International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Preliminary results of hand arm vibration (HAV) exposures of chipping

hammer operators in tropical weather: Analysis of exposures and
protective gloves
G.H.M.J. Subashi De Silva *, T.R.S.T. Wijewardana
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Objectives of this study are to analyze the HAV exposures of chipping hammer operators from field measure­
Hand arm vibration ments and to investigate the potential of various types of gloves in reducing the exposures. HAV exposures of
Chipping hammer operators twelve male operators were measured at four different operating conditions: bare hand, wearing normal
Construction industry
workman gloves, wearing heavy workman gloves and wearing vibration reducing gloves. From the measure­
Protective gloves
ments, 8 h exposure values were determined and assessed against standards. The total vibration values were
determined and effectiveness in vibration attenuation by gloves was compared. It was found that all most all
operators, HAV exposure levels exceeded the exposure action value (EAV) and about 83% of the operators
exceeded the exposure limit values (ELV). A reduction in the total vibration magnitude was observed with
protective gloves: 8.3% with normal workman gloves, 14.6% with heavy workman gloves and 40% with
vibration-reducing gloves. To confirm the effectiveness of the vibration reducing gloves, further field in­
vestigations are required with simultaneous measurements by considering parameters affecting HAV (i.e., hand
forces and postures).

1. Introduction limitations. For example, vibration magnitudes have been limited to the
values available on the tool manuals without conducting the actual
Occupational exposure to Hand Arm Vibration (HAV) is very com­ measurements in construction sites (López-Alonso et al., 2013). In such a
mon in workers during the operation of hand held power tools, machines case, actual site conditions and more reliable assessments could not be
and other construction activities (Vihlborg et al., 2017; Swuste et al., obtained. Besides, the vibration values that are described by the man­
1997). Long term occupational exposure to hand-arm vibration has been ufacturers are usually lower than the values measured under actual site
associated with disorders in the vascular, neurological, and musculo­ conditions (Ainsa et al., 2011). As compared to the laboratory in­
skeletal structures of the human hand arm system (Griffin,1990, Heaver vestigations, field investigations have numerous advantages; measure­
et.al, 2011). It has been found that exposure to vibrations from ments are more reliable and actual site conditions can be taken into
hand-held power tools can cause direct damage to muscle fibers as well account not only for the assessments of vibration exposures, but also for
as nerves (Necking et al., 2004). evaluation of strategies to reduce HAV exposures.
HAV exposure of operators in the construction industry is inevitable, Strategies to reduce HAV exposure of chipping hammer operators, in
mainly because, without the vibratory tools the required task can’t be general, can be divided into three categories. The first is design con­
completed. Chipping hammer (Fig. 1), which has a build-in shaking siderations such as manufacturing vibratory tools with lower vibration
device, is among such tool. Operators, who engaged in concrete demo­ exposure levels, although this method is expensive. The second category
lition by using the chipping hammer, are exposed to HAV. is proper planning and maintenance of the operation period and the
Characteristics and control methods for human exposures to HAV work site. Maintenance of the site, rotating operators, changes in envi­
have been studied previously (López-Alonso et al., 2013; Ainsa et al., ronment and planning of the work are of great importance for certain
2011). However, most of the previous researches related to HAV in­ groups of vibratory related machineries including chipping hammer,
vestigations were carried out inside laboratories with various which operates within limited areas. To achieve proper planning and

* Corresponding author. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering University of Ruhuna, Galle Sri Lanka.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G.H.M.J.S. De Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103197
Received 9 April 2020; Received in revised form 8 August 2021; Accepted 30 August 2021
Available online 11 September 2021
0169-8141/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

reducing HAV exposures have not been understood. Objectives of this

research are to analyze the HAV exposures of chipping hammer opera­
tors from field measurements and to investigate the potential of various
types of gloves used in reducing HAV of chipping hammer operators in
construction industry.

