This article was downloaded by: [Nanyang Technological University]

On: 22 August 2015, At: 00:24

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaoh20

An Exploratory Study of Whole-Body Vibration Exposure

and Dose While Operating Heavy Equipment in the
Construction Industry
a b c d
Adam P. Cann , Alan W. Salmoni , Peter Vi & Tammy R. Eger
a
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario,
Canada
b
School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
c
Construction Safety Association of Ontario (CSAO), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
d
School of Human Kinetics, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Published online: 18 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Adam P. Cann , Alan W. Salmoni , Peter Vi & Tammy R. Eger (2003) An Exploratory Study of Whole-
Body Vibration Exposure and Dose While Operating Heavy Equipment in the Construction Industry, Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, 18:12, 999-1005, DOI: 10.1080/715717338

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/715717338

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 18: 999–1005, 2003
Copyright

c Applied Industrial Hygiene
ISSN: 1047-322X print / 1521-0898 online
DOI: 10.1080/10473220390244658

An Exploratory Study of Whole-Body Vibration

Exposure and Dose While Operating Heavy
Equipment in the Construction Industry
Adam P. Cann,1 Alan W. Salmoni,2 Peter Vi,3 and Tammy R. Eger4
1
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada;
2
School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; 3 Construction Safety
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 00:24 22 August 2015

Association of Ontario (CSAO), Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 4 School of Human Kinetics,

Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) in the workplace is

Whole-body vibration measurements were recorded for a common event with more than 7 million workers in the United
various types of heavy equipment used within the construc- States exposed on a daily basis.(1) Approximately 4 to 7 percent
tion industry. The purpose of these measurements was to of workers are exposed to potentially harmful levels of WBV in
provide more information about the potential levels of whole- Canada, the United States, and some European countries.(2) The
body vibration experienced by equipment operators in the deleterious effects of vibration on the human body have been
construction industry, as well as to identify types of equip- suggested to include muscular fatigue, low-back pain, spinal
ment warranting further research. In total, 67 pieces of degeneration, gastrointestinal tract problems, dysfunction of the
equipment were tested from 14 different equipment types. autonomic nervous system, degraded circulatory functioning,
Testing took place at various construction sites including cor- headaches, loss of hearing, eye problems, reduced balance, and
porate, public, and residential work projects. Measurements nausea.(1–8) However, although these claims are generally sup-
were made (following the 1997 International Standards Or- ported, they are not unanimously endorsed. For example, Stayner
ganization’s 2631-1 whole-body vibration standards) for argued that the existing research is inconclusive.(9)
20-minute testing periods using a Larson Davis HVM100 There has been relatively little research concerning the WBV
vibration monitor and a triaxial accelerometer. The mobile exposure levels for operators of construction equipment. Paddan
equipment tested was associated with greater levels of whole- et al.(10) conducted an investigation of WBV levels on various
body vibration than the stationary equipment. When whole- vehicles and machines comparing them to results from a national
body vibration levels were compared to the International survey of exposure to WBV. Median RMS acceleration values
Standards Organization’s 2631-1 standards, wheel loaders, for tractors, excavators, dumpers, forklifts, and mobile cranes
off-road dump trucks, scrapers, skid steer vehicles, back- were 0.72 m/s2 , 0.91 m/s2 , 0.73 m/s2 , 0.82 m/s2 , and 0.67 m/s2 ,
hoes, bulldozers, crawler loaders, and concrete trowel ve- respectively. While these values are informative, the equipment
hicles exceeded the recommendations based on measured tested is not representative of all types of equipment typically
vibration dose values. Further research incorporating larger used on construction sites.
sample sizes and controlled testing conditions is required Other studies, such as Kumar Kittusamy and Buchholz(11)
to better understand the levels of exposure experienced by report findings on only two pieces of equipment after recording
operators as well as the amount to which seating, terrain, for limited durations of 2.05 minutes of idling, 6.08 minutes of
mobility, and vehicle structure might affect whole-body digging, and 0.82 minutes of traveling. Thus, to date, little is
vibration. known about the levels of WBV exposures experienced while
operating various types of construction equipment.
Keywords Whole-Body Vibration (WBV), Vibration Dose Value The purpose of the present investigation was to explore the
(VDV), Construction, ISO 2631-1, Heavy Equipment levels of WBV experienced by workers operating various types

