Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 665e671
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo
Physical ergonomic hazards in highway tunnel construction: Overview
from the Construction Occupational Health Program
SangWoo Tak a, *, Bryan Buchholz a, Laura Punnett a, Susan Moir a, b, Victor Paquet a, c,
Scott Fulmer a, Helen Marucci-Wellman a, d, David Wegman a
a
Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854, USA
University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA
University at Buffalo, SUNY, 411 Bell Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-3302, USA
d
Liberty Mutual Research Institute, Hopkinton MA 01748, USA
b
c
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 November 2009
Accepted 2 October 2010
This report provides an overview of physical ergonomic exposures in highway construction work across
trades and major operations. For each operation, the observational method “PATH” (Posture, Activity, Tools
and Handling) was used to estimate the percentage of time that workers spent in specific tasks and with
exposure to awkward postures and load handling. The observations were carried out on 73 different days,
typically for about 4 h per day, covering 120 construction workers in 5 different trades: laborers,
carpenters, ironworkers, plasterers, and tilers. Non-neutral trunk postures (forward or sideways flexion or
twisting) were frequently observed, representing over 40% of observations for all trades except laborers
(28%). Kneeling and squatting were common in all operations, especially tiling and underground utility
relocation work. Handling loads was frequent, especially for plasterers and tilers, with a range of load
weights but most often under 15 pounds. The results of this study provide quantitative evidence that
workers in highway tunnel construction operations are exposed to ergonomic factors known to present
significant health hazards. Numerous opportunities exist for the development and implementation of
ergonomic interventions to protect the health and safety of construction workers.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
PATH
Trade
Operation
Postural load
Highway tunnel construction
1. Introduction
Construction workers are exposed to a variety of ergonomic
hazards, including awkward postures, heavy lifting, forceful exertions, vibrations, and repetitive motions (Schneider and Susi, 1994;
Hartmann and Fleischer, 2005). They also experience an elevated
risk of musculoskeletal disorders (Latza et al., 2000; O’Reilly et al.,
2000; Sandmark et al., 2000; Schneider, 2001; Goldsheyder et al.,
2002; Holmstrom and Engholm, 2003; Forde et al., 2005).
Much of the work performed in construction is non-routinized
(Buchholz et al., 1996). This is due both to the dynamic nature of
construction work itself and the changing external environment,
which may impact the content and frequency distribution of job
tasks across individuals and over time (Paquet et al., 2005). The
dynamic nature of construction work also makes it difficult to
measure ergonomic exposures systematically. A few investigators
* Corresponding author. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
4676 Columbia Parkway, R-17, Cincinnati OH 45226, USA. Tel.: þ1 513 458 7117;
fax: þ1 513 841 4489.
E-mail address: STak@cdc.gov (SangWoo Tak).
have used observational methods to determine the distribution of
ergonomic exposures in specific construction trades or tasks
(Wickstrom et al., 1985; Kivi and Mattila, 1991; Bhattacharya et al.,
1997; Jensen and Eenberg, 2000). However, there have been few
or no large-scale comparisons of exposure to physical ergonomic
hazards among different trades or stages of the construction process.
The objective of this report is to provide an overview of ergonomic
exposures in highway construction work and to describe the
frequency of known health hazards by the major trades and operations involved.
2. Methods
2.1. Study site and population
Data were compiled from 9 field studies that were carried out by
ergonomists from the Construction Occupational Health Program
(COHP) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell during the last
decade (Buchholz et al., 1996; Kittusamy and Buchholz, 2001;
Paquet et al., 2001; Buchholz et al., 2003; Paquet et al., 2005; Tak
et al., 2009). All the studies took place at a very large highway
0003-6870/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.10.001
666
SangWoo Tak et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 665e671
construction site in Boston, Massachusetts. The operations were
characterized according to a taxonomy that was created based on
the Massachusetts Highway Department specifications (Moir et al.,
2003). All observed workers were unionized, so the scope of
work by each trade followed Massachusetts union jurisdictions.