2. Methodology

2.1. Operators and measuring condition

Twelve operators were selected as the study group. All the subjects
were male, in a 20–55 years age group (average age 35 years) weight of
55–63 kg (average weight 58 kg), hand size of 20–21 cm (average 20.2
cm) and were trained manpower for construction vibratory machinery
Fig. 1. Chipping hammer. handling. During operation of the electric hammer, having D-shaped
handle, 13.6 kg weight, and piston stroke of 75 mm, operators were in
standing anterior lean posture. The measurements were taken on one
maintenance, identifying the characteristics of the HAV exposure and
hand (i.e, the hand used to hold the top handle of the hammer) while the
assessments of them against the recommendation of standards are
operators carried out concrete (Grade 25) demolition work in building
increasingly important. The measurements and risk assessment of HAV
construction sites. During the measurements, the weather condition was
exposures are regulated in different international standards ISO 5349–1
clam sunny with temperature of 30.0 ◦ C and humidity of 68%. Informed
(2001), ISO 5349–2 (2001), CEN/TR 15350 (2013), ASA S2.70-(2006),
consent was obtained from the participant, before recording
and the Directive 2002/44/EC, 2002 in the European Union (European
measurements.
Council, 2002). Limits for the duration and intensity of exposure to vi­
brations at workplaces provide a solution to reduce the long-term vi­
2.2. Instrument
bration exposures, but it is not often sufficient.
The other way to reduce the HAV exposure by the operator is to
A six channel vibration meter, SVANTEK 106 (SVANTEK Sp. z o. o,
isolate the vibration receiving to hand arm system with proper mecha­
Poland) (Fig. 2(a)), was used as the instrument. From the SVANTEK
nisms (i.e. gloves or handle vibration isolator) to absorb energy. The use
instrument, tri-axial hand arm accelerometer (Fig. 2(b)) was used to
of different kinds of glove types has been studied previously. However,
measure the exposure levels of hand arm vibrations that transfer to the
the studies were mostly performed in controlled environment set up in
palm. The vibration measurements were done in accordance with ISO
laboratories (Milosevicand McConville, 2012; Hamouda et al., 2017).
5349 standards. The hand arm vibration accelerometer was mounted
Although laboratory environments provide some control on parameters,
following defined coordinate system as shown in Fig. 2(c) and also by
the investigation of vibration attenuation characteristics of the gloves in
following the coordinate system on the accelerometer shown in Fig. 2
laboratory environment might be different from the gloves in the work
(d). SVANPC++ software together with instrument was used to analyze
used with the vibratory handled tools. In work with the hand held
the vibration measurements.
vibrating tools, the apparent mass of the whole hand contributed to the
vibration transmission to the hand, where as in the laboratory envi­
2.3. Measuring vibration exposure levels
ronment, it is mostly limited to the apparent mass of the palm (Rezali
and Griffin, 2016). The effectiveness of vibration attenuation of glove
Tri-axial hand arm accelerometer was mounted on the center of the
depends on tools (Griffin, 1998; Rakheja et al., 2002), the location (i.e.,
palm of the operator to coincide with the axis system defined for the
palm or fingers) (Dong et al., 2009) and the direction of vibration
hands in ISO-5349-1 (2001) standards: y: along the handle axis, z: along
(Hewitt, 2010), indicating that field measurement and assessment will
the forearm, x: perpendicular to y and z. When using gloves to isolate
provide clear understanding on the effectiveness of protecting gloves in
HAV exposures from the hand, HAV accelerometer was mounted on the
attenuation of HAV exposure. Attenuation of HAV exposures is
palm and then the glove was applied on the top of the sensor. Frequency
increasingly important for reducing the health risk to hand arm vibra­
weighted root mean squared (RMS) values of HAV exposures were
tion syndrome.
recorded. For each operator, vibration measurements were made in
Hand arm vibration syndrome commonly includes “vibration-
three orthogonal directions (Fig. 2 (c)). HAV exposures were measured
induced white finger”, caused by dysregulation in the peripheral
for about 3 min duration to obtain a representative sample of a satis­
vascular response to cold and “tingling and numbness in the fingers”,
factory working interval of the vibratory related activities. Measure­
often identified as disorders in the sense of touch (Rezali and Griffin,
ments were recorded after adjusting the start delay time of 5 s, frequency
2016). In tropical environment (average annual temperature of 28 ◦ C
weighting curve set up for HAV and data logging time of 100 ms s, under
(ranges from 24 to 32 ◦ C) total annual rainfall of 4000 mm), there is less
instrumental setup. In each second, the rms of accelerations were
risk on vibration induced white finger (Su et al., 2012), while the finger
recorded in the previous ten 100 ms intervals (rms of 10 accelerations).
tingling and numbness and musculoskeletal pain of the upper limbs are
The total vibration exposure duration for each subject was obtained
identified as disorders associated with HAV exposures (Su et al., 2014,
by addition of the operating durations. Based on the interviews with
De Silva and Karunarathna, 2017). However, a recent study (Xiao et al.,
operators, it was identified that they engaged in chipping hammer
2019) has shown the similar symptoms of white finger among tools
operating for 2 h in a normal working day, excluding the breaks and rest
operators in warmer climates in sub-tropical environment. Therefore, in
times. Therefore; their exposure duration (i.e. T) was considered as 2 h.
hot-humid tropics, chipping hammer operators, who are occupationally
exposed to hand-arm vibration, require hand protection using gloves.
2.4. Analysis
Construction industry in hot-humid-tropics, vibration-reducing gloves
are less used as compared to the heavy workman gloves and normal
From the measurements, 8 h exposure values, A(8), were calculated
workman gloves, possibly because vibration-reducing gloves tend to
to find the standardized daily exposure values. Eight hour exposure
limit the manual dexterity of the operator, and adversely affect the grip
values were obtained using Equation (1) (European Directive
strength (Wimer et al., 2010). The effectiveness of these gloves in
2002/44/EC (2002), ISO Standard 5349 (2001)).

