An Investigation Into The Design and Use of Workplace Cleaning Equipment

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (2005) 247266
An investigation into the design and use of workplace

cleaning equipment
V. Woods
, P. Buckle
Robens Centre for Health Ergonomics, EIHMS, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7TE, UK
Received 23 April 2004; received in revised form 28 June 2004; accepted 3 September 2004
Available online 28 October 2004
Abstract
This paper presents the ndings from a 2 year investigation into the musculoskeletal health of UK cleaners and focuses
on the potential association of these problems with the design and use of cleaning equipment. The ve-stage study
employed a participative approach using a number of different methodologies to explore the use and design of commonly
used cleaning equipment. The methodologies included: questionnaire studies, workplace assessments, an ergonomics
assessment of cleaning equipment, a user trial of this equipment in the laboratory and focus groups with interested parties.
Based on the ndings of the study, previous research work (e.g. Report from Kilpatrick and Associates PTY LTD for
Miscellaneous Workers Union, 1991) and the use of ergonomic guidelines (e.g. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 10 (1992) 7),
modications were recommended for the design of bufng machines (e.g. machine height, design of triggers/grips/levers,
pressure to activate controls), mopping systems (e.g. mop length, pressure required to squeeze mop, bucket stability) and
vacuum machines (e.g. attachment length, grip design, provision of safety lights). A checklist was also compiled to aid in
the purchase of new workplace equipment. This paper concentrates on equipment and postures adopted when in use. It is
acknowledged that this represents only one aspect of the work system that inuences musculoskeletal health. Inadequate
work organisation, task scheduling and social support are also associated with an increased risk for musculoskeletal
problems among UK cleaners (Musculoskeletal Health of Cleaners, HSE Books, Suffolk, 1999).
Relevance to industry
Cleaning is a basic service occupation conducted by many world-wide. Researchers, manufacturers and designers
should work with user groups to improve equipment to ensure good musculoskeletal health, working posture and
technique. Cleaning managers, trainers and purchasers should be aware of ergonomic guidelines for equipment
selection for safe use at work.
r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cleaners; Musculoskeletal ill health; Participative approach; Bufng; Mopping; Vacuuming
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon
0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.09.004
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1483 686738; fax: +44 1483 689395.
E-mail address: v.woods@surrey.ac.uk (V. Woods).
1. Introduction
Millions of people work as cleaners worldwide;
the cleaning workforce in the UK comprises
approximately 800,000 workers (CSSA, 2002).
Cleaning is an important job but is generally
conducted by a hidden and isolated workforce;
many cleaners work before others arrive at the
workplace (e.g. educational institutions, health-
care environments, retail outlets) and after they
leave. The cleaning workforce comprises a high
proportion of ageing women of low social status,
who are generally poorly educated with low
income and social support (De Vito et al., 2000).
In order to ensure health inequalities are not
experienced at work these individual and psycho-
social issues should be considered in the design of
equipment, training in its use, work scheduling and
the provision of social support at the workplace.
Cleaning work is demanding and labour in-
tensive. Cleaners regularly use heavy powered
tools (e.g. bufng machines/oor polishing ma-
chines, wet and dry vacuums) in addition to
conducting a wide range of physically demanding
tasks including mopping, wiping surfaces, polish-
ing and heavy manual handling (e.g. carrying and
emptying rubbish, moving furniture, lling, carry-
ing and emptying buckets of water), often under
time constraints (Kru ger et al., 1997). Several
studies have found that cleaning work is physio-
logically demanding for both the cardiorespiratory
and musculoskeletal systems (Aickin, 1998; Lou-
hevaara, 1997). Cleaning tasks are characterised
by a high level of physical demand including high
aerobic strain (Hagner and Hagberg, 1989), static
muscular loads and repetitive movements (ibid),
high frequency of unsatisfactory postures such as
stooping and crouching (Messing et al., 1992) and
subjective feelings that the work is strenuous
(Sgaard et al., 1996). In addition, a number of
studies recognise that cleaning work has several
psychosocial risk factors e.g. lack of control over
work and breaks, workload and time pressures
(Aickin, 1998; Louhevaara, 1997; Woods et al.,
1999).
A number of studies have reported that cleaners
have a high risk of developing health problems
particularly musculoskeletal problems, especially
affecting the back, neck, shoulders, elbows and
hands. Tuomi et al. (1991) found that female
domestic helpers had the poorest health among a
variety of occupations studied. A study of
musculoskeletal problems of Swedish cleaners by
Blomquist (1987cited by Hagner and Hagberg,
1989) indicated a high frequency of neck and
shoulder complaints. Other studies have shown
similar problems (Johansson and Ljungren, 1989)
that have lead to frequent absenteeism (Edsberg et
al., 1983; Messing et al., 1992). A survey of Danish
female cleaners showed that the 1 year prevalence
of musculoskeletal problems was signicantly
higher than an age matched control group
(Sgaard et al., 1996). A 3 year study carried out
in four member states of the EU (Denmark,
Finland, Germany and Italy) showed that the
prevalence of health problems among cleaners was
high compared to the average among wager
earners in general (Kru ger et al., 1997). These
problems included musculoskeletal complaints,
skin problems and some psychosomatic disorders.
The number of diseases was found to increase
rapidly from the age of 45 years upwards. The
musculoskeletal complaints were associated with
constrained work positions, heavy lifting, mono-
tonous work and the workplace.
1.1. Bufng machines
Bufng machines (also called polishers, oor
cleaning or scrubbing machines), generally elec-
trically powered, are used to clean and polish
oors (Figs. 1 and 2). In order to prepare the
bufng machine for use, the cleaner pulls the T-
shaped handle of the machine to the oor from an
upright position. A disc and cleaning pad (or
scrubbing brush) are then attached; these rotate
about the vertical axis to clean the oor. The
machine is then returned to the upright position.
The handle of the machine is lowered to a suitable
height for the worker using a height adjustment
lever. This height adjustment is made frequently as
the cleaner regularly stops and starts the bufng
process (thereby putting the handle into the safe
upright position) to change the cleaning pad. The
machines are operated by continuous depression
of a trigger switch, one on either side, just below
ARTICLE IN PRESS
V. Woods, P. Buckle / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (2005) 247266 248
the machine handle. The cleaner walks along,
holding the machine handle with both hands,
moving the machine from side to side. A bottle is
sometimes held in one hand to spray chemicals on
the oor prior to cleaning (some machines have a
tank and dispensing system to disperse cleaning
solutions).
A number of studies have identied musculos-
keletal problems resulting from bufng machine
use. In Australia, users have reported high levels
of pain and discomfort: 57% arm, shoulder and
neck pain; 42% lower back pain; and 37%
numbness in the hands (Kilpatrick et al., 1991).
In the UK, English et al. (1989) found that the
dominant hand and arm undertook the majority of
strain of forceful, repetitive and static actions in
cleaning tasks (including oor bufng) and that
there was a strong potential for upper limb
injuries. Another UK study stated that working
with oor polishing machines caused problems for
the hand and back (Liverpool Occupational
Health Project, 1991). Haslam and Williams
(1999) found that 56% of bufng machine users
reported discomfort from machine use; the main
locations of discomfort were the hand (39%),
shoulder (19%), wrist (7%), lower back (7%) and
arm (6%).