This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of
the University of Massachusetts Lowell. All construction workers
gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.
2.2. Data Collection
PATH (Posture, Activities, Tools, Handling) incorporates a modified work-sampling approach into observational job analysis. It
provides unbiased estimates of the frequency of ergonomic exposures such as tasks, postures and load in the hands, linked to the
tasks in which they are performed through concurrent recording of
both, over multi-hour observation periods (Buchholz et al., 1996).
Based on the Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS)
(Karhu et al., 1977), the posture codes in PATH are defined as ranges
of angles; for example, mild trunk flexion is defined as 20e45 of
forward bending.
Codes for tasks, activities, and other exposures were developed
de novo; many were customized to the specific trades following
informal observations and discussions with workers and supervisors. Observers were rigorously trained and inter-observer agreement was confirmed before field data were collected.
In each study, we observed a single team of workers performing
one operation on multiple days. A series of PATH observations were
made at fixed intervals, either 45 or 60 s apart, typically for about
4 h per day. The observations cycled through all workers in the
team, so multiple observations were made for each worker present
on site each day.
2.3. Description of operations
A total of 9 separate operations were observed. To build concrete
structures, ironworkers engaged in Concrete Reinforcing are responsible for placing and connecting steel rods (rebar) that reinforce
concrete structures on construction sites. Carpenters then build forms
around the steel rods (Concrete Form Building); the form-building
operations are building, erecting and stripping forms. Construction
laborers pour concrete into the forms (Concrete Pouring). Concrete is
poured from a concrete pump truck through a hose. Some laborers use
short handled shovels, lutes, or rakes to spread the concrete. Other
laborers use large and small trowels to smooth out the concrete.
Laborers also perform a variety of support tasks, such as erecting
scaffolding, housekeeping, stripping forms, and manually excavating
and fortifying shafts and tunnels.
Pipejacking is a common method to install underground piping,
sewer lines, and electrical ducts 30 feet below the surface. It is an
alternative to the traditional ’excavate, lay, and fill’ pipe installation
method, used especially when it is very important to minimize
disruptions to surrounding activities or structures. Instead of
digging deep trenches, two pitsea jacking pit and a receiving
piteare built initially. Jacking Pit Construction results in a pit that
houses the equipment used to jack pipes through the soil. The pit is
usually 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet with lagging installed around the
sides to prevent the soil from caving in on the tunnelers while they
work. After the jacking pit is completed, the pipes are then “jacked”
through the soil to the receiving pit. Laborers assist the Tunnelers
during both Jacking Pit Construction and Pipe-jacking.
The purpose of Slurry Wall Construction is to provide a barrier
between a trench and the adjacent earth, to prevent earth from
spilling into the trench (caving) and water intrusion. This requires
below-grade excavation, through stabilizing slurry, to support the
excavation walls. Due to the dangers of trenching and excavating,
the use of slurry walls has increased greatly since it was first
introduced in 1980’s. Laborers perform manual excavation and
housekeeping, often by breaking up large clumps of concrete that
were not broken down by mixing, or rinsing any clay or slurry back
into the trench to avoid slippage on the working surface.
Plastering, Tiling, and Grouting operations take place in the stage
of tunnel wall finishing. During Plastering, plasterers apply finish
coats of plaster to sections of the tunnel walls. After the first coat of
concrete is applied, the “brown coat” is applied the next day on
top of the first coat. Tilers then install and grout the tiles on the
plastered section. During the Wall Tiling operation, tile finishers
mix mortar, prepare the tile for setting and prepare the base of the
wall for tiling, while tile mechanics are responsible for tile setting
and supervising of the operation. In Grouting, tile finishers prepare
the joints between the tiles, prepare the grout, grout and clean the
tiles.