999
 1000 A. P. CANN ET AL.

of construction equipment and to compare these levels to the were calibrated prior to the data collection in accordance with
1997 ISO 2631-1 WBV standards(12) and to measurements pro- the manufacturer’s guidelines.
vided from previous literature. The exploratory nature of the To ensure that representative work cycles were measured,
study was intended to examine a wide range of different types testing sessions for each piece of equipment consisted of con-
of heavy equipment currently used in the construction indus- tinuous 20-minute samples. Care was taken to ensure that the
try. Because we chose to gather data on a wide range of heavy equipment was operated at normal operating speeds. The length
equipment the number of each type of equipment tested was of the time was chosen to ensure that all aspects (events) of the
limited. Overall, the information from the present study was work cycle were represented. Therefore, a 20-minute testing pe-
intended to highlight the degree of potential concern and to in- riod was chosen based on the length of time required to complete
form investigators of the types of equipment warranting further at least one complete work cycle for each piece of equipment.
investigation. When determining the measurement period for collecting vi-
bration data two key sampling concepts, time and event sam-
pling, must be considered. Time sampling relates to examining
MATERIALS AND METHODS or extracting information of short duration from an entire pe-
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 00:24 22 August 2015

Participants for the present study consisted of male construc- riod for which the task or behavior occurs.(13) The purpose of
tion workers from various companies who volunteered to be time sampling is to gather data without having to collect for
tested while operating equipment. Once companies agreed to an extended period of time (in this case, an entire work day).
participate, verbal consent was obtained from the equipment Event sampling, on the other hand, is concerned with examin-
operators of each machine tested. The researcher explained to ing or sampling specific events of interest that are relevant to a
each operator that their participation was voluntary and would given task or behavior.(13) When implementing time and event
be kept anonymous. Results were coded by equipment type and sampling the representative nature of the sampling period to the
not driver identification. entire occurrence of the target behavior or task is important.(13)
Heavy equipment operators (in Ontario) typically work 8- Relating these two principles to the measurement of WBV then
hour shifts each day with two 15-minute breaks and a half-hour indicates that sampling must both be of sufficient length to gather
lunch, therefore spending a total of 7 hours a day operating the enough information concerning the vibration produced by the
equipment. Since equipment operators are “specialized” (hired machine alone and include a sample of the events that occur
for a particular task), they typically do not change jobs on a during equipment use.
daily, weekly, or monthly basis. According to the ISO 2631-1 WBV standards(12) measure-
A wide variety of construction sites were tested including res- ment durations should be of sufficient length to ensure statistical
idential (housing developments and apartment complexes), cor- precision and the representativeness of the sample. Because con-
porate (box stores, warehouses, and retail/financial buildings), struction equipment operation is highly repetitive in nature rep-
and public sites (streets, highways, airports, and parking lots). resentative time and event samples are relatively easy to achieve.
Sites were chosen based on the availability and type of equip- Time and event sampling principles have been utilized in
ment at each site. Measurements were taken over a 3-month other ergonomic and occupational and industrial hygiene re-
period from late spring to early summer. Sixty-seven vehicles search projects. Numerous research projects have utilized short
representing 14 different types of heavy equipment used in the sampling periods for the evaluation of WBV. For example, Kit-
construction industry were tested (see Table I). A larger number tusamy and Buchholz(11) evaluated WBV levels experienced by
of vibration measurements from bulldozers and excavators were excavator operators for periods ranging from 0.82 minutes to
collected due to their abundance at each testing site. The type 6.08 minutes depending on the job task. Short-duration WBV
and make of construction equipment, hours of operation, ground measurements were also utilized by Piette and Malchaire,(14)
conditions, level of mobility, construction activity, seat type, and who examined overhead cranes for 2-minute durations, and
whether the equipment had tires or tracks were recorded for each by Boshuizen et al.,(15) who examined forklifts and freight-
vehicle tested. container tractors for periods of 5 minutes. In comparison
To measure the vibration a PCB Piezotronics seat-pad triaxial to other published studies then, the 20-minute sample frame
accelerometer (model #356b40) was placed on the seat between used in the present study was relatively long. It met the ISO
the operator’s ischeal tuberocities in accordance with the ISO 2631-1 guidelines(12) and captured all the events in a typical
2631-1 guidelines.(12) The accelerometer was sensitive to vibra- work cycle.
tion frequencies between 0.5 and 5000 Hz. Measurements took The Larson Davis HVM100 unit averaged the incoming sig-
place in three orthogonal axes (x, y, and z directions), where the nal every 30 seconds for the 20-minute testing period. At the end
x-axis was positioned for measuring the vibration in the sagittal of each 20-minute testing period the 40 (averaged) data record-
plane, the y-axis in the coronal plane, and the z-axis in the ver- ings were used to calculate the mean, minimum, and maximum
tical plane. The accelerometer was connected to a Larson Davis accelerations. The weighted root-mean-square (RMS) acceler-
HVM100 vibration monitor, which recorded the incoming vibra- ations (m/s2 ) for each axis and the vector sum of the three or-
tion signal. Both the accelerometer and Larson Davis HVM100 thogonal axes, and vibration dose values (VDV) (m/s1.75 ) were
 EXPLORATORY STUDY OF WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION 1001

