Shoulder-arm muscle load and performance during control operation in forestry machines. Effects of changing to a new arm rest, lever and boom control system.

Three work station design studies in forestry machines were carried out with regard to shoulder/arm muscle load. (1) In an arm rest study, a movable (in the sagittal plane) arm rest was compared with a fixed one; (2) in a lever study, a mini lever with a small deflection was compared with an ordinary hand lever; (3) in a boom control study, a computer controlled boom system was compared with an ordinary boom system. In the arm rest study eight male subjects carried out lever operations in the laboratory. In the lever and boom studies, 15 male forestry students operated forwarders. Muscle load, cycle time, skill, perceived exertion, heart rate and preferred set up were recorded. The muscle loads on the upper trapezius, infraspinatus, extensor carpi ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis were recorded by electromyography. With mini lever and movable arm rest the upper trapezius load was reduced with preserved or decreased cycle time, although the grand mean of the 'static' load level was only about 2% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and the effects of the new designs were small (about 0.7% MVC). The subjects preferred the lever/arm rest also giving the lowest muscle load. No differences between levers or arm rests were found in skill, perceived exertion or heart rate. It was not possible to draw any definitive conclusions regarding effects of the boom control system, due to technical problems. According to the literature, the duration of lever operation has increased considerably in forestry during recent years as part of a rationalization process. Partly due to this, it is suggested that the investigated work station improvements may not be sufficient to eliminate the risk for shoulder-neck disorders.

Acute effects of vibration from a chipping hammer and a grinder on the hand-arm system.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare various effects on the hand-arm system of vibration exposure from a chipping hammer and a grinder with the same frequency weighted acceleration. Grip and push forces were measured and monitored during the exposure. The various effects were: muscle activity (measured with surface electrodes), discomfort ratings for different parts of the hand-arm system (made during and after exposure), and vibration perception threshold (for 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after the exposure). RESULTS: No increase in muscle activity due to exposure to vibration was found in the hand muscle studied. In the forearm, conversely, there was an increase in both muscle studied. For the upper arm the muscle activity only increased when exposed to impact vibration. Subjective ratings in the hand and shift in vibration perception threshold were effected more by the grinder than the hammer exposure. CONCLUSION: These results show that the reaction of the hand-arm system to vibration varies with frequency quantitatively as well as qualitatively. They do not support the notion that one single frequency weighted curve would be valid for the different health effects of hand-arm vibration (vascular, musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychophysiological).

Normalizing upper trapezius EMG amplitude: Comparison of ramp and constant force procedures.

The present study compared three procedures for normalization of upper trapezius surface electromyographic (EMG) amplitudes: (a) a ramp procedure (providing data in per cent of maximal voluntary contraction, MVC); (b) a constant force procedure based on two reference contractions (two-force procedure) (%MVC) and (c) a procedure expressing muscle activation in per cent of a reference voluntary electrical activity (%RVE). The study also evaluated the repeatability of the ramp and the RVE procedures and estimated the force exertion (%MVC) corresponding to the RVE. To illustrate the ergonomic effect of different normalization procedures, trapezius EMG during two work tasks was compared after normalization by the two-force and the RVE procedures. Fifteen subjects participated in the whole study. We found that force estimates obtained by the ramp procedure equation could be translated to force estimates obtained by the two-force procedure by the equation: %MVC(2force) = - 0.6 + 0.9 *%MVC(ramp), although with a considerable imprecision due to large inter-individual differences. In the ramp procedure, the intra-individual test-retest coefficient of variation (CV) depended on the force level; it was 45% at 5% MVC and 10% at 30% MVC. The CV of the RVE was 15%. The reference contraction used in the RVE procedure corresponded from 13-79% MVC (median 33%MVC). The load reducing effect of an ergonomic intervention was less obvious with the RVE procedure than with the two-force procedure due to a larger inter-individual variation. The advantages and disadvantages of the different procedures are discussed.