4.4 Article

An investigation into the design and use of workplace cleaning equipment

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ERGONOMICS
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 247-266

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2004.09.004

Keywords

cleaners; musculoskeletal ill health; participative approach; buffing; mopping; vacuuming

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents the findings from a 2 year investigation into the musculoskeletal health of UK cleaners and focuses on the potential association of these problems with the design and use of cleaning equipment. The five-stage study employed a participative approach using a number of different methodologies to explore the use and design of commonly used cleaning equipment. The methodologies included: questionnaire studies, workplace assessments, an ergonomics assessment of cleaning equipment, a user trial of this equipment in the laboratory and focus groups with interested parties. Based on the findings of the study, previous research work (e.g. Report from Kilpatrick and Associates PTY LTD for Miscellaneous Workers' Union, 1991) and the use of ergonomic guidelines (e.g. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 10 (1992) 7), modifications were recommended for the design of buffing machines (e.g. machine height, design of triggers/grips/levers, pressure to activate controls), mopping systems (e.g. mop length, pressure required to squeeze mop, bucket stability) and vacuum machines (e.g. attachment length, grip design, provision of safety lights). A checklist was also compiled to aid in the purchase of new workplace equipment. This paper concentrates on equipment and postures adopted when in use. It is acknowledged that this represents only one aspect of the work system that influences musculoskeletal health. Inadequate work organisation, task scheduling and social support are also associated with an increased risk for musculoskeletal problems among UK cleaners (Musculoskeletal Health of Cleaners, HSE Books, Suffolk, 1999).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available