TABLE I
Description of tested heavy equipment and their respective categories

Equipment type (number tested) Description Ground conditions

1. Bulldozer
Large (9) • Move earth Hard-4
• Larger & more powerful with Soft-3
triangle track formation Muddy-2
Small (4) • Move earth Hard-2
• Smaller, with in-line track formation Soft-2
2. Excavator (14) • Digging holes, transferring earth Hard-7
Soft-4
Muddy-3
3. Scraper (4) • Used to transfer and level earth Hard-4
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 00:24 22 August 2015

4. Grader (4) • Used to smooth or level earth Hard-2

Soft-2
5. Skid Steer Vehicle
Mini (3) • Transports earth Concrete-3
• Smaller, more mobile Hard-1
Regular (3) • Transports earth Soft-1
• Larger, more powerful and Muddy-1
less mobile Hard-2
6. Backhoe (3) • Transports earth, digs holes Concrete & Soft-1

7. Compactors
Compactor (3) • Smooth and level earth, gravel Hard-3
or pavement
Vibratory compactor (5) • Smooth and level earth or gravel Hard-3
• Front barrel vibrates Soft-2
8. Crawler loader (3) • Transports earth Hard-2
Muddy-1
9. Wheel loader (2) • Transfers earth Pavement-2

10. Ride-on power trowel (2) • Smooth concrete Concrete-2

• Runs on circular trowel motion
11. Variable reach forklift (3) • Elevates persons or products Hard-1
to working height Soft-2
12. Mobile crane (2) • Elevate products to working height Hard-2

13. Off-road dump truck (2) • Transfers earth Soft-2

14. Forklift (1) • Transfers products and material Concrete-1

also calculated for comparisons between equipment and the ISO under which they were tested. Bulldozers were subcategorized
2631-1 WBV standards.(12) Vibration recordings were then av- into large and small. The tracks for large bulldozers ran in a tri-
eraged across pieces of equipment within each category. angular path, whereas smaller bulldozers had a rectangular path.
Categories of equipment can be seen in Table I, along with Compactors were subcategorized based on whether or not their
their respective makes and models and the soil conditions compacting drum was designed to vibrate independently while
 1002 A. P. CANN ET AL.