2
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

Fig. 2. Measuring vibration exposure levels, (a) Six channel vibration meter, (b) Tri-axial hand arm accelerometer, (c) Defined axis system in ISO 5349 and (d)
Defined axis system on the sensor.

√̅̅̅̅̅
T 2.6. Effect of gloves
A(8) = ahv (1)
T0
Three types of gloves were selected from a glove manufacturing
where: company (Fig. 3(a) and (b) and 3(c)). Characteristics of gloves used in
ahv is the total magnitude of vibration (in, m/s2), T is the actual the study are summarized in Table 1. The vibration exposure levels of
duration of exposure in hours and T0 is the reference duration of 8 h. the same 12 operators were measured when operators were wearing the
The total magnitude of vibration, ahv , was determined as in Equation three types of gloves and operating the chipping hammer at the working
(2). condition same as previously (i.e., continuing the same task). The op­
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ erators were asked to relax for 15 min between the successive mea­
ahv = a2 wx + a2 wy + a2 wz (2) surements with different types of gloves. The order of the measurements
was randomized among the operators with four measuring conditions:
where; awx, awy and awz are the weighted root-mean-square (RMS) ac­ without gloves, with normal workman gloves, with heavy workman
celeration values, in m/s2, measured in three orthogonal directions, x, y gloves, with vibration-reducing gloves (Table 2). HAV exposures were
and z, respectively. The frequency-weighting used was the Wh weighting measured and daily vibration exposure levels were determined as
function. explained in preceding section.
For the analysis, the actual duration of exposure was used as 2 h by For each operator, total vibration magnitude, ahv, was determined,
considering the actual time that the operators handle the vibratory for the four conditions of measuring exposure levels listed in Table 2.
equipment. Experiences of operators and information from site engi­ The differences in the total vibration magnitude were normalized by
neers were considered to obtain “T” as 2 h. For obtaining more comparing them to the condition when no glove was used, allowing
comparative results for the daily vibration exposure values, A(8), were relative comparison of each glove type in the reduction of vibration
also calculated by using the reduced exposure time T as 1 h, though in exposures. After the ahv values were obtained, the percentage reduction
the practical scenarios actual value of T was 2 h. of exposure was calculated from Equation (3).
(ahv1 )aver − (ahvi )aver
2.5. Assessment of exposure levels Exposure reduction (%) = x 100 (3)
(ahv1 )aver
Eight hour exposure value, A(8), for each operator was determined
where, (ahv1 )aver is the average of total vibration magnitude for bare hand
(Equation (1)) and assessed based on the limiting values of daily vi­
(i.e, Condition 1) while (ahvi )aver is the average of total vibration
bration exposures. Daily vibration exposure value, A (8), of each oper­
magnitude of different glove wearing conditions: Conditions 2, 3 and 4
ator was compared with the two-limiting values: exposure action value
(Table 2).
(EAV) and the exposure limiting value (ELV) specified in ISO 5349–1
(2001).

Fig. 3. Selected glove types, (a) Normal workman glove, (b) Heavy workman glove (c) Vibration reducing-glove.

