter II literature review

of this study. The risk factors identified by both of these ergonomic assessment methods

59

correlate with the information presented in Chapter II of this study and the outcomes of these

assessments indicated that there was a significant degree of risk for developing CTDs and related

human-based loss.

The results of the anthropometric analysis conducted on the scrap bale wire cutting task

indicate that the scrap bale wire cutting workstation is exceeding previously identified U.S.

anthropometric vertical and horizontal reach demand values (Chengalur et al., 2004) (Appendix

D). As a result, this task is causing the employees to work outside of the preferred reach

envelopes as identified by Chengalur et al. (2004) and is contributing to the overall extent of

ergonomic risk factors. From a repetition standpoint resulting from the wire cutting task,

approximately 2,880 wires will be cut during an eight hour work shift. Thus it becomes apparent

that significant repetition concerns are inherent within the scrap bale wire cutting process and

align with what was presented in Chapter II related to the potential of sustaining cumulative

trauma disorders being increased in activities containing highly repetitive conditions (Tayyari, &

Smith, 1997). The scrap bale wire cutting employees must also generate a significant amount of

force to actuate the single trigger of the wire cutter and endure moderate static loading in order to

support the device. As Stock (1991) stated, forces throughout a given task can vary significantly,

but one of the paramount high-risk situations which incur damage upon the body is during static

loading, which occurs when a force is held for a significant period of time by a given muscle. As

a result, this causes extensive fatigue and the probability of sustaining a CTD is increased.

Upon completion of Company XYZ’s occupational injury and illness records review, it

was determined that a total of three recordable ergonomic injuries have occurred over the past

five years which can be attributed to the scrap bale wire cutting process. These OSHA

recordable CTDs are believed to be attributed to the repetitive abduction of the shoulder and arm,

60

as well as flexion and extension movements while reaching inward to bisect the steel wires. The

lower back strain was believed to be a result of the sustained substantial lumbar flexion while

reaching forward to cut the steel wires. These three OSHA recordable injuries are significant

because they represent sources of human-based loss arising out of the substandard scrap bale

wire cutting task and therefore assist with ascertaining the degree of ergonomic risk within the

task. The ergonomic symptom survey identified the shoulder, arm and back regions as the most

frequent high risk areas within the scrap bale wire cutting task and overall, the survey assisted

with determining the overall scope of ergonomic risks and human-based losses which are

occurring. The collected data resulting from this ergonomic analysis, paired with the

information presented in Chapter II, illustrate the apparent relationship between pain/discomfort

and injuries resulting from the scrap bale wire cutting task.

61

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to investigate the sources of ergonomic-based risk factors

associated with the scrap bale wire cutting task process within the Wastepaper Department at

Company XYZ. The intent was to assist Company XYZ to ascertain the scope of ergonomic

risks present within the task and to subsequently propose recommendations for minimizing or

eliminating the ergonomic-based risk factors involved with the job. The following goals were

established by the researcher in order to help guide the ergonomic assessment and the results of

the study:

1. To perform an assessment of the current ergonomic requirements involved with the scrap

bale wire cutting process by utilizing both qualitative and quantitative measurement

approaches.

2. To perform video and static postural analysis to assist in determining the extent of

ergonomic risk factors which are present.

3. To conduct an analysis of Company XYZ’s occupational injury and illness records.

4. To conduct an ergonomic symptom survey on the employees.

The methodology used to gather the required data included a REBA and ergonomic task analysis

worksheet. Within these assessments, a force gauge, manual goniometer, and

video/photographic analysis were utilized in order to ascertain the activities/workstation design

parameters which may cause human-based loss. Workstation anthropometric measurements and

comparisons were completed to assist with determining to extent of deficiencies existing within

the scrap bale wire cutting task. Lastly, an employee ergonomic symptom survey was distributed

and a review of pertinent OSHA 300 log injury and illness records was conducted. For the

remainder of this chapter, the researcher will discuss the conclusions resulting from the collected

62

data, as well as present both potential and reasonable solutions in order to mitigate the

probability and severity of employees being exposed to substandard conditions which may lead

to the development of CTDs and related human and financial-based losses.

Conclusions

Resulting from the analysis of data which was collected by utilizing the various

ergonomic assessment tools as well a review of associated literature presented in Chapter II of

this study, it is reasonable to conclude that conditions presently exist within the scrap bale wire

cutting task which are placing employees at risk of developing CTDs. Based upon the collected

data within the study, the following conclusions can reasonably be made with regard to the scrap

bale wire cutting employees at Company XYZ:

The REBA assessment, with a final score of 11, identified the scrap bale wire

cutting task to be in the high risk range for the occurrence of CTDs and associated

human-based loss. The arms, shoulders and back are at a high level of ergonomic

and musculoskeletal risk due to the significant postural-based issues and

repetitious actions within the scrape bale wire cutting task. Consequently, this

analysis technique suggests further investigation and implementation of changes

are needed to abate the identified concerns. The identified ergonomic-based risk

factors resulting from the REBA assessment pose significant potential to cause

musculoskeletal injuries within the muscles, tendons, nerves, and other soft

tissues of the human body (Stock, 1991).

The ergonomic task analysis worksheet results indicated that within the scrap bale

wire cutting task, there were 11 risk factors which fell under the severe risk (Take

Action) category. These eleven conditions were within the ergonomic risk factor

63

categories of repetition, posture, force, reach, static loading/fatigue, and

environment, which are consistent with the major risk factors identified by

Tayyari and Smith (1997) within the Chapter II literature review of this study.

All conditions falling within the take action category are recommended for the

implementation of an action plan to abate the ergonomic issues as soon as

practical. In addition to the aforementioned severe risks, the ergonomic task

analysis worksheet also identified 19 moderate (Warning Level/Monitor) risks,

which were within the ergonomic risk factor categories of posture, reach, force,

lifting and materials handling, and environment.

The results of the anthropometric analysis conducted on the scrap bale wire

cutting task indicate that the scrap bale wire cutting workstation is exceeding

previously identified U.S. anthropometric vertical and horizontal reach demand

values (Chengalur et al., 2004) (Appendix D). As a result, this task is causing the

employees to work outside of the preferred reach envelopes as identified by

Chengalur et al. (2004) and is contributing to the overall extent of ergonomic risk

factors.

The occupational injury and illness review conducted on Company XYZ’s OSHA

300 log determined that a total of three OSHA recordable ergonomic injuries have

occurred over the past five years which can be attributed to the scrap bale wire

cutting process. These recordable injuries are believed to be CTDs attributed to

the repetitive abduction of the shoulder and arm, as well as flexion and extension

movements while reaching inward to the conveyor system to bisect the steel

wires. The lower back strain was believed to be a result of sustained and

64

substantial lumbar flexion while the employee was reaching forward to cut the

steel wires. These three OSHA recordable injuries significantly represent sources

of human-based loss arising out of the substandard scrap bale wire cutting task

and ultimately assist with ascertaining the overall degree of ergonomic risk within

the task.

The ergonomic employee symptom survey identified the shoulder, arm and back

regions as the most frequent high risk areas within the scrap bale wire cutting

task. Overall, the ergonomic symptom survey assisted with determining the

complete scope of ergonomic risks and human-based losses which are occurring.