leveling earth. The two subcategories of skid steer vehicles were RESULTS
based on size. Overall Equipment Comparisons
The Larson Davis unit digitally filtered the vibration data for The mean and standard deviations of the weighted RMS ac-
a bandwidth of 0.4 to 100 Hz and applied the British Standard celerations for all 14 types of equipment tested are contained
Institutes(16) (BSI) WBV standard BS 6841s weighting factor in Table II, along with their respective VDV. The z-axis was
WB (k = 1.0) to each axis while calculating the RMS accel- the dominant axis for the majority of equipment types including
eration values. The weighting factor WB was selected due to graders, skid steer vehicles, backhoes, vibratory compactors,
its sensitivity to vibrations within the frequency range deemed wheel loaders, off-road dump trucks, ride-on power trowels,
harmful to the low back (4–8 Hz). The rationale for evaluat- scrapers, variable reach forklifts, and propane-powered forklifts,
ing both the RMS accelerations and the VDV was due to the while the x-axis was the dominant axis for bulldozers, excava-
possibility of testing on surfaces that result in more jolting or tors, crawler loaders, and compactors.
repeated shock to the operator. The VDV is a better measure Several trends in the data were noticed, specifically con-
for jolting or repeated shock vibrations because it uses a time- cerning equipment mobility and whether or not the vehicle was
dependent fourth root of the integral of the weighted acceler- equipped with tracks or rubber tires (see Table III). Construction
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 00:24 22 August 2015

ation instead of the square root used in the RMS acceleration equipment was divided into mobile and stationary equipment
calculations.(12) categories, dependent upon the task performed. For example,
Vibration measurements were compared to the ISO 2631- the excavator was in a stationary position, whereas equipment
1 standards(12) using the VDV and weighted RMS accelera- such as bulldozers and graders were mobile while performing
tions. They were not compared to the American Conference job tasks. The equipment was also divided into those with tires
R
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH ) threshold and those with tracks. Equipment such as concrete trowels and
(17) 
R
limit values (TLVs ) because the measurement equipment compactors were not included in this analysis because they did
only provided weighted RMS accelerations and VDVs, which not have 4 rubber tires or tracks. Excavators and mobile cranes
are better suited for comparison with the ISO 2631-1 were also excluded due to the fact that they were tested only
standards.(12) during stationary work.

TABLE II
Descriptive statistics for each type of construction equipment tested

Weighted RMS
acceleration (m/s2 ) VDV (m/s1.75 )
Equipment type
(number) Mean SD Range Mean SD Range
Bulldozer
Large (9) 0.92 0.14 0.6–1.1 9.01 2.60 5.2–12.8
Small (4) 1.11 0.35 0.8–1.4 8.56 2.13 6.4–11.4
Excavator (14) 0.51 0.28 0.1–1.1 5.76 3.28 2.2–15.4
Scraper (4) 1.61 0.30 1.3–2.0 14.9 2.34 12.2–17.9
Grader (4) 0.55 0.15 0.4–0.7 7.25 2.67 3.4–9.2
Skid steer vehicle
Mini (3) 1.22 0.48 0.7–1.7 11.6 2.15 10.0–14.0
Regular (3) 1.18 0.63 0.5–1.7 9.64 5.11 4.3–14.5
Backhoe 1.05 0.01 1.0–1.1 9.81 0.26 9.6–10.0
Compactors
Compactor (3) 0.91 0.41 0.5–1.3 7.86 3.45 5.4–10.3
Vibratory compactor (5) 0.64 0.37 0.2–1.0 8.16 3.24 6.2–11.9
Crawler loader (3) 1.01 0.18 0.8–1.1 8.71 1.91 6.6–10.4
A A
Wheel loader (2) 1.16 0.70 0.7–1.7 31.7
A A
Ride-on power trowel (2) 0.36 0.34 0.1–0.6 8.81
Variable reach forklift (3) 0.65 0.12 0.5–0.8 5.73 0.27 5.5–5.9
A A
Mobile crane (2) 0.15 0.07 0.1–0.3 0.92
A A
Off-road dump truck (2) 1.21 0.70 0.7–1.7 17.2
A A A A
Forklift (1) 0.37 3.35
A
Insufficient data to calculate range and standard deviations due to only one test score.
 EXPLORATORY STUDY OF WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION 1003