3
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

Table 1
Characteristics of gloves.
Glove Type Characteristics Regular applications

Length Thickness (mm) Featurs and Benefits

(mm)

Normal Workman 300 1 • Higher thickness for added protection Agriculture, Chemical Processing, Construction, Fishing Industry,
Glove • Anti-slip pattern for good grip in wet and Industrial Cleaning, Laboratories, Light Engineering, Lumbering,
dry conditions Refuse Collection
• Anatomically shaped for comfort
• Pure cotton flock lining to absorb
perspiration
• Chlorinated for low Extractable Proteins
and residual chemicals
• Straight cuff
Heavy workman 270 1.5 • Durable and specifically resistant Automotive Industry, Construction, General Purpose, Refuse
glove coating offers better protection Collecting, Timber Handling, Warehousing
• Open back ensures ventilation and
breathability
• Ergonomically designed to reduce hand
fatigue
• Nitrile rubber for resistance against
grease, oil and hydrocarbons
• Thin coating improves sensitivity and
dexterity
• Polycotton seamless liner for excellent
comfort and fit
Vibration- 250 1.5 with extra corrugated • Specially designed for damping Specially for handing vibratory hand held tools.
reducing (VR) rubber layer of 10 mm vibrations
glove • User friendly design and Polycotton
seamless liner for excellent comfort and
fit
• Ergonomically designed to reduce hand
fatigue while damping vibrations

directions was observed (Roseiro et al., 2016). For roller compactor

Table 2 operators in construction industry, WBV exposure was found to be
Conditions of measuring exposure levels.
dominant in the vertical direction, z axis (Madhavei and De Silva, 2019).
Condition Description However, in this field study, the orientation of the adapter within the
Condition 1 Bare hand (i.e., without gloves) gloved hand was not controlled. Variations in the hand posture together
Condition 2 with normal workman gloves with the assigned task, is likely the reason for the lack of dominant axis
Condition 3 with heavy workman gloves of vibration.
Condition 4 with vibration-reducing (VR) gloves
Without protecting techniques, the average vibration magnitudes
(Frequency weighted RMS value) of HAV exposures was found to be
2.7. Statistical analysis 23.3 m/s2 (range 13–40 m/s2), 15.2 m/s2 (11–29 m/s2), 18.1 m/s2
(11–29 m/s2) for X,Y and Z axis, respectively (Fig. 4). Such a high vi­
Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software (version bration magnitude may be attributed by the nature of the chipping
20). Wilcoxon singed rank test was used to determine statistically sig­ hammer usage, which is characterized by shorter trigger times, in the
nificant difference among the vibration exposures that was quantified as actual situation. When the operator handles the equipment, it is not a
a percentage reduction of daily vibration exposures measured with four continuous process and he has to stop and then again start the vibration
different conditions listed in Table 2. in the practical scenario, resulting to generate large vibration magnitude
during the trigger time. In addition, greater HAV exposures by chipping
3. Results and discussion hammer operators are attributed by the nature of the material being
worked by the tool. For example, in construction industry, chipping
3.1. Characteristics of HAV exposure hammer is often used to demolish concrete or rocks which have great
hardness and density.
Fig. 4 shows the comparison of frequency weighted RMS values of Higher frequency weighted HAV magnitudes of hand held tool op­
vibration magnitudes in three orthogonal directions: X, Y and Z di­ erators are also reported previously. For example, the frequency-
rections. It seems that no dominant axis for HAV exposures (Fig. 4) was weighted acceleration of vibration on the handlebars of hand-held
observed for chipping hammer operators, although a dominant axis was tamping machines was found in the range from 10 to 21 m/s2 (Viro­
reported for HAV exposures in other professionals (Roseiro et al., 2018) kannas, 1994). Mean ISO weighted handle vibration for the pneumatic
and whole body vibrations (WBV) exposures in operators of construction rock drill was found to be 39.14 m/s2 (Rempel, 2018). The mean values
equipment (Madhavei and De Silva, 2019). Dominant HAV exposure in of frequency weighted acceleration measured in the dominant direction
one direction was seemed to be dependeent on the types of operations. was found to be 30.7 m/s2 for rock drills and 24.8 m/s2 for light stone
For example, a dominant y axis HAV exposure was reported with pro­ hammers (Bovenzi et al., 1994). For hydraulic drill operators, the
fessional drummers (Roseiro et al., 2018). The highest HAV exposure weighted RMS of vertical vibration was found to be 26.3 m/s2, where as
was observed, z axis, and the lowest exposure was in, y axis for bike it was found to be 18.0 m/s2 for pneumatic drill operators (Phillips,
operators. This was well clear for outdoor bike (i.e., motor cycles and 2007).
road bikes) operators, whereas for indoor bike (i.e., tracks and rollers)
operators, no large difference in HAV exposures in three orthogonal

4
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

Fig. 4. Variation of Frequency weighted vibration magnitude of operators (with bare hands) in X, Y and Z axes, X axis, Y axis and Z axis.