The collected data from this symptom survey, paired with the information

presented in Chapter II, illustrate the apparent correlation between

pain/discomfort and injuries resulting from the scrap bale wire cutting task.

The results from the repetition quantification of the scrap bale wire cutting

process indicate that approximately 2,880 wires will be cut during an eight hour

work shift which translates into an estimated 30 wires cut per minute. It is

apparent that significant repetition issues are inherent within the scrap bale wire

cutting task which align with the concepts presented in Chapter II related to the

potential of sustaining cumulative trauma disorders being increased in activities

containing highly repetitive conditions (Tayyari, & Smith, 1997).

From a force analysis standpoint, the scrap bale wire cutting employees must

generate a significant amount of force to actuate the single trigger of the wire

cutter and also endure moderate static loading in order to support the device while

cutting. Correlated with what Stock (1991) stated as presented in Chapter II of

65

this study, the forces of the scrap bale wire cutting job pose significant risk

throughout the task and inevitably incur damage upon the body by causing

extensive fatigue, thereby increasing the probability of sustaining CTDs.

Recommendations

Based upon the results of this ergonomic analysis study, multiple engineering and

administrative-based recommendations were identified which may assist with

mitigating/eliminating the presence of the ergonomic-based risk factors within the scrap bale

wire cutting task and consequently decrease the potential for developing CTDs and related

human-based losses.

Engineering controls:

The first control to be discussed is the implementation of a concrete ramp with a

skiver blade. It is possible to utilize a forklift to force the wires into a skiver

blade in an effort to snap the wires under tension. As the bale conveyor is

approximately three feet above the floor level, a concrete ramp must be installed

so the bale can be forced across the skiver blade, thus loosening the paper onto the

conveyor and subsequently into the hydrapulper. The blade will need sufficient

rigidity to maintain its position when the wires are forced into it, thus the base of

the blade should be placed in a ten-inch pit that is covered with a steel plate. The

blade should protrude out of the steel plate no more than one half of an inch so it

can bisect the wires, but not interfere with the bale movement.

Implement a counterweight system on the wire cutter to assist the employees by

reducing the extent of force and postural-based issues. As a result of installing a

counterweight, the accomplishment of reducing musculoskeletal fatigue can be

66

effectively achieved. A counterweight will support the wire cutter verses

requiring the current use of the employee’s non-dominant hand, which will

successfully minimize the extensive forces of shoulder and lumbar spine flexion.

The counterweight can easily be installed on an existing I-beam which is located

directly above the conveyor system.

Redesign the wire cutting tool to possess a multiple finger trigger mechanism

(instead of the single finger actuator) which will help minimizing the extent of

repetitious force-based issues in relation to what the employees are currently

experiencing. In addition, it is recommended that management investigate the

possible use of custom grip technology that could be applied to the wire cutters

handle to increase the coupling factor between the employee and device and also

minimize the static loading of the forearm flexor muscles.

Investigate the head of the wire cutter to determine if the nose weight of the

device may be decreased by drilling small holes through it to minimize the overall

weight of the cutter.

Administrative controls:

Implement a job rotation schedule within the Wastepaper Department at Company

XYZ. An alternative control to curtail the ergonomic-based risk factors faced by

the employees’ is to decrease their exposure to the scrap bale wire cutting process.

An additional job within in the secondary fiber department involves driving a

powered industrial truck to load waste fiber bales onto the conveyor. By

instituting a job rotation schedule, these employees would essentially split their

time on each job and be responsible for cutting approximately 1,420 wires, half of

67

the previous requirement. An effective reduction could be made in both the

repetition and duration of this task and allow for muscles and related body

components to rest and heal while performing another job.

Reduce the degree of horizontal and vertical-reach demands by placing the scrap

bales closer to the cutting side of the conveyor system to minimize the extent of

forward flexion and reaching which is currently experienced by the employees.

Develop and implement a department wide stretching and warm up program so

the wire cutting employees possess adequate blood flow to their muscles before

performing the wire cutting task. Additionally, promote rest cycles in order for

the scrap bale wire cutting employee’s bodies to recover and heal from the

significant demands of the wire cutting task.

Administer periodic medical-screenings and employee symptom surveys in order

to monitor and/or uncover regions where musculoskeletal pain/discomfort is

existing and/or developing. This approach will aid in determining the presence of

musculoskeletal-based issues before such advance to chronic stages.

Ensure monitoring is performed after each potential engineering or administrative

change is made in order to determine each employee’s capacity to perform the

scrap bale wire cutting task and to identify if any new hazards or risks were

introduced.

Areas of Further Research

Areas of further research that may prove beneficial for Company XYZ in mitigating the

ergonomic-based risk factors within the scrap bale wire cutting task include:

68

Conduct an in-depth cost-benefit analysis (CBA) into the skiver blade engineering

retrofit in order to quantify the costs and associated of this proposed approach.

Perform a comprehensive CBA to identify the most reasonable and feasible

interventions of engineering and administrative controls which may decrease the

ergonomic-based risk factors to an acceptable level, while providing Company XYZ

with a suitable payback period.

Consider investigating how repetitious, force and degraded posture-based tasks

significantly pose a greater or elevated hazard for the development of CTDs among

the aging workforce.

Expand the scope of the anthropometric analysis by performing a comprehensive

study into the additional workstations and tasks within Company XYZ.

Investigate other wire cutting devices and determine if a different wire cutter is more

suitable for the scrap bale wire cutting task.

Research additional techniques, programs and procedures that other paper mills

within the pulp and paper industry have utilized for comparable operations and tasks.

69

References

Bridger, R. S. (2009). Introduction to ergonomics. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

Byers, B.B., Hirtz, R.J., McClintock, J.C. (1978). Industrial hygiene engineering and control:

ergonomics – student manual. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health.

Chengular, S.N., Rodgers, S.H., & Bernard, T.E. (2004). Kodak's ergonomic design for people at

work. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Chen, A.L., Gjessing, C.C., Fine, L.J., Bernard, B.P., & McGlothlin, J.D. (1997). Elements of

ergonomics program: a primer based on workplace evaluationsof musculoskeletal

dissorders. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

David, G. C. (2005). Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for workrelated

musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine, 55, 190-199.

Ergoweb. (2012). Glossary of ergonomic terms. Retrieved December, 9, 2012, from

http://www.ergoweb.com/resources/reference/glossary.cfm

Fernandez, J. E., & Marley, R. J. (2009). Occupational ergonomics: Emphasis on identification

or solutions. XV Congreso Internacional De Ergonomia Semac, Montana State

University.

Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the task to the man: A textbook of occupational ergonomica. New

York: Taylor & Francis.

Hignett, S., & McAtamney, L. (2000). Rapid entire body assessment. Applied Ergonomics,

31(2), 201-205.

Keyserling, W. M., Armstrong, T. J., & Punnett, L. (1991). Ergonomic job analysis: a structured

approach for identifying risk factors associated with overexertion injuries and disorders.

70

Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene, 6(5), 353-363.

