an investigation into the design and use of workplace cleaning equipment

8/11/2019 an Investigation Into the Design and Use of Workplace Cleaning Equipment

1/20

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (2005) 247266

An investigation into the design and use of workplacecleaning equipment

V. Woods, P. Buckle

Robens Centre for Health Ergonomics, EIHMS, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7TE, UK

Received 23 April 2004; received in revised form 28 June 2004; accepted 3 September 2004

Available online 28 October 2004

Abstract

This paper presents the findings from a 2 year investigation into the musculoskeletal health of UK cleaners and focuses

on the potential association of these problems with the design and use of cleaning equipment. The five-stage study

employed a participative approach using a number of different methodologies to explore the use and design of commonly

used cleaning equipment. The methodologies included: questionnaire studies, workplace assessments, an ergonomics

assessment of cleaning equipment, a user trial of this equipment in the laboratory and focus groups with interested parties.

Based on the findings of the study, previous research work (e.g. Report from Kilpatrick and Associates PTY LTD for

Miscellaneous Workers Union, 1991) and the use of ergonomic guidelines (e.g. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 10 (1992) 7),

modifications were recommended for the design of buffing machines (e.g. machine height, design of triggers/grips/levers,pressure to activate controls), mopping systems (e.g. mop length, pressure required to squeeze mop, bucket stability) and

vacuum machines (e.g. attachment length, grip design, provision of safety lights). A checklist was also compiled to aid in

the purchase of new workplace equipment. This paper concentrates on equipment and postures adopted when in use. It is

acknowledged that this represents only one aspect of the work system that influences musculoskeletal health. Inadequate

work organisation, task scheduling and social support are also associated with an increased risk for musculoskeletal

problems among UK cleaners (Musculoskeletal Health of Cleaners, HSE Books, Suffolk, 1999).

Relevance to industry

Cleaning is a basic service occupation conducted by many world-wide. Researchers, manufacturers and designers

should work with user groups to improve equipment to ensure good musculoskeletal health, working posture and

technique. Cleaning managers, trainers and purchasers should be aware of ergonomic guidelines for equipment

selection for safe use at work.r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Cleaners; Musculoskeletal ill health; Participative approach; Buffing; Mopping; Vacuuming

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

0169-8141/$ - see front matterr 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.09.004

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1483 686738; fax: +44 1483 689395.

E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Woods).
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ergonhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon


2/20


3/20

the machine handle. The cleaner walks along,

holding the machine handle with both hands,

moving the machine from side to side. A bottle is

sometimes held in one hand to spray chemicals on

the floor prior to cleaning (some machines have a

tank and dispensing system to disperse cleaning

solutions).

A number of studies have identified musculos-

keletal problems resulting from buffing machine

use. In Australia, users have reported high levels

of pain and discomfort: 57% arm, shoulder andneck pain; 42% lower back pain; and 37%

numbness in the hands (Kilpatrick et al., 1991).

In the UK, English et al. (1989) found that the

dominant hand and arm undertook the majority of

strain of forceful, repetitive and static actions in

cleaning tasks (including floor buffing) and that

there was a strong potential for upper limb

injuries. Another UK study stated that working

with floor polishing machines caused problems for

the hand and back (Liverpool Occupational

Health Project, 1991). Haslam and Williams

(1999) found that 56% of buffing machine users

reported discomfort from machine use; the main

locations of discomfort were the hand (39%),

shoulder (19%), wrist (7%), lower back (7%) and

arm (6%).

There are a limited number of studies in the

literature that investigated the design of buffing

machines. Kilpatrick et al. (1991) found the main

problems with buffing machine design were: heavy

weight and lack of manoeuvrability, high initialreaction torque on starting, poor trigger switch

design, power cable handling and storage, and

brush/disc replacement. Following a manufac-

turers initiative an evaluation study was con-

ducted to assess a single disc floor cleaner (Hide

et al., 2000). Problems reported and observed

included: high force required to operate height

adjustment lever, bulk of handle for gripping, high

handle height, difficulty manoeuvring

the machine with the handle in the upright

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Mean weight 34kg (sd3.4)

Mean height withdisc/pad1197.5mm (sd 59.7) Mean motor height

with disc/pad

362.5mm (sd 23.8)

Mean machine diameter437.6mm (sd 25.9)

5/6 had safety light to indicate power on4/6 had safe machine use information

- Mean disc weight 2.2kg (sd 1.2)- 2/6 auditory feedback if discattached correctly- 2/6 discs had sharp spikes/gripsto attach cleaning pad

Level of noise emitted: 65-70dBA

5/6 had hook on handle/lever at base to wind flex1/6 had outriggers to prevent flex being too closeto feet2/6 hadcable restraint mechanisms.

Fig. 1. General characteristics/dimensions of buffing machines: based on the measurement of six commonly used machines during the

expert assessment study stage.

V. Woods, P. Buckle / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (2005) 247266 249


4/20

position, controlling the machine during use and

attachment of the pad to the buffer. In another

assessment of a single disc floor cleaning machine,

Haslam and Williams (1999)identified deficiencies

with the design and configuration of the handle

and operating switch, manual handling implica-

tions due to machine weight and size, and

problems with the trailing power cable.

1.2. Mopping systems

There are a number of different mopping

systems on the market (Fig. 3). The most common

are round head mops (generally used in conjunc-

tion with a plastic or metal bucket with a drain),

long tailed mops and flat mops (often used with

buckets with wringing systems). Cleaners use

either one of two mopping techniques: push/pull

(i.e. move the mop back and forward) or figure of

eight (i.e. move the mop in an arc).

A number of studies have looked at the effects

of different mopping methods and resulting

postures adopted (Hagner and Hagberg, 1989;

Huisman, 1992;Louhevaara et al., 2000;Sgaard

et al., 1996). However, only one study focussed on

mop redesign. Holshuijsen et al. (1997) examined

the effects of an adjustment to the handle designs

of a round and a flat mop on muscle workload.

The handle diameter was enlarged and a diagonal

bar was attached to the steel of the mop, like ascythe. The traditional mop imposed less muscle

load than the flat mop. Changes to the mop handle

particularly influenced the muscle workload of the

wrist flexors and extensors.

1.3. Vacuum machines

Few studies have been conducted on the design

and use of floor based vacuum machines and none

have been conducted with people who use

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Mean grip circumference with trigger depressed 126.7mm (sd 6.9)Mean diameter furthest away from centre 38.1mm (sd 13.5),40.7mm (sd 10.6) at midway point, 52.7mm (sd 6.3) closest to centre

Mean grip length (for 1hand) 122.5mm (sd17.8mm)

Mean hand span from handle toheight adjustment lever 108.2mm(sd 7.9)Mean lever travel distance28.3mm (sd 3.7)Mean lever length 84.8 (sd 12.6)Mean lever width 11.2 (sd 1.9)

All trigger/grip surfaces were hard plastic2/6 textured grips2/6 ridge on underside of grip3/6 triggers had sharp or rough lines3/6 elliptical grip shape, 3/6 rectangularwith round corners

Trigger- length 66mm (sd 21.3)- width 9.2mm (sd 4.1)- thickness when depressed 17.2(sd 11.8)- travel distance 14mm (sd 8.9)

4/6 had safety button that waspressed/moved when operatingtrigger2/6 awkward location ofsafety button

Fig. 2. General characteristics/dimensions of buffing machines handles and controls: based on the measurement of six commonly used

machines during the expert assessment study stage.

