Search Documents

By Danny A. Riley, James R. Sanger, Hani S. Matloub, Michael Agresti, David Rowe, Lin-Ling Zhang, Yuhui Yan, Paula Galaviz, Judith Marchant-Hanson, Ji-Geng Yan

Until now there has been controversy about which tests should be performed to diagnose early Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). Initial screening questions, especially about tingling and numbness, routinely given to patients prior to examinations proved to be a very important tool in the diagnostic process1, 4. However, standardized tests that are simple, quick, valid and reliable are needed to support a diagnosis of HAVS. Purpose: To find the most valid and reliable tests to diagnose HAVS. Material and Methods Five major tests were performed on Group I and Group II. Group I: Control group of 12 volunteers including students, nurses, secretaries and physicians with no history of using vibrating tools (age 20 to 50y, mean age 38.5y; 5male, 5 female.) Group II: 12 workers (age 17 to 65y, mean age 39y; 9 male, 3 female) were sent by a local trade union with a history of using vibrating power tools on their jobs for varying amounts of time (mean 12.2y, from 0.5 to 35y.) Pre-enrollment survey showed that each had more than 4 complaints commonly associated with use of vibrating tools (including numbness, tingling, weakness, pain, finger color or nail changes, temperature change, and difficulty moving.) 1. Sensory nerve conductive tests: Amplitude and nerve conductive velocity (NCV) were evaluated. 2. Cold Stress-Temperature recovery time tests were done on the index finger of the dominant hand following these steps: Confirm water bath is within 4-5º C. Place the finger temperature probe on pad of the index finger of the dominant hand. Record temperature every 15 seconds. Place subject’s hand in the cold- water bath for exactly five minutes. Record temperature every 15 seconds for ten minutes. 3. Blood test: Venous blood was taken by a 21-gauge needle with the yellow collection tube adapter. S-ICAM, Sera Thrombomodulin, Norepinephrine levels were evaluated by Henderson Research Centre, Canada. 4. Finger Sensory Evaluation: Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test and 2-point discrimination tests were performed on bilateral fingers. 5. Digital blood pressure test: blood pressure was measured in bilateral index fingers. Results 1. Median nerve sensory conductive amplitude from palm to wrist : GI: mean 96 ± 31µm; GII: mean 43± 30µm; for dominant hands. GI vs GII: P<0.001

Jan 6, 2006

By Claud Johnson, G. Roger Miller, Kristine M. Krajnak, Stacey Waugh, Oliver Wirth

Workers exposed to vibrating hand tools are at risk of developing symptoms such as cold-induced vasospasms, loss of tactile sensitivity, and loss of grip strength in the fingers and hands. These symptoms are known collectively as vibration white finger (VWF) or hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS). Symptoms of VWF or HAVS are in part due to repeated and prolonged peripheral vasoconstriction[1, 2]. The reduction in blood flow that occurs with vasoconstriction can result in oxygen deprivation (hypoxia) in soft tissues, such as nerves and muscle, and lead to functional and structural changes in these tissues. The present study examined muscle tissue to determine if vibration-induced changes in transcript levels and protein concentrations result in enhanced vasoconstriction and hypoxia. Manual dexterity was also assessed intermittently to determine if vibration-induced changes in cellular factors are accompanied by performance deficits. Methods An animal model was developed to study the biological and functional changes that occur in response to repeated segmental vibration exposures. In this model, the right paw of intact rats was exposed to a platform vibrated at a frequency 250 Hz and amplitude of 49 m/s2 to simulate the vibration characteristics of hand-held grinders. Three groups of 8 rats each were studied: a vibration-exposed group, an exposure-control group, and a cage-control group. Exposure sessions, with or without vibration, were conducted 4 hr/day, 5 days/week for 5 weeks. Manual dexterity was assessed intermittently during the 5-week exposure period with the Montoya stair-case test[3], which quantifies the rat’s ability to reach for, grasp, and retrieve small food pellets placed below the rat on different levels or steps. Following the 5-week exposure period, the flexor muscles of the right forelimb were collected for analysis of gene expression, protein concentrations, and immunohistochemistry. Results Vibration-exposure resulted in an approximate 2-fold increase in the expression of a2C and a1D receptor transcripts in flexor muscles (Figure 1). These receptors mediate norepinephrine-induced vasoconstriction in smaller arteries. Vibration-exposure also resulted in an approximate 2-fold increase in hypoxia-induced factor-1a (HIF-1a), a transcription factor that is expressed in response to tissue hypoxia. Western analyses demonstrated that restraint caused a decrease in a1-receptor protein concentrations in the flexor, but vibration-exposure prevented the restraint-induced reduction (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry performed on flexor muscles (not shown) demonstrated that a1 receptors are primarily located in arteries; maintained levels of these receptors could contribute to prolonged vasoconstriction following repeated vibration exposure. The staircase test showed some performance improvement, or a training effect, in manual dexterity for the control groups but not the vibration-exposed group (Figure 3).