Kromer, K., Kromer, H., & Kromer-Elbert, K. (1994) Ergonomics,' How to Designfor Ease &

Efficiency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McAtamney, L., & Corlett, E. N. (1993). RULA: A survey method for the investigation of

Work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 24(2), 91-99.

Michael, R. (2002, August 7). Ergonomics tools: dynamometers and goniometers. Retrieved

October 20, 2012, from http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cfm?id=574

OSHA, (2004). OSHA forms for recording work-related injuries and illnesses. Retrieved from

http://www.osha.gov.

Putz-Anderson, V. (1988). Cumulative trauma disorders: a manual for musculoskeletal diseases

of the upper limbs. Bristol, P A: Taylor & Francis.

Stock, S. R. (1991), Workplace ergonomic factors and the development of musculoskeletal

disorders of the neck and upper limbs: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Industrial

Medicine, (19) 87–107.

Stramler, J.H. (1992). Dictionary for human factors/ergonomics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC

Press.

Tayyari, F., & Smith, J.L. (1997). Occupational ergonomics principles and applications.

London, England: Chapman & Hall.

United State Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). 2010 Nonfatal occupational injuries and

illnesses: private industry, state government, and local government. Retrieved from

http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/case/osch0045.pdf

Vincoli, J.W. (2000). Lewis' dictionary of occupational and environmental safety and health.

Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers.

71

A

pp

end

ix A

: Rap

id U

pp

er Bod

y A

ssessmen

t (RE

BA

)

R I 1 :'n:.:.:t ..:W:..:.;o::..rk::.:s::.h:.:e::.e:;!t ________ ~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~= ..... ...,. .... ..........., ~ ....... .,,......,. A. Nod<. TNftk aftd IAt AMiyllh

~ I· l«• \.«11: ,_.._

........

._. ........ •I

............... •I

,....:...~ .... ........... ~ lt ............... .

~ltfl .4: t .ult.•llp P•"'lllrt "'c•n h1 l •hht \ l!tUif,\'M!IO' fltll""~f'-1·1 1.h1~• ~" ... !! !!!

l'nl* .,

'''II~~ <\d41112(rtfl 1111.11 '-fllr, j(f,).a,t ,,,..,tv U~llt~~l:l ... •I

--

11 .... •:1'*-t J \JJ.- 11111"11~+'11, ••·••t.lllf'•'f<·"~ .W•I

\ltp •: "-l:•rr \, .1oM! MM" I• l•hk t. ' Yd •ilfwt ._.,....,.<I .t '• .,..,,_ 111Htt A f~ .... , ... ,

5cl>nnJ ·-~-­lwl•IDwt..._~ ...... ....,

... , -~,..... "-"".,•• a .~IQGil IDI0•"'-"•"'"-'""--11••~ .............

SCORES

f-A ._.

• • l"9' 1 • • • • • 1 • ••• 1 • • l•• • • l -4 J 1l • •

T- • l l • s • • .&4!&7 - • l • • • • S-175171 .... • • 1 • 1'·t. e ' a I

• 4•& ,. .. • 7 1.-1 , .•• J

·-.___

• T s - ' 1 . l - > l ' l l

' • l l l l .. I':, ' l • • • • • • • • • ~.7 • • ' • ' • • • ' • • • • • -A T-C -- San 8 -· ...... _ _.,. __ - • ' l • • • • • ·~ 11 ..

1 ' ' ' ' l l • • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • 5 • • 7 1 • ' , • • ' • ' 1 • • • • ' • • • • • ' I I • • • • • • • • • • • • ' I ' m lo • ' ' 7 ' ' • • • 0 10 II " " • ' 10 10 " •• " " " • I • • " 10 10 11 " " " " " 10 " ' •• " 11U11 ,, " ,, " " ,, tiU " " u 12 u ,, 12. n " " 12 flU " ,, " "" " ,, •2 "

,, +I d.­

Tible C Sen"-.. / Ad!VIly Sen

II I

I . AlmalldWrlltAna~

~ ........ l"'"' ",.. ,..,. ..

•I •I •I

·-tt ,. .. .. -...;• 6> .• ..... _ ·-·- ·· ..... ~ ........ - ...... CJ-"" .,_ • ..,....pr.-.....

~q ~ .._.,," ""'' r .. u. .... ~ -::;:::::3? 5) •I

• .... ~'lt!A\11• lfwtltlttllrtlifl•"""'•ll-•• 'lftl o\l.f.~

Srrp lt1lr .. ,\ .. ,, Pu11uu, \t'''" '" l•h.., n lltllll''alllotllnMflr(I'I 'M•III•~•.fMM*NMfclll ht- 11

S1r11 I h \tid f r1upli11t ~lin Wrll Unit'~: 11.-.JI• •n61111•Jr,.,..111.._,, llllf 1fl'ffi •II 1\.:ctJ!lllb'-tml n.tl ldr.t Mnd huM 1111 """''''"II &t;~otp•l•lf ..-lth 1111111htt IK"I't .... , />ifl t;p IIW "'** 111~ -.utn.._ .... ul """1.t!lt fl"ll' •) ~hat\JIItt.. 'V.I.Y.!II~ I ,.._,,'It ii\IU•~ I...J~ 1•1

t'INiott,..Mt • t ~l(p ll: \.(ur fl. I lnd t'tthtrt~n In I !II \t t. A.d.! .-.1:..,.. ,..,. ... 111 1<1 •lll•u•bU 11 \.;.,. .. ''"d"•"'--••hb"'' .i~M.t"''""'tllttA.• • I'IPIII rpfo• """••!\ f l '&. "~

'ittp U t \ttnJI) ~.,..

l i ------

.. , ,. .. ............ ,lt ........ tflilill.....,, .. lli1

~ .,.,._. ..... ,...,.. ·-~-~~~~~~~··,.. ..... , 0 ..._·-~- , ............................. _ ...... ...

··--- • .............. ,_ ... , __ ~..., lltU

72

Appendix B: Ergonomic Task Analysis Worksheet

Directions: The Ergonomics Task Analysis Worksheet provid"' a melhod for identifying, evaluating, and etiminating/rontroUfng ergo!lOmic risk factors. Obs.erve several task cycles prior to making notes or drawing conclusions. Score each risk facto1 (ideal. warning level.. or take action) that 111ost re.sembles the task yo!J are analyzing, Once you have completed the workshett. create •n Action Plan (how to control or eUminate the risk factor), focusing on tasks from ille "Take Action• column fi~ It Is often helpful to videotape the job to facititate a rnore detailed review and action plan.

Repetition NJOStl defines a repetitive task as one with a ta;k cycle time of less than JO seconds or performed for prolonged periods, suth as an 8-hour shift.

I'Qeal ]_ No repetitive hand or

arm motions

Standing

2. Knees are stmight, but not IDcked. Back is upnghl and straight. No twisting, reaching or bending. (See reaching)

Sitting

~ 3. Back and legs

supported by comfortable chair. Feet are flat on '

ftoor or foot rest.

HeadfNeck

4. Head and neck are upright and Slralght

· Warilljig Level.• Koillwr lA. Repetitive hand or arm

motions with cyde times of 30-60 seconds

• Standing

2A. Knees partly bent.