V. Woods, P. Buckle / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (2005) 247266250


5/20

vacuums as part of their job (Fig. 4).Schopp et al.

(1995)found that the customer is often disposed to

unnecessary stresses and strains while operating

professional vacuum cleaners at petrol stations,

e.g. large hose diameter and stiffness of material

required operators to exert high forces in guiding

the hose, nozzle shape required considerable force

to remove dirt.

Loopik et al. (1994) showed that difficulties

experienced by subjects using three new types of

vacuum cleaner were mostly of a cognitive nature.

Some difficulties could be solved by trial and error,but the majority required subjects to consult

operating manuals. The main design criticisms

were: inappropriate grip (too short, too thin),

unintentional operation of the mechanical suction

power regulation, difficulty changing the brush

control and adjusting the power suction.

1.4. This study

De Vito et al. (2000) reported an increased

prevalence of disorders of the elbow, wrist/handand cervical spine among cleaners that were

associated with work organisation and non-ergo-

nomic tools. Experimental and epidemiological

studies support the view that poor design and

excessive use of hand tools can increase the risk of

accidents, fatigue and musculoskeletal disorders

(Mital and Kilbom, 1992). Based on the findings of

a five-stage study on musculoskeletal ill heath that

drew heavily on the participation of the UK

cleaning workforce, the aims of this paper were to:

assess ergonomics problems for three types ofcleaning equipment;

provide guidelines for design modifications of

this equipment where necessary;

put forward guidelines for purchasing cleaning

equipment.

As equipment manufacturers were not involved

in the sponsorship of this study, there was no bias

toward any particular equipment brand.

2. Methods

A number of methodologies were employed in

the five stages of this study:

Questionnaire surveys: Questionnaires were dis-

tributed to 5000 cleaners throughout the UK to

ascertain the extent of musculoskeletal disorders

and discomfort, the type of work activities

conducted and equipment used during the working

day. The response rate was 31%. The sample

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )

Fig. 3. Commonly used mopping systems. (a) round head mop;

(b) squeezing round head mop; (c) long tailed mop; (d) hand

lever squeezing mechanism; (e) flat mop; (f) foot operated

squeezing mechanism.



6/20

comprised 89% female workers with a mean age of

49 years.

Workplace assessments: Observation and inter-

views were conducted with approximately 60

cleaners carrying out their normal work activities

at nine UK workplaces (e.g. hospitals, schools,

retail outlets). Twenty-seven cleaners were ob-

served while buffing, 25 while mopping and 23

while vacuuming. Using a checklist, assessments

were made of manual handling tasks, force

requirements using dynamometers (e.g. lifting abucket, pushing a machine), the working environ-

ment (e.g. work floor surface) and work equipment

characteristics. Back and upper limb posture was

also observed; joint movement away from a

neutral position were classified by means of

picturegrams (Wiktorin et al., 1991). Subjective

assessments were made of pain and discomfort

using the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire

(Kourinka et al., 1987) and task requirements

using the Borg Perceived Exertion Scale. The

cleaners rated their perceived level of exertion on ascale from 6 to 20, the end points were defined as

no exertion at all and maximal exertion (Borg,

1990). The cleaners were also interviewed about

work organisational issues (e.g. time pressure,

workload, colleague and managerial social sup-

port).

Expert assessments: An ergonomics assessment

was conducted on six buffing machines, three

mopping systems and four vacuum cleaners. The

buffing machines varied with respect to their

adjustability, weight and design of controls. The

mopping systems differed with regard to mop head

design (two round mops with different handle

length, one long tailed mop, one flat mop) andbucket type (plastic bucket with drain, buckets

with hand and foot operated squeezing systems).

Three tub vacuum cleaners (i.e. low machines with

detachable hose) and one upright vacuum cleaner

(i.e. operated with a handle attached to the main

machine at approximately waist height) differed in

terms of height, grip characteristics and pressure

required to activate settings. Checklists were

developed based on design guidelines for hand

tools proposed by Mital and Kilbom (1992). The

checklists comprised questions about general

characteristics (e.g. handle design, weight of

equipment) and critical dimensions (e.g. grip

circumference, travel distance of height adjustment

lever). Weighing scales and tape measures were

used to collect data. Force levels (e.g. to squeeze

mops, to activate buffer height adjustment me-

chanisms, to move equipment) were measured

using a Salter 500 N electronic force gauge and

attachments. Noise levels from equipment were

recorded using a digital integrating sound level

meter (Dawe Instruments). The tasks of raising

and lowering equipment were assessed using the2D static strength predictor (Andersson et al.,

1991). A study of the vibration characteristics of

the buffing machines was undertaken; the results

of this study are reported elsewhere (Woods et al.,

1999).

User trial: Ten female cleaners (aged between 18

and 50 years) who used floor buffing machines,

vacuum cleaners and mops in the course of their

work participated in a laboratory trial. The

experimental design was based on a task analysis

of cleaning work and discussions with cleaners toenable representative cleaning tasks and important

factors for investigation to be identified (Woods et

al., 1999). Subjects described the process they were

undertaking as they conducted the task required,

e.g. how to switch on machines, how pads/discs

were attached to machines. Subjective assessments

of perceived exertion (Borg, 1990) and force

required to use the machines were recorded. Using

a similar checklist to the workplace assessment,

expert assessments of the upper limbs and back

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Commonly used vacuuming systems. (a) upright

vacuum; (b) tub vacuum.



7/20

were made throughout the trial. The subjects were

asked to indicate where they experienced pain and

discomfort while working, using the body maps

from the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire(Kourinka et al., 1987). Three questionnaires were

developed based on the findings of the expert

assessment in order to identify the users views of

various aspects of the equipment. Hand grip

strength was determined in standard postures

using the Robens Isometric Dynamometer incor-

porating a Novetek load cell (F201TC). The Polar

sports tester measured heart rate to investigate the

amount of effort required by subjects when

conducting the three tasks. Subjects wore Penny

and Giles electrogoniometers on their wrists to

measure flexion and extension and radial and

ulnar deviation. The Lumbar Motion Monitor

(Marras et al., 1992) measured low back move-

ment.

Focus groups: Focus groups were held with two

groups, supervisors and managers (n=6) and

trainers, designers, manufacturers and suppliers

(n=15), in order to start the process of informa-

tion dissemination and to receive feedback on the

practicality of findings and recommendations in

relation to the three tasks investigated. The study

team introduced the meeting by giving a briefoutline of the study. A summary of the main

findings and recommendations for each of the

three tasks was then presented. The attendees

discussed the findings and the usefulness of the

recommendations.

The results from the five study stages were

drawn together and summarised for each cleaning

system: buffing, mopping, vacuuming. Table 1

indicates the objective and subjective data that was

collected at each study stage.

3. Results

3.1. Tasks conducted and pain and discomfort

The results of the questionnaire surveys indi-

cated that the majority of cleaners considered

buffing, mopping and vacuuming to be frequently

conducted tasks. Moving furniture and lifting

equipment were intrinsic to all three jobs. Respon-

dents also reported a number of related concerns:

working in a poor environment (i.e. inadequate

access to drains, sinks or plug sockets), conducting

repetitive tasks, using vibrating equipment andworking with the back and arms in awkward or

fixed positions.

