School of Physics, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
Appl Ergon. 2010 Dec;42(1):37-45. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.04.002. Epub 2010 May 11.
The objective of this study was to compare objective and subjective methods of collecting exposure time data for hand arm vibration (HAV) and whole-body vibration (WBV), and to evaluate the impact of inaccurate exposure times' on the calculation of the average vibration exposure over an 8 h working day A(8). The study was carried out in the engineering services and maintenance departments of a construction and property management company. Worker exposure time data was collected using three methods, questionnaire surveys, daily worker interviews and 8 h direct workplace observations. Vibration magnitudes (m/s(2)) were measured for a range of hand tools and vehicles, and daily vibration exposure estimates A(8) were calculated using exposure times observed, reported in interview and self reported in the questionnaire. Results from the study showed that self-reported exposure time estimates from the questionnaire survey were a factor of 9.0 (median value) times greater for HAV and a factor of 6.0 (median value) times greater for WBV when compared with direct observation estimates. Exposure times reported in interview were higher, than those observed, but more reliable than those self reported in the questionnaire; a factor of 2.1 (median value) times greater for HAV and a factor of 1.4 (median value) times greater for WBV. A(8) values calculated using questionnaire exposure times were up to 66% and 75% greater for sources of HAV and WBV respectively when compared to A(8) values calculated using observed exposure times. For the purposes of carrying out a reliable risk assessment, results from this study indicate that direct measurements of worker exposure time are not recommended over questionnaires especially where work is highly variable for example in construction and property management. Worker interviews or direct workplace observation methods were found to be reliable alternative methods for collecting exposure time.
本研究的目的是比较收集手部手臂振动(HAV)和全身振动(WBV)暴露时间数据的客观和主观方法,并评估不准确的暴露时间对计算 8 小时工作日平均振动暴露的影响 A(8)。该研究在一家建筑和物业管理公司的工程服务和维修部门进行。使用三种方法收集工人暴露时间数据:问卷调查、每日工人访谈和 8 小时直接工作场所观察。测量了一系列手动工具和车辆的振动幅度(m/s²),并使用观察到的暴露时间、访谈中报告的暴露时间和问卷中自我报告的暴露时间计算了每日振动暴露估计值 A(8)。研究结果表明,与直接观察估计值相比,问卷调查中的自我报告暴露时间估计值在 HAV 方面高 9.0 倍(中位数),在 WBV 方面高 6.0 倍(中位数)。访谈中报告的暴露时间高于观察到的暴露时间,但比问卷中自我报告的更可靠;在 HAV 方面高 2.1 倍(中位数),在 WBV 方面高 1.4 倍(中位数)。与使用观察到的暴露时间计算的 A(8)值相比,使用问卷中暴露时间计算的 HAV 和 WBV 源的 A(8)值分别高达 66%和 75%。为了进行可靠的风险评估,本研究的结果表明,不建议使用直接测量工人暴露时间的方法替代问卷调查,特别是在工作高度多变的情况下,例如在建筑和物业管理行业。发现工人访谈或直接工作场所观察方法是收集暴露时间的可靠替代方法。