··~ ~ 3A, Back is only 1 paftlally supported or reet .... not flat. !5Jj_

Head/Neck

4A. Benl forward less than 20'

ii:Adliln _L·;:-·-:t.: 18. Repetitive hand or arm

motions with cycle times of tess than 30 seconds

Standing

2B, Squatting > 3 hrsjday

'\ 28. Kneeling > 3 hrs/day ~

28. U<ing a too~ pedal ~

Sitting .' JB. little S<Jpport for

legs and back. Feet do not tou'C:h floor.

Head/Neck

4A. Bent forward more than 20' > 3 hrsjday

1

73

X • !

i i

s ummary w kSh t or ee -Condlttoa """"" l!!c.&L

f.•petitioon I. No ltli$tlti~ '~•nd vr crm mo~ (Hflr'lt,)f If ttpetltiYe cytlc fiV'U'J 30.60 w:onlb: WJ..t trCCfcn 'II ~t\'t

t;)j:< Ia 0'! Ws th3ft. JO -.etcods.l t ........ .. St • .,••ll"9. whb kMC!.'o stnigllt bu: n« !.xb;o.. (Hom't:Dt If u . .,ndr"'f wll.h h-.eei- c..~•!Uilv ~ t::Ae .tdion ;r u!!l:!!l ~ flxlt ~or ~Willi {If Wtllll; IIOrt' L'l.ln l ho:,nV<!.t.J.} ' J.. Sitting Ollt~ ~'Ill~~ <OII'to.'GIIIy fllll901UG'. t~ tlbt 011 1\oo!/ftoor ~.u, (lfee::t~~· if c;.Jtt p.Jtt1i1Uy ~~~~ ol teM ::ool n..to" flt}!":t!.i)ll/1 cqimJ H lj~o !U222,1:t for ~t, ai\J ~ fl!o:t Mit toathin111'lnor.} ' ' ~ •11d ntct •ltll~q'lt Jod ll.tlil;bt. («Qit!k1r-lf bud ;md nMk ~ .. .,.'" foM'll•lO': t~ kfkM1I >lU ~JJ.!-'Iu.!?L~!t.:l ' l~a~n!ned oce: tcmt b.!t~ tH.v-'uN if • 10', ,·...,~ IIWoll tr ,,v· \ ' ~d t 11d ned 3Jt..btln~ ~~ t~i:i!if < zo·: c~ «tton If ,.zo·. ' lfe..od ami 11ctl lit bi_~I$:..,(H~ if"' ?0'; ta'- Oi'tmlt if ..fa",) ' •• ""'~ fpJFl!m' .n. V*ltl(,\, f~cw:'1W i! h111d~ rottt• • io'· tr;.ll ort~O., If h•"di totne. ,.zo~ •

~ "'~''' ~ walgto.1 (.'IOitllM 1t w~u "' be:Tit, 6'!l!~illll/f.et±M. .. M' fo1 'i·JO tl•n,tllri""l« ~~ ~ ., ~t ~20· en ~so timl!!/mhwf!-.1 • 'l&'dstt llcwt: shl~t•<~Y"· Willl/'.lldi .. L (MuniW " .. 1.0' and 5-lO tlm•Vm!n~~tt.: tow #Ctl(l!'l If bfo:t'lt ~· cr >30 limg/~i.1111t:) •

vtbftdoll

'· llo lli:lnri 0' IIIII vltration (/<Mttll it O!U:1!nn.al M.t ~~tt~~:~..!l.lt!.nnwn:..) 7

•• fio o.f'Qe: bo'Jy vlbnr!IOil. IHIHJJtf).• It Otct:I!IJI""...sl; !d¥ Odicn if ~tnt.\ • llt~(h

' Arm• ~OI•Uoned ot elbow lll'...t. (H..">'libl It up u. -4S' or "'"'q1141'Cty out of 100•1 ocsluon fot mcm: titan J. b1111t1/_d!y. t11~ octttRt d' ill!:! "' furw<)f'4 '"'5" et <OII~Ml.~ uut of !ddl ~~~n •l helln£1f;rt·l • Amu hick. (M.:.••ft.O:t l! •rm• ~I; f.lll w 7'0' btt .. ~tn Z·4 l+lflelt/llllllltt §.t oo=t thifl 4 '!.!1.\l!!ki!Y.:..~~~~ If .mm !~k ~20' or >4 t1wWtoi1111U lor ~ tl\illl ltouflt~J_ • £1»-s tl.o:nt tlpwJrd. ( ..... D.Il+Wrl' Mluwn bolll.ro to~"" ,1bqot or bi:iow \telll I)M1tklll ..t ~oty: r.:4c ~Jt_bfnt lltwM~ .. ;v,~o W.W. « b"O'll' hl.;fl p!K!t!;'!n ;.) hButS/&J.) • 1itRI'"1 •••Y flo• boay. (~uu'tnt if '!r' A IIi! w U ' 'Jifity t111111 lllldy w. ~w:./~'j; taM ~:Dan if tf:towt •n! -'!.' a-,.;:,y flom hooy •i 'rlou"/d ' ... flo '=-iuiqg. !~»Ching or bondb!J, t\lo'ltlll9/t16rtitllll!. io\IN•!'tO• If tw+~ '1/J ~ .\S' 111 2-~ ~•nboot«,s ltr>.. «t~'n"' if,....,.. 01 ..,( ~"'1nuQ,) .. ~-uu'ba!ldiog fonBI!i. (tf~tfct if ~!"'!Mt'"""' lot'W•fll 11p to 0' or t·':,~IR!./,::;,c

1o1 ~3Q' 10:•

~ l'!ll/411'1 w/o.ft Sa!)f?(o!l! !It'.\« ll'd:'o<llt ~s· or~ tio:l~l;ullt Or •C: tuo; '4-111 • )lll w . L "' ~1111'11/bt.<'ldl"'! ll: 1i'IP f'oot.IJ!mlltur 1t Of; to :Jt~-• 01 1•4 tino~t/lllnllll~•; (411~ (M;~II 1f ,.:zo· Of ~ ti~~~C.bnlnut:e.} ••

'""' tL Ob)Kb tlttd by hill'ld weLJb ieq. 1:110 OM 1)01111(1 (Nonft»• It 1)j,j('US ~hl"9 < 1 lb. 111: lifu:tl up tQ 70 ~P.!i~.£~0!!:(?291f 04tlem. ~!.L~' \li'tinq .P.~l!l..~_211 li!ll.l'l,bour,l_ n

u. Obj«b lit-...0 by tQ b•tt •'flqlllest 1h~n 3 I)W1'0dJ, (Hortl~:f abjto.tb •tfo;\ So~ U.1. or ilftinQ net~~•- 1111 UJ i!O ti.'II!Uiwut: latt ~~~~ ~~ ~1., \bt...~ llft•!!9 O«llt~ >21) timtSl.llllur.) " " Nil p!rw:h grip~~~ ~'1611/lOI' ~e ufplndl f!i;1 With .. 2 Uu:. nfhlt~,. u.l't ~ tl "'lldl t'•ll wit11 •l. U... ol ~~ " W:W. ebdl qrlp luet._ft(<!'!t:~ If JU~Iy too •1.:4, til~ .:,1(0011 If i'iltl!mety IW1it.1 - " l4 kwff g!"rrl uttll .~DO 'urt (N.;vi!Wr If PQ~'~l:f A with < 10 •bs. ~tte k IMd ate tnlt~tm I'O~Ifnn ~ltll tt .. sib\,; :m11cti!ll'r it pllWel 11rip ...ttl! ~10 lhl- farc:J.J\ uJod il<'ld fr!!!~rm tGr.ltllll'l klrre u .. s 'lb\. ,.