There are a limited number of studies in the
literature that investigated the design of bufng
machines. Kilpatrick et al. (1991) found the main
problems with bufng machine design were: heavy
weight and lack of manoeuvrability, high initial
reaction torque on starting, poor trigger switch
design, power cable handling and storage, and
brush/disc replacement. Following a manufac-
turers initiative an evaluation study was con-
ducted to assess a single disc oor cleaner (Hide
et al., 2000). Problems reported and observed
included: high force required to operate height
adjustment lever, bulk of handle for gripping, high
handle height, difculty manoeuvring
the machine with the handle in the upright
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Mean weight 34kg (sd
3.4)
Mean height with
disc/pad
1197.5mm (sd 59.7)
Mean motor height
with disc/pad
362.5mm (sd 23.8)
Mean machine diameter
437.6mm (sd 25.9)
5/6 had safety light to indicate power on
4/6 had safe machine use information
- Mean disc weight 2.2kg (sd 1.2)
- 2/6 auditory feedback if disc
attached correctly
- 2/6 discs had sharp spikes/grips
to attach cleaning pad
Level of noise emitted: 65-
70dBA
5/6 had hook on handle/lever at base to wind flex
1/6 had outriggers to prevent flex being too close
to feet
2/6 hadcable restraint mechanisms.
Fig. 1. General characteristics/dimensions of bufng machines: based on the measurement of six commonly used machines during the
expert assessment study stage.
position, controlling the machine during use and
attachment of the pad to the buffer. In another
assessment of a single disc oor cleaning machine,
Haslam and Williams (1999) identied deciencies
with the design and conguration of the handle
and operating switch, manual handling implica-
tions due to machine weight and size, and
problems with the trailing power cable.
1.2. Mopping systems
There are a number of different mopping
systems on the market (Fig. 3). The most common
are round head mops (generally used in conjunc-
tion with a plastic or metal bucket with a drain),
long tailed mops and at mops (often used with
buckets with wringing systems). Cleaners use
either one of two mopping techniques: push/pull
(i.e. move the mop back and forward) or gure of
eight (i.e. move the mop in an arc).
A number of studies have looked at the effects
of different mopping methods and resulting
postures adopted (Hagner and Hagberg, 1989;
Huisman, 1992; Louhevaara et al., 2000; Sgaard
et al., 1996). However, only one study focussed on
mop redesign. Holshuijsen et al. (1997) examined
the effects of an adjustment to the handle designs
of a round and a at mop on muscle workload.
The handle diameter was enlarged and a diagonal
bar was attached to the steel of the mop, like a
scythe. The traditional mop imposed less muscle
load than the at mop. Changes to the mop handle
particularly inuenced the muscle workload of the
wrist exors and extensors.
1.3. Vacuum machines
Few studies have been conducted on the design
and use of oor based vacuum machines and none
have been conducted with people who use
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Mean grip circumference with trigger depressed 126.7mm (sd 6.9)
Mean diameter furthest away from centre 38.1mm (sd 13.5),
40.7mm (sd 10.6) at midway point, 52.7mm (sd 6.3) closest to centre
Mean grip length (for 1
hand) 122.5mm (sd
17.8mm)
Mean hand span from handle to
height adjustment lever 108.2mm
(sd 7.9)
Mean lever travel distance
28.3mm (sd 3.7)
Mean lever length 84.8 (sd 12.6)
Mean lever width 11.2 (sd 1.9)
All trigger/grip surfaces were hard plastic
2/6 textured grips
2/6 ridge on underside of grip
3/6 triggers had sharp or rough lines
3/6 elliptical grip shape, 3/6 rectangular
with round corners
Trigger
- length 66mm (sd 21.3)
- width 9.2mm (sd 4.1)
- thickness when depressed 17.2
(sd 11.8)
- travel distance 14mm (sd 8.9)
4/6 had safety button that was
pressed/moved when operating
trigger
2/6 awkward location of
safety button
Fig. 2. General characteristics/dimensions of bufng machines handles and controls: based on the measurement of six commonly used
machines during the expert assessment study stage.
vacuums as part of their job (Fig. 4). Schopp et al.
(1995) found that the customer is often disposed to
unnecessary stresses and strains while operating
professional vacuum cleaners at petrol stations,
e.g. large hose diameter and stiffness of material
required operators to exert high forces in guiding
the hose, nozzle shape required considerable force
to remove dirt.
Loopik et al. (1994) showed that difculties
experienced by subjects using three new types of
vacuum cleaner were mostly of a cognitive nature.
Some difculties could be solved by trial and error,
but the majority required subjects to consult
operating manuals. The main design criticisms
were: inappropriate grip (too short, too thin),
unintentional operation of the mechanical suction
power regulation, difculty changing the brush
control and adjusting the power suction.
1.4. This study
De Vito et al. (2000) reported an increased
prevalence of disorders of the elbow, wrist/hand
and cervical spine among cleaners that were
associated with work organisation and non-ergo-
nomic tools. Experimental and epidemiological
studies support the view that poor design and
excessive use of hand tools can increase the risk of
accidents, fatigue and musculoskeletal disorders
(Mital and Kilbom, 1992). Based on the ndings of
a ve-stage study on musculoskeletal ill heath that
drew heavily on the participation of the UK
cleaning workforce, the aims of this paper were to:
assess ergonomics problems for three types of
cleaning equipment;
provide guidelines for design modications of
this equipment where necessary;
put forward guidelines for purchasing cleaning
equipment.
As equipment manufacturers were not involved
in the sponsorship of this study, there was no bias
toward any particular equipment brand.
2. Methods
A number of methodologies were employed in
the ve stages of this study:
Questionnaire surveys: Questionnaires were dis-
tributed to 5000 cleaners throughout the UK to
ascertain the extent of musculoskeletal disorders
and discomfort, the type of work activities
conducted and equipment used during the working
day. The response rate was 31%. The sample
ARTICLE IN PRESS
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f )
Fig. 3. Commonly used mopping systems. (a) round head mop;
(b) squeezing round head mop; (c) long tailed mop; (d) hand
lever squeezing mechanism; (e) at mop; (f) foot operated
squeezing mechanism.
comprised 89% female workers with a mean age of
49 years.
Workplace assessments: Observation and inter-
views were conducted with approximately 60
cleaners carrying out their normal work activities
at nine UK workplaces (e.g. hospitals, schools,
retail outlets). Twenty-seven cleaners were ob-
served while bufng, 25 while mopping and 23
while vacuuming. Using a checklist, assessments
were made of manual handling tasks, force
requirements using dynamometers (e.g. lifting a
bucket, pushing a machine), the working environ-
ment (e.g. work oor surface) and work equipment
characteristics. Back and upper limb posture was
also observed; joint movement away from a
neutral position were classied by means of
picturegrams (Wiktorin et al., 1991). Subjective
assessments were made of pain and discomfort
using the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire
(Kourinka et al., 1987) and task requirements
using the Borg Perceived Exertion Scale. The
cleaners rated their perceived level of exertion on a
scale from 6 to 20, the end points were dened as
no exertion at all and maximal exertion (Borg,
1990). The cleaners were also interviewed about
work organisational issues (e.g. time pressure,
workload, colleague and managerial social sup-
port).
Expert assessments: An ergonomics assessment
was conducted on six bufng machines, three
mopping systems and four vacuum cleaners. The
bufng machines varied with respect to their
adjustability, weight and design of controls. The
mopping systems differed with regard to mop head
design (two round mops with different handle
length, one long tailed mop, one at mop) and
bucket type (plastic bucket with drain, buckets
with hand and foot operated squeezing systems).
Three tub vacuum cleaners (i.e. low machines with
detachable hose) and one upright vacuum cleaner
(i.e. operated with a handle attached to the main
machine at approximately waist height) differed in
terms of height, grip characteristics and pressure
required to activate settings. Checklists were
developed based on design guidelines for hand
tools proposed by Mital and Kilbom (1992). The
checklists comprised questions about general
characteristics (e.g. handle design, weight of
equipment) and critical dimensions (e.g. grip
circumference, travel distance of height adjustment
lever). Weighing scales and tape measures were
used to collect data. Force levels (e.g. to squeeze
mops, to activate buffer height adjustment me-
chanisms, to move equipment) were measured
using a Salter 500 N electronic force gauge and
attachments. Noise levels from equipment were
recorded using a digital integrating sound level
meter (Dawe Instruments). The tasks of raising
and lowering equipment were assessed using the
2D static strength predictor (Andersson et al.,
1991). A study of the vibration characteristics of
the bufng machines was undertaken; the results
of this study are reported elsewhere (Woods et al.,
1999).