Seventy-four per cent of the sample had

experienced muscular aches, pain or discomfort

during the last 12 months; 53% reported these

problems in the last 7 days. The main areas of

concern were the lower back (46%), neck (33%),

knees (24%), right shoulder (23%) and right wrist/

hand (22%). Fifty-two per cent had taken medical

advice for these aches and pains, 23% of

respondents had been absent from work as a

result of aches and pains within the last 12 months.

Fifty-two per cent thought their aches and pains

were related to activities conducted or equipment

used at work, 25% attributed pain and discomfort

to buffing, 10% to mopping and 8% to vacuum-

ing. The majority of cleaners used cleaning

machines (e.g. vacuum cleaners, buffers) on a

daily basis. The main issues of concern for

machine use were:

lifting and carrying machines,

vibration from machines, unsuitable handle shape, size and angle,

inadequate machine maintenance,

difficulty with handle adjustment.

3.2. Buffing

3.2.1. Equipment design

The characteristics and dimensions of com-

monly used buffing machines are illustrated in

Figs. 1 and 2. A number of ergonomic concernswere evident based on how buffing equipment was

used by cleaners at the workplace and in the

laboratory, comments made by the cleaners

throughout the study, and the dimensions and

characteristics of machines recorded during the

workplace and expert assessments:

Machine height: The upright handle height

was between standing elbow and shoulder height

for women and this could be too high for ease of

use by shorter females (Pheasant, 1996). Many

ARTICLE IN PRESS



8/20

cleaners at the workplace and in the laboratory

had to abduct their arms to operate the height

adjustment lever.

Machine weight: Buffing machines are heavy

pieces of equipment (approximately 34 kg). Clea-

ners reported that strenuous pushing and pulling

was frequently involved in buffing and this was

particularly evident if a buffing machine was used

on different floors of a building where no lift was

available. Force measurements taken when pulling

machines along or manoeuvring machines through

doors ranged from 30 to 40 N. It was mentioned

that machines were sometimes carried althoughthis was not observed.

In order to set-up machines for use and

subsequently change the pad/disc, it was necessary

to up-end machines. Taking into account ma-

chine weight and reports that machines were heavy

to lift from/lower to the ground, a number of force

measurements were taken, e.g. forces between 55

and 130 N were required to pull different buffing

machines to the ground. The levels of back

compression for lowering (males 16737123 N,

females 765756N) and raising (males 2957216 N, females 9527145 N) the machines were

within back compression design limits. 95% of the

population should be exposed to acceptable load

levels.

These concerns focussed on moving and hand-

ling equipment, however perceived exertion (RPE)

ratings of the buffing process were considered

fairly light (11.5RPE) at the workplace and some-

what hard (12.6RPE) in the laboratory. The

heartrate (HR) data also indicated that the buffing

task was classified as light to moderate work

(average HR below 90 beats/min).

Motor height: A higher motor height may be

difficult when using a buffing machine under low

furniture (e.g. a hospital bed).

Control: A number of buffing machines were

difficult to control on start-up. This was men-

tioned as a problem at workplaces visited and

during the user trial. In 59% of observed cases at

the workplace, there was a significant jerk when

machines were started. In addition, if the buffer hit

a bump or some obstacle on the floor, it was

necessary to apply extra force to control, e.g. workfloor surface (rough, dirty floors).

Vibration: Cleaners reported that some ma-

chines vibrated during use and that this could be

due to poor machine maintenance or to incorrect

fitting of discs/pads; cleaners also reported experi-

encing vibration from 2 of the 4 machines in the

user trial. In approximately 60% of observed cases

at the workplace, evidence of machine vibration

was documented.

Discs: Some discs were considered heavy (up to

3.5 kg). Grips for the pad were not always longenough to allow easy attachment. Cleaners liked

feedback when they attached the disc to the

machine i.e. they liked to know the disc was

locked into position; some machines had an

audible click when the disc was positioned

correctly that was considered useful.

Controls/triggers: The awkward positions of the

safety switch (i.e. behind the T-shaped handle, on

the front panel) required cleaners to stretch to

reach the switch with the thumb while depressing

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Data collected on cleaning equipment at each study stage

Questionnaire Workplace Expert assessment Lab user trial Focus group

Equipment dimensions x x

Equipment characteristics x x x x

Posture x x x

Forces required x x x

Perceived force x x x

Perceived exertion x x

Pain and discomfort x x x

Solution finding and recommendations x x



9/20

the trigger with the fingers. Although, the presence

of a safety switch was recognised as a good

feature, the location should not affect control over

the machine. The trigger could not be locked-on

on any machine; this allowed the cleaner to let

go at any time for the machine to stop moving.

Table 2 shows the force measures recorded to

operate and hold triggers and the height adjust-

ment lever of six commonly used buffing machines.

The majority of measures exceeded the recom-

mended force levels (o10 N) to operate triggers

and levers (Mital and Kilbom, 1992).

In addition, the hand span required to stretch

from the handle to the height adjustment lever was

large (i.e. average measurement 105 mm). This was

greater than the recommended 4555 mm for leverspan (Pheasant, 1996). In the user trial, strength

measurements and measurements of force required

to operate the height adjustment lever allowed the

estimate of the proportion of maximum strength

the subject had to exert to operate the height

adjust mechanism. On average, the cleaners in the

user trial used 36% of their maximum strength in

the upright buffer position and 26% of their

maximum strength in the buffer operating position

to operate the height adjust mechanism. Pheasant

(1996) recommended that up to 30% of themaximum strength was acceptable for frequent

exertions, suggesting that for the upright positions,

the strength required was greater than that

recommended for the average of the group.

Clearly, cleaners below this average would need

to exert a greater proportion of their maximum

strength in order to operate the height adjustment

lever. In addition, trigger comfort over time was a

frequently reported issue. The trigger was always

depressed while buffing and cleaners reported

experiencing pain and discomfort in their fingers

at the end of the day.

Handle design: A number of issues were

observed and reported about machine handles

that could cause unnecessary tissue compression:

ridges, rough lines, hard plastic grips.

Other dimensions: A number of dimensions fell

short of ergonomic guidelines: grip diameter,

handle grip length, trigger length, width and

thickness, lever length.

Safety: All machines did not have safety lights

and information.

Noise: Noise levels were less than the 85 dB A

recommendation for a full day exposure (Mital

and Kilbom, 1992); however cleaners reported that

they sometimes collided with people while buffingas they could not hear them approaching due to

machine noise.

Flex management: A handle at the bottom of the

flex management system was found extremely

helpful in removing the flex from the machine.

The flex was wound around the machine handle

and lever at the bottom for storage. The lever was

twisted and the flex was removed easily from the

machine for use. A hook at the top of the machine,

to wrap the flex around and then to store the disc,

was considered practical.

3.2.2. Posture

Differences in postures adopted and techniques

used while buffing were apparent throughout the

study but the results have been drawn together to

produce general observations.

The neck was always flexed while buffing.