2.4. Data analysis
The proportion of observations for each task was estimated by
operation. Exposure measures were computed as the percentage of
the total work time accounted for by each exposure, i.e., proportion
of time spent in trunk flexion, kneeling and squatting, etc. Descriptive data for trunk, leg and arm postures, and loads handled, were
tabulated to provide operation- and trade-specific estimates of the
proportion of time that workers were exposed to each ergonomic
factor. Observations with missing information on trunk, leg, or arm
postures were excluded from the analysis. Chi-square tests were
performed to determine whether exposures varied among operations or trades.
3. Results
A total of 15,141 PATH observations were made on 73 days.
These observations covered 120 construction workers in 5 different
trades performing 9 operations (Table 1). Most operations had
more than 5 days of observations except Slurry Wall (3 days),
whereas four operations, ConcreteForm Building, Concrete Reinforcing, Jacking Pit and Tiling, had more than 12 days of observation.
Each operation consisted of at least four or more tasks; usually
one or two primary tasks accounted for more than 20% of the total
work time (Table 2). Of the 46 tasks observed, most were specific to
Table 1
Highway construction operations and workers observed on Central Artery/Third
Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, MA, USA, 1995e2005.
Operation
No of
Trade
days
observed
Concrete
Form Building
Pipe Jacking
14
5
Concrete Pouring
6
Concrete
13
Reinforcement
Grouting
7
Jacking Pit
12
Plastering
Slurry Wall
Tiling
Total
8
3
14
73
Carpenters
Laborer
Tunnelera
Laborer
Laborer
Ironworker
Tiler
Tunnelera
Laborer
Plasterer
Laborer
Tiler
No of
Tasks
No of
workers observed observations
observed
15
2
3
1
7
17
18
1
11
11
13
21
120
8
1663
4
1317
5
6
743
2027
5
5
1564
3094
4
4
5
46
1642
931
2160
15,141
a
Tunneler is a subspecialty of laborer, included within Laborers in subsequent
tables and figures because of the small number of workers.
SangWoo Tak et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 665e671
Table 2
Tasks observed in highway construction, by operation (all trades combined): Central
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, MA, 1995e2005.
Operation
Task
Number of
observations
Percent
Concrete Form Building
Assembly PlF
Building form
Erecting form
House keeping
Material moving
Saw/Cut
Stripping form
Supervising
Totala
89
456
325
57
271
269
11
101
1663
5.4
27.4
19.5
3.4
16.3
0.7
6.1
16.20
100
Concrete Pouring
Pour concrete
Preparation
Smooth concrete
Spread concrete
Clean and Misc.
Totala
229
4
121
187
194
743
31.2
0.5
16.5
25.4
26.4
100
Concrete Reinforcing
Caisson
Horizontal (road)
Preparation
Supervising
Ventilation
Vertical (wall)
Totala
2
601
644
165
168
446
2027
0.1
29.7
31.8
8.1
8.3
22.0
100
Clean
Grout
Misc
Prepare-Grouting
Prepare-Joint
Totala
802
343
232
56
113
1564
51.3
21.9
14.8
3.6
7.23
100
Pit Jacking
Construct Pit Wall
Manual Excavation
Misc.
Preparation Work
Top Work
Totala
537
1365
522
3
667
3094
17.4
44.1
16.9
0.1
21.6
100
Pipe Jacking
Bottom Work
Manual Excavation
Misc.
Top work
Totala
409
528
9
370
1317
31.1
40.1
0.7
28.1
100
Plastering
Apply Concrete
Brown Coating
Misc
Prepare Apply Concrete
Totala
226
1051
283
52
1642
14.0
65.2
17.6
3.2
100
Slurry wall
Construct Pit Wall
Manual Excavation
Misc
Top Work
Total
172
278
185
296
931
18.4
29.9
19.8
31.8
100
Tiling
Ground level
Supervising
Tile prepare
Tile setting
Wall base
Total
240
79
770
1051
20
2160
11.1
3.7
35.7
48.7
0.9
100
Grouting
a
Total numbers include observations with task missing: 84 (ConcreteForm
Building), 8 (Concrete Pouring), 1 (Concrete Reinforcement), 18 (Grouting), 1 (Pipe
Jacking), and 30 (Plastering).
individual operations, while a few tasks, such as supervising, were
common in multiple operations. Thus, there were 35 unique tasks.