Jan 6, 2006

By Douglas Ketcham, Thomas Jetzer

While the neurological and vascular aspects of Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) has been generally accepted as a medical condition, the medical criteria and the clinical findings used to establish the diagnosis has been more difficult to bring to consensus. The criteria was first quantified by the Taylor-Palmear scale.1 This criteria was subsequently modified in 1986 at the 1st Stockholm Workshop2,3 to included more acceptance for the neurological effects that characterized the predominate findings in some workers. The relationship between hand-arm vibration and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome was defined in NIOSH 97-1414. While the aforementioned documents have defined the clinical entities associated with hand-arm vibration exposure, agreement on the clinical findings and test to confirm the diagnosis has be been more difficult to bring to consensus. Clinicians assessing HAVS has relied on a number of varied neurological and vascular tests. The neurological testing has focused on assessing damage to the sensory capability of the fingers for the neurological component including tests to measuring ability to sense vibration, cold or other end point finger sensor functions. However, the vascular testing has been traditionally focused on the ability to either measure vascular function or to reproduce the vascular blanching that occurs in HAVS with cold water provocation. Recent assessment of this testing in the United Kingdom Coal Miner’s study has questioned the value of this testing especially in reviews by McGeoch.5 In an attempt to provide some type of definitive testing to substantiate vascular damage from hand-arm vibration exposure, angiography is an alternative or adjunct to cold water provocation testing. The standards that have been established to predict the level, type and incidence of HAVS have been based on clinical studies and reports that have essentially been all male populations. However, the recent entry of women into more vibration intensive jobs has brought about the exposure of some women to high levels of vibration previously only previously experienced by men. However, there have been only few studies that look at HAVS in women6. Although exposed the same vibration levels, it has not been clear that the latency and type of pathology of HAVS in women will be the same as for men. The purpose of this study is to look at recent case studies of men and women exposed to jobs with high levels of hand-arm vibration with extensive clinical testing for both the neurological and vascular components of HAVS as well as other associated upper extremity conditions such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Jan 6, 2006

By Richard Stayner

Suspended seats perform two functions: Reduce effect of occasional large bumps; Reduce more continuous vibration at a lower level. The former needs high damping. The latter needs low damping. For most mobile work machines the inevitable compromise is generally better than a simple cushion seat, because that amplifies vibration at around 4 Hz which is a sensitive frequency for human vertical WBV. Why have standard tests for seat suspensions? • Seat suspensions are non-linear so any measure of performance depends on operating conditions. For comparison these need to be defined. • Seat manufacturers need benchmarks for product development; • Machine makers choose dynamic characteristics appropriate to their products; • Occupational health specialists wish to control operator exposure to Standard tests should be representative, repeatable and reproducible. These requirements are reviewed in relation to the history of seat test standards and the current position. Current position and history The current position is that we have standard tests for seats for agricultural tractors, earthmoving machinery, industrial (fork-lift) trucks. These tests comprise measurement of vibration transmission and of the rate of damping. Current standards developed as the technology developed, starting around 1960: 1. Test on machine driven over standard surface1. 2. Test on shaker reproducing standard surface. 3. Shaker input replaced by representative spectrum2. 4. Human subject replaced by dynamic dummy. (Not yet settled). Are standard tests representative? The development process has gradually moved seat tests further from reality. 4 hr samples of work exposure suggest that seats do not on average provide large reductions of vertical WBV3. For specific magnitudes of vibration they can work well. For low vibration, performance is reduced by friction and for severe vibration by length of travel. Recent work has led to a new test to quantify how a suspension controls over-travel 9.

Jan 6, 2006

By Magnus Persson

ISO8662-4, “Hand-held portable power tools - Measurement of vibrations at the handle - Part 4: Grinders” is under revision. The new revision shall harmonize ISO 20643 “Mechanical vibration - Hand-held and hand-guided machinery - Principles for evaluation of vibration emission” which, among others, requires measurements in three directions and declared values related to the upper quartile of real-use vibration. To get the most suitable test method, a round robin test was made for evaluation of the two test methods proposed by the ad-hoc group working with this standard revision. Methods Seven laboratories measured the vibration from four grinders of different sizes, with and without autobalancing units. The laboratories come from universities, health & safety laboratories and grinder manufacturers. Two measurement methods are evaluated with respect to repeatability and reproducibility: 1. Grinding on a well-defined mild steel bar with depressed center wheels according to detailed test instructions. The test sequence starts and ends with 10 seconds of running the grinder in the air, when measuring the unbalance contribution to the vibration coming from the unbalance of the grinding wheel. Between these runs the average vibration during 60 seconds of grinding is measured. Three operators do five grinding tests per grinder. 2. Measurements using an aluminum unbalance disc similar to the one defined in ISO8662-4. Each operator runs the grinder four times, between each run the unbalance is moved 180 degrees to avoid variations caused by the play between the test wheel and the spindle. The averaging time is 10 seconds. Each grinder is tested by three operators. Repeatability is the spread within a lab between operators and over short time period for one machine and reproducibility is the spread between laboratories and over longer time periods for one machine. Instrumentation and transducer location are chosen according to ISO8662-4 and circulated test instructions. Results Both the repeatability and reproducibility is poor for the real grinding test, see figure 1. The coefficient of variation for repeatability is approximately 40% higher for the grinding test and the coefficient of reproducibility is 60% higher for the grinding test than for the unbalance disc test.