Buffing machines are designed to be gripped

with both hands; however many cleaners were

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Force measurements (N) recorded to operate controls of six commonly used buffing machines

Action Mean Range sd No. machines that required

o10N (Mital and Kilbom, 1992)

Operate right trigger 13.5 521.5 6.9 2/6

Operate left trigger 14.8 726.5 8.3 3/6

Hold right trigger 9.2 1.913.8 5.4 3/6

Hold left trigger 11.7 6.916 3.9 2/6

Adjust height lever 57.8 42108 25.9 0/6



10/20

observed to grip machines with one hand while

holding a spray bottle in the other.

Much wrist movement was apparent. Cleaners

were observed to flex and extend the wristand radial deviation and ulnar deviation

were also observed. Although these postures

were not always excessive, they were held

in static positions for considerable periods of

time. However in the user trial, a substantial

amount of this movement was greater than 50%

of the maximum wrist movement possible

(Table 3).

Power grips were evident.

The finger that operated the trigger was held in a

static pinch grip posture throughout the task.

The back was generally held in an upright or

slightly extended posture throughout the task.

Some lateral side flexion and trunk rotation

were apparent.

Trunk flexion greater than 601 was observed

when pads were changed. Squatting was also

common when changing pads.

3.2.3. Pain and discomfort

Fifty-two per cent of cleaners observed and

interviewed in the workplace experienced some

pain and discomfort at the time of observation. Itis acknowledged that this discomfort was not

necessarily associated with the buffing task in

particular, as cleaners conducted many different

work tasks during the day; however it does

support the high level of pain and discomfort

identified by the questionnaire survey. The pain

and discomfort reported in the laboratory follow-

ing the buffing trial was generally experienced in

the upper limbs, and the right side of the body was

highlighted in many cases. The cleaners used each

buffing machine for a short time, it must be

recognised that it was not uncommon for cleaners

to spend between 1 and 4 h buffing at the workplace.

3.3. Mopping


The characteristics and dimensions of the three

mopping systems (Fig. 3) were assessed during the

five study stages. A number of ergonomic concerns

were evident based on how the equipment was

used by cleaners in the workplace and laboratory,

comments made by the cleaners throughout the

study, and the dimensions and characteristics of

equipment that were recorded during the work-

place and expert assessments. The task require-

ments varied according to the mopping system in

use, these will be highlighted where necessary.

Weight: All mops weighed less than 3 kg.

Handle height: The average height of the mops

was 1378 mm (sd 17.2). The top of the mop was

between standing eye and shoulder height for

women and could be too high for ease of use by

shorter females (Pheasant, 1996). Awkward mop-

ping postures were observed in the workplace

assessment. Some cleaners flexed their neck andback while working. Where longer mop handles

were observed, less trunk flexion was noted when

cleaning under furniture. Handle length was

explored further in the laboratory user trial where

both a long and short handle mop were used. The

longer handled mop was considered too long for

the cleaners as they preferred to work with their

hand over the top of the mop handle. The mean

height of cleaners in the user trial was 162 cm

(range 155173 cm, sd 5.5); a longer mop may be

useful for taller cleaners.Handle diameter: The mean circumference was

75mm (sd 5) and the average diameter was

24.3mm (sd 1.2). Mital and Kilbom (1992)

recommended a grip diameter of 5060 mm for a

power/force grip.

Handle grip: The mop handles varied in grip

surface and material: ribbed plastic, smooth wood,

metal and plastic. Metal handles were considered

to be slippery and ribbed handles were found to be

uncomfortable over time. A number had a useful

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3Percentage of time wrist postures were outside 50% of

maximum angles while working in the laboratory user trial

Left wrist Right wrist

F/E U/R F/E U/R

Buff 16% 29% 20% 31%

Mop 21% 44% 10% 17%

Vacuum 11% 37% 13% 19%

F/Eflexion/extension; U/RUlnar/radial deviation.



11/20

rubber coating on the top of the handle to place

the hand and ensure a good grip.

Effort: Cleaners rated their perceived exertion

while mopping as somewhat hard (13.8RPE) at theworkplace and fairly light in the laboratory

(11RPE). In the workplace cleaners worked under

considerable time pressures which could not be

simulated in the laboratory. According to a

classification of the severity of work, mopping

was considered moderate with an average heart

rate above 90 beats/min.

Manual handling: A number of task requirements

were of concern: carrying buckets of water (ap-

proximately 10 kg), having to lift, fill and empty

buckets into basins/sinks at an unsuitable height. A

number of cleaners reported that lifting bigger

buckets (hand and foot lever buckets) was extremely

difficult. It was often necessary to move furniture to

mop, thereby placing an extra load on the worker.

Safety: It was essential to work safely with

chemicals during the mopping task. Gloves were

generally worn but cleaners mentioned that these

made their hands very hot and uncomfortable

while working.

Bucket design: The standard bucket was carried

in the hand, the other buckets could be dragged

along on wheels. The stability of the buckets wasconsidered an important issue: wheels were useful

for moving the bucket but the bucket was likely to

move while squeezing. Buckets with wheels were

not suitable for use on stairs.

Squeezing mechanism: High levels of force were

required to squeeze mops, regardless of method

employed (Table 4). Forces to operate the foot

pedal mechanism were higher than expected. These

exceeded the recommendation of 3050 N resis-

tance to operate pedals (Kroemer and Grandjean,

1997). It was reported that size of mop head mustsuit the style of bucket, a smaller mop head was

easier to squeeze. Strength of the drain in the

standard mopping buckets was important as the

user must apply considerable force to squeeze

water from the mop.

3.3.2. Posture


used were apparent but the results have been

drawn together to produce general observations.

The neck was generally flexed and often rotated.

The arms were often abducted, working above

mid chest height.

The mop was gripped by both hands. One handwas placed lower on the handle to steer the mop;

the second was placed at the top of the handle to

apply force; this meant that this arm was

generally abducted.

Much wrist movement was apparent. The

cleaner had to flex and extend the wrist and

radial and ulnar deviation of the wrist were also

observed. Although these postures were not

always excessive, they were held in a static

position for a considerable amount of time.

However in the user trial, a substantial amount

of this movement was greater than 50% of the

maximum wrist movement possible (Table 3).

Some repeated turning of the forearm was also

observed.

The main postures of concern were trunk

rotation and trunk flexion between 201 and

601. These postures were adopted for the

majority of the task. The trunk was sometimes

flexed greater than 601 in order to mop under

furniture. Different techniques (e.g. figure of 8)

required less trunk flexion. Cleaners were also

observed kneeling or in a squatting posture tosqueeze the mop.

Some forward reaches over 400 mm were

observed. Restricted access and obstructions

(e.g. under tables, beds and cleaning very small

toilet areas) in the workplace were a problem

while mopping.


Thirty-six per cent of cleaners interviewed at

the workplace experienced some pain and dis-

comfort at the time of observation; the mainproblem areas were the back, shoulders, hands

and wrists. Once again, it is acknowledged that

this discomfort was not necessarily associated

only with mopping as this was not the cleaners

sole task; however it does support the high level

of pain and discomfort identified by the ques-

tionnaire survey. Low levels of pain and discom-

fort in the neck, back, and wrists were reported

in the laboratory following the mopping trial;

however it must be recognised that it was not

ARTICLE IN PRESS



12/20

uncommon for cleaners to spend between 1 and 4 h

mopping at the workplace.