"· ll}tbr ~~b trl&5"· IX!Inll~ tll!IIIIIUI Wn!IO~; tate ~lffusetf.sj .~'14. IS 16. Too;., til objcta:ti\JYI lt\(Jl:lfd, !Hiddl!ri II.JII4~ .. (4fllltt:UI'll h~ #fl' ll•k'or6 t:M~ ltdr'~ a ~ *" 110

II.JI\O.•.ft or h~t•ldl.et (Meenr.ro.tc- fOtu.) __ " 11. 61ota: 110 1\0tl!eed to- be IJOI'n ItA II) Ml'lt:. (If~ if SIO'I'CJ llrt n~ l:vtflt -toll! tl»'o? lllUC!IIf g!OYIIS tit 11301\~) " SUdc L.-.iln11 u• htivtH-

lt. Ccn.\.1Altl pM.ltia!l, t-1;,1 arabJKt i\ ~•trl ie's thO!\ 6 ~lldl. (.'ok.!."!!At ir ~ &et\\..ee 6-1'l W'II01t1; t.ot« lf(tlOlf If h,.lll o>-IG 1~~1h.) u

IJ, l.ilsc) t.h;.n l5'- of1.+tf t.ta lt. ·~itlvl:.l/!nltitfl!._il J!;Siftt f!'P!Titlvt; :otM«tfO!IIt .. SQ1. ~- " ~wtt/Conucr Streu/Rtputed tmp•Cl, ... ~ ~Oiltlet/UIPKt ltms fN~~w If Otw!ono~l flte'lSII'e nr b:~:ly p.m is \Md ol\ N..-tllt •l ~s/G•r: ratrlt(lJQn If ((lf'!Uol,_i!<'aW!f'_O!..!!..~J.I.ll~ (\~oil iwlfll'IPr rol ~ldll~~ ••

W&ml:a,g ...... ..... .I«JJo

"' ,.

... 28

,. .. .. .. ,, " " " ,. •• .. " •• •• .. ..

,. •• .. • • .. "' .. •• "' " ,. •• ,,.

'"" '"' '" IOC "' , .. JIB

... , .. ,. ,,. "' "' '"' tA8 ,,.

"' , .. ... t1A "" ··~

til$

'" "' lOA '"

7

74

. - ., .. •o,li• ... ,.. .-._.,.. • • ,· ~ ' ···tot ---· •.-..... : .. ~·-·.::':

ZL\ 2LI

lli ru

ZlA lU

Z• !!!i~l!!i~1!ill!!!!!!!1~!!:i!!!!!!!!!!il!ji!!i!~!!!!i!!!!!~~~~;;;:;~ l4

& H a M ~ v i$ ~

Z9

'' JO ::·,;;..:--·::;·.~.-.·:~;..:.: al\et!Jate bd>o-~n •IHif\9 illd ~UIIdi1J9. ~~niiOt tf &n'lplo,te~ Is sbfldl119 up

UA ... ZSA l5lJ ,.. lfi .,. va , ... ... l11~ 298

8

o!Jlr1 1t~s 1t1Ji:f #o1 bld' •nd l"'9ll !ItA,. (ldt'olt If sanding >SO'Kt of •!tilt )0 ~dl': .lftd te-gs.

lOA 308

Action Plan Tocby's <late: Date Solution to~ Compb!~ -----------

l.ocabonfDepJrtment: ----------------­

Job/Task Title:------------Evaluator: __

Describe MSD in provious 24 months: -------------------------

Task: __

Sum,...'Y of Probltm:

Al:emative Solution •nd Costs: -------

Recommended Solution: l) Engineenng ----------------------

2) Administrative:

3) Use of personal proli>Ciive eQuipment __

Date Solution Al:wally Compb!ted: --------- A<tu.ll Cost:---------

,.,.,.~~flllf"'"ti"'Mo••• ....... t.-6o--'!ft~~,,_..,.,..._, ~t~fll""""\111\1 J ,.. .. ...,....~...._ ... ~,loo~~g,H......,W.-.t ""-'*"'•...C-1/i,_..,w.W,,.-. .,.....,_, IIIM'"'""'~-· ... 1~1- ......... ~~·..r-tiiiiMi('lrU....t•~lf>_.r.,....._.,

....... IJw ......... tJ/6M..,....,.,IIIIM'IJ~II .. ..l.t:'ot...._ ...... ~~--~---- ........ 11-i .... lt ... fl:..._ .. .... ._. ___ ,._,.. ~ ............. -. ...... ~ ...... ...._.._,._.,

75

Summary Worksheet ..... tl/l i/ p

-"'' ~ .. .._., flf.,. _......,., '~ II~UM CWI;'"_........, Jo;).tO ~ biW .Jm~J~rr. JII'Pft .......

rr• .. ., """""""' "" .... -t I. ~ .-U! ,.,., ~ lbr;.t 111111 td ~ II~ ..U •nw:: ~. ~ t:tr.a.t fl '-t.•hltt~ll"!~ ...... -:i~...... ~

,._,_ ............ ___ .... e.o .. ---~-·--~ ..,.. 1.41 ....._ 4 rr-w ....., p11 ' 11']> hort nc: ~.._

• ... .... -...;-i - .,.,.. ..,. ~ IIL==:;;;r. t.a;! ..... ""' " .,.... IQr-..4 • lfl' bt --~ ..zG •1-~Uj,l

HPC ~ 1"-1! ,... ........ f!"' tlllr- 1. 11" •.W

HMd.,.. r•~ .-nt tr:"'t .. "!'- i~ ~ • It" r;. - ~ I .. ., II""!IW'f ~ ... t.,.-1 IIJ lit. il•IO' '*ill1'twllal0'

l. tlra+4~}..,.""ftlr•t Ioiii, If~ flt'U!ll • n"• t.-.1' ~10 I to.t!"'++ ,'O'!~r •"'l<f'-".) __

.. &'riW..-. a.t.~ (~ f llflt::'\ o IK'rst ,.~~/T\1!• • ta' '-"' t JD ~ ~r toltil' Cll:lt 1

"""" ..., • .£' • '9 ~. .... ' .. ~...,.. lllr-*f' .. ~ ~ .~'!:Jt tt.l.ff ........ )Of11!1,r.;.if'll!i' .. o="'CII! If~ .:m • • r,tt-r ... ,

............ , -..~ • .,.......... tl\. " ... ~ ...... .-.... ""tf.,-lj

I ~ ~ ~.,..,. 4 1 rn'--1! 1~,.......-, ill •l"'t ...... • ~ tJCI'ItiOIW'd •t tll!Ow ....... ("'MAl' I.._ tD ._, ... 1~>.1 Ot.ll d ldl>•l pogticm far 1110~ tNn &

