Effect of block weight on work demands and physical workload during masonry work

Molen, Henk F. van der; Kuijer, Paul; Hopmans, P. P. W.; Houweling, A. G.; Faber, Gert S.; Hoozemans, M.J.M.; Frings‐Dresen, Monique H. W.

doi:10.1080/00140130701571792

Cited by 32 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the energetic demands and biomechanical demands categories, seven studies evaluated the effects of interventions on the studied work demand. Four studies examined the effect of block weight [de Looze et al, 1996;Naqvi et al, 2000;Anton et al, 2005;van der Molen et al, 2007a] and three studied the effect of raised bricklaying compared to conventional bricklaying [Vink et al, 2002;van der Molen et al, 2004;Luijsterburg et al, 2005]. Other authors studied differences between different types of bricklayers (according to, for example, the type of building the bricklayer is working on) [Fleischer, 2002;Fleischer and Becker, 2002;Hartmann and Fleischer, 2005] (Table III).…”

Section: Physical Demandsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In order to quantify the intensity of the energetic load, several internal load measures were used: percentage of the heart rate reserve (HRR) and oxygen uptake [van der Molen et al, 2007a], mean heart rate (HR) [Naqvi et al, 2000;Anton et al, 2005] and energy expenditure based on HR [Naqvi et al, 2000]. In van der Molen et al [2007a], aerobic load for blocklayers ranging between 16% and 43% HRR during a full working day was reported.…”

Section: Energetic Demands and Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Occupational demands and health effects for bricklayers and construction supervisors: A systematic review

Boschman

Molen

Sluiter

et al. 2010

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Physical Demandsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Energetic Demands and Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational demands and health effects for bricklayers and construction supervisors: A systematic review

Boschman

Molen

Sluiter

et al. 2010

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a typical work day, bricklayers lift hundreds of blocks, approximately over 4000 kg of material. 62 A number of interventions have been proposed to aid in reducing the risk associated with repetitive lifting of heavy block. These solutions include lighter-weight blocks, adjustable-height scaffolding to keep lifting between knee and chest height, and use of lift teams when handling heavy block.…”

Section: T T Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Lift Teams on Kinematics and Muscle Activity of the Upper Extremity and Trunk in Bricklayers

Anton¹,

Mizner²,

Hess³

2013

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Workplace-simulation study using a crossover design. Objectives To evaluate the effect of lift teams on trunk and upper extremity kinematics and muscle activity among bricklayers. Background Healthcare practitioners often instruct individuals with work-related musculoskeletal disorders in proper lifting techniques. Bricklayers are especially affected by lifting-related musculoskeletal disorders. Lift teams are a possible intervention for reducing exposure to heavy lifting. Methods Eighteen apprentice bricklayers constructed walls with concrete blocks alone (1 person) and in 2-person lift teams. Peak shoulder and trunk kinematics and normalized mean surface electromyography of the upper trapezius, lumbar paraspinals, and flexor forearm muscles were collected bilaterally. Differences between construction methods and rows 1, 3, and 6 of the wall were calculated with repeated-measures analyses of variance. Results Working in lift teams required less trunk flexion (P = .008) at row 1 but more sidebending at row 6 (P<.001) than working alone. Dominant-side lumbar paraspinal activity was lower at row 3 (P = .008) among lift-team workers. Lift-team peak shoulder flexion was lower at row 3 (P = .002), whereas abduction was higher at rows 1 (P = .007) and 6 (P<.001). Concomitantly, nondominant upper trapezius activity and flexor forearm activity were significantly higher for lift teams at row 6 (P<.001 and P = .007). Block moment arm was significantly greater for lift teams at all rows (P≤.002). Conclusion Working in lift teams may be a beneficial intervention for reducing trunk flexion and lumbar paraspinal activity when bricklayers work at heights between the knees and waist, but lift teams are not recommended at higher working heights. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(4):232–241. Epub 14 January 2013. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4249

show abstract

“…They also found that muscle activity of upper extremity (forearm flexors and extensors) and back (erector spinae) muscles reduced when light weight block (11.8 kg) was used compared to standard medium weight block (16.3 kg). On contrary, Van Der Molen et al (2008) found insignificant effect of block weight ranging from 11 to 16 kg on productivity, duration or frequency of tasks [29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Lighter-weight blocks, adjustable height scaffolding to keep working height between 60 to 90 cm, and use of team-lift when handling heavy blocks are a few examples [3,5,10,[28][29][30]. One recent intervention designed to improve handling of the nominal concrete masonry units (CMU) is the use of lift-assist handle/ device.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of lift-assist device on trunk and shoulder kinematics

Nimbarte

Chowdhury

Moore

2017

Int J Occup Safety & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Background: Repetitive handling of heavy concrete blocks has been associated with the risk of low back and shoulder injuries among the masons. Several interventions have been proposed to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders among the masons. A new intervention, a lift-assist handle, was tested in this study. Objective: The effectiveness of the lift-assist handle in masonry work was assessed using the shoulder and low back kinematics during block lifting/lowering tasks performed at two heights. Methods: In a laboratory setting, seven male subjects performed with-and without-lift handle assisted block lifting tasks at two different heights. Optical motion capture system and biomechanical modeling software were used to record and model each dynamic trial. Effect of lifting height and use of a lift-assist handle on range of motion of the shoulder and trunk were tested. Results: The use of lift-assist handle significantly reduced trunk motion and increased shoulder motion. Lifting height had a significant effect on shoulder kinematics only. When height was increased from 17to 29 inches, the ranges of motion of shoulder abduction-adduction and internal rotation significantly increased. Additionally, block lifting/ lowering task duration decreased by 26% when the lift-assist handle was used. Conclusions: While potential benefits to lower back health were found with the lift-assist handle, increased shoulder motion may increase the risk of shoulder injuries. The findings of this study emphasize the need for an in-depth analysis of assistive devices prior to implementation to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of their use that could negate their benefit.

show abstract

Effect of block weight on work demands and physical workload during masonry work

Cited by 32 publications

References 29 publications

Occupational demands and health effects for bricklayers and construction supervisors: A systematic review

Occupational demands and health effects for bricklayers and construction supervisors: A systematic review

The Effect of Lift Teams on Kinematics and Muscle Activity of the Upper Extremity and Trunk in Bricklayers

Effects of lift-assist device on trunk and shoulder kinematics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About