3.4. Vacuum machines


The characteristics and dimensions of four

commonly used vacuum machines are shown in

Table 5. In general, control on start-up/

general control of the vacuum, vibration and

noise levels were found to be acceptable for

all vacuums by cleaners both at the workplace

and in the laboratory. However, a number

of ergonomic concerns were evident based onhow equipment was used by cleaners at the

workplace and in the laboratory, comments

made by the cleaners throughout the study,

and the dimensions and characteristics of

machines recorded during the workplace and

expert assessments.

Grip: Bullinger and Solf (1979) stated that

machines require a distinct grip area. The handle

grip length on two commonly used machines was

less than the recommended minimum of 120 mm

(Mital and Kilbom, 1992). Cleaners reported thatwhere grips were small, the metal pipe was difficult

to grip. The mean grip diameter was less than the

recommended 5060 mm for a power/force grip

(Mital and Kilbom, 1992). In addition, ridges on

machine grips caused discomfort.

Controls: The controls (e.g. on/off switch,

airflow regulator) on a number of machines were

poorly located. Cleaners commented that airflow

regulators were often positioned too close to the

grip.

Attachments: Cleaners were observed to stoop

and adopt awkward postures to use attachments

on both tub and upright vacuums.

Forces: Force measurements were recorded to

operate the foot controls of three commonly used

tub vacuums (the controls on the upright machine

were automatic) (Table 6). The controls on two of

the three machines met the recommendation of

3050 N resistance to operate pedals (Kroemer

and Grandjean, 1997). Force levels required to

move the machines were acceptable, falling well

below recommended limits of 100 N for men and

70 N for women (HSE, 1998). However, it must be

recognised that it was often necessary to movefurniture (up to 200 N) to conduct the task.

Effort: Cleaners rated their perceived exertion

while vacuuming as fairly light (11.9RPE in the

laboratory and 9.7RPE in the workplace). Indeed

some users said it was an easy and relaxing task.

According to a classification of the severity of

work, vacuuming was considered moderate with

average heart rates above 90 beats/min.

Manual handling: Some strenuous pushing and

pulling was involved in this task: moving furniture,

lifting and carrying vacuum cleaners. This wasparticularly difficult if cleaners had to work on

different levels (e.g. tiered lecture theatre) as it was

necessary to lift the machine frequently and there was

sometimes little room (on stairs) to place the machine.

Workplace hazards: Sharp edges and low shel-

ving were a potential hazard and restricted access

and obstructions were also of concern to cleaners.

Flex management: Removing the flex from one

machine in the expert assessment affected the set-

up of the machine for use.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Force measurements recorded to squeeze mops using three commonly used squeezing mechanisms

Bucket Mop Method Approx. forcea Comment

Standard Round Squeezed mop head into plastic

drain of bucket

200 N Some plastic drains inside

buckets were not strong enough

Hand lever Long tailed Pressed hand on wringer lever 200 N Had to place foot in front of

wheels to stop bucket moving

Foot pedal Flat Foot placed on lever, activated

brake and squeezed mop

64 N Splashing problem when

drawing mop through wringer

aApproximate force levels only: the aim was to squeeze as much excess water from the mop as possible and this varied depending on

strength and effort exerted by cleaners.



13/20

Safety: The tub vacuums investigated in the

expert assessment and user trial stages of the studydid not have safety lights.

3.4.2. Posture


used while vacuuming were apparent throughout

the study but the results have been drawn together

to produce general observations:

The neck was generally rotated and flexed, and

the arms often abducted.

Frequent wrist movement was apparent. Clea-

ners had to flex, extend and deviate the wrist. Inthe user trial, a substantial amount of this

movement was greater than 50% of the max-

imum wrist movement possible (Table 3).

The right hand was generally used to apply force

and placed at the top of the handle, the left was

positioned lower down the handle to steer the

machine on the tub vacuum; the upright was

used with one hand.

Power grips were evident and working above

mid chest height was common.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

General characteristics and dimensions of four commonly used vacuum machines

Vacuum characteristic Comment

Weight All vacuum machines weighed less than 7 kg

Tub vacuums

Height Mean 406.7 mm (sd 132.8) Range 330560 mm

Grip circumference Mean 128.7 m m (sd 18.5) Range 118150 m m

Grip diameter Mean 42.7 mm (sd 7.02) Range 3650 mm

Grip length Mean 151.7 mm (sd 63.7) Range 110225 mm

Upright vacuum

Height 1180 mm

Grip circumference 105 mm

Grip diameter 34 mm

Grip length 100 mm

Grip surface 1 of 4 had a ridge between metal of shaft and plastic on grip

3/4 had a ridged grip

Changing bags/attachments All bags easy to attachUpright: attachments were stored on machine

Safety Upright: safety light to indicate power was on

Tub: none

Flex management Upright: flex wrapped around handle

Tub: 1/3 had automatic recoil, 2/3 flex wrapped around top, 1/3 top came off when flex

removed

Noise level at 3 m Mean level 69 dB A (sd 1.2)

Activating settings 4/4 easy to switch on

2/4 position of on/off switch not obvious on side of equipment

2/4 airflow regulator close to the grip area

Table 6Force measurements (N) recorded to operate controls on three commonly used tub vacuums and one upright vacuum (where

applicable)

Force levels to Mean Range sd No. vacuums that met recommendation

Push foot control downwards on tub machines (n=3) 48.7 11110 53.6 2/3 (Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997)

Push foot control upwards on tub machines (n=3) 43.8 1395 44.6 2/3 (Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997)

Move vacuum machines (n=4) 14.1 920 4.5 4/4 (HSE, 1992)



14/20

The main trunk postures of concern when using

the tub vacuums were flexion greater than 601

and flexion between 201and 601. Trunk rotation

(up to 451

) and left side flexion were apparent(5151). When using the attachments, the back

was generally in extreme flexion (50601) while

less trunk rotation and lateral side flexion were

observed.

Less trunk flexion was evident while using the

upright vacuum (5151). Some trunk rotation

was apparent (5101). Little side flexion was

perceptible (o101). When using the attach-

ments, the trunk was flexed to a greater degree

(20401). Similar levels of trunk rotation and

lateral movement were adopted as when using

the vacuum normally.

On a less frequent basis, cleaners were observed

in a kneeling or squatting posture in order to

vacuum under furniture, to manage the flex or

to use the power sockets.

Some forward reaches over 400 mm were

observed.


At the workplace 52% of cleaners experienced

some pain and discomfort at the time of observa-

tion; the main problem areas were the back,shoulders and hands. It is acknowledged that

this discomfort was not necessarily associated

with vacuuming in particular as cleaners con-

ducted many different daily tasks; however it

does support the high level of pain and discomfort

identified by the questionnaire survey. Low

levels of pain and discomfort (low back, right

arm/wrist, neck) were reported in the laboratory

following the vacuuming trial; however it must be

recognised that it was not uncommon for cleaners

to spend between 1 and 2 h vacuuming at theworkplace.