User trial: Ten female cleaners (aged between 18
and 50 years) who used oor bufng machines,
vacuum cleaners and mops in the course of their
work participated in a laboratory trial. The
experimental design was based on a task analysis
of cleaning work and discussions with cleaners to
enable representative cleaning tasks and important
factors for investigation to be identied (Woods et
al., 1999). Subjects described the process they were
undertaking as they conducted the task required,
e.g. how to switch on machines, how pads/discs
were attached to machines. Subjective assessments
of perceived exertion (Borg, 1990) and force
required to use the machines were recorded. Using
a similar checklist to the workplace assessment,
expert assessments of the upper limbs and back
ARTICLE IN PRESS
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Commonly used vacuuming systems. (a) upright
vacuum; (b) tub vacuum.
were made throughout the trial. The subjects were
asked to indicate where they experienced pain and
discomfort while working, using the body maps
from the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire
(Kourinka et al., 1987). Three questionnaires were
developed based on the ndings of the expert
assessment in order to identify the users views of
various aspects of the equipment. Hand grip
strength was determined in standard postures
using the Robens Isometric Dynamometer incor-
porating a Novetek load cell (F201TC). The Polar
sports tester measured heart rate to investigate the
amount of effort required by subjects when
conducting the three tasks. Subjects wore Penny
and Giles electrogoniometers on their wrists to
measure exion and extension and radial and
ulnar deviation. The Lumbar Motion Monitor
(Marras et al., 1992) measured low back move-
ment.
Focus groups: Focus groups were held with two
groups, supervisors and managers (n=6) and
trainers, designers, manufacturers and suppliers
(n=15), in order to start the process of informa-
tion dissemination and to receive feedback on the
practicality of ndings and recommendations in
relation to the three tasks investigated. The study
team introduced the meeting by giving a brief
outline of the study. A summary of the main
ndings and recommendations for each of the
three tasks was then presented. The attendees
discussed the ndings and the usefulness of the
recommendations.
The results from the ve study stages were
drawn together and summarised for each cleaning
system: bufng, mopping, vacuuming. Table 1
indicates the objective and subjective data that was
collected at each study stage.
3. Results
3.1. Tasks conducted and pain and discomfort
The results of the questionnaire surveys indi-
cated that the majority of cleaners considered
bufng, mopping and vacuuming to be frequently
conducted tasks. Moving furniture and lifting
equipment were intrinsic to all three jobs. Respon-
dents also reported a number of related concerns:
working in a poor environment (i.e. inadequate
access to drains, sinks or plug sockets), conducting
repetitive tasks, using vibrating equipment and
working with the back and arms in awkward or
xed positions.
Seventy-four per cent of the sample had
experienced muscular aches, pain or discomfort
during the last 12 months; 53% reported these
problems in the last 7 days. The main areas of
concern were the lower back (46%), neck (33%),
knees (24%), right shoulder (23%) and right wrist/
hand (22%). Fifty-two per cent had taken medical
advice for these aches and pains, 23% of
respondents had been absent from work as a
result of aches and pains within the last 12 months.
Fifty-two per cent thought their aches and pains
were related to activities conducted or equipment
used at work, 25% attributed pain and discomfort
to bufng, 10% to mopping and 8% to vacuum-
ing. The majority of cleaners used cleaning
machines (e.g. vacuum cleaners, buffers) on a
daily basis. The main issues of concern for
machine use were:
lifting and carrying machines,
vibration from machines,
unsuitable handle shape, size and angle,
inadequate machine maintenance,
difculty with handle adjustment.
3.2. Bufng
3.2.1. Equipment design
The characteristics and dimensions of com-
monly used bufng machines are illustrated in
Figs. 1 and 2. A number of ergonomic concerns
were evident based on how bufng equipment was
used by cleaners at the workplace and in the
laboratory, comments made by the cleaners
throughout the study, and the dimensions and
characteristics of machines recorded during the
workplace and expert assessments:
Machine height: The upright handle height
was between standing elbow and shoulder height
for women and this could be too high for ease of
use by shorter females (Pheasant, 1996). Many
ARTICLE IN PRESS
cleaners at the workplace and in the laboratory
had to abduct their arms to operate the height
adjustment lever.
Machine weight: Bufng machines are heavy
pieces of equipment (approximately 34 kg). Clea-
ners reported that strenuous pushing and pulling
was frequently involved in bufng and this was
particularly evident if a bufng machine was used
on different oors of a building where no lift was
available. Force measurements taken when pulling
machines along or manoeuvring machines through
doors ranged from 30 to 40 N. It was mentioned
that machines were sometimes carried although
this was not observed.
In order to set-up machines for use and
subsequently change the pad/disc, it was necessary
to up-end machines. Taking into account ma-
chine weight and reports that machines were heavy
to lift from/lower to the ground, a number of force
measurements were taken, e.g. forces between 55
and 130 N were required to pull different bufng
machines to the ground. The levels of back
compression for lowering (males 16737123 N,
females 765756 N) and raising (males 2957
216 N, females 9527145 N) the machines were
within back compression design limits. 95% of the
population should be exposed to acceptable load
levels.
These concerns focussed on moving and hand-
ling equipment, however perceived exertion (RPE)
ratings of the bufng process were considered
fairly light (11.5RPE) at the workplace and some-
what hard (12.6RPE) in the laboratory. The
heartrate (HR) data also indicated that the bufng
task was classied as light to moderate work
(average HR below 90 beats/min).
Motor height: A higher motor height may be
difcult when using a bufng machine under low
furniture (e.g. a hospital bed).
Control: A number of bufng machines were
difcult to control on start-up. This was men-
tioned as a problem at workplaces visited and
during the user trial. In 59% of observed cases at
the workplace, there was a signicant jerk when
machines were started. In addition, if the buffer hit
a bump or some obstacle on the oor, it was
necessary to apply extra force to control, e.g. work
oor surface (rough, dirty oors).
Vibration: Cleaners reported that some ma-
chines vibrated during use and that this could be
due to poor machine maintenance or to incorrect
tting of discs/pads; cleaners also reported experi-
encing vibration from 2 of the 4 machines in the
user trial. In approximately 60% of observed cases
at the workplace, evidence of machine vibration
was documented.
Discs: Some discs were considered heavy (up to
3.5 kg). Grips for the pad were not always long
enough to allow easy attachment. Cleaners liked
feedback when they attached the disc to the
machine i.e. they liked to know the disc was
locked into position; some machines had an
audible click when the disc was positioned
correctly that was considered useful.
Controls/triggers: The awkward positions of the
safety switch (i.e. behind the T-shaped handle, on
the front panel) required cleaners to stretch to
reach the switch with the thumb while depressing
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Data collected on cleaning equipment at each study stage
Questionnaire Workplace Expert assessment Lab user trial Focus group
Equipment dimensions x x
Equipment characteristics x x x x
Posture x x x
Forces required x x x
Perceived force x x x
Perceived exertion x x
Pain and discomfort x x x
Solution nding and recommendations x x
the trigger with the ngers. Although, the presence
of a safety switch was recognised as a good
feature, the location should not affect control over
the machine. The trigger could not be locked-on
on any machine; this allowed the cleaner to let
go at any time for the machine to stop moving.