Jan 6, 2006

By Stephen L. Tillim

Tubular Handles can negatively affect the contents of the carpal tunnel. Years of injuries from grasping handles for tools and machines can cause carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis and wrist joint injuries. The can cause inability to use a hand and resulted in the longer absences from work than injuries from falls, accidents or fires.1 Cylindrical, tubular and rectangular handles are rolled flat structures. They place the hand on a rolled flat surface where the ends of the middle and ring fingers overlap the index and small fingers. They are pulled along a series of lines that contact the end joint of the index finger, the middle bones of the middle and ring fingers and the end bone of the small finger. Cylinders are pulled diagonally in the hand toward the carpal tunnel (CT) area. Gripping in this manner tenses asymmetric muscle groups in the forearm. Handles could work better if they do not place pressure on the CT and conform to the natural function or neutral hand position where the hand rests or dangles at the side of the body, the finger tips form a diagonal, the palm and fingers form a cup, the thumb rests between the index and middle fingers and the wrist is mildly extended. However, handles designed for the neutral position are pulled by diagonally oriented fingers into the valley between the thenar and hypothenar muscles where they can compress the median nerve and tendons exiting the CT. Seven principles for handles that do not place pressure on the carpal tunnel and employ optimal hand position are presented. First, handles should align the ends of the fingers parallel to the horizontal crease and not diagonally. Second, handles should extend from the cupped fingers to meet the muscles at the base of the thumb on the radial side of the hand and extend further on the other or ulnar side to meet a portion of the small muscles. Third, handles should have a recess on the proximal side to prevent contacting or placing pressure on the carpal tunnel. Fourth, handle design should be based on hand measurements in a position of function. Fifth, handles should come in sizes. Sixth, handles should be placed on tools to maintain the wrist and elbow in neutral position. The seventh is handles should support the maximum area of the hand and absorb, but not direct, vibration to the carpal tunnel. These principles led to prototypes and patents for handles for gripping, pinching and squeezing2,3,4 . The poster will illustrate and explain the principles Bonsil handles. Research, with existing tools, is needed to substantiate claims made for the Bonsil handle.

Jan 6, 2006

By G. Roger Miller, Kristine M. Krajnak, Stephen S. Leonard, Stacey Waugh

Repeated exposure to hand-arm vibration through the use of vibrating hand tools can result in the development of the disorder known as hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS; (1,3)). One of the hallmark symptoms of HAVS is cold-induced peripheral vasospasms that result in finger blanching (4). Although the vascular and neural pathology associated with vasospasms has been described, little is known about cellular mechanisms leading to this damage (4). To understand how vibration may alter vascular and neural physiology and anatomy, rats were exposed to a single bout of tail vibration and the molecular responses of neural and vascular tissues were measured to determine if there are immediate or sustained affects of vibration that may underlie longer term changes in physiology. Methods Experiment 1. Male Sprague Dawley rats (n = 32, 6 weeks of age) were housed in AAALAC accredited facilities. All procedures were approved by the NIOSH Animal Care and Use Committee and were in compliance with the CDC guidelines for care and use of laboratory animals. Vibration exposures were performed by restraining rats in Broome-style restrainers, and securing their tails to a vibration platform using 6 mm wide straps that were placed over the tail every 3 cm. Restraint control rats were treated in the same manner, except that the tail platform was mounted on isolation blocks and not on a shaker. The vibration exposure was 125 Hz, 49 m/s2, for 4 h. Rats were euthanized with an overdose of pentobarbital (100 mg/kg) 1 h or 24 hours after the exposure. RTqPCR was used to measure transcript levels for endothelin 1 (ET-1), the 3 forms of nitric oxide synthetase (NOS) NOS-1, NOS-2, NOS-3 and norepinephrine receptor subtypes 1D, 2A, 2C, in artery tissue, and to measure calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and nitric oxide synthase-1 (NOS-1) in ventral nerves. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVAs. Experiment 2. Male Sprague Dawley rats (n =24, 6 weeks of age) were maintained as described above. Animals were exposed to a single bout of restraint or vibration. Another group of animals served as cage controls. All animals were euthanized 24 h after the exposure, and tail arteries were isolated and frozen. Reactive oxygen species ROS) were measured using electron spin resonance spectroscopy (ESR). Arteries were homogenized over ice in 1 ml of PBS with protease inhibitor cocktail, using a tissue tearer (Biospecs Products Inc. Racine, WI USA). The sample was split into two 0.5 ml samples. One set had PBS and the spin label hydroxyl-TEMPO [0.1 mM] added while the other set had hydroxyl-TEMPO [1.0 mM] plus the specific hydroxyl radical scavenger, dimethylthiourea (DMTU), added to confirm the presence of the hydroxyl radical. Samples were vortexed and then placed in a flat cell for ESR analysis. The ESR spectrometer settings were: receiver gain, 6.32 x 102; time constant, 0.02 s; modulation amplitude, 1.0 G; scan time, 20 sec; magnetic field, 3490 ± 100 G (2). Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVAs.