3.1. Trunk postures
Non-neutral trunk postures were frequently observed in almost
every operation. Concrete Form Building, Concrete Reinforcement,
667
Plastering, Grouting, and Tiling each involved non-neutral trunk
postures for more than 40% of the work time (Fig. 1). The frequency
of non-neutral trunk postures differed significantly across operations. Workers performing Tiling were the most exposed to ’flexed
and twisted’ trunk posture (15%), followed by those doing Concrete
Reinforcement (14%). Laborers had the least exposure to non-neutral
trunk posture (28%).
3.2. Leg postures
The frequency of non-neutral leg postures differed significantly
among operations and trades (Fig. 2). The Jacking Pit operation presented the highest percentage of ’knees bent’ (26%), followed by
Concrete Reinforcement and Pipejacking (17%). Squatting was observed
most frequently when tilers were performing Grouting (11%). During
ConcreteForm Building, Grouting, and Tiling, kneeling was observed in
over 7% of work time (Fig. 2). Carpenters spent the least time with
’knees bent’ (5%) and the most time in ’walking’ (21%).
3.3. Arm postures
The frequency of arm elevation differed significantly among
operations and trades (Fig. 3). One or both arms were elevated at or
above shoulder height for more than 10% of the time during Tiling,
Plastering, Grouting and Pipejacking (Fig. 3). Both arms above
shoulder height were observed most frequently during Tiling (3.5%)
and least often during Slurry Wall Construction (1.2%).
3.4. Loads handled
The frequencies of load weights varied significantly across
operations and trades (Fig. 4). Plasterers handled loads of 5e14.9 lbs
for 54% of the time in Plastering. Loads of 15e50 lbs were handled
frequently in Concrete Form Building (11%) and Pipe Jacking (23%).
Loads exceeding 50 lbs were observed most frequently for ironworkers (5%) and during Concrete Reinforcement (4%).
4. Discussion
The construction workers on this major highway and tunnel
project had high exposure to multiple ergonomic hazards which are
known to represent risk of musculoskeletal disorders to the back,
knees, and other joints. The predominant exposure in the operations
observed was to awkward postures of the back. Trunk flexion
ranged from 35% to 55% of work time, on average, by trade. Squatting and kneeling were uncommon overall but represented
more than 10% of work time in certain operations. Construction
workers also regularly handled materials or tools. Loads handled in
construction vary tremendously in terms of object or tool type, size,
and weight. Most of those that we observed weighed less than 15
pounds, but occasional very heavy loads were handled.
The results of this study can be used to target job tasks that are
hazardous and thus deserve intervention. Non-neutral postures
and work locations, the size and weights of tools and objects
handled, and lifting frequency should be considered in order to
reduce the hazards associated with highway tunnel construction
operations. For example, Concrete Pouring by laborers should
be targeted specifically to reduce the frequency of severe trunk
flexion. Lower extremity exposures have received little attention to
date, with a few exceptions (e.g., Jensen and Eenberg, 2000; Jensen
and Mikkelsen, 2000), but may represent important hazards for
certain trades or specialties within trades.
Our findings can also be used to evaluate specific interventions
for reducing ergonomic exposures among construction workers. For
example, the frequency of non-neutral knee postures in workers
668
SangWoo Tak et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 665e671
Fig. 1. Distributions of trunk postures (as percentage of all observations) by operations and trades: Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, MA, 1995e2005 * Note:
chi-square test on operations with 32 d.o.f. (p < 0.001) and trades with 16 d.o.f. (p < 0.001). All bars are stacked within each category.
performing Tiling and Grouting that we observed could be compared
to that in workers performing the same tasks but with different
equipment.