Table 2 shows the force measures recorded to
operate and hold triggers and the height adjust-
ment lever of six commonly used bufng machines.
The majority of measures exceeded the recom-
mended force levels (o10 N) to operate triggers
and levers (Mital and Kilbom, 1992).
In addition, the hand span required to stretch
from the handle to the height adjustment lever was
large (i.e. average measurement 105 mm). This was
greater than the recommended 4555 mm for lever
span (Pheasant, 1996). In the user trial, strength
measurements and measurements of force required
to operate the height adjustment lever allowed the
estimate of the proportion of maximum strength
the subject had to exert to operate the height
adjust mechanism. On average, the cleaners in the
user trial used 36% of their maximum strength in
the upright buffer position and 26% of their
maximum strength in the buffer operating position
to operate the height adjust mechanism. Pheasant
(1996) recommended that up to 30% of the
maximum strength was acceptable for frequent
exertions, suggesting that for the upright positions,
the strength required was greater than that
recommended for the average of the group.
Clearly, cleaners below this average would need
to exert a greater proportion of their maximum
strength in order to operate the height adjustment
lever. In addition, trigger comfort over time was a
frequently reported issue. The trigger was always
depressed while bufng and cleaners reported
experiencing pain and discomfort in their ngers
at the end of the day.
Handle design: A number of issues were
observed and reported about machine handles
that could cause unnecessary tissue compression:
ridges, rough lines, hard plastic grips.
Other dimensions: A number of dimensions fell
short of ergonomic guidelines: grip diameter,
handle grip length, trigger length, width and
thickness, lever length.
Safety: All machines did not have safety lights
and information.
Noise: Noise levels were less than the 85 dBA
recommendation for a full day exposure (Mital
and Kilbom, 1992); however cleaners reported that
they sometimes collided with people while bufng
as they could not hear them approaching due to
machine noise.
Flex management: A handle at the bottom of the
ex management system was found extremely
helpful in removing the ex from the machine.
The ex was wound around the machine handle
and lever at the bottom for storage. The lever was
twisted and the ex was removed easily from the
machine for use. A hook at the top of the machine,
to wrap the ex around and then to store the disc,
was considered practical.
3.2.2. Posture
Differences in postures adopted and techniques
used while bufng were apparent throughout the
study but the results have been drawn together to
produce general observations.
The neck was always exed while bufng.
Bufng machines are designed to be gripped
with both hands; however many cleaners were
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Force measurements (N) recorded to operate controls of six commonly used bufng machines
Action Mean Range sd No. machines that required
o10 N (Mital and Kilbom, 1992)
Operate right trigger 13.5 521.5 6.9 2/6
Operate left trigger 14.8 726.5 8.3 3/6
Hold right trigger 9.2 1.913.8 5.4 3/6
Hold left trigger 11.7 6.916 3.9 2/6
Adjust height lever 57.8 42108 25.9 0/6
observed to grip machines with one hand while
holding a spray bottle in the other.
Much wrist movement was apparent. Cleaners
were observed to ex and extend the wrist
and radial deviation and ulnar deviation
were also observed. Although these postures
were not always excessive, they were held
in static positions for considerable periods of
time. However in the user trial, a substantial
amount of this movement was greater than 50%
of the maximum wrist movement possible
(Table 3).
Power grips were evident.
The nger that operated the trigger was held in a
static pinch grip posture throughout the task.
The back was generally held in an upright or
slightly extended posture throughout the task.
Some lateral side exion and trunk rotation
were apparent.
Trunk exion greater than 601 was observed
when pads were changed. Squatting was also
common when changing pads.
3.2.3. Pain and discomfort
Fifty-two per cent of cleaners observed and
interviewed in the workplace experienced some
pain and discomfort at the time of observation. It
is acknowledged that this discomfort was not
necessarily associated with the bufng task in
particular, as cleaners conducted many different
work tasks during the day; however it does
support the high level of pain and discomfort
identied by the questionnaire survey. The pain
and discomfort reported in the laboratory follow-
ing the bufng trial was generally experienced in
the upper limbs, and the right side of the body was
highlighted in many cases. The cleaners used each
bufng machine for a short time, it must be
recognised that it was not uncommon for cleaners
to spend between 1 and 4h bufng at the workplace.
3.3. Mopping
The characteristics and dimensions of the three
mopping systems (Fig. 3) were assessed during the
ve study stages. A number of ergonomic concerns
were evident based on how the equipment was
used by cleaners in the workplace and laboratory,
comments made by the cleaners throughout the
study, and the dimensions and characteristics of
equipment that were recorded during the work-
place and expert assessments. The task require-
ments varied according to the mopping system in
use, these will be highlighted where necessary.
Weight: All mops weighed less than 3 kg.
Handle height: The average height of the mops
was 1378 mm (sd 17.2). The top of the mop was
between standing eye and shoulder height for
women and could be too high for ease of use by
shorter females (Pheasant, 1996). Awkward mop-
ping postures were observed in the workplace
assessment. Some cleaners exed their neck and
back while working. Where longer mop handles
were observed, less trunk exion was noted when
cleaning under furniture. Handle length was
explored further in the laboratory user trial where
both a long and short handle mop were used. The
longer handled mop was considered too long for
the cleaners as they preferred to work with their
hand over the top of the mop handle. The mean
height of cleaners in the user trial was 162 cm
(range 155173 cm, sd 5.5); a longer mop may be
useful for taller cleaners.
Handle diameter: The mean circumference was
75 mm (sd 5) and the average diameter was
24.3 mm (sd 1.2). Mital and Kilbom (1992)
recommended a grip diameter of 5060 mm for a
power/force grip.
Handle grip: The mop handles varied in grip
surface and material: ribbed plastic, smooth wood,
metal and plastic. Metal handles were considered
to be slippery and ribbed handles were found to be
uncomfortable over time. A number had a useful
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Percentage of time wrist postures were outside 50% of
maximum angles while working in the laboratory user trial
Left wrist Right wrist
F/E U/R F/E U/R
Buff 16% 29% 20% 31%
Mop 21% 44% 10% 17%
Vacuum 11% 37% 13% 19%
F/Eexion/extension; U/RUlnar/radial deviation.
rubber coating on the top of the handle to place
the hand and ensure a good grip.
Effort: Cleaners rated their perceived exertion
while mopping as somewhat hard (13.8RPE) at the
workplace and fairly light in the laboratory
(11RPE). In the workplace cleaners worked under
considerable time pressures which could not be
simulated in the laboratory. According to a
classication of the severity of work, mopping
was considered moderate with an average heart
rate above 90 beats/min.
Manual handling: A number of task requirements
were of concern: carrying buckets of water (ap-
proximately 10 kg), having to lift, ll and empty
buckets into basins/sinks at an unsuitable height. A
number of cleaners reported that lifting bigger
buckets (hand and foot lever buckets) was extremely
difcult. It was often necessary to move furniture to
mop, thereby placing an extra load on the worker.
Safety: It was essential to work safely with
chemicals during the mopping task. Gloves were
generally worn but cleaners mentioned that these
made their hands very hot and uncomfortable
while working.
Bucket design: The standard bucket was carried
in the hand, the other buckets could be dragged
along on wheels. The stability of the buckets was
considered an important issue: wheels were useful
for moving the bucket but the bucket was likely to
move while squeezing. Buckets with wheels were
not suitable for use on stairs.
Squeezing mechanism: High levels of force were
required to squeeze mops, regardless of method
employed (Table 4). Forces to operate the foot
pedal mechanism were higher than expected. These
exceeded the recommendation of 3050 N resis-
tance to operate pedals (Kroemer and Grandjean,
1997). It was reported that size of mop head must
suit the style of bucket, a smaller mop head was
easier to squeeze. Strength of the drain in the
standard mopping buckets was important as the
user must apply considerable force to squeeze
water from the mop.