TABLE III
Mobility and propulsion device equipment groups and subsequent vibration levels

Mean-weighted RMS
Characteristic Sample size acceleration (m/s2 )
Mobility
Mobile Wheel and crawler loaders, off-road 52 1.02 (±0.42)
dump trucks, variable reach
forklift, backhoes, graders,
scrapers, bulldozers, forklifts,
ride-on power trowels, skid steer
vehicles, and compactors
Stationary Mobile cranes, and excavators 16 0.46 (±0.32)
Propulsion Devices
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 00:24 22 August 2015

Tracked Crawler loaders and bulldozers 16 0.98 (±0.18)

Tire Off-road dump trucks, variable 25 1.04 (±0.50)
reach forklifts, backhoes, wheel
loaders, skid steer vehicles,
scrapers, graders, and forklifts

The effects of mobility and propulsion devices were evaluated general, the results of the present study correspond to those re-
using a one-way analysis of variance using the RMS accelera- ported by Paddan et al.(10) and to two studies completed by the
tions as the dependent variable. Mobile equipment was associ- National Research and Safety Institute(18–19) (Institut Nationale
ated with significantly greater levels of WBV (F[1,66] = 18.3, de Recherche et de Sécurité, [INRS]). The mean RMS accelera-
p < 0.00) than were stationary vehicles. There was no significant tions measured for each type of equipment fall within the ranges
differences between tire and tracked equipment (F[1,40] = 0.22, reported by INRS and Paddan et al.,(10) with the exception of the
p = 0.68). backhoe and mobile crane, which had lower and higher exposure
levels in these studies, respectively. Across studies then, there is
consistency in the levels of exposure reported. This agreement
Comparisons to the ISO Standards is important since all studies used relatively small sample sizes.
According to the ISO 2631-1 standards(12) a VDV exceeding A factor contributing to smaller samples is the fact that many
8.5 m/s1.75 places the operator at greater probability of adverse companies are reluctant to take equipment out of production to
health effects. When comparing the data collected to this stan- allow for testing.
dard, 8 of the 14 types of equipment tested exceeded a safe VDV. Several types of equipment (8 of 14) tested in the present
Operators of the wheel loaders, off-road dump trucks, scrapers, study exposed operators to levels of WBV that exceed the rec-
skid steer vehicles, backhoes, bulldozers, crawler loaders, and ommended limits over an 8-hour period when comparing the
ride-on power trowels were exposed to WBV levels with greater measured VDV to the ISO 2631-1 standards.(12) These results for
risk of developing adverse health effects. the most part correspond to those reported by Danière et al.(18)
When comparing the weighted RMS accelerations for the ve-
hicles tested (see Table II) to the ISO 2631-1 standards(12) for the
comfort caution zone (see Table IV) operators of all the tested TABLE IV
equipment would experience some degree of discomfort with the 1997 ISO 2631-1 standards comfort caution zone
exception of the mobile crane operators. The only workers ex- perception ranges
posed to “very uncomfortable” WBV levels were scraper opera-
tors, whereas those who operated bulldozers, skid steer vehicles, RMS acceleration range Comfort perception
backhoes, compactors, tracked and wheel loaders, and off-road
<0.315 m/s2 Not uncomfortable
dump trucks were exposed to “uncomfortable” situations.
0.315 m/s2 –0.63 m/s2 A little uncomfortable
0.50 m/s2 –1.00 m/s2 Fairly uncomfortable
0.80 m/s2 –1.60 m/s2 Uncomfortable
DISCUSSION
1.25 m/s2 –2.5 m/s2 Very uncomfortable
The present study reported the levels of operator exposure
>2 m/s2 Extremely uncomfortable
to WBV for 14 different types of construction equipment. In
 1004 A. P. CANN ET AL.