4. Discussion

High prevalence rates of pain and discomfort

were found amongst the cleaning population

surveyed and interviewed, and action should be

taken to reduce these problems as the implications

for job performance, efficiency and morale are

serious. The cleaners job comprises many tasks

that require awkward postures, high levels of force

and repetitive actions and 52% of the questionnaire

sample attributed their pain and discomfort toactivities/equipment at work. In order to address

some of these issues, the ergonomics of three types

of cleaning equipment have been investigated and

the following modifications suggested.

4.1. Guidelines for equipment design modifications

The suggested design modifications (Tables 79)

are important for designers, manufacturers and

suppliers to consider. In addition, cleaning man-

agers, trainers and procurers of workplace equip-ment should also be aware of what is considered

good equipment design to ensure their cleaning

workforce is able to work safely within the

constraints of their specific work environments.

It must be recognised that professional cleaners

generally work in facilities planned for other work

processes and other workers. Buildings and inter-

ior facilities are not typically designed to accom-

modate smooth and ergonomic cleaning and to

provide the optimal workload for cleaners (Kru -

ger et al., 1997, p. 9). The main ergonomic

deficiencies identified by the cleaning workforce

and ergonomic assessments were:

Buffing machines

Excessive machine height and weight

Vibration (Woods et al., 1999)

Poor grip, trigger and lever design

High pressure required to activate controls

Awkward location of controls

Lack of feedback when attaching discs

A number of these problems were identified in

previous studies (Haslam and Williams, 1999;

Hide et al., 2000; Kilpatrick et al., 1991). A

summary of modifications for consideration in

future designs of buffing machines are shown in

Table 7. These suggestions were discussed and

modified based on the focus group discussions

with representatives of the cleaning industry. The

supervisors and managers supported many of the

problems identified by the research team and

ARTICLE IN PRESS



15/20

suggested that there was an inherent risk in the

design of the machine. The designers and manu-

facturers, on the other hand, believed that the ill

health problems experienced by cleaners were due

to lack of training on buffing machines.

Mopping systems

Unsuitable mop heights

Uncomfortable grip design

High pressure required to squeeze mops

Difficulty handling heavy buckets

Bucket instability

A summary of design modifications for considera-

tion in future mopping systems are shown inTable 8.

These suggestions were discussed and modified based

on the focus group discussions with representatives of

the cleaning industry. Both supervisors/managers

and designers/manufacturers/suppliers groups recog-

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 7

Suggested design modifications for buffing machines

Lighten machines for easy manoeuvre, lowering/raising and control; this may be done by using more plastic rather than metal parts

Machines with different handle heights should be designed to accommodate all workers Reduce disc weight to 12 kg to make the task of attaching the disc to the machine easier to complete; ensure spikes on disc are not

too sharp; an audible click when the disc is attached correctly is recommended

Controls

Lower forces for adjusting levers or triggers to less than 10 N (Mital and Kilbom, 1992); alternatively other designs should be

investigated (e.g. hand operated lever lower on the handle or a foot pedal)

Reduce span of levers and handles to 4555 mm (Pheasant, 1996)

Ensure grip length is 120 mm (Mital and Kilbom, 1992) to provide enough space for the hand

Grip diameter should be 5060mm for a power/force grip (Mital and Kilbom, 1992)

Triggers should be longer to spread the load over four rather than on one or two fingers.Kilpatrick et al. (1991)recommend 85 mm

for trigger length on buffing machines

Trigger width should be 15 mm and 23 mm when depressed (Kilpatrick et al., 1991); changing the trigger thickness would reduce

the distance the hand is required to span

Ensure the surface of grips/triggers/switches are smooth to remove the risk of discomfort for the user

Safety Provide safety lights and safety information on machines

Ensure location of safety switch/button is suitable to avoid stretching and to increase the users control and grip on the machine

Flex management

Outriggers and flex restraints are useful to prevent the flex getting tangled in the users feet

A hook on the front of the machine for storage of disc/pad is a useful feature

Systems to allow easy storage and access to the flex are recommended

Table 8

Suggested design modifications for mopping systems

Mops with different length handles should be available for purchase

Design of adjustable mop handles could be explored Mop handle surface should be smooth

User trials are required to ascertain if a larger grip diameter would be beneficial

A rubber coating on the top of the mop shaft improves grip

As some buckets were heavy when full, it is recommended that manual handling risks are minimised by, for example, installing inner

containers inside larger buckets

The pressure required to squeeze the mop should be reduced on all mop systems

Stronger plastic drains should be made for handheld buckets

The problem of splashing when dragging the mop through the squeezer system needs more design consideration as chemicals are

used to clean floors

A braking system is needed on buckets with wheels while squeezing



16/20

nised that cheap mops and relatively cheap labour

combined to inhibit progress on mopping systems

and agreed that mop handle length should be tailored

to the individual and the task. Hand lever bucket

systems were considered better for posture and

effectiveness than the round mop and bucket.

However, they also thought there was a number of

concerns about the weight of these buckets e.g.

filling/emptying in high level sinks. Another work-

place issue was reported regarding the increasingly

frequent installation of non-slip flooring; it was

generally regarded as very difficult to clean and

unsuitable for mopping; a machine was regarded asthe appropriate method for cleaning these floors.

Vacuum machines

Inadequate attachment length

Poor grip design

Lack of safety lights to indicate power is on

Flex management difficulties

Poor location of controls

A number of these problems were identified inthe Loopik et al. (1994) study of customer

vacuuming systems. A summary of modifications

for consideration in future vacuum machine

designs are shown in Table 9. These suggestions

were discussed and modified based on focus group

discussions with representatives of the cleaning

industry. The groups reported that upright ma-

chines were better for cleaning large carpeted

areas. Tub vacuums were generally regarded as

more versatile but took longer to vacuum a large

area and caused problems on steps (e.g. lecture

theatres) where backpacks were seen as a possible

alternative.

4.2. Equipment purchasing checklist

On the basis of discussion with cleaners and

other cleaning industry representatives, and ergo-

nomic assessments and observation, the purchasing

checklist was compiled to aid selection of suitable

cleaning equipment (Appendix A). This checklist

highlights the importance of the equipment pur-

chaser taking into account the particular require-ments of the workforce, tasks undertaken and the

work environment (e.g. location of taps, storage

facilities, access, and floor surface materials) prior

to equipment purchase. In addition, the checklist

emphasises the importance of consultation and

participation of the cleaning workforce; user trials

would be vital to answer many of the checklist

items. Where available, recommended dimensions

for equipment design have been incorporated into

the checklist that may be useful when in discussion

with equipment suppliers/manufacturers; howeverthese are only recommendations and it is important

to ensure the equipment dimensions suit all

members of the particular workforce.

4.3. Study limitations

It is acknowledged that the questionnaire

response rates were low; in addition, the limita-

tions of cross-sectional studies are well documen-

ted (Silman and MacFarlane, 2002). A study by

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 9

Suggested design modifications for vacuum machines

A distinct grip area is required (Bullinger and Solf, 1979) e.g., the airflow regulator was positioned close to the handgrip on a

number of machines The grip should be of adequate size in terms of length (120 mm) and diameter (5060 mm)

The grip texture should be smooth

The attachments on both tub and upright vacuums should be made longer to prevent the cleaner stooping and adopting awkward

postures

Ensure on/off switches are prominent

The resistance of foot controls should not exceed 50 N (Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997)

Flex management systems should not interfere with other facilities/switches

Install safety lights/information



17/20

Hansson et al. (2001) found that questionnaire

assessment exposure data had low validly among

cleaners and office workers and that direct

measures were considered essential. In this five-stage study of the UK cleaning workforce, a

combination of methodologies was used to explore

musculoskeletal health. The questionnaire sug-

gested risk factors worthy of further exploration

in the workplace and in the laboratory where a

number of direct measures (i.e. wrist goniometry,

lumbar motion monitor of the back, heart rate

data) were recorded in addition to the collection of

subjective data using qualitative methods (e.g.

verbal protocols, interviews, focus groups). It is

considered that this participative approach using a

triangulation of methods has given good insight

into the musculoskeletal health of the UK cleaning

workforce.