Jan 6, 2006

By Michael J. Jorgensen, Anoop Polsani, Khurram S. Khan

Riveting operations in aircraft manufacturing involves the use of power tools for manually drilling holes for the rivets, power drills for the setting of the holes for the rivets, as well as rivet guns to drive and set the rivets. To close the rivet, the rivet is driven against a metallic bar commonly called a “bucking bar”. The bucking bars are typically held firmly to increase the quality of the riveting, as well as keep the bucking bar from “dancing” against the metal piece being riveted. Thus, employees in aircraft manufacturing involved in riveting are exposed to hand-arm vibration from several sources, and epidemiological evidence suggests that vibration-related musculoskeletal disorders are associated with long term exposure to riveting tasks in the aircraft manufacturing of aircraft.1,2 Recently, tungsten technology has been introduced into aircraft manufacturing for bucking bars, which are heavier than traditional steel bucking bars of the same size. Rivet guns with tungsten pistons instead of steel pistons have also recently been introduced with the objective of reducing vibration exposure to the riveter. The objective of this study was to assess vibration characteristics of steel and tungsten bucking bars and rivet guns to identify the combination that simultaneously reduced the combined exposure to both the “riveter” and “bucker”. Methods Vibration (10g tri-axial accelerometer, Biometrics S2-10G-MF Series 2) was measured from eight experienced employees using seven different rivet guns on size 6 rivets, with the same person bucking for all subjects. Vibration was also measured on two different bucking bars for these same eight subjects, with the same person driving the rivets using the various rivet guns. The rivet guns consisted of three E4 steel piston guns with different RPMs (Guns A-E4, B-E4, C-E4), an E4 vibration dampened rivet gun (Gun D-E4D), an E3 steel piston rivet gun (Gun E-E3) and an E3 and E4 tungsten piston rivet guns (Guns F-E3T and G-E4T). The bucking bars were made of 90% tungsten (1694g) and cold-rolled steel (843g), and were the same shape and size. A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was performed on the vibration (mean frequency weighted resultant acceleration) on both the rivet gun side and the bucking bar side, and mean rankings were used to assess the vibration simultaneously for the rivet gun and bucking bars to investigate which combinations provided the lowest vibration exposure. Results Frequency weighted resultant acceleration was significantly lower on the E3 tungsten (F-E3T) rivet gun than the E4 steel piston (B-E4) and the E4 tungsten piston (G-E4T) rivet guns (Figure 1). When measuring vibration on the bucking bar, the E4 (A-E4) steel piston rivet gun resulted in lower vibration on the bucking bars than the E4 tungsten piston (G-E4T) and E4 vibration dampened (D-E4D) rivet guns (Figure 2). Additionally, use of tungsten bucking bars resulted in a 35% decrease in resultant frequency weighted acceleration than when using steel bucking bars.

Jan 6, 2006

By P. -E. Boileau, P. Marcotte, Y. Aldien, S. Rakheja

A number of biodynamic models of the hand-arm system have evolved on the basis of measured driving-point mechanical impedance (DPMI) responses to facilitate analyses of the coupled hand-tool system [1]. The parameter identifications in such models are based upon minimization of an error function of the model and the target impedance data, which may not yield a unique solution. Consequently, a number of model structures and parameter sets could be realized that would equally satisfy the target curve. Moreover, the vast majority of the reported models exhibit acute deficiencies due to excessive static deflections of model masses, presence of a low frequency mode and very light masses in the order of 1.2- 4.8 grams. The models also do not characterize the dependency of the biodynamic responses on many factors, namely the hand forces, hand-arm posture and vibration intensity. This study aims at development of a hand-arm biodynamic model with considerations of the hand forces, and both the DPMI and power absorption measures, to enhance the uniqueness of the model. Methods Two different model structures are chosen for identifying the model parameters on the basis of measured DPMI and absorbed power characteristics of the hand-arm system under zh-axis vibration over a range of hand-grip and push forces. Owing to the strong influence of the hand-handle coupling forces, the models were initially derived for fixed hand forces, namely 30 N grip and 50 N push forces, as suggested in the ISO 10068 standard [2]. The equations of motion for the model are formulated and solved to compute both the DPMI and absorbed power responses. A constrained minimization function comprising weighted errors of both the DPMI and absorbed power is formulated and solved to identify the parameters. Alternate functions corresponding to different combinations of hand forces are then applied to identify hand-force dependent model parameters. Variations in the model parameters are investigated as functions of the grip, push and coupling forces through linear regression analysis. Regression-based models are formulated for deriving the hand-handle forces dependent model parameters. The validity of the model is also examined under selected combinations of hand forces. [ ]