"='~.:·~ ~lll• ttflicttt '',........,. •' ""·t<d "-!! (Ill. ,fl\.4<'1(1)' OU\ ~ idNI ~ti," •) ~ ... L}

~~"'" llok~. (HI:I,1•'ll' 1! ,_,!ttl b; • l•f to IO'IM't"""" ~·• ti'-11',/ll'lll!ul,. rrx 1111ou• ,h • ., A lr>:~~J•o.jd.lr roh "',..," ,( ,, '"'l~o~• ~ a.M' ... , .... ''"'' f.tt•·l'tlftl frl' '"(.rt' t'l.tr. !.. Mhfl.l,1•~ 1 [ll:o"'\ l)ftll 1!1•1111'.11!1 (Hpt.•I(Jt !1 Mh(J.-1 '.lr••t uu hll~ ~bw11 U! btiaw k!(al P'l\lf!l•r: -4 n~•.,/6!!.,: tm·f 41'1'~ t! 1»!·1 l.lt:nt(o41'd ·~ .. ., ~tJ'"'~"I' '•r "" l~l~'ofl ~~o'll !oruJI~Yl

libowt ftrj I~ l!·>ltt (~ l;.t; I filow\ .. ._ Uiil to·~· "*'•' ft0111 body -.4 ~lif'JUV; '11'-'t GfTi\:!1':' If~ ,.....c.\' ·~lr0411N.:t•1~" J!.J)

lO "*' t-iu:!!g IU....,. .. lwfd ~. lwt~na.~~>p.Ut._.,. follln....~ .f f"orl:;::,. .. to'!. •Z-4 ~ut• f*atr.M· ....... .,. .... ~ ·~

a..,.,~~...._... (~ 1 ..... ,.._~ tor-.111 .. ._,, t1 l-41 ~ w ,..liO ,_ ..,.ltn.[~ • ~ twf I_, ... 1:"ft">- I -.! h, l;rJ • MI. ~.d_

INc~llll, ............. .,.. ;oJp '""'= • .,., tD 1¢ .., l .. r..n ~liM· ,_,.., .......... J ~ • """ .1......... . .• .... il CIIIP<U c !!14 iW ~ ""f.S lr~ '"""..,. ~ '""'""' • ~~n ~'"9 .. • • .,. ('if(r4! 0 ro .10 '~ ""'flr;,tf '' F.JK" -'!l'i ~~ i'lt -~~~~.,.., •lO t~}

U ~t\ ~ iiJw U. W• -'4f"' wt\ 11't~'l "I OOUI!f:b. t.libH:L1' If Olltftt:. ...qf'l \--l'J IlK. 11t ·:1t•..; a::t~ 110 t ~~~,..,..... 1 t.,..--.•r~"!!:i"'•1\t.h. •tt"'1'K~~· ,lL'II"J."'*..::.

1J ,..., •• "'.~'_.._.,""'flft'l'dn.rte.·llkfJbr.- .-~,,..~IJMII~"'k• --~"' ltWd.~, .... 1""':""1""1 1*'-,... ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ 11~..-:ir

~ ,...,.. n l"\44d •0.. • ~ DC:.,... V..J •"CS • ., ltlt.. IM• b tiM"C _,. bwF9 ~-., .... i ... ~ r.-r" r'"f ........... ,., ...... ..-~ ....... M1 ...... lfl .... ,__. ~ g,.,_1.

l ,_ .. ~ ... --- '~ -::;. '* ""Y'::_l ____, 1 I :..xt.l It .;.a:. tii'l ~ ~ ~ ......... ~" ........ r:N a"))Or II.,..._,., ... ~ .. .--.., ..-......, ... •.L "-~••.....tN .. ~IIII_...l_. ~·~-....o!lld~-F-Cil:llil>~ ~ ••r<>'L_

1~~---flt .. ! l.OMU"'l 1101'1W\. IIXJI. Of 1A1f«1 a: ~ lfoU ~e o ~ (Jk-t:.Y W t'Jrlj ~ o 10 ~ '*

""'"' f ..... ·J• tot<'NI•1 ,. lf1~ .....,-" 1\... tt.t .... \ ~ ~~ ... I~ If l'\ .... "J*1"'1W ~-~ ... Ji r!:IO"\. "?f'~

,._..,.)(.~(t \Crru,llptftNIIIIpwU 10 Ito •prU..,1.__.. "*-(~If «U:.t.:ntl ~""f llocl{¢ ft illSH t'l~ c-l~,

u ~., ftft\1 ..... en.._. ~~n:; £....," ..-.e!1 ~ .. .,.,.,~ rol ~,~,

.... •

< e lJ

0 I• • • {j) .. •

~ .:.

• <t:

• ·~ ' "' • .... ~ • •8

~ •• " .. u

' (9 •• 6) •• ., • " 6) • e ·"

c> ... "" ®

<§> 10<

... 6> CD ,. II!

, I .... 6-t9 ,_, UJ

•• G) . .. " ... •• e ·~ " 9 .. •• ... ig? .. ... . ..

I

~ no ... 7

76

s urn mary w k h l or $ ee D•tt 'f! It-/ I 5 Colt& lion

l1fun11 .-m:t .-o~tfrl.l-1\ I~AI'Idll..g i!l. r-o tltnng 1)1 IOW'f"''tliJ ol •raltlllll\~ (Hqmr,., ., fX(JblOnJI 4M/~f .10 f"'Qfl! lhi11"1 lO 11mft,i·~·our; r.o-lr' llt'tlt'" It

tQn1t.1'1{ •r>rt/PI ~tl"t th,;,, ZO lirnesjh001 __ --· --11. Ntt g1r !UilQ ~~ pull•ng nf mJ~ffil~. tNamtflr II Jl~~ii"'IJ.'fiU1 1'nq Ill .,(.1 tolrtJj~h!ll- taW mt•.;!, II t!u~hin!J/!Wll•trq

•DOll:' titar;_ ~Q ~!J_Ij-;.~it,_.l ---:!1. Sb~i'!r lotte 1~ ~lff'd 1(1 f'IJ[h lH po.~U mu~~n.a!l. lMtlmto, '' •nod.tr•ll!. fon:e l\ ~o.~•rl'd. fC~ii :ttri.1rT I! h!qf!