The difference between perceived exertion

ratings of the buffing task in the workplace

(11.5RPE) and laboratory (12.6RPE) may

have resulted from variations in machines in

the user trial; users may not have been familiar

with all buffing machines and consequently

found some more difficult to use. In ad-

dition, cleaners in the user trial did not use

buffing machines as frequently as those at theworkplace.

5. Conclusions

Taking an ergonomics approach that incorpo-

rated scientific findings and user feedback from the

applied work and laboratory setting, this paper

has highlighted a number of inadequacies in the

design of commonly used cleaning equipment that

results in extreme, static or constrained postures,repetitive movements, heavy workload and high

force requirement. Given the demographics of the

cleaning workforce (Kru ger et al., 1997), the

prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (De Vito

et al., 2000;Woods et al., 1999), and the amount of

time the equipment was used on a daily basis, it is

important to ensure the equipment design is safe

and suitable for all users and that appropriate

equipment is selected to meet the needs of a

particular workforce.

Although previous research has highlighted a

number of ergonomic deficiencies with buffing

machine design, this paper has also explored the

design and use of workplace mopping andvacuuming systems. It has attempted to present a

practical set of suggested equipment modifications.

As found in previous research (e.g.Kru ger et al.,

1997), this study indicated that health problems

amongst the cleaning population are high and a

long-term approach to reduce these health in-

equalities must be considered. It is recommended

that an effective risk reduction programme must

tackle the problems on a broad front involving all

interested parties: equipment manufacturers, de-

signers and suppliers, employers, managers/super-

visors, trainers and the cleaners themselves.

Designers and manufacturers should accept the

design challenges presented (e.g. more user trials

are required) and work with researchers to

improve designs of cleaning equipment to ensure

good musculoskeletal health, working posture and

technique. This must be done in consultation with

representatives of the cleaning workforce. Those in

charge at the workplace must be aware of good

ergonomic design principles and the requirements

of their workforce. The purchasing checklist

emphasises the importance of good ergonomicequipment design, the vital role of consultation

and participation with the workforce in the

purchasing process (e.g. through trialling and

discussion) and the importance of considering the

needs of the particular workforce, task and

environment in the equipment selection process.

This paper concentrates mainly on equipment

and postures adopted when in use. It is acknowl-

edged that this represents only one aspect of the

work system that influences musculoskeletal

health. Concentrating only on physical ergonomicfactors (i.e. equipment design, reduction in forces,

improvement in postures) may not achieve as

much benefit in terms of reduction in sickness

rates/musculoskeletal ill health as a more holistic

approach that also takes account of work organi-

sational risk factors. The Moray model (2000)

emphasised the importance of individual, team,

group and managerial behaviours and the organi-

sational culture in the work system as well at the

physical ergonomics issues. This approach was

ARTICLE IN PRESS



18/20

used in a further study that developed case studies

for the cleaning industry to tackle musculoskeletal

ill health and focussed on changes to equipment,

training, workplace, work organisation and occu-pational health management (Woods and Buckle,

2003).

The results of this five-stage study indicated that

safe use of equipment depends not only on the

weight and shape of the equipment but also on:

tasks performed (e.g. moving/lifting furniture

and equipment were intrinsic to all three

cleaning tasks),

intended user groups (e.g. age, strength),

training and handling instructions; although

training, however effective, cannot overcomeinherent risks in either equipment design or in

the work system,

interaction with other equipment (e.g. gloves),

work environments (e.g. quality of flooring

surface, provision of low drains, selection of

workplace equipment/furniture for easy main-

tenance),

scheduling/organisation of work (e.g. length,

duration, frequency),

social support systems (e.g. low appreciation of

work).

The results of this paper could also be used to

identify areas for application of ergonomics design

principles to products in the home. Marut and

Hedge (1999)found that scrubbing, mopping and

vacuuming were perceived as some of the most

tiring household tasks; this could be a result of

poor equipment design.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of

the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and

UNISON who funded this research.

Appendix A

When purchasing any workplace equipment, it

is important to consider the following:

1. Have you consulted your workforce about

machine/equipment requirements?

2. Is the equipment an acceptable weight for all

the workforce?3. Is the equipment a suitable height for all the

workforce?

4. Is the equipment easy to move (e.g. wheels

move easily)?

5. Is the equipment stable and does it

move smoothly (i.e. no sudden applications

of force required or shock loading to the

hands)?

6. Are all controls/levers easy to reach and use

(for left and right handed workers)?

7. Are the controls/levers comfortable to operate

(e.g. no uncomfortable ridges)?

8. Is it possible to grip the machine easily:

acceptable hand span (4555 mm)?

9. Are the forces required to operate triggers,

controls and levers acceptable (o10 N)?

10. Are all parts easily adjustable (including access

to and use of attachments/accessories)?

11. Does the equipment provide feedback to the

user when an action is completed (e.g. click

when attach disc correctly)?

12. Is there perceptible vibration from the equip-

ment?13. Is the noise from the equipment acceptable

(o85 dB A for full day exposure)?

14. Are safety lights and information provided on

the equipment?

15. Are safety lights/controls in good locations in

terms of visibility and reach?

16. Is flex management acceptable (e.g. outriggers

that hold flex away from handle)?

17. Is cable length adequate (e.g. think about

availability of plug sockets, extension leads

etc)?18. Is the equipment suitable for your work

environment (e.g. stairs, lifts, ramps, access,

size of rooms, restricted spaces)?

19. Have you considered providing a range of

equipment at the workplace to accommodate

all potential users?

20. Have you trialled this equipment at the work-

place with a representative sample of your

workforce and taken the feedback from users

into consideration?

ARTICLE IN PRESS



19/20

References

Aickin, C., 1998. Ergonomic assessment (manual handling) of

cleaning work. Productivity ergonomics and safetythe

total package. In: Proceedings of the International Work-

place Health and Safety Forums and the 33rd Ergonomics

Society of Australia Conference 1998. Gold Coast, Aus-

tralia, 6pp.

Andersson, G.B.J., Chaffin, D.B., Pope, M.H., 1991. Occupa-

tional biomechanics of the lumbar spine. In: Pope, M.H.,

Andersson, G.B.J., Frymoyer, J.W., Chaffin, D.B. (Eds.),

Occupational Low Back Pain. Mosby Year Book, St. Louis,

pp. 2043.

Borg, G., 1990. Psychophysical scaling with application in

physical work and the perception of exertion. Scandinavian

Journal of Work Environment and Health 16, 5558.