3.3.2. Posture
used were apparent but the results have been
drawn together to produce general observations.
The neck was generally exed and often rotated.
The arms were often abducted, working above
mid chest height.
The mop was gripped by both hands. One hand
was placed lower on the handle to steer the mop;
the second was placed at the top of the handle to
apply force; this meant that this arm was
generally abducted.
Much wrist movement was apparent. The
cleaner had to ex and extend the wrist and
radial and ulnar deviation of the wrist were also
observed. Although these postures were not
always excessive, they were held in a static
position for a considerable amount of time.
However in the user trial, a substantial amount
of this movement was greater than 50% of the
maximum wrist movement possible (Table 3).
Some repeated turning of the forearm was also
observed.
The main postures of concern were trunk
rotation and trunk exion between 201 and
601. These postures were adopted for the
majority of the task. The trunk was sometimes
exed greater than 601 in order to mop under
furniture. Different techniques (e.g. gure of 8)
required less trunk exion. Cleaners were also
observed kneeling or in a squatting posture to
squeeze the mop.
Some forward reaches over 400 mm were
observed. Restricted access and obstructions
(e.g. under tables, beds and cleaning very small
toilet areas) in the workplace were a problem
while mopping.
Thirty-six per cent of cleaners interviewed at
the workplace experienced some pain and dis-
comfort at the time of observation; the main
problem areas were the back, shoulders, hands
and wrists. Once again, it is acknowledged that
this discomfort was not necessarily associated
only with mopping as this was not the cleaners
sole task; however it does support the high level
of pain and discomfort identied by the ques-
tionnaire survey. Low levels of pain and discom-
fort in the neck, back, and wrists were reported
in the laboratory following the mopping trial;
however it must be recognised that it was not
ARTICLE IN PRESS
uncommon for cleaners to spend between 1 and 4 h
mopping at the workplace.
3.4. Vacuum machines
The characteristics and dimensions of four
commonly used vacuum machines are shown in
Table 5. In general, control on start-up/
general control of the vacuum, vibration and
noise levels were found to be acceptable for
all vacuums by cleaners both at the workplace
and in the laboratory. However, a number
of ergonomic concerns were evident based on
how equipment was used by cleaners at the
workplace and in the laboratory, comments
made by the cleaners throughout the study,
and the dimensions and characteristics of
machines recorded during the workplace and
expert assessments.
Grip: Bullinger and Solf (1979) stated that
machines require a distinct grip area. The handle
grip length on two commonly used machines was
less than the recommended minimum of 120 mm
(Mital and Kilbom, 1992). Cleaners reported that
where grips were small, the metal pipe was difcult
to grip. The mean grip diameter was less than the
recommended 5060 mm for a power/force grip
(Mital and Kilbom, 1992). In addition, ridges on
machine grips caused discomfort.
Controls: The controls (e.g. on/off switch,
airow regulator) on a number of machines were
poorly located. Cleaners commented that airow
regulators were often positioned too close to the
grip.
Attachments: Cleaners were observed to stoop
and adopt awkward postures to use attachments
on both tub and upright vacuums.
Forces: Force measurements were recorded to
operate the foot controls of three commonly used
tub vacuums (the controls on the upright machine
were automatic) (Table 6). The controls on two of
the three machines met the recommendation of
3050 N resistance to operate pedals (Kroemer
and Grandjean, 1997). Force levels required to
move the machines were acceptable, falling well
below recommended limits of 100 N for men and
70 N for women (HSE, 1998). However, it must be
recognised that it was often necessary to move
furniture (up to 200 N) to conduct the task.
Effort: Cleaners rated their perceived exertion
while vacuuming as fairly light (11.9RPE in the
laboratory and 9.7RPE in the workplace). Indeed
some users said it was an easy and relaxing task.
According to a classication of the severity of
work, vacuuming was considered moderate with
average heart rates above 90 beats/min.
Manual handling: Some strenuous pushing and
pulling was involved in this task: moving furniture,
lifting and carrying vacuum cleaners. This was
particularly difcult if cleaners had to work on
different levels (e.g. tiered lecture theatre) as it was
necessary to lift the machine frequently and there was
sometimes little room (on stairs) to place the machine.
Workplace hazards: Sharp edges and low shel-
ving were a potential hazard and restricted access
and obstructions were also of concern to cleaners.
Flex management: Removing the ex from one
machine in the expert assessment affected the set-
up of the machine for use.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Force measurements recorded to squeeze mops using three commonly used squeezing mechanisms
Bucket Mop Method Approx. force
a
Comment
Standard Round Squeezed mop head into plastic
drain of bucket
200 N Some plastic drains inside
buckets were not strong enough
Hand lever Long tailed Pressed hand on wringer lever 200 N Had to place foot in front of
wheels to stop bucket moving
Foot pedal Flat Foot placed on lever, activated
brake and squeezed mop
64 N Splashing problem when
drawing mop through wringer
a
Approximate force levels only: the aim was to squeeze as much excess water from the mop as possible and this varied depending on
strength and effort exerted by cleaners.
Safety: The tub vacuums investigated in the
expert assessment and user trial stages of the study
did not have safety lights.
3.4.2. Posture
used while vacuuming were apparent throughout
the study but the results have been drawn together
to produce general observations:
The neck was generally rotated and exed, and
the arms often abducted.
Frequent wrist movement was apparent. Clea-
ners had to ex, extend and deviate the wrist. In
the user trial, a substantial amount of this
movement was greater than 50% of the max-
imum wrist movement possible (Table 3).
The right hand was generally used to apply force
and placed at the top of the handle, the left was
positioned lower down the handle to steer the
machine on the tub vacuum; the upright was
used with one hand.
Power grips were evident and working above
mid chest height was common.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 5
General characteristics and dimensions of four commonly used vacuum machines
Vacuum characteristic Comment
Weight All vacuum machines weighed less than 7 kg
Tub vacuums
Height Mean 406.7 mm (sd 132.8) Range 330560 mm
Grip circumference Mean 128.7 mm (sd 18.5) Range 118150 mm
Grip diameter Mean 42.7 mm (sd 7.02) Range 3650 mm
Grip length Mean 151.7 mm (sd 63.7) Range 110225 mm
Upright vacuum
Height 1180 mm
Grip circumference 105 mm
Grip diameter 34 mm
Grip length 100 mm
Grip surface 1 of 4 had a ridge between metal of shaft and plastic on grip
3/4 had a ridged grip
Changing bags/attachments All bags easy to attach
Upright: attachments were stored on machine
Safety Upright: safety light to indicate power was on
Tub: none
Flex management Upright: ex wrapped around handle
Tub: 1/3 had automatic recoil, 2/3 ex wrapped around top, 1/3 top came off when ex
removed
Noise level at 3 m Mean level 69 dBA (sd 1.2)
Activating settings 4/4 easy to switch on
2/4 position of on/off switch not obvious on side of equipment
2/4 airow regulator close to the grip area
Table 6
Force measurements (N) recorded to operate controls on three commonly used tub vacuums and one upright vacuum (where
applicable)
Force levels to Mean Range sd No. vacuums that met recommendation
Push foot control downwards on tub machines (n=3) 48.7 11110 53.6 2/3 (Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997)
Push foot control upwards on tub machines (n=3) 43.8 1395 44.6 2/3 (Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997)
Move vacuum machines (n=4) 14.1 920 4.5 4/4 (HSE, 1992)
The main trunk postures of concern when using
the tub vacuums were exion greater than 601
and exion between 201 and 601. Trunk rotation
(up to 451) and left side exion were apparent
(5151). When using the attachments, the back
was generally in extreme exion (50601) while
less trunk rotation and lateral side exion were
observed.