Jan 6, 2006

By Danny Riley, Brian Curry, Sandya Govindaraju, James Bain

Acute vibration causes vasoconstriction in naïve human subjects1. Vibration-induced decrease in skin perfusion has also been reported in the rat-tail vibration model 2. After vibration exposure, rat-tail arteries demonstrate vacuoles in smooth muscle cells, similar to that caused by pharmacological vasoconstrictors3. This study addressed the effects of different frequencies, durations and patterns of vibration on lumen size and vacuole formation using the rat-tail vibration model in male Sprague-Dawley rats (~300 g). Methods The different groups were: 4-hr continuous vibration at 30, 60, 120 and 800 Hz; continuous exposure durations of 5 min, 1 hr and 4 hr at 60 Hz; and 4-hr cumulative exposure of 60 Hz delivered intermittently in cycles of 10 min on and 5 min off. Acceleration was set at 49 m/s2 r.m.s. for all frequencies. Unanesthetized rats were restrained in cages on a nonvibrating platform with their tails placed on a vibrating stage driven by a B&K motor (4809). The sham control animals were also placed in the vibration apparatus but not vibrated. Room temperature was controlled at 25 ± 1°C. Ventral arteries from proximal tail segments 7 were immersion fixed in aldehydes, embedded in epon-araldite and sectioned (0.5 µm) for morphological analysis. Vascular lumen sizes were measured as the percent ratio of the lumen perimeter to internal elastic membrane length using Image J software (NIH). The number of vacuoles in the smooth muscle layer of each artery section was counted. Results Fig 1: Semithin sections of arteries. A. Sham control. B. 4-hr vibration 60 Hz. In vibrated arteries, the lumen decreases in size, and smooth muscle cells (SMC) exhibit vacuoles (arrow). Bar equals 40 µm for each panel. [ ]

Jan 6, 2006

By Tony Keller, Setsuo Maeda

Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) was identified as early as 1918 in Bedford, Indiana in the U.S. Since then much research work has been done around the world in the areas of medical, epidemiological, engineering and legal aspects of HAVS. In Japan, much of the pioneering work in this field has been performed by Dr. Setsuo Maeda and his staff at the National Institute of Industrial Health (NIIH) in Kawasaki. Most recently, reports of work done by this group and by Dr. Ren Dong1 of NIOSH in the U.S., as well as many other suppliers and Japanese practitioners were presented at the 13th Japan Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration held in Osaka2 during August 3-5, 2005. [ ]

Jan 6, 2006

By M. G. Cherniack, A. J. Brammer, D. R. Peterson

Over the past two decades, there have been significant reductions in industrial exposures to hand-arm vibration, especially when specific tools and work processes have been redesigned to incorporate anti-vibration and ergonomic principles. Nevertheless, Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) remains a significant occupational health problem as disease symptoms continue to occur even when vibration exposure levels believed to incur low risks have been reached2. This inconsistency may be related to the methodology that is typically used to estimate workday vibration exposure levels, involving laboratory and/or very short duration field measurements coupled with estimates of overall eight-hour tool operation times determined from brief observations of tool tasks and/or self-reported surveys. One solution is to use small, commercially-available, personal vibration dosimeters to calculate, record, and display long-duration vector sums and energy equivalents of vibration. However, since these devices are attached to the worker and require tool-mounted accelerometers, they are incompatible with the worker performing normal duties involving putting down or changing tools. In addition, these commercial systems do not allow for the characterization of the transmission of vibration to the hand such as monitoring the mechanical coupling between the hand and the tool handle (e.g., grip forces). O’Boyle and Griffin showed that variations in applied force can alter vibration transmission characteristics by 50% or more indicating that the measurement of grip force is essential for modeling vibration transmissibility and vibration exposures5. In summary, a need exists for the development of a method and device that will more accurately characterize workday-long vibration exposures. Methods A portable, light-weight, Vibration Exposure Monitor (VEM) system was developed to record user-specific tool-operating times, vibrations, and grip forces throughout all, or a representative part, of a workday. It monitors frequency weighted and unweighted accelerations from a palm-mounted uni-axial accelerometer (Model 352C22, PCB Piezotronics, Depew, NY) and calculates exposure levels using the root-mean-square (RMS) and higher power mean values, such as the root-mean-quad (RMQ) and the root-mean-oct (RMO). Grip forces are also monitored using a palm-mounted force sensor (Model 400, Interlink Electronics, Camarillo, CA) from which average grip force levels and exerted grip extrema are calculated. At the core of the VEM system is a commercially available, battery-powered microcomputer (Tattletale, Model 8v2, Onset Computer, Onset, MA) with one megabyte of memory and eight analog channels using 12-bit sampling at a single-channel maximum of 100 kHz. Analog signal processing (i.e., anti-aliasing, with cutoffs at 4 and 1250 Hz, and ISO 5349-13 frequency weighting) is accomplished using custom circuitry that is directly interfaced with the microcomputer. An embedded C-based protocol governs the data collection from each channel