and Boulanger et al.(19) since off-road dump trucks, wheel and ment. No significant differences were found for rubber-tired
crawler loaders, scrapers, and bulldozers exceeded the standards versus tracked equipment (mean RMS acceleration levels were
in the present and comparison studies. However, there were some 1.04 m/s2 versus 0.98 m/s2 ). The present study supports the
differences with Danière et al.,(18) who reported forklifts to ex- claim that many heavy equipment operators in the construction
ceed the standards, while backhoes did not. These results were industry exposed to WBV may be at risk.
reversed in our study and the differences may be due to equip-
ment size and task during testing. With the exception of the mo-
bile crane our measurements all fall within the ranges provided RECOMMENDATIONS
by other studies.(10,18,19) The major recommendation from the present study would
Our results add support to the conclusion that significant num- be to include daily job rotation for heavy equipment opera-
bers of heavy equipment operators may be exposed to unsafe tors. Workers operating equipment with higher exposure levels
levels of WBV. If equipment operator rather than equipment should be rotated to equipment associated with lower exposure
type is used as the unit of analysis, the present study found that levels, or, preferably, by shifting to jobs not associated with
more than 50 percent of the 67 operators were exposed to levels vibrating equipment. This strategy would reduce the overall
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 00:24 22 August 2015

above the suggested standards for health risks. health risk to the operator. However, since production would
Several trends in the present study revealed important consid- not stop, job rotation would ultimately expose a greater num-
erations for further study. A statistically significant difference ber of workers to WBV since more operators would be required
was found between mobile and stationary equipment. Further re- per day.
search is required since groups were unequal and different equip- Since a majority of operators across various types of equip-
ment types were represented in each group. The nonsignificant ment were exposed to levels of WBV exceeding the safety guide-
difference between rubber-tired and tracked equipment should lines, further systematic study seems clearly warranted. Further
be further evaluated by comparing more like vehicles, including research should focus on testing larger samples of each type
the examination of the differences between tracked and wheel of equipment, especially for those types that appear to place
loaders, backhoes, and bulldozers. operators at increased risk. Sample sizes of 10–20 vehicles for
A limitation of the present study is the small number of vehi- each type of equipment would decrease the probability of sam-
cles tested per equipment type. Even though the present results pling error while remaining practically feasible. Where numbers
are consistent with the findings from other studies, there is no permit (often there are only small numbers of certain special-
guarantee that the measurements reported are representative of ized construction equipment), a factorial design could be used
all models and various working circumstances. A random sam- to isolate equipment factors thought to cause elevated levels of
ple of vehicle types and work sites would be required before vibration exposure. Finally, future research needs to examine
definitive conclusions can be drawn. In addition, it would be the possibility of altering equipment properties such as seating
informative to employ a factorial design (for each type of equip- to minimize WBV exposure. Since construction equipment is
ment) examining different work conditions, speed of operation, often very costly, it will likely be more cost-effective to retrofit
seating, and equipment age. The present results suggest that fur- machines with better seating than by purchasing new and pre-
ther research is required in particular for bulldozers, off-road sumably safer equipment.
dump trucks, scrapers, wheel and crawler loaders, skid steer
vehicles, backhoes, and ride-on power trowels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to the participating con-
struction companies and their respective workers who partici-
CONCLUSIONS
pated in the study, along with the support of the Construction
The present study utilized an exploratory design to deter- Safety Association of Ontario. Furthermore, we acknowledge
mine the WBV levels experienced during the operation of sev- the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario for fund-
eral types of heavy equipment in the construction industry. The ing this research, and the Mines and Aggregates Safety and
results were compared to the 1997 ISO 2631-1 standards.(12) Health Association for lending the vibration measurement
Equipment exceeding the health standards for the VDV included equipment.
wheel loaders, off-road dump trucks, scrapers, skid steer
vehicles, backhoes, bulldozers, crawler loaders, and ride-on
power trowels. These results were consistent with previous REFERENCES
studies(10,18,19) where the WBV levels of the present study fell
1. Wasserman, D.E.; Wilder, D.G.; Pope, M.H.; et al.: Whole-Body
within previous reported ranges, with the exception of the back- Vibration Exposure and Occupational Work-Hardening. J Occup
hoe and mobile crane, which were associated with greater and Environ Med 39:403–407 (1997).
lower WBV levels in this study, respectively. Results also indi- 2. Bovenzi, M.: Low Back Pain Disorders and Exposure to Whole-
cated that mobile equipment was associated with significantly Body Vibration in the Workplace. Sem Perinatol 20:38–53
greater levels (221%) of WBV exposure than stationary equip- (1996).
 EXPLORATORY STUDY OF WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION 1005