Less trunk exion was evident while using the
upright vacuum (5151). Some trunk rotation
was apparent (5101). Little side exion was
perceptible (o101). When using the attach-
ments, the trunk was exed to a greater degree
(20401). Similar levels of trunk rotation and
lateral movement were adopted as when using
the vacuum normally.
On a less frequent basis, cleaners were observed
in a kneeling or squatting posture in order to
vacuum under furniture, to manage the ex or
to use the power sockets.
Some forward reaches over 400 mm were
observed.
At the workplace 52% of cleaners experienced
some pain and discomfort at the time of observa-
tion; the main problem areas were the back,
shoulders and hands. It is acknowledged that
this discomfort was not necessarily associated
with vacuuming in particular as cleaners con-
ducted many different daily tasks; however it
does support the high level of pain and discomfort
identied by the questionnaire survey. Low
levels of pain and discomfort (low back, right
arm/wrist, neck) were reported in the laboratory
following the vacuuming trial; however it must be
recognised that it was not uncommon for cleaners
to spend between 1 and 2 h vacuuming at the
workplace.
4. Discussion
High prevalence rates of pain and discomfort
were found amongst the cleaning population
surveyed and interviewed, and action should be
taken to reduce these problems as the implications
for job performance, efciency and morale are
serious. The cleaners job comprises many tasks
that require awkward postures, high levels of force
and repetitive actions and 52% of the questionnaire
sample attributed their pain and discomfort to
activities/equipment at work. In order to address
some of these issues, the ergonomics of three types
of cleaning equipment have been investigated and
the following modications suggested.
4.1. Guidelines for equipment design modications
The suggested design modications (Tables 79)
are important for designers, manufacturers and
suppliers to consider. In addition, cleaning man-
agers, trainers and procurers of workplace equip-
ment should also be aware of what is considered
good equipment design to ensure their cleaning
workforce is able to work safely within the
constraints of their specic work environments.
It must be recognised that professional cleaners
generally work in facilities planned for other work
processes and other workers. Buildings and inter-
ior facilities are not typically designed to accom-
modate smooth and ergonomic cleaning and to
provide the optimal workload for cleaners (Kru -
ger et al., 1997, p. 9). The main ergonomic
deciencies identied by the cleaning workforce
and ergonomic assessments were:
Bufng machines
Excessive machine height and weight
Vibration (Woods et al., 1999)
Poor grip, trigger and lever design
High pressure required to activate controls
Awkward location of controls
Lack of feedback when attaching discs
A number of these problems were identied in
previous studies (Haslam and Williams, 1999;
Hide et al., 2000; Kilpatrick et al., 1991). A
summary of modications for consideration in
future designs of bufng machines are shown in
Table 7. These suggestions were discussed and
modied based on the focus group discussions
with representatives of the cleaning industry. The
supervisors and managers supported many of the
problems identied by the research team and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
suggested that there was an inherent risk in the
design of the machine. The designers and manu-
facturers, on the other hand, believed that the ill
health problems experienced by cleaners were due
to lack of training on bufng machines.
Mopping systems
Unsuitable mop heights
Uncomfortable grip design
High pressure required to squeeze mops
Difculty handling heavy buckets
Bucket instability
A summary of design modications for considera-
tion in future mopping systems are shown in Table 8.
These suggestions were discussed and modied based
on the focus group discussions with representatives of
the cleaning industry. Both supervisors/managers
and designers/manufacturers/suppliers groups recog-
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 7
Suggested design modications for bufng machines
Lighten machines for easy manoeuvre, lowering/raising and control; this may be done by using more plastic rather than metal parts
Machines with different handle heights should be designed to accommodate all workers
Reduce disc weight to 12 kg to make the task of attaching the disc to the machine easier to complete; ensure spikes on disc are not
too sharp; an audible click when the disc is attached correctly is recommended
Controls
Lower forces for adjusting levers or triggers to less than 10 N (Mital and Kilbom, 1992); alternatively other designs should be
investigated (e.g. hand operated lever lower on the handle or a foot pedal)
Reduce span of levers and handles to 4555 mm (Pheasant, 1996)
Ensure grip length is 120 mm (Mital and Kilbom, 1992) to provide enough space for the hand
Grip diameter should be 5060 mm for a power/force grip (Mital and Kilbom, 1992)
Triggers should be longer to spread the load over four rather than on one or two ngers. Kilpatrick et al. (1991) recommend 85 mm
for trigger length on bufng machines
Trigger width should be 15 mm and 23 mm when depressed (Kilpatrick et al., 1991); changing the trigger thickness would reduce
the distance the hand is required to span
Ensure the surface of grips/triggers/switches are smooth to remove the risk of discomfort for the user
Safety
Provide safety lights and safety information on machines
Ensure location of safety switch/button is suitable to avoid stretching and to increase the users control and grip on the machine
Flex management
Outriggers and ex restraints are useful to prevent the ex getting tangled in the users feet
A hook on the front of the machine for storage of disc/pad is a useful feature
Systems to allow easy storage and access to the ex are recommended
Table 8
Suggested design modications for mopping systems
Mops with different length handles should be available for purchase
Design of adjustable mop handles could be explored
Mop handle surface should be smooth
User trials are required to ascertain if a larger grip diameter would be benecial
A rubber coating on the top of the mop shaft improves grip
As some buckets were heavy when full, it is recommended that manual handling risks are minimised by, for example, installing inner
containers inside larger buckets
The pressure required to squeeze the mop should be reduced on all mop systems
Stronger plastic drains should be made for handheld buckets
The problem of splashing when dragging the mop through the squeezer system needs more design consideration as chemicals are
used to clean oors
A braking system is needed on buckets with wheels while squeezing
nised that cheap mops and relatively cheap labour
combined to inhibit progress on mopping systems
and agreed that mop handle length should be tailored
to the individual and the task. Hand lever bucket
systems were considered better for posture and
effectiveness than the round mop and bucket.
However, they also thought there was a number of
concerns about the weight of these buckets e.g.
lling/emptying in high level sinks. Another work-
place issue was reported regarding the increasingly
frequent installation of non-slip ooring; it was
generally regarded as very difcult to clean and
unsuitable for mopping; a machine was regarded as
the appropriate method for cleaning these oors.
Vacuum machines
Inadequate attachment length
Poor grip design
Lack of safety lights to indicate power is on
Flex management difculties
Poor location of controls
A number of these problems were identied in
the Loopik et al. (1994) study of customer
vacuuming systems. A summary of modications
for consideration in future vacuum machine
designs are shown in Table 9. These suggestions
were discussed and modied based on focus group
discussions with representatives of the cleaning
industry. The groups reported that upright ma-
chines were better for cleaning large carpeted
areas. Tub vacuums were generally regarded as
more versatile but took longer to vacuum a large
area and caused problems on steps (e.g. lecture
theatres) where backpacks were seen as a possible
alternative.
4.2. Equipment purchasing checklist
On the basis of discussion with cleaners and
other cleaning industry representatives, and ergo-
nomic assessments and observation, the purchasing
checklist was compiled to aid selection of suitable
cleaning equipment (Appendix A). This checklist
highlights the importance of the equipment pur-
chaser taking into account the particular require-
ments of the workforce, tasks undertaken and the
work environment (e.g. location of taps, storage
facilities, access, and oor surface materials) prior
to equipment purchase. In addition, the checklist
emphasises the importance of consultation and
participation of the cleaning workforce; user trials
would be vital to answer many of the checklist
items. Where available, recommended dimensions
for equipment design have been incorporated into
the checklist that may be useful when in discussion
with equipment suppliers/manufacturers; however
these are only recommendations and it is important
to ensure the equipment dimensions suit all
members of the particular workforce.