!gtt«~ 1•, ••suurtll tt~••mnmtnt

2(., Wori->ot h.n ild"£1.1'11' tOotlal dW!I" •CIIii)laa<. {M,nrta• lf wori-1!1 ha~ _SO'nl! <OI'!IJ'DI: JU\"r ~ tf wOe~ 1'111$ no (.01~10...}

(') ~.!!l'l.'..~!l.*Uf~,. -~~-' ttl.: ~ .l~l!~-2_1_ ~r~ roo ~~~ or Of'!.!} Tit; t;t"? $!d'f'D" if '!_lgnii~~.J_n_Uy ft•ll- dtl~ ue_ :~r!9:!_·~-;,L_ ~t. ltt!!•itf'f•tu_!! t\ • ~~~(o!!._<!!!'r (..,,.,h, .1 __ '-!igt!~' too (0:16 ll'f fKI_t: t»q'_~ !f t.!s!!lfi£ll<1t_11..!9~tvld l" b!_~".l__

" ~M •~ k. gui~t. C~uJot If P•gl'ltly ltlo...!_~Gi~y, (,.,..ll octitm_1f ~l!ln_ifiar.ti.lltot> noiw.)

ta fl.DQil'!l p!OVIde:-. ljuod ll"5~·!•· ~-~·~r,.r II npan ... g •• ~llgl"l1y "'1~:-:Q.I.~ cct!-r::-:tl ~~h tn £11!.!"-'-''!'~'>:-L l<l. flPmimJ i\ 1I,IIHt"'anUy ll.I\Jik-0 lD Ill'~~ t.li~U U-'1 bid al'ltf lr!J'!... (.tft,JI'tb:lf If ~Uqht ttll'~~ !I) bJ<~ 11t1d 11")1 rcl<t

o_tt~" •f ti.'Udt-t~l~to ~to>_~ :.~s.} !0, hn0-1 n~o~~u. .ttl' prulAJo!lf. (fll!ll~ am d~~~ bftw~~r: ,,tti~ lfll\1 \tflnt~!nq, {ilft'lt'tDI If rfn"lJ~ ts mndlnq USI

tt• 1..0'1. ql ~hih Mll>(l<~t !1001 "'"''-' ur ~tlhto! t.f't\1 ~i>tr h'l b•r- "lltilt'~l! tl.k:' arnut1 \f .LA'ldmg »~'\ 171 ,~c•ft wlti\Qut n001 mAt'. M ut~t rrlltf ror ~<Kk and 1f9·~

Action Plan Dat.o Solution to be Completed Today• date: ------­

location/Department: -----------.lobfT••k Titlo:

Evaluator.

Oe~cribe MSD m PfeVlOUS 21. m1n1ths~ --------------

Task; ____ _

Summary of Pmbtem:

Ahe,ndtwe So-1~.~:1101' and Cost~: -------

2l A.dminh.trative;

Idiot

" @ (0

" 6:> 16

l1 I!

,. lD

3) Use 4f personal p<Met'11VP ettulpment _________________ _

Wmdno

~·· &>

.n ...

~JA

@ t'i>\

I @

~~u.

Oatc Soluhon Actually Completed: A<.tual Cn<t: ---------

t.W Actl011

Z!&

m ,. Z•S ~lll

.ibB ns lll&

lt,IR

~

\ ...... ~-- .. .--.. * ........ .._,..,.._..,, . .--~ .. ,,.- ..... <Ooll• .... ~<>-·""""""' • ~ ...... ,......, ...... ~ Wt.lll>t-• vt.,...-.rt._fl !l''lo;ot'W~tlll•tn•~•·•..,,. .,.,,,...,llll ~ ...... - .J. filii '"'-"" 1 •-•111•111-l"l!,,"""-""' .. '"" """"'',.

- 'V u...•• t ...... ~ ... ..., ..n.-..... ,,,, ....... !Jo"""-4-- _.,_.,E--.. .. .,._.,.._.., illl ...-.tl't--

8

77

Appendix C: Employee Symptom Survey

Symptom survey

Name:

1. Check area where symptoms are present: Q Neck Q Elbow/Fore~mt D Upper Back Q Thigh/Knee Q Fingers

Q Shoulder Q Hand/Wrist D Low Back 0 Lower Leg 0 Ankle/Fom

l. r 1ease put a c.beck by lhe worals) !hat t>est aescr.t>e your symptom$: 0 Aching/Cramp 0 Numhnessrringling

0 Burning 0 Pain

0 loss of Color 0 Swelling

0 Stitfuess 0 Weakness

OOther

3. When did you first notic.e the-problem? ____ number ofmomhs -or· ____ years ago

4. How long does each episode last? (please check) 0 less than I hour Q 24 hoJrs to I week

0 I hour to 24 hours Q I week to I month Q I month to 6 months

Q more. than 6 months 5. How many separate episodes have you had in the last year'!------------

6. What do you think cause.d the problem?---------------------

7. Have you had the problem in the last 7 days7 J Yes 0 No

S. How would you rate this problem'! f\•tart: an X on the l ine.

RIG liT NOW: None _________________ Unbearable

AT ITS WORSE: None----------------- Unbearable

9. Have you had medic-.al treatmem tor this problen·.? OYe-< ONo

I( ye-s:, what w:u• the d iagn osis:?-----------------------

10. How much time have you lost from work in the last year because oflhis problem? __ days

II . How many days in the last year were you on modified duty becall~e of this problem? __ days

ll. Have you changed jobs becaw~e oflhis problenr! OYes ONo

13. Please c.omment on what you think would improve your symptoms: ---------

78

Uate I

Work b )cation ---------- Job _________ _

l,hone. _____ _ Work Hours ____ _ Supe.rvtsor --------

T1me on THIS job:

0 Less than 3 months 0 3 months to I ye.ar

0 Ore.ater than I ye.ar to 5 years 0 Gre.ater than 5 years to I 0 ye.ars

0 Ure.ater than 10 years

Have you had any pam or dtscomtbn dunng the last year'!

a Yes a No (If NO, skip to next pa~)

If Y J::S, ple.ase shade m the. area of the dra\\~ngs below which bothers you the MOST:

t.

79

Appendix D: Anthropometric Table of U.S. Anthropometric Data

U.S. Anlhropomeuic Data, Inches (Champney 1979; MuUer-Borer 1981; NASA 1978)•

1111: dm Dr« "" me "'""' J S 10 TJhlc 1.5, hut mer"" cxprcii<J '" mr.h••·

M•l" Ft:1naln l'op~~ln 1ion l'<r<l'lllil..,

501h z l S01h J. I lOISO Mllle.rFem•l.,

Mt~Mureru~:nt p<rl<'ll!Uo S.D pu.:<ntllc S.D 51h iOih 9S!h

STANDING

I. Forword lunrllonol tt•dt

n. lndu~ body dop1h ~~ JZ.i 1.? 19.2 1.1 27.2 3o.T JS.O oi10Uidrr IJI.l) !2..!) ~~~. 1 1 (1:) 11..5.7\ (2_9,$( 1.!'1.1)

b. Acromial proctss w 2~.9 1.7 H.6 1.3 !.2.li :!5.6 19.3 fur~cllnn>l (llnch

c. Abdomin-al txrmrion co 124.~1 {J.i ) 113.S) (1.6) !I 9,1) (H.Il 129.3) functionol pind1"

l. Abdominal u remioo dop1h 9. ) ll.S S.2 o.s 7.1 s.- W.!

