In the retail supermarket industry where cashiers perform repetitive, light manual material-handling tasks when scanning and handling products, reports of musculoskeletal disorders and discomfort are high. Ergonomics tradeoffs exist between sitting and standing postures, which are further confounded by the checkstand design and point-of-sale technology, such as the scanner. A laboratory experiment study was conducted to understand the effects of working position (sitting versus standing) and scanner type (bi-optic versus single window) on muscle activity, upper limb and spinal posture, and subjective preference of cashiers. Ten cashiers from a Dutch retailer participated in the study. Cashiers exhibited lower muscle activity in the neck and shoulders when standing and using a bi-optic scanner. Shoulder abduction was also less for standing conditions. In addition, all cashiers preferred using the bi-optic scanner with mixed preferences for sitting (n = 6) and standing (n = 4). Static loading of the muscles was relatively high compared with benchmarks, suggesting that during the task of scanning, cashiers may not have adequate recovery time to prevent fatigue. It is recommended that retailers integrate bi-optic scanners into standing checkstands to minimize postural stress, fatigue and discomfort in cashiers.

A field study was conducted to examine scanning productivity and ergonomic issues as a €unction of scanner technology and product type. Cashiers performed both normal and staged activities using bi-optic and flat-bed scanners. In Phase One of the study, package handling and throughput were examined. Overall, bi-optic scanning was faster and some package types were handled more efficiently. Some package types, however, were handled less optimally (i.e,, flipping and twisting scans). In phase two of the study, wrist acceleration measures were examined as a function of scanner technology and package type. Lower wrist accelerations in both hands for both flexiodextension planes of motion were found for the bi-optic scanner. In addition, bi-optic scanning also produced flexiordextension accelerations (both hands) and radialhlnar accelerations (left hand only) that were below industry validated low risk benchmarks. The effects of scanner technology and package type on wrist acceleration and scanning behavior are discussed.

No abstract

In the retail supermarket industry where cashiers perform repetitive, light manual material-handling tasks when scanning and handling products, reports of musculoskeletal disorders and discomfort are high. Ergonomics tradeoffs exist between sitting and standing postures, which are further confounded by the checkstand design and point-of-sale technology, such as the scanner. A laboratory experiment study was conducted to understand the effects of working position (sitting versus standing) and scanner type (bi-optic versus single window) on muscle activity, upper limb and spinal posture, and subjective preference of cashiers. Ten cashiers from a Dutch retailer participated in the study. Cashiers exhibited lower muscle activity in the neck and shoulders when standing and using a bi-optic scanner. Shoulder abduction was also less for standing conditions. In addition, all cashiers preferred using the bi-optic scanner with mixed preferences for sitting (n = 6) and standing (n = 4). Static loading of the muscles was relatively high compared with benchmarks, suggesting that during the task of scanning, cashiers may not have adequate recovery time to prevent fatigue. It is recommended that retailers integrate bi-optic scanners into standing checkstands to minimize postural stress, fatigue and discomfort in cashiers.

A laboratory experiment was conducted to determine whether grip force capabilities are lower when the wrist is moved than in a static position. The purpose was to determine the wrist velocity levels and wrist postures that had the most significant effect on grip force. Maximum grip forces of five male and five female subjects were determined under both static and dynamic conditions. The dominant wrist of each subject was secured to a CYBEX II dynamometer and grip force was collected during isokinetic wrist deviations for four directions of motion (flexion to extension, extension to flexion, radial to ulnar, and ulnar to radial). Six different velocity levels were analyzed and grip forces were recorded at specific wrist positions throughout each range of movement. For flexion-extension motions, wrist positions from 45 degrees flexion to 45 degrees extension were analyzed whereas positions from 20 degrees radial deviation to 20 degrees ulnar deviation were studied for radial-ulnar activity. Isometric exertions were also performed at each desired wrist position. Results showed that, for all directions of motion, grip forces for all isokinetic conditions were significantly lower than for the isometric exertions. Lower grip forces were exhibited at extreme wrist flexion and extreme radial and ulnar positions for both static and dynamic conditions. The direction of motion was also found to affect grip strength; extension to flexion exertions produced larger grip forces than flexion to extension exertions and radial to ulnar motion showed larger grip forces than ulnar to radial deviation. Although, males produced larger grip forces than females in all exertions, significant interactions between gender and velocity were noted.