4.3. Study limitations
It is acknowledged that the questionnaire
response rates were low; in addition, the limita-
tions of cross-sectional studies are well documen-
ted (Silman and MacFarlane, 2002). A study by
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 9
Suggested design modications for vacuum machines
A distinct grip area is required (Bullinger and Solf, 1979) e.g., the airow regulator was positioned close to the handgrip on a
number of machines
The grip should be of adequate size in terms of length (120 mm) and diameter (5060 mm)
The grip texture should be smooth
The attachments on both tub and upright vacuums should be made longer to prevent the cleaner stooping and adopting awkward
postures
Ensure on/off switches are prominent
The resistance of foot controls should not exceed 50 N (Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997)
Flex management systems should not interfere with other facilities/switches
Install safety lights/information
Hansson et al. (2001) found that questionnaire
assessment exposure data had low validly among
cleaners and ofce workers and that direct
measures were considered essential. In this ve-
stage study of the UK cleaning workforce, a
combination of methodologies was used to explore
musculoskeletal health. The questionnaire sug-
gested risk factors worthy of further exploration
in the workplace and in the laboratory where a
number of direct measures (i.e. wrist goniometry,
lumbar motion monitor of the back, heart rate
data) were recorded in addition to the collection of
subjective data using qualitative methods (e.g.
verbal protocols, interviews, focus groups). It is
considered that this participative approach using a
triangulation of methods has given good insight
into the musculoskeletal health of the UK cleaning
workforce.
The difference between perceived exertion
ratings of the bufng task in the workplace
(11.5RPE) and laboratory (12.6RPE) may
have resulted from variations in machines in
the user trial; users may not have been familiar
with all bufng machines and consequently
found some more difcult to use. In ad-
dition, cleaners in the user trial did not use
bufng machines as frequently as those at the
workplace.
5. Conclusions
Taking an ergonomics approach that incorpo-
rated scientic ndings and user feedback from the
applied work and laboratory setting, this paper
has highlighted a number of inadequacies in the
design of commonly used cleaning equipment that
results in extreme, static or constrained postures,
repetitive movements, heavy workload and high
force requirement. Given the demographics of the
cleaning workforce (Kru ger et al., 1997), the
prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (De Vito
et al., 2000; Woods et al., 1999), and the amount of
time the equipment was used on a daily basis, it is
important to ensure the equipment design is safe
and suitable for all users and that appropriate
equipment is selected to meet the needs of a
particular workforce.
Although previous research has highlighted a
number of ergonomic deciencies with bufng
machine design, this paper has also explored the
design and use of workplace mopping and
vacuuming systems. It has attempted to present a
practical set of suggested equipment modications.
As found in previous research (e.g. Kru ger et al.,
1997), this study indicated that health problems
amongst the cleaning population are high and a
long-term approach to reduce these health in-
equalities must be considered. It is recommended
that an effective risk reduction programme must
tackle the problems on a broad front involving all
interested parties: equipment manufacturers, de-
signers and suppliers, employers, managers/super-
visors, trainers and the cleaners themselves.
Designers and manufacturers should accept the
design challenges presented (e.g. more user trials
are required) and work with researchers to
improve designs of cleaning equipment to ensure
good musculoskeletal health, working posture and
technique. This must be done in consultation with
representatives of the cleaning workforce. Those in
charge at the workplace must be aware of good
ergonomic design principles and the requirements
of their workforce. The purchasing checklist
emphasises the importance of good ergonomic
equipment design, the vital role of consultation
and participation with the workforce in the
purchasing process (e.g. through trialling and
discussion) and the importance of considering the
needs of the particular workforce, task and
environment in the equipment selection process.
This paper concentrates mainly on equipment
and postures adopted when in use. It is acknowl-
edged that this represents only one aspect of the
work system that inuences musculoskeletal
health. Concentrating only on physical ergonomic
factors (i.e. equipment design, reduction in forces,
improvement in postures) may not achieve as
much benet in terms of reduction in sickness
rates/musculoskeletal ill health as a more holistic
approach that also takes account of work organi-
sational risk factors. The Moray model (2000)
emphasised the importance of individual, team,
group and managerial behaviours and the organi-
sational culture in the work system as well at the
physical ergonomics issues. This approach was
ARTICLE IN PRESS
used in a further study that developed case studies
for the cleaning industry to tackle musculoskeletal
ill health and focussed on changes to equipment,
training, workplace, work organisation and occu-
pational health management (Woods and Buckle,
2003).
The results of this ve-stage study indicated that
safe use of equipment depends not only on the
weight and shape of the equipment but also on:
tasks performed (e.g. moving/lifting furniture
and equipment were intrinsic to all three
cleaning tasks),
intended user groups (e.g. age, strength),
training and handling instructions; although
training, however effective, cannot overcome
inherent risks in either equipment design or in
the work system,
interaction with other equipment (e.g. gloves),
work environments (e.g. quality of ooring
surface, provision of low drains, selection of
workplace equipment/furniture for easy main-
tenance),
scheduling/organisation of work (e.g. length,
duration, frequency),
social support systems (e.g. low appreciation of
work).
The results of this paper could also be used to
identify areas for application of ergonomics design
principles to products in the home. Marut and
Hedge (1999) found that scrubbing, mopping and
vacuuming were perceived as some of the most
tiring household tasks; this could be a result of
poor equipment design.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and
UNISON who funded this research.
Appendix A
When purchasing any workplace equipment, it
is important to consider the following:
1. Have you consulted your workforce about
machine/equipment requirements?
2. Is the equipment an acceptable weight for all
the workforce?
3. Is the equipment a suitable height for all the
workforce?
4. Is the equipment easy to move (e.g. wheels
move easily)?
5. Is the equipment stable and does it
move smoothly (i.e. no sudden applications
of force required or shock loading to the
hands)?
6. Are all controls/levers easy to reach and use
(for left and right handed workers)?
7. Are the controls/levers comfortable to operate
(e.g. no uncomfortable ridges)?
8. Is it possible to grip the machine easily:
acceptable hand span (4555 mm)?
9. Are the forces required to operate triggers,
controls and levers acceptable (o10 N)?
10. Are all parts easily adjustable (including access
to and use of attachments/accessories)?
11. Does the equipment provide feedback to the
user when an action is completed (e.g. click
when attach disc correctly)?
12. Is there perceptible vibration from the equip-
ment?
13. Is the noise from the equipment acceptable
(o85 dBA for full day exposure)?
14. Are safety lights and information provided on
the equipment?
15. Are safety lights/controls in good locations in
terms of visibility and reach?
16. Is ex management acceptable (e.g. outriggers
that hold ex away from handle)?
17. Is cable length adequate (e.g. think about
availability of plug sockets, extension leads
etc)?
18. Is the equipment suitable for your work
environment (e.g. stairs, lifts, ramps, access,
size of rooms, restricted spaces)?
19. Have you considered providing a range of
equipment at the workplace to accommodate
all potential users?
20. Have you trialled this equipment at the work-
place with a representative sample of your
workforce and taken the feedback from users
into consideration?
ARTICLE IN PRESS
References
Aickin, C., 1998. Ergonomic assessment (manual handling) of
cleaning work. Productivity ergonomics and safetythe
total package. In: Proceedings of the International Work-
place Health and Safety Forums and the 33rd Ergonomics
Society of Australia Conference 1998. Gold Coast, Aus-
tralia, 6pp.
Andersson, G.B.J., Chafn, D.B., Pope, M.H., 1991. Occupa-
tional biomechanics of the lumbar spine. In: Pope, M.H.,
Andersson, G.B.J., Frymoyer, J.W., Chafn, D.B. (Eds.),
Occupational Low Back Pain. Mosby Year Book, St. Louis,
pp. 2043.