3.2. Assessment of HAV exposure h, such higher average daily exposures would be removed. A (8) ob­
tained for actual exposure time (i.e., 2 h) and the reduced exposure time
Daily vibration exposure, A (8) values of 12 operators are shown in (i.e., 1 h) are shown in Fig. 6 (a) and (b), respectively. For bare hand,
Fig. 5. It is clear that all the operators have been affected from vibration with the reduced exposure time, 4 operators have the daily vibration
exposure values greater than the exposure action value (EAV) indicating exposure values greater than the exposure limiting value (ELV) (Fig. 6
100% of operators are at risk, where actions should be taken to reduce (b)), indicating that, among this study sample, 33% operators are at risk.
the vibration exposure levels that are induced by operating the chipping Only reducing the working hours per day is not sufficient to reduce the A
hammer. Ten operators have the daily vibration exposure values greater
than the exposure limiting value (ELV) (Fig. 5), indicating 83% of the
operators are at risk, where, as per the recommendation in ISO 5349
standards, the work should be stopped. Greater HAV exposures of
chipping hammer operators than the EAV and ELV confirmed that a HAV
exposure should be reduced in order to protect the operators from HAV
syndromes.
A chipping hammer is found to be most important source of HAV
exposures of operators in the civil engineering construction industry. If
chipping hammer tools usage is more equitably distributed among all
other operators, or duration of their operation is limited to as short as 1

Fig. 6. Daily vibration exposure levels for the 3 glove types and without using
gloves,(a)When exposure time is 2 h, (b) When exposure time is 1 h,
Fig. 5. Daily exposure values of 12 operators (with bare hands) while demol­ Without gloves, With the normal workman gloves With heavy
ishing concrete (exposure time is 2 h). workman gloves and With vibration-reducing gloves.

5
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

(8) values less than the exposure action value (EAV), in the case of percentage reduction of total vibration magnitude (ahv) by 8.3%
concrete demolishing work in civil engineering construction sites. One (0–20.7%), 14.6% (2.4–29.6%) and 40.3% (22–53%), respectively.
of another possible method to reduce HAV exposure was often identified Reduction in the average total vibration magnitude by each glove type
as wearing gloves, because glove material may reduce the vibration was found to be statistically significant (Table 3).
transmitted to palm (Rezali and Griffin, 2016) and to the fingers (Yao The median and the standard deviation of total vibration value, ahv,
et al. (2020)). of all evaluated measurements are presented in Table 4, where a large
dispersion of the vibration values can be seen between different glove
conditions. These results show the vibration is generally attenuated with
3.3. Effect of gloves wearing gloves conditions (Condition 2,3,4) comparing to bare hands
condition (i.e., Condition 1).
Fig. 6(a) and (b) show the daily vibration exposure, A (8), values for The reduction in HAV exposures with wearing gloves found from the
four different conditions of HAV exposures: without gloves (i.e., bare field investigation in the current study was similar to that had been
hand), with normal workman gloves, with heavy workman gloves, with reported previously from laboratory studies, although there are limita­
vibration-reducing gloves (Table 2). The vibration exposure levels have tions in this field investigation, as discussed in a preceding section.
been generally reduced when wearing gloves during the operation of Reduced vibration exposures have been observed for workers wearing
chipping hammer. This reduction in HAV exposures was clear for all gloves as compared to the bare hands in previous studies (Milosevic and
individual operators.
Average HAV exposures of 12 operators wearing normal workman
gloves, heavy workman gloves, and vibration-reducing gloves are Table 3
compared in Fig. 7(a), (b) and (c), respectively. The comparison of Significance in the percentage reduction of vibration levels by each glove type as
compared to bare hand (Wilcoxon signed rank test).
average measurements recorded with the same subject, during the same
task, with the same measuring equipment (and sensors) would provide Normal workman Heavy workman Vibration-
glove glove reducing glove
appropriate comparison, although the direct comparison of the simul­
taneous measurements is the ideal situation. In this actual field mea­ Normal workman – 0.003a 0.002a
surements, it was not practical to fix two sensors coinciding center of the glove
Heavy workman 0.002a
palm, because it might loose the grip of hand and the vibratory tool.
–
glove
Vibration-reducing gloves showed the greater reduction, while the least Vibration- –
reduction in HAV exposure was found with normal workman gloves. As reducing glove
compared to the bare hand, the wearing normal workman gloves, heavy a
Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
workman gloves and vibration-reducing gloves showed average

Fig. 7. Fig. 7(a): Comparison of avg. of total vibration magnitudes (ahv) of all the 12 operators in Condition 1: Without gloves and Condