Bioengineering (May 2023)

A Twenty-Year Retrospective Analysis of Risk Assessment of Biomechanical Overload of the Upper Limbs in Multiple Occupational Settings: Comparison of Different Ergonomic Methods

  • Emma Sala,
  • Lorenzo Cipriani,
  • Andrea Bisioli,
  • Emilio Paraggio,
  • Cesare Tomasi,
  • Pietro Apostoli,
  • Giuseppe De Palma

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10050580
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 5
p. 580

Abstract

Read online

Background: Several methods with which to assess the risk of biomechanical overload of the upper limb are described in the literature. Methods: We retrospectively analysed the results of the risk assessment of the biomechanical overload of the upper limb in multiple settings by comparing the application of the Washington State Standard, the threshold limit values (TLV) proposed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), based on hand-activity levels (HAL) and normalised peak force (PF), the Occupational Repetitive Actions (OCRA) checklist, the Rapid Upper-Limb Assessment (RULA), and the Strain Index and Outil de Repérage et d’Evaluation des Gestes of INRS (Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité). Results: Overall, 771 workstations were analysed for a total of 2509 risk assessments. The absence of risk demonstrated for the Washington CZCL, used as the screening method, was in good agreement with the other methods, with the sole exception of the OCRA CL, which showed at-risk conditions in a higher percentage of workstations. Differences in the assessment of the frequency of actions were observed among the methods, while their assessments of strength appeared to be more uniform. However, the greatest discrepancies were observed in the assessment of posture. Conclusions: The use of multiple assessment methods ensures a more adequate analysis of biomechanical risk, allowing researchers to investigate the factors and segments in which different methods show different specificities.

Keywords