Borg, G., 1990. Psychophysical scaling with application in
physical work and the perception of exertion. Scandinavian
Journal of Work Environment and Health 16, 5558.
Bullinger, H.J., Solf, J.J., 1979. Ergonomische arbeitsmittelges-
taltung I. In: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz (Eds.),
Systematik. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz, Dortmund,
Germany.
Cleaning and Support Services Association (CSSA), 2002.
Available online from: http://www.cleaningindustry.org/
[Accessed 13 April 2004].
De Vito, G., Molteni, G., Camerino, D., Bordini, L., Molinari,
M., Capodaglio, P., 2000. Ageing at work: health aspects in
cleaners. Medicina del Lavero 91, 387402.
Edsberg, E., Haakonsen, H., Myhre, H., Festervoll, I., Winge,
T., Bjorset, HH., et al., 1983. Theme ergonomics. Arbeids-
miljo 8, 1555.
English, C.J., Maclaren, W.M., Court-Brown, C., Hughes, S.P.,
Porter, R.W., Wallace, W.A., et al., 1989. Clinical
epidemiological study of relations between upper limb soft
tissue disorders and repetitive movements at work. Edin-
burgh Report TM/88/19, Institute of Occupational Medi-
cine.
Hagner, I.M., Hagberg, M., 1989. Evaluation of two oor
mopping work methods by measurement of load. Ergo-
nomics 32, 401408.
Hansson, G.A
., Balogh, I., Bystro m, U.J., Ohlsson, K.,

Nordander, C., Asterland, P., et al., 2001. Questionnaire
versus direct technical measurements in assessing postures
and movements of the head, upper back, arms and hands.
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health 27,
3040.
Haslam, R.A., Williams, H.J., 1999. Ergonomics considerations
in the design and use of single disc oor cleaning machines.
Applied Ergonomics 30, 391399.
Health and Safety Executive, 1998. Manual Handling Opera-
tions Regulations 1992: Guidance on Regulations. HSE
Books, Suffolk.
Hide, S., Morris, W., Haslegrave, C.M., Okunribido, O.O.,
Nichols, S.C., 2000. Evaluating the use of single disc oor
cleaners. In: McCabe, P.T., Hanson, M.A., Robertson, S.A.
(Eds.), Contemporary Ergonomics 2000. Taylor and Fran-
cis, London, pp. 307311.
Holshuijsen, J., Wichers, F., Harlaar, J., 1997. A traditional
mop versus a at mop: a study of the effects of adjustment
to the design of a mop on the muscle workload measured by
means of electromyography. Tijdschrift voor Ergonomie 22,
109114.
Huisman, M., 1992. Task analysis or safe lifting pro-
grammes? A case study. In: Laird, I., Slappendel, C.
(Eds.), Ergonomics: Design for Usability. Proceed-
ings of the Fourth Conference of the New Zealand
Ergonomics Society, Palmerston North, 2627 March 1992,
pp. 7577.
Johansson, S.E., Ljunggren, G., 1989. Perceived exertion during
a self-imposed pace of work for a group of cleaners. Applied
Ergonomics 20, 307312.
Kilpatrick, D., Meyer, P., Musicka, D., Montgomery, L., 1991.
Ergonomic, design and health risks of electric scrubber-
polished machines. Report from Kilpatrick and Associates
PTY LTD for Miscellaneous Workers Union.
Kourinka, I., Jonsson, B., Kilbom, A., Vinterberg, H., Bierig-
Sorenson, F., Anderson, G., et al., 1987. Standardised
Nordic questionnaire for the analysis of musculoskeletal
symptoms. Applied Ergonomics 18, 233237.
Kroemer, K.H.E., Grandjean, E., 1997. Fitting the task to the
human. A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics, Fifth ed.
Taylor & Francis, London.
Kru ger, D., Louhevaara, V., Nielsen, J., Schneider, T., 1997.
Risk Assessment and Preventative Strategies in Cleaning
Work. Wirtschaftsverlag NW, Bremerhaven.
Liverpool Occupational Health Project. 1991. 3rd Annual
Report 1992/3 (Unpublished).
Loopik, W.E.C., Kanis, H., Marinissen, A.H., 1994. The
operation of new vacuum cleaners, a users trial. In:
Robertson, S.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 1994.
Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 3439.
Louhevaara, V., 1997. Professional cleaning in the European
Union: ergonomics. In: Das, B., Karwowski, W. (Eds.),
Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety 1997.
IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 565568.
Louhevaara, V., Hopsu, L., Sgaard, K., 2000. Cardio-
respiratory strain during oor mopping with different
methods. In: Ergonomics for the New Millennium. Proceed-
ings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International
Ergonomics Association and the 44th Annual Meeting of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 5, San
Diego, CA, USA, July 29August 4, pp. 518520.
Marras, W., Fathallah, F., Miller, R., Davis, S., Mirka, G.,
1992. Accuracy of a three dimensional lumbar motion
monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion character-
istics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 9,
7587.
Marut, M., Hedge, A., 1999. Ergonomic survey of household
tasks and products. In: Houston.. We Have a Solution!
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
43rd Annual Meeting. Houston, TX, September 27October
1, vol. 1. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
Santa Monica, CA, pp. 506510.
Messing, K., Haentjens, C., Doniol-Shaw, G., 1992. Invisible
and essential: the work activity of women who clean toilets
in passengers trains. Travail Humain 5, 353370.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Mital, A., Kilbom, A
., 1992. Design, selection and use of

hand tools to alleviate trauma of the upper extremities:
Part IIthe scientic basis (knowledge base) for the
guide. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 10,
721.
Moray, N., 2000. Culture, politics and ergonomics. Ergonomics
43, 858868.
Pheasant, S., 1996. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics
and the Design of Work. Taylor & Francis, London.
Schopp, R., Dangelmaier, M., Eckert, R., 1995. Handling of
professional vacuum cleaners. In: Bittner, A.C., Champney,
P.C. (Eds.), Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety
VII. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 10571062.
Silman, A.J., MacFarlane, G., 2002. Epidemiological Studies:
A Practical Guide, second ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Sgaard, K., Fallentin, N., Nielsen, J., 1996. Work load during
oor cleaning: the effect of cleaning methods and work
technique. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology 73, 7381.
Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Eskelinen, L., Jarvinen, E., Toikka-
nen, J., Klockars, M., 1991. Prevalence and incidence rates
of diseases and work ability in different work categories of
municipal occupations. Scandinavian Journal of Work
Environment and Health 17 (Suppl.), 6774.
Wiktorin, C., Karlqvist, L., Nygard, C.H., Winkel, J., 1991.
Design and reliability of a questionnaire for estimation of
physical load in epidemiological studies. In: Queinnec, Y.,
Daniellou, F. (Eds.), Designing for Everyone: Proceedings of
the 11th Congress of the International Ergonomics Associa-
tion. Paris, France, 1518 July 1991, vol. 1. pp. 2302322.
Woods, V., Buckle, P., 2003. Caring for cleaners. Guidance and
Case Studies on How to Prevent Musculoskeletal Disorders.
HSE Books, Suffolk.
Woods, V., Buckle, P., Haisman, M., 1999. Musculoskeletal
Health of Cleaners. HSE Books, Suffolk.
ARTICLE IN PRESS

An Investigation Into The Design and Use of Workplace Cleaning Equipment

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

An Investigation Into The Design and Use of Workplace Cleaning Equipment

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (2005) 247266

An investigation into the design and use of workplace

., Balogh, I., Bystro m, U.J., Ohlsson, K.,

., 1992. Design, selection and use of

Potrebbero piacerti anche