Ergonomic Comparison of Apple Picking from Ladders, Harvest-Assist Mobile Platforms, and the Ground

Details

• Personal Author:
  Galvin K ; Johnson P ; Thamsuwan O ; Zigman M
• Description:
  US tree fruit production is changing due to increasing global competition, labor shortages, and consumer demand. To address these market demands, trees are now being planted to accommodate semi-autonomous harvest-assist mobile platforms, replacing harvesting with ladders. These mobile platforms may reduce ladder falls, but it is important to anticipate and mitigate other potential WMSD hazards, such as overhead work and decreased task variety. This study compared back and arm inclination between apple pickers using ladders and those working with the mobile platforms. The twenty pickers participated and were in three equipment groups: eight used ladders, six stood on the mobile platform, and six walked near to the mobile platform. When compared to the platform and ground pickers, the ladder pickers had to walk greater distances to unload the apples they harvested. Objective (inclination with tri-axial accelerometers) and subjective (Borg CR10) measures were used to assess back and arm inclination and perceived fatigue, respectively. Back flexion was summarized as percent time in four ranges: 0o-15o, 15o-30o, 30o-45o, and >45o. Left and right arm inclinations were summarized as percent time in four ranges: 0o-30o, 30o-60o, 60o-90o, and <90o. Objective (heart rate) and subjective (Borg RPE scale) measures for whole body exertion were also collected. Objective measures were monitored continuously the whole workday, whereas subjective measures wore collected before work, before lunch, end of lunch, and end of workday. The effects of equipment on the various dependent variables were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. No significant differences in back flexion or back Borg CR10 ratings were found across the three equipment groups. There was a significant difference across the groups for right (p=0.011) and left (p=0.021) arms with the percentage time >90o. Across groups, ladders pickers spent significantly more time working with their arms above 60 o. There was also significantly higher self- reported fatigue in the left shoulder for the ladder workers (p=0.008), but not for the right. Finally, ladder workers had higher heart rate and Borg RPE scores. Mobile platforms helped reduce the physical loads on the body and may increase workability allowing smaller statured and older workers to perform harvest work. [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Agriculture Ergonomics Farmers Musculoskeletal Diseases Musculoskeletal System Occupational Health Safety
• Keywords:
  Agricultural Industry Agricultural Machinery Arm Injuries Exposure Assessment Farm Workers Ladders MSD Musculoskeletal Disorders Repetitive Work Upper Extremities
• Publisher:
  Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture
• Document Type:
  Text
• Funding:
  Cooperative Agreement
• Genre:
  Abstract or Summary
• Place as Subject:
  OSHA Region 10 ; Washington
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Pages in Document:
  43
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20053369
• Citation:
  Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium: Safety & Health in Agricultural & Rural Populations: Global Perspectives (SHARP), October 19-22, 2014, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture, 2014 Oct; :43
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2015
• NORA Priority Area:
  Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
• Performing Organization:
  University of Washington
• Peer Reviewed:
  False
• Start Date:
  20010930
• Source Full Name:
  Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium: Safety & Health in Agricultural & Rural Populations: Global Perspectives (SHARP), October 19-22, 2014, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
• End Date:
  20270929
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:0ba220b70b7a0f09f2ef63418ed3a87a807463af97bb0da98e28206377e6c547c1898178b4daffbaa179f8074f978a2a82bb67eda66e11dd830144a40e5c27f6
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/216138/cdc_216138_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 405.07 KB ]