RAMP I is a screening tool developed to support practitioners in screening for work-related musculoskeletal disorder risk factors related to manual handling. RAMP I, which is part of the RAMP tool, is based on research-based studies combined with expert group judgments. More than 80 practitioners participated in the development of RAMP I. The tool consists of dichotomous assessment items grouped into seven categories. Acceptable reliability was found for a majority of the assessment items for 15 practitioners who were given 1?h of training. The usability evaluation points to RAMP I being usable for screening for musculoskeletal disorder risk factors, i.e., usable for assessing risks, being usable as a decision base, having clear results and that the time needed for an assessment is acceptable. It is concluded that RAMP I is a usable tool for practitioners. 相似文献
Purpose. The current research was carried out to determine grip strength (GS) with change in posture and upper-limb muscle activity of manual workers and investigate the impacts of these changes. Methods. For the current research, 120 male and 80 female participants were selected and GS was assessed using a digital hand grip dynamometer in various conditions. Results. The outcomes showed that male participants had higher GS as compared to female participants. Maximum GS was found in a standing posture with the fixed forward shoulder at 45°, elbow at 90° and a neutral position of the wrist and forearm for all participants. Conclusions. Higher values of GS were attained in standing postures which may result in attainment of higher performance levels by the workers. The outcomes justify the importance of correct postures during manual work in industries employing traditional methods. 相似文献
This paper presentse-SEREM (Smart Emission ReductionEstimation Manual), a cost-free, easilyaccessed and updated, web-based manual forestimating emission reductions from Joint Implementation (JI) andClean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. e-SEREM's main functions arethe selection of a benchmark for a specificproject type in the power or heat sectorand the calculation of the annual andcumulative emission reductions accrued bythis project for its crediting lifetime.e-SEREM was developed in order to test itsapplicability and practicality in assistingproject developers and evaluators toelaborate baselines easily and calculatethe emission credits earned by candidate JIor CDM projects hosted in several countries. 相似文献
A cross-sectional study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of lower back pain (LBP) and its association with whole-body vibration (WBV) and manual materials handling (MMH). We studied 110 commercial vehicle drivers using a self-administered questionnaire and the VI-400Pro human vibration monitor. Prevalence of LBP was 66.4%. The percentage of drivers who had frequent manual handling of heavy loads was 45.5% and those who handled heavy loads in awkward postures accounted for 86.4%. Daily vibration A(8) averaged on the z axis was 0.25 (0.06) m·s?2 and at vector sum was 0.29 (0.07) m·s?2. Daily vibration exposures on the z axis, frequent manual handling of heavy loads and awkward posture during MMH were significantly associated with LBP. Drivers who are exposed to WBV and frequently handle heavy loads manually and with awkward postures probably have more LBP than drivers who are exposed to only one of these risk factors. 相似文献
Objectives: In this article, we evaluate the sensitivity to cognitive load of 3 versions of the Detection Response Task method (DRT), proposed in ISO Draft Standard DIS-17488.
Methods: We present a user study with 30 participants in which we compared the sensitivity to cognitive load of visual, audio, and tactile DRT in a simulated driving environment. The amount of cognitive load was manipulated with secondary n-back tasks at 2 levels of difficulty (0-back and 1-back). We also explored whether the DRT method is least sensitive to cognitive load when the stimuli and secondary task are of the same modality. For this purpose, we used 3 forms to present the n-back task stimuli: visual, audio, and tactile. Responses to the task were always vocal. The experiment was based on a between-subject design (the DRT modalities) with 2 levels of within-subject design study (modalities and difficulty of the secondary n-back tasks). The participants' primary task in the study was to drive safely, and a second priority was to answer to DRT stimuli and perform secondary tasks.
Results: The results indicate that all 3 versions of the DRT tested were sensitive to detecting the difference in cognitive load between the reference driving period and driving and engaging in the secondary tasks. Only the visual DRT discriminated between the 0-back and 1-back conditions on mean response time. Contrary to expectations, no interaction was observed between DRT modality and the stimuli modality used for presentation of the secondary tasks.
Conclusions: None of the 3 methods of presenting DRT stimuli showed a consistent advantage in sensitivity in differentiating multiple levels of cognitive load if all response times, hit rates, and secondary task performance are considered. If only response time is considered, the visual presentation of the DRT stimulus used in this study showed some advantages. In interpreting these data, it should be noted that the methods of DRT stimulus presentation varied somewhat from the currently proposed draft ISO standard and it is possible that the relative salience level of the visual DRT stimulus influenced the findings. It is further suggested that more than 2 levels of difficulty of the n-back task should be considered for further investigation of the relative sensitivity of different DRT stimuli modalities. Parameters that indicate change in cognitive load (response time, hit rate, task performance) should be analyzed together in assessing the overall impact on the driver and not individually, in order to obtain a fuller insight of the assessed cognitive load. 相似文献
The aim of this study was to validate the Edholm scale (Edholm, 1966) and the ISO 8996 standard (International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 1990) by comparing the metabolic rates estimated for both methods with the actual measured metabolic rate (MMeas) in 6 manual material handling tasks simulated under laboratory conditions. The metabolic rate was calculated from oxygen consumption VO2 (19 participants) according to Standard No. ISO 8996 (ISO, 1990). Additionally, the participants estimated perceived exertion using the Borg scale. The metabolic rates derived from the Edholm scale (MEdh) overestimated 5 of 6 activities by 34-50% (α = .05). The metabolic rates derived from ISO 8996 (MISO) overestimated all activities by 7-38% (α =.05). 相似文献