The frequency and magnitude of ergonomic exposures in
construction tasks have previously been reported (Kivi and
Mattila, 1991; Holmstrom et al., 1992; Mattila et al., 1993;
Stenlund et al., 1993; Schneider and Susi, 1994; Spielholz et al.,
1998; Latza et al., 2000; Latza et al., 2002). However, the scope
of the job tasks covered in those studies was usually limited to one
or a few trades. In contrast, in COHP we collected data on multiple
Fig. 2. Distributions of leg postures (as percentage of all observations) by operations and trades: Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, MA, 1995e2005 * Note:
chi-square test on operations with 24 d.o.f. (p < 0.001) and trades with 12 d.o.f. (p < 0.001). All bars are stacked within each category.
SangWoo Tak et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 665e671
669
Fig. 3. Distributions of arm postures (as percentage of all observations) by operations and trades: Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, MA, 1995e2005 * Note: chisquare test on operations with 16 d.o.f. (p < 0.001) and trades with 8 d.o.f. (p < 0.001). All bars are stacked within each category.
operations with the same observational procedures and metrics,
providing a broader scope of physical ergonomic exposures in
heavy construction and permitting the systematic comparison of
several trades and operations. Our data also include observed task
frequency and task-specific exposures, permitting evaluation of
variability by operation and task and facilitating generalizability to
other jurisdictions as long as the task content of specific
construction trades can be defined.
Fig. 4. Distributions of loads handled (as percentage of all observations) in highway tunnel construction by operations and trades: Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project,
Boston, MA, 1995e2005 * Note: chi-square test on operations with 24 d.o.f. (p < 0.001) and trades with 12 d.o.f. (p < 0.001). All bars are stacked within each category.
670
SangWoo Tak et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 665e671
In addition, many previous studies relied on worker self-report,
without any evaluation of validity. While assessment of one’s own
job demands may be reliable for short periods of time, the highly
variable nature of construction work means that long-term recall
and mental averaging or other summing processes are required to
provide an assessment of exposure for extended periods. To avoid
these pitfalls we obtained observational data for both exposures
and tasks.
The exposure frequencies obtained for these construction
operations are based on the assumption that the selection of time
period and workers observed allow both an unbiased and representative estimate of the exposure for each operation. We believe
that the estimates are unbiased; dates were selected as a convenience sample and to ensure observation of key tasks in each
operation, but without regard to expected exposure frequencies.
Our estimates of ergonomic exposures in this study may not be
readily comparable to previous studies due to differences in the
methods of measurement and tasks performed, as well as random
sampling error. For example, we observed non-neutral knee
postures in about 15% of working time for carpenters whereas
Jensen and Mikkelsen (2000) reported that knee-straining work
postures constituted 27% of working time for carpenters using
video-recording method. Nonetheless, both studies indicate high
exposures that likely represent high risk for biomechanical strain
on carpenters’ knees.
The ergonomic exposures measured in the present study might
not be perfectly representative, in that we may have missed infrequent tasks and because conditions in construction work change
rapidly due to a variety of factors, such as different project settings,
equipment or tool use and weather (Tak et al., 2009). For example, the
increasing height of a wall being built over the course of a day would
likely require work with more overhead reaching, or on a higher
scaffold with more stooping, later in the day. If the assessments were
not made on a representative sample of workers, or when members
of these groups do not, in fact, have similar exposures, or if we missed
important conditions or tasks for any trade, these data might not
be generalizable to other settings. Our measurements were made
on fairly large groups of workers over periods of several weeks.
However, measurements were not made on all possible environmental conditions that construction workers might experience while
performing the tasks; cold weather and night work in particular were
probably under-represented. We do not know whether these
conditions would affect work postures or load handled, but if they do
the exposure values reported here might not apply.