Jan 6, 2006

By Kristine M. Krajnak

Occupational exposure to hand-arm vibration through the use of powered hand tools can result in reductions in tactile sensitivity, grip strength and manual dexterity. In fact, even acute exposures to vibration cause shifts in vibrotactile thresholds in exposed fingers (2,4,5). Although reductions in tactile sensitivity after acute vibration exposures are transient, cellular changes associated with this shift in sensitivity could lead to the more permanent reductions in tactile sensitivity that are a common symptom of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS). Methods Animals. Male Sprague Dawley rats (6 weeks of age) were used for all experiments. Animals were housed in AAALAC accredited facilities, and all procedures were approved by the NIOSH Animal Care and Use Committee and were in compliance with the CDC guideline for care and use of laboratory animals. Vibration exposures were performed by restraining rats in a Broome-style restrainer, and securing their tails to the vibration platform using 6 mm wide straps that were placed over the tail every 3 cm. Restraint control animals were treated in an identical manner except that the tail platform was set on isolation blocks instead of a shaker. Tail temperature and current perception thresholds (CPTs). Rats were exposed to 4 h of tail vibration (125 Hz, 49 m/s2), or restraint. Tail temperature was collected prior to and immediately following the exposure using an infra-red camera. Sensory neuron function was assessed by measuring CPTs with a Neurometer (Neurotron, Baltimore, MD). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation was applied to the C10 region of the tail. Three frequencies were used to test specific fiber types (5 Hz – C, 250 Hz - Ad, and 2000 Hz – Aß). The intensity of the stimulus was automatically increased in small increments until the rat flicked its tail. Tests at each frequency were repeated until the animals displayed 2 responses that were within 2 CPT (or 0.02 mA) of each other (2-4 tests/animal). CPT tests were performed prior to the exposure, immediately following the exposure, and 24 h after the exposure. Data Analyses. Temperatures were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with animal as a random variable. ANCOVAS were used to analyze the CPTs at each frequency. Temperature at the time of the CPT test was used as a covariate, and animal was used as a random variable Results Tail temperatures declined between pre and post exposure (F(1,25) = 62.85, p < 0.001; mean ± sem pre 25.96°C ± 0.42, post 20.71°C ± 0.77), but were back to baseline levels by 24 h after the exposure in both groups of rats. The ANCOVAs demonstrated that exposure to a single bout of vibration did not alter sensitivity of C (5Hz) or Ad (250 Hz) fibers to stimulation.

Jan 6, 2006

By Neil J. Mansfield

Tool manufacturers are required to provide declarations of vibration emission values in order to sell their tools within Europe. To ensure that users can compare results obtained from different manufacturers, the declared values must be obtained using a methodology as specified in the relevant test code (such as in the ISO 8662 series of standards). In most cases, the vibration emission values obtained using test codes under-estimate the vibration that an operator will be exposed to when using the tool on a work-site. A further problem with manufacturers’ data is that usually only a single value is provided for a tool. This is despite many factors affecting the vibration emission, including inserted tool type, work piece, operator technique, tool condition. New improved test codes are in the process of being developed. In order to provide guidance to users on how to interpret manufacturers’ data, a Draft CEN Technical Report (Draft CEN/TR 15350 (2005)) was developed. Part of the CEN/TR provides multiplication factors for combinations of task and tool type. For example, data obtained from electrical hammer drills (tested according to EN 60745-2-6:2003) should be multiplied by 2, for hammering applications, in order to obtain an estimate of the vibration emission during work. In response to concerns from industry, the UK trade association OPERC have, in collaboration with hire companies and tool manufacturers, established a freely accessible online database of tool emission values based on independent tests carried out under simulated work-site conditions. This paper reports some of the data obtained from electrical hammer drills, highlighting the range of emission values that can be obtained for a tool. Data from many other tool types are also included in the database. Methods Tri-axial hand-arm vibration was measured at both handles of each of 19 electrical hammer drills, in accordance with ISO 5349-1 (2001). Each tool was measured with three experienced operators and at least 5 runs were completed for each operator. Tools were tested using a range of appropriate new bits from 4 to 40 mm diameter. The minimum number of bits for a tool was 3; the maximum number was 29. 146 tool / bit combinations are reported here, representing about 2200 individual 6-axis measurements. Operators were required to drill vertically into a concrete block with a compressive strength after 28 days of 40 N/mm². Two drills (1 and 15) were battery powered; others were powered using a 110V transformer supply.

