International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 238–246 Ergonomic assessment of suspended scaffolds $ Tarcisio Abreu Saurin à , Lia Buarque de Macedo Guimara˜es LOPP/UFRGS (Products and Processes Optimization Laboratory, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul). Prac - a Argentina n. 9, 2. andar. Porto Alegre CEP 90040-020, RS Brasil Received 3 June 2005; received in revised form 6 October 2005; accepted 17 November 2005 Abstract Work on scaffolds is usually associated with traumatic type injuries. However, operating that type of equipment can also contribute to overexertion injuries, especially in manually operated suspended scaffolds. Since this equipment is largely used both in Brazil and other developing countries for painting and coating building facades, this study presents an ergonomic assessment on the operation of two types of suspended scaffolds. They are referred to as light scaffold and heavy scaffold—the difference lying in their dimensions and number of gears. The assessment criteria were: workers’ perceptions of effort; body posture assessment (OWAS method); heart rate elevations (HRE); percentage of the available heart rate range (PHRR); scaffolds’ speed and, repetitiveness of movement in the scaffolds’ levers. Workers preferred the light scaffold because it moved up to eight times faster than the heavy scaffold. However, the study’s results indicated that the operation of both types is much too physically demanding. For instance, HRE was 52 beats per minute (bpm) and PHRR was 50.7% on average for workers operating the light scaffold. Concerning the heavy scaffold, HRE was 45 bpm and PHRR was 42.2% on average. All of those values are substantially higher than the acceptable limits of 35 bpm for HRE and 33% for PHRR proposed in the literature. Failures in the scaffolds’ design as well as the lack of attention directed towards ergonomics in regulations were determined to be relevant root causes for detected poor working conditions. r 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Suspended scaffolds; Construction; Work physiology; Work postures; Safety 1. Introduction Historically, less emphasis has been focused on health issues in the construction industry in favour of the more immediate, high profile (and perhaps more easily solvable) safety issues. This is due to a number of factors, such as: the sizeable, temporary and mobile workforce; many workers are not directly employed; the lack of health expertise within industry; benefits of health management are not immediate and are consequently difficult to demonstrate (Gibb et al., 1999). However, several studies have pointed out high incidence of health problems in this industry (Everett, 1999; Gibb et al., 1999). In 1995, the UK’s self-reported work-related illness survey found an estimated 134.000 construction-related workers reported a health problem caused by their work, resulting in an estimated 1.2 million days lost in a workforce of 1.5 million (Horne et al., 2003). Since construction projects are becoming more complex, with time and cost constraints more severe, professional burnout has also become an increasing concern in this industry (Lingard and Sublet, 2004). Besides, construction work is, by its very nature, a problem in ergonomics. For example, installing floors and ceilings requires work at floor and ceiling height which, by definition, is ergonomically hazardous since ceilings have to be above shoulder level and floors below knee height (Schneider and Susi, 1996). Despite the little attention that construction industry has given to health hazards, their control measures are fairly well known. In fact, a number of studies have dealt with ergonomic assessments and development of engineering controls for typical construction activities (Everett, 1999; Schneider and Susi, 1996). However, there is lack of studies concerning technologies that are extensively used in ARTICLE IN PRESS www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon 0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.11.010 DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.ergon.2005.11.006 $ This article was previously published in Volume 36, issue 3, pp. 229–237. à Corresponding author. Tel:. +55 51 3316 3490; fax: +55 51 3316 4007. E-mail addresses: saurin@ufrgs.br, tasaurin@terra.com.br (T.A. Saurin), lia@producao.ufrgs.br (L.B. de Macedo Guimara˜es).