Bullinger, H.J., Solf, J.J., 1979. Ergonomische arbeitsmittelges-

taltung I. In: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz (Eds.),Systematik. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz, Dortmund,

Germany.

Cleaning and Support Services Association (CSSA), 2002.

Available online from: http://www.cleaningindustry.org/

[Accessed 13 April 2004].

De Vito, G., Molteni, G., Camerino, D., Bordini, L., Molinari,

M., Capodaglio, P., 2000. Ageing at work: health aspects in

cleaners. Medicina del Lavero 91, 387402.

Edsberg, E., Haakonsen, H., Myhre, H., Festervoll, I., Winge,

T., Bjorset, HH., et al., 1983. Theme ergonomics. Arbeids-

miljo 8, 1555.

English, C.J., Maclaren, W.M., Court-Brown, C., Hughes, S.P.,

Porter, R.W., Wallace, W.A., et al., 1989. Clinical

epidemiological study of relations between upper limb softtissue disorders and repetitive movements at work. Edin-

burgh Report TM/88/19, Institute of Occupational Medi-

cine.

Hagner, I.M., Hagberg, M., 1989. Evaluation of two floor

mopping work methods by measurement of load. Ergo-

nomics 32, 401408.

Hansson, G.A ., Balogh, I., Bystro m, U.J., Ohlsson, K.,

Nordander, C., Asterland, P., et al., 2001. Questionnaire

versus direct technical measurements in assessing postures

and movements of the head, upper back, arms and hands.

Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health 27,

3040.

Haslam, R.A., Williams, H.J., 1999. Ergonomics considerations

in the design and use of single disc floor cleaning machines.

Applied Ergonomics 30, 391399.

Health and Safety Executive, 1998. Manual Handling Opera-

tions Regulations 1992: Guidance on Regulations. HSE

Books, Suffolk.

Hide, S., Morris, W., Haslegrave, C.M., Okunribido, O.O.,

Nichols, S.C., 2000. Evaluating the use of single disc floor

cleaners. In: McCabe, P.T., Hanson, M.A., Robertson, S.A.

(Eds.), Contemporary Ergonomics 2000. Taylor and Fran-

cis, London, pp. 307311.

Holshuijsen, J., Wichers, F., Harlaar, J., 1997. A traditional

mop versus a flat mop: a study of the effects of adjustment

to the design of a mop on the muscle workload measured by

means of electromyography. Tijdschrift voor Ergonomie 22,

109114.

Huisman, M., 1992. Task analysis or safe lifting pro-

grammes? A case study. In: Laird, I., Slappendel, C.(Eds.), Ergonomics: Design for Usability. Proceed-

ings of the Fourth Conference of the New Zealand

Ergonomics Society, Palmerston North, 2627 March 1992,

pp. 7577.

Johansson, S.E., Ljunggren, G., 1989. Perceived exertion during

a self-imposed pace of work for a group of cleaners. Applied

Ergonomics 20, 307312.

Kilpatrick, D., Meyer, P., Musicka, D., Montgomery, L., 1991.

Ergonomic, design and health risks of electric scrubber-

polished machines. Report from Kilpatrick and Associates

PTY LTD for Miscellaneous Workers Union.

Kourinka, I., Jonsson, B., Kilbom, A., Vinterberg, H., Bierig-

Sorenson, F., Anderson, G., et al., 1987. StandardisedNordic questionnaire for the analysis of musculoskeletal

symptoms. Applied Ergonomics 18, 233237.

Kroemer, K.H.E., Grandjean, E., 1997. Fitting the task to the

human. A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics, Fifth ed.

Taylor & Francis, London.

Kru ger, D., Louhevaara, V., Nielsen, J., Schneider, T., 1997.

Risk Assessment and Preventative Strategies in Cleaning

Work. Wirtschaftsverlag NW, Bremerhaven.

Liverpool Occupational Health Project. 1991. 3rd Annual

Report 1992/3 (Unpublished).

Loopik, W.E.C., Kanis, H., Marinissen, A.H., 1994. The

operation of new vacuum cleaners, a users trial. In:

Robertson, S.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 1994.

Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 3439.Louhevaara, V., 1997. Professional cleaning in the European

Union: ergonomics. In: Das, B., Karwowski, W. (Eds.),

Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety 1997.

IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 565568.

Louhevaara, V., Hopsu, L., Sgaard, K., 2000. Cardio-

respiratory strain during floor mopping with different

methods. In: Ergonomics for the New Millennium. Proceed-

ings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International

Ergonomics Association and the 44th Annual Meeting of

the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 5, San

Diego, CA, USA, July 29August 4, pp. 518520.

Marras, W., Fathallah, F., Miller, R., Davis, S., Mirka, G.,

1992. Accuracy of a three dimensional lumbar motion

monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion character-

istics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 9,

7587.

Marut, M., Hedge, A., 1999. Ergonomic survey of household

tasks and products. In: Houston.. We Have a Solution!

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

43rd Annual Meeting. Houston, TX, September 27October

1, vol. 1. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,

Santa Monica, CA, pp. 506510.

Messing, K., Haentjens, C., Doniol-Shaw, G., 1992. Invisible

and essential: the work activity of women who clean toilets

in passengers trains. Travail Humain 5, 353370.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

http://www.cleaningindustry.org/http://www.cleaningindustry.org/


20/20

Mital, A., Kilbom, A ., 1992. Design, selection and use of

hand tools to alleviate trauma of the upper extremities:

Part IIthe scientific basis (knowledge base) for the

guide. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 10,

721.Moray, N., 2000. Culture, politics and ergonomics. Ergonomics

43, 858868.

Pheasant, S., 1996. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics

and the Design of Work. Taylor & Francis, London.

Schopp, R., Dangelmaier, M., Eckert, R., 1995. Handling of

professional vacuum cleaners. In: Bittner, A.C., Champney,

P.C. (Eds.), Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety

VII. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 10571062.

Silman, A.J., MacFarlane, G., 2002. Epidemiological Studies:

A Practical Guide, second ed. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Sgaard, K., Fallentin, N., Nielsen, J., 1996. Work load during

floor cleaning: the effect of cleaning methods and work

technique. European Journal of Applied Physiology and

Occupational Physiology 73, 7381.

Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Eskelinen, L., Jarvinen, E., Toikka-

nen, J., Klockars, M., 1991. Prevalence and incidence rates

of diseases and work ability in different work categories ofmunicipal occupations. Scandinavian Journal of Work

Environment and Health 17 (Suppl.), 6774.

Wiktorin, C., Karlqvist, L., Nygard, C.H., Winkel, J., 1991.

Design and reliability of a questionnaire for estimation of

physical load in epidemiological studies. In: Queinnec, Y.,

Daniellou, F. (Eds.), Designing for Everyone: Proceedings of

the 11th Congress of the International Ergonomics Associa-

tion. Paris, France, 1518 July 1991, vol. 1. pp. 2302322.

Woods, V., Buckle, P., 2003. Caring for cleaners. Guidance and

Case Studies on How to Prevent Musculoskeletal Disorders.

HSE Books, Suffolk.

Woods, V., Buckle, P., Haisman, M., 1999. Musculoskeletal

Health of Cleaners. HSE Books, Suffolk.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


an investigation into the design and use of workplace cleaning equipment

Documents