Nevertheless, anecdotal information from construction workers,
foremen, and safety supervisors indicated that the jobs and
the exposures described in this study are indeed common in
construction. Hence, future epidemiologic and intervention studies
could benefit from the highly detailed exposure assessments that
we have obtained.
PATH provides quantitative information about the percent of
time spent in specific body postures, and activities, such as load
handling. There are several potential limitations related to the
use of PATH or any other observational methods. The amount of
dynamic work may affect the reliability of observations of posture
(Burdorf et al., 1992; Leskinen et al., 1997; Park et al., 2009). Most of
the operations in this study required the subjects to change posture
frequently; rapid motions could easily introduce measurement
error. The accuracy of the observations is also likely dependent on
the expertise and experience of the observer (Park et al., 2009). In
this study we used well-trained observers, all graduate students in
occupational ergonomics. We evaluated observer reliability and
validity on multiple occasions and the results were consistently
favorable (Buchholz et al., 1996; Paquet et al., 1999; Paquet et al.,
2001; Park et al., 2009).
5. Conclusion
In this study of a large highway tunnel construction project,
multiple ergonomic exposures were observed. The most frequent
exposures were non-neutral trunk postures and, in some operations,
kneeling and squatting. These exposures have already been demonstrated to represent important risk of musculoskeletal disorders,
particularly affecting the back and knees (Jensen and Mikkelsen,
2000; National Research Council, 2001; Manninen et al., 2002).
Each construction trade presents different ergonomic challenges.
Therefore, obtaining trade and operation-specific information on
tools, exposures, worker tasks, and work conditions is an important
first step in: 1) comparing risks, 2) identifying priorities for reduction
of hazardous ergonomic exposures, and 3) determining the most
appropriate intervention measures for each trade.
Acknowledgment
The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (CPWR) supported this
research with grants provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (grants #U02/CCU308771,
U02/CCU312014, and U02/CCU317202). Its contents are solely the
responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the official views of NIOSH or CPWR. The authors are grateful for
the cooperation of many construction workers who answered our
questions and permitted us to observe their daily work. The data
tables with detailed information will be shared upon request from
any interested readers.
References
Bhattacharya, A., Greathouse, L., et al., 1997. An ergonomic walkthrough observation
of carpentry tasks: a pilot study. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12 (4), 278e287.
Buchholz, B., Paquet, V., et al., 1996. PATH: a work sampling-based approach to
ergonomic job analysis for construction and other non-repetitive work. Appl.
Ergon. 27 (3), 177e187.
Buchholz, B., Paquet, V., et al., 2003. Quantification of ergonomic hazards for
ironworkers performing concrete reinforcement tasks during heavy highway
construction. AIHA J. (Fairfax, Va). 64 (2), 243e250.
Burdorf, A., Derksen, J., et al., 1992. Measurement of trunk bending during work by
direct observation and continuous measurement. Appl. Ergon. 23 (4), 263e267.
Forde, M.S., Punnett, L., et al., 2005. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in
union ironworkers. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2 (4), 203e212.
Goldsheyder, D., Nordin, M., et al., 2002. Musculoskeletal symptom survey among
mason tenders. Am. J. Ind. Med. 42 (5), 384e396.
Hartmann, B., Fleischer, A.G., 2005. Physical load exposure at construction sites.
Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 31 (Suppl 2), 88e95.
Holmstrom, E., Engholm, G., 2003. Musculoskeletal disorders in relation to age and
occupation in Swedish construction workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 44 (4), 377e384.
Holmstrom, E.B., Lindell, J., et al., 1992. Low back and neck/shoulder pain in
construction workers: occupational workload and psychosocial risk factors. Part
1: relationship to low back pain. Spine 17 (6), 663e671.
Jensen, L.K., Eenberg, W., et al., 2000. Validity of self-reporting and video-recording
for measuring knee-straining work postures. Ergonomics 43 (3), 310e316.