Jan 6, 2006

By Fred N. Kissell, Jon C. Volkwein

In This Chapter [How inert gas works to prevent methane explosions How inert gas is generated and delivered at highwall mines Volume and quality requirements for inert gas at highwall mines How an inert gas system is operated and Precautions to take during mining to prevent methane explosions] This chapter discusses a method, originally developed by Volkwein and Ulery [1993], to prevent methane explosions during highwall mining. In highwall mining, a horizontal auger or a mining machine enters the coal seam from a surface mine pit at the bottom of a highwall, and the coal is mined out from a series of parallel holes. Explosions can be prevented by injecting inert gas into each hole as it is mined. Coal near the surface has lost most of its methane gas over time. However, in recent years, surface mining has been used for deeper reserves of coal. This trend toward mining deeper reserves has increased the chance of encountering methane, and methane explosions at highwall mining operations have resulted in injuries. HOW INERT GAS WORKS TO PREVENT METHANE EXPLOSIONS A methane explosion requires the presence of sufficient amounts of both methane and oxygen, as well as an ignition source. If the methane cannot be reduced and the ignition source cannot be eliminated, then explosions may be prevented by adding an inert gas, which contains little to no oxygen, to the mixture [FWQA 1970]. Just how much inert gas must be added depends on the mining rate, as well as the composition of the inert gas. An explosibility diagram can be used to show whether a methane mixture is explosive after inert gas is added [Zabetakis et al. 1959] (Figure 10–1). This diagram indicates that gas mixtures fall into one of three range categories—explosive, explosive when mixed with air, and nonexplosive—depending on the percentage of methane and percentage of “effective inert.” Effective inert is calculated from the percentage of “excess nitrogen”3 and percentage of carbon dioxide in the mixture.

Jan 6, 2006

By Ren G. Dong, Thomas W. McDowell, John Z. Wu, Chris Warren, Dan E. Welcome, Chun L. Dong

Hand forces are important factors for risk assessment of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).1 Grip force is one of the most important force components in the operation of powered hand tools. A considerable number of studies on grip force have been reported. It is well known that the grip force applied on a cylindrical handle is not uniformly distributed on each axis across the center of the handle cross-section.2 Therefore, maximum and minimum orientations of grip force exist around the handle. Such orientations have not been clearly identified. In a recently proposed international standard (ISO/CD 15230, 2005),3 it is stated that “the direction of the main gripping force is generally parallel to the z-axis defined in ISO 8727.” 4 This assertion is questionable, and further examinations are required. The objective of this study was to establish a fundamental theory on the distribution of the grip force around cylindrical handles. Methods As shown in Fig. 1, the grip force is defined as a vector composed of normal and shear components (FN & FT) in this study. Fig. 2 shows the hand coordinate system defined in this study, together with the ISO systems.1,4 Based on this novel grip force definition, we derived four fundamental properties and a theorem. More significantly, we formulated a novel hypothesis: similar to Mohr’s circle of stress, the normal and shear components can be represented approximately using an ellipse on the plane of the two force coordinates, as shown in Fig. 3. The maximum and minimum grip normal forces are termed as the first principal grip force (F1) and the second principal grip normal force (F2), respectively. Their corresponding orientations are termed as the first principal grip angle (a1) and the second principal grip angle (a2). A series of experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. Twelve

Jan 6, 2006

By C. Ozgen Karacan, William P. Diamond

In This Chapter [Measuring the gas content of coal Predicting gas emissions based on geologic and coal reservoir property data Determining the gas storage capacity of coalbeds and other gas-bearing strata Methane drainage borehole monitoring to forecast the remaining gas-in-place and the influence on mine emissions Forecasting gas emissions during mining as a function of mining parameters and Gas emission prediction based on numerical simulation] This chapter provides guidelines for determining the gas content of coalbeds, estimating the gas-in-place, and predicting gas flow and emissions before and during coal mining operations. The techniques are discussed briefly in the following sections. However, detailed information on the techniques is provided in the cited references. INTRODUCTION Coalbed methane, if not properly controlled in the underground mine environment, is a safety concern due to the potential risk for an explosion. This is a particular problem during longwall mining, where the high rate and volume of coal extraction can result in the release of large amounts of methane from the mined coalbed and other adjacent gas-bearing strata. The variability and potential hazards of these sometimes unexpectedly high gas flows provide the impetus to develop methods to predict methane emissions into the underground workplace. A forecast of the volume of gas that might be released during coal mining is helpful for designing ventilation systems and for implementing optimum methane drainage strategies to help mitigate expected gas emission problems. A complete assessment of the need for methane drainage prior to mine development generally requires both an empirical and a theoretical approach. If there are active mines in the general area with similar geologic conditions and coal characteristics, a review of gas problems in those mines provides an initial insight into the level of gas emissions to be expected at a new location. In addition, relatively simple methods exist to determine the in situ gas content (volume of gas per unit weight of coal) of the coalbeds in a particular mining area, as well as the gas-in-place (volume of gas in the coalbed(s) within a defined geographic area).