3. Wniu hcigh• ~ 1.9 2.1 ~0.0 2.0 JM 40.9 ""· 7 (41.3! {2.1) {JU) 12.2) JJ5.8) (.19.91 (44.5)

4. Tibi•1 hcigh1 17,9 1.1 16.1 D.9 llJ 1?.2 1~.4

l. Knuckle height 19." 1.6 1~.0 1.6 lJ.Y 18.8 31.9

6. EllHJW htl5i11 43J 1.8 +0.4 1.4 JS.O 42.0 45.8 145.H (2.J) H:t2) (!.7) (.18.$) I4J.61 1~8.6)

7. Shouldl'l' height 56.6 1.4 51.9 2.7 48.4 '4.+ 59.7 157.61 fJ.I) {56..1) 11.61 (49.8) ISS.J I (61.6)

8. Eye hcigh1 64./ 1.4 59,6 t.2 i6.X 62.1 67.8

9, StlltUN 68.i 1.6 6U 2A 60.8 6U 71.0 [69.9) {2.61 {6411) (l.S) (6U ) 167.11 {74.31

10. Fun(tion:~l Qv<m••d rt•eh 82 .s J.l 78.4 M ' 4.0 MU.S 86.9

80

81

82

83

Appendix E: Consent to Participate in UW-Stout Approved Research

Sigm•d Con.l'enr tn l)nr1ieiunte In U\V.Stout Apnrovrd Research

Title: An f:.rgonomic j_,~HJSJmenl '" Comptm; · .ATZ\• Wu.~t~pttpt:r Rilh1 W;rt! Cutting Process

nes•••rdt Sponsor: Dr Britm .I Findctt' Unh·rrsily oj Wi.u·,m:~in-Su>ul i01 F .!un'i.< /Jn/1 &iMce Wlnx Hetwmonie. WI 54151 715· 132-/.Jll ji tNlt:rb@ 111 V.WOUI. t!t/ U

ln,1tstigator: Stt!pht' l7 Gauf.:,tlf El.r'16i01h Av• Knt1pp. wun49 f/5) Jnfi-IJ8r gougers 1188/flyn) .uwstoul. t•du

OC<crllnion: Tite purpose of this study is to rutnlyzc the workstation design and tllsk prU<:CSS in Order to detenniJh} d1e ex1em of ergonomic risk fuctors which nn: present fOr tht: cmploy.:cs who cut stc . .-el wires from scrap bales within the Wastepaper Oepanmem at Company X YZ. In order to accomplish tbis objoctivc. an ergonomic analysis needs robe conducted to obtain the needed dntn on Lhe prescnl ergonomic condhjons cxi.stiog whhin Company XYZ through utili7jng various e-rgonomic assessment tools. nu: gathercU data 11om the ergonomic anolysls '"ill be uti.lize;.."<< to idenLiry~ evnluat~ and controllhc various subsumdard ergonomic pmctiCio-"S and \vork:suuion conditions. nnd ulrimarely lead rC'I rccommendations on how Company XVZ can mitigate these risks.

Rjsk., and Benefjts: There arc no for<:secabl\! risks in herem wilhin1hc ersonoml~ analysis and thus no foreseeoble risks ";u be introduced 10 the subjects outside or their nqnnal ~cope of work. nte ergonomic analysis will provide bcndits by aidin~ in d1e dctttmioation of d1o uxleot of erllonomic risks present within tht· rasJc These benefits mn>· pmvidt· impmvcd crgonomktill~ sound pracckeslconditions. and may provide for a reduction in the extent of musculoskeletal disordc-rs, incr ... -as.cd emplnyee job smisfaction and l:'lroductivity~ and reduced financial losses.

Time Conuuitmcnt anti P3y nu.•nt-: As panioipation witlun this study is voluntary and the subJeCts will b<! observed CIS they uonnally perlbnn l1u:ir tasks. no tOrcsccsblc time commitment or tlrnuwial compensation is necessary.

Conlidtntiulhy: Confidentiality \\;11 be maintained by ensuring nn prnonal identifiers ,_;n be used during nny of 1he trgonornic tHmJysis phases nnd on all documents pen.aining to the stud}- When not in use. all

84

85

l mnlied Con~ent to Particip>ote In UW~'>tout Apuroved Re<earch

Title: A11 Erwmomic Asses., men! of Company Xl'Z 's 1Va.,epc1per Bale Wire C'utlinJ! Process

lleseurch Sponsor: Dr Brian J. Finder Uniw:rsi~v ofWi.;c""'·ill-Sir)ul J02F Jarl'i1· Hall Science Wi11g Menomonie, WI 5./751 715-231-1422 ./i mJe r1J@11\l ·st 0111. edu

I "'·estigator: Stephen Gouger El4716301h A1'e Knapl'· 11'/5-17.19 (715) 3015-(}817 gaugllfS2288(tiJJil)', uwstout.edu

Description: 111c purp()se of this study is to analy-Le the \\orkstalion design nnd task process in order to determine the extent of ergonomic risk factors which a"' present for the employees who cut steel wires from scmp bales within the Wastepaper Department m Company XYZ. Ln order to accomplish ~lis objective, an ~rgonomic symptom survey needs to be conducted 10 obtain the needed dam on the present ergonomic conditions existing within Company XYZ aq experienced by the <mployees, ll1is daw will serve as a baseline lor the evaluation of subst:lndard ergonomic practices/conditions existing within the tusk.

Risks and Benefits: There are no foresecnblc risks inherent within the ergonomic symptom sun•ey and thus no foreseeable risks will be introduced to the subjects. The ergonomic symptom SUI'\'ey \\ill provide benefits by aiding in the determination of the extent of ergonomic risks present within the task. These bcnclits muy provide improved ersonomically sound prnctices/conditions. and may provide lor a r<.>dudion in tltc extent l)f muscul!>skdetlll disorders, incrca'led employee job satisfaction and productivity. and reduced financial losses.

Time Commihnent und l,uy ment: As panicipation within this study is ''oluntary and the subjects will be asked to lilt out ~~c survey in their 0\\ 11 spare time. no foreseeable time commiuncnt or financial compensation is necessary.

Confidentiality: Conlidcmiality "~ II be maintained by ensuring no personal identifiers will be used on any pan of the ergonomic symptom survey. The subjects will remain anouymous. Tbe subjects will drop the limns into a locked drop box upon completion and only the researcher \\111 view and evaluate the

86

ronns. w nen not m usc. au aocumems pcnammg to me stUoy wtu vc Kept m a 10cKeu 111e. upon completion of the ~1udy the sw-veys and any related docwncntation will be destroyed.

Right to Withdraw: Your participation in this ergonomic symptom survey is entirely voluntary. You have the choice to choose whether or not to participate without an) adverse consequences to you. Should you choose to participate and Inter wish 10 wi thdra\\ from this study, you may discominue your participation at such time without incurring adverse consequences.

IRB Approval: Tius study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has deumnincd tltat this study meets the ell1ical obligations required by fedemllll\\ and University policies. 1 f you have quest ions or concerns regarding thi: study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have any questions. concerns. or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the fRB Administrator.

Investigator: Stephen Gauger (7 1 j) 308-082i gaugersl2 88((i)my.llwsrow.edu

Advisor: Dr. Brian./ Fi111lt>r 302F Jan•is Hall Science Wing 7/j- 132-1422

jinderh@ttll's/out.edtt

Statement of Consent:

LRB Adminis trator Sue Poxwell, Research Services 152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg. UW-Stout Menomonie, WI 54751 715-232-:2477 fox"-ells@uwstout.cdu

By completing th~ following implied consent ergonomic symptom survey, you agree to narticioatc in the nmiect entitled. An Erf!tmomic Assessment ofComoonv XYZ'.< Wa.rteoaoer