Jensen, L.K., Mikkelsen, S., et al., 2000. Work-related knee disorders in floor layers
and carpenters. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 42 (8), 835e842.
Karhu, O., Kansi, P., et al., 1977. Correcting working postures in industry: a practical
method for analysis. Applied Ergon. 8 (4), 199e201.
Kittusamy, N.K., Buchholz, B., 2001. An ergonomic evaluation of excavating operations: a pilot study. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 16 (7), 723e726.
Kivi, P., Mattila, M., 1991. Analysis and improvement of work postures in the
building industry: application of the computerised OWAS method. Appl. Ergon.
22 (1), 43e48.
Latza, U., Karmaus, W., et al., 2000. Cohort study of occupational risk factors of low
back pain in construction workers. Occup. Environ. Med. 57 (1), 28e34.
Latza, U., Pfahlberg, A., et al., 2002. Impact of repetitive manual materials handling
and psychosocial work factors on the future prevalence of chronic low-back
pain among construction workers. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 28 (5),
314e323.
Leskinen, T., Hall, C., et al., 1997. Validation of Portable Ergonomic Observation (PEO)
method using optoelectronic and video recordings. Appl. Ergon. 28 (2), 75e83.
Manninen, P., Heliovaara, M., et al., 2002. Physical workload and the risk of severe
knee osteoarthritis. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 28 (1), 25e32.
SangWoo Tak et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 665e671
Mattila, M., Karwowski, W., et al., 1993. Analysis of working postures in hammering
tasks on building construction sites using the Computerized OWAS method.
Appl. Ergon. 24 (6), 405e412.
Moir, S., Paquet, V., et al., 2003. Making sense of highway construction: a taxonomic
framework for ergonomic exposure assessment and intervention research.
Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 18 (4), 256e267.
National Research Council, 2001. Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace:
Low Back and Upper Extremities. Panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders and the
Workplace. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
O’Reilly, S.C., Muir, K.R., et al., 2000. Occupation and knee pain: a community study.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage 8 (2), 78e81.
Paquet, V., Punnett, L., et al., 1999. An evaluation of manual materials handling in
highway construction work. Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 431e444.
Paquet, V., Punnett, L., et al., 2005. Reliable exposure assessment strategies for
physical ergonomics stressors in construction and other non-routinized work.
Ergonomics 48 (9), 1200e1219.
Paquet, V.L., Punnett, L., et al., 2001. Validity of fixed-interval observations for
postural assessment in construction work. Appl. Ergon. 32 (3), 215e224.
View publication stats
671
Park, J.K., Boyer, J., et al., 2009. Inter-rater reliability of PATH observations for
assessment of ergonomic risk factors in hospital work. Ergonomics 52 (7),
820e829.
Sandmark, H., Hogstedt, C., et al., 2000. Primary osteoarthrosis of the knee in men
and women as a result of lifelong physical load from work. Scand. J. Work
Environ. Health 26 (1), 20e25.
Schneider, S., Susi, P., 1994. Ergonomics and construction: a review of potential
hazards in new construction. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 55 (7), 635e649.
Schneider, S.P., 2001. Musculoskeletal injuries in construction: a review of the
literature. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 16 (11), 1056e1064.
Spielholz, P., Wiker, S.F., et al., 1998. An ergonomic characterization of work in
concrete form construction. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 59 (9), 629e635.
Stenlund, B., Goldie, I., et al., 1993. Shoulder tendinitis and its realtion to heavy manual
work and exposure to vibration. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 19, 43e49.
Tak, S., Paquet, V., et al., 2009. Variability in risk factors for knee injury in
construction. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 6 (2), 113e120.
Wickstrom, G., Niskanen, T., et al., 1985. Strain on the back in concrete reinforcement work. Br. J. Ind. Med. 42, 233e239.