Jan 6, 2006

By R. Luhrman, E. Christ, B. Gores, S. Fischer, E. Johanning

North American railroad locomotive operators (engineers and conductors) are exposed to multi-axis vibration and shocks (1, 2). A recent epidemiological survey showed a prevalence of serious type of neck and lower back disorders nearly double that of a control group (3). Ergonomic working conditions are important co-factors in a vibration and shock exposure risk assessment (4, 5). The goal of this study is to illustrate typical work stations (cabs and seats) in US/Canadian type locomotives and assess shock related exposure risk by calculations of the new proposed shock risk indicators according to the new ISO 2631-5 (2004) (6). Methods Locomotive cab and seat inspections were conducted and operators’ activities were assessed by a trained observer. Field measurements (n=50) were obtained during normal revue service following generally accepted guidelines (ISO 2631 (1)). A sub-sample of n=20 locomotives were selected for the calculation of proposed shock indicators (ISO 2631 (5)). Results There has been little change in basic locomotive cab and seat design in the U.S.. Two locomotive cab design concepts are used: the Association of American Railroad (AAR) Control Stand and in newer series wide-body locomotives the “Control Consol” (Figures 1-2), with varying seating conditions, but frequently subjecting the operator to an awkward body posture in addition to the vibration and shock exposure. [ ]

Jan 6, 2006

By D. E. Welcome, T. W. McDowell, R. G. Dong, S. F. Wiker

Workers using vibrating hand tools have the potential for developing health problems associated with repeated forceful actions and exposures to hand-transmitted vibration. Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) and other hand-arm system disorders have been associated with such exposures.1-2 To better assess health risks, comprehensive evaluations of these exposures must include quantitative assessments of hand-tool coupling forces; unfortunately, no standardized method for quantifying hand forces exists. Handle instrumentation may be ill-suited for some field environments. Psychophysical force-recall techniques may provide alternatives to handle instrumentation. A thorough understanding of the effects of vibration and other factors on force-recall accuracy and reliability is important before such methods are applied in risk assessments. Methods In this study, the effects of vibration and other factors on the accuracy of psychophysical force-recall were explored in two experiments. Twelve male subjects participated in the first experiment. The second experiment employed 20 participants (10 female, 10 male). In each experiment, participants applied specific grip and push forces to an instrumented handle mounted on a shaker system. Participants were exposed to sinusoidal vibration at frequencies that ranged from 0 Hz to 250 Hz. Three levels of applied force (low: grip = 15 N/push = 25 N, medium: grip = 30 N/push = 50 N, and high: grip = 45 N/push = 75 N ) and two levels of vibration magnitude (low: ANSI 4-8-hr limit and high: ANSI <0.5-hr limit)3 were examined. During the vibration exposure period, participants were provided with visual feedback while they attempted to “memorize” the applied grip and push forces. At the conclusion of the vibration exposure/force memorization period and a controlled rest period, the participants tried to duplicate the grip and push forces on a non-vibrating handle without the aid of visual feedback. The effects of different vibration frequencies, vibration magnitudes, and grip and push force levels were tested in a random order from trial to trial. Results Participants tended to overestimate grip and push forces. Depending on exposure conditions, error means ranged from 2 N to 10 N. The ANOVA revealed that force-recall errors for exposures between 31.5 Hz and 63 Hz were significantly higher than those at other vibration frequencies (p < 0.05). The frequency effect is depicted in Figure 1. Error means were greater when participants were exposed to the higher vibration magnitude (mean = 9.1 N, 95% CI = 8.2-10.1 N) when compared with the lower vibration magnitude (mean = 4.9 N, 95% CI = 3.9-5.8 N) (p < 0.05). The effect of vibration magnitude is shown in Figure 2. The average error for

Jan 6, 2006

By Fred N. Kissell

In This Chapter [Early indicators of a gas problem How the methane hazard is reduced Ventilation principles for gassy tunnels Monitoring for gas Eliminating ignition sources and The all-important human factors component] This chapter gives guidelines for preventing methane gas explosions during tunnel construction. Emphasis is placed on assessing the hazard potential, on ventilation principles, and on monitoring for gas. The chapter also emphasizes the importance of human factors in reducing explosion risk. Ensuring safe conditions is much more than just good engineering design. It also involves the every-day vigilance of those working underground. This does not imply that the engineering design can be ignored, only that the job of providing safe conditions has just begun with design. EARLY INDICATORS OF A GAS PROBLEM For the engineer planning a tunnel project, reliable early indicators of methane are scarce. How-ever, the local geology can often provide some information.2 Carbonaceous rocks and tar sands are a likely methane source. Gas is also a distinct possibility if it is known to be present else-where in the same sequence of geologic formations. Swampy areas, sewerage systems, and landfills are also candidates because the decomposition of organic materials produces methane. The gas in a tunnel can originate in the strata being excavated, or it can migrate a considerable distance from adjacent strata. Test borings at the project site can also serve as initial indicators of gas. Methane has no odor, but may be emitted along with gases that do. If gas is emitted from the borehole, a sample may be collected by inserting a tube into the hole as far as possible and pumping the gas out. The gas sample should be collected in a sampling bag or canister for later analysis by a chemical laboratory.3

Jan 6, 2006