3. Bongers, P.M.; Boshuizen, H.C.; Hulshof, C.T.J; et al.: Back Dis- 12. International Standards Organization: Evaluation of Human Ex-
orders in Crane Operators Exposed to Whole-Body Vibration. Int posure to Whole-Body Vibration, ISO 2631-1. ISO, Geneva
Arch Occup Environ Health 60:129–137 (1988). (1997).
4. Griffin, M.J.: General Hazards: Vibration, Encyclopedia of Occu- 13. Bensen, W.R.: Seeing Young Children: A Guide to Observing
pational Health and Safety, pp. 50.2–50.15. International Labour and Recording Behaviour, 4th ed., pp. 98–119. Delmar Thomson
Organization, Geneva (1998). Learning Ltd., London, Ontario, Canada (2000).
5. Herrington, T.N.; Morse, L.H: Vibration Related Occupational In- 14. Piette A.; Malchaire, J: Technical Characteristics of Overhead
juries, Occupational Injuries: Evaluation, Management and Pre- Cranes Influencing the Vibration Exposure of the Operators. Appl
vention, chapter 28, pp. 411–421. Mosby Year Book, Toronto Ergonom 23:121–127 (1991).
(1995). 15. Boshuizen H.C.; Bongers, P.M.; Hulshof, C.T.: Self-Reported Back
6. Rom, W.N.: Occupational Exposure to Vibration, Environmen- Pain in Fork-Lift and Freight-Container Tractor Drivers Exposed
tal and Occupational Medicine, chapter 99, pp. 1165–1172. Little to Whole-Body Vibration. Spine 17:59–65 (1992).
Brown and Company, Toronto (1992). 16. British Standard Institute: Measurement and Evaluation of Hu-
7. Seidel, H.: Selected Health Risks Caused by Long-Term Whole- man Exposure to Whole-Body Mechanical Vibration and Repeated
Body Vibration. Am J Indus Med 23:589–604 (1993). Shock, BS 6841. BSI, London (1987).
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 00:24 22 August 2015

8. Thalheimer, E.: Practical Approach to Measurement and Evalua- 17. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

R 
R
tion of Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration in the Workplace. Sem (ACGIH ): Threshold Limit Values (TLVs ) and Biological Ex-
Perinatol 20:77–89 (1996). 
R
posure Indices (BEIs ), pp. 126–133. ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH
9. Stayner, R.M.: Whole-Body Vibration and Shock: A Literature: (2000).
Extension of a Study of Over Travel of Seat Suspensions. Health 18. Danière, P.; Robinet, D.; Sueur, J.; et al.: L’Environnement

R
and Safety Executive Books (HSE ), Norwich (2001). Acoustique et Vibratoire aux Postes de Conduite des En-
10. Paddan, G.S.; Haward, B.M.; Griffin, M.J.; et al.: Whole-Body gines de Terrassement. Institut Nationale de Recherche et de
Vibration: Evaluation of Some Common Sources of Exposure Sécurité, INRS Cahiers de Notes Documentaires 126:63–73

R
in Great Britain. Health and Safety Executive Books (HSE ), (1987).
Colegate Norwich (1999). 19. Boulanger, P.; Donati, P.; Galmiche, J.P: L’Environnement Vibra-
11. Kumar Kittusamy, N.; Buchholz, B: An Ergonomic Evaluation of toire aux Postes de Conduite des Mini-Engins de Chantier. Institut
Excavating Operations: A Pilot Study. Appl Occup Environ Hyg Nationale de Recherche et de Sécurité, INRS Cahiers de Notes
16:723–726 (2001). Documentaires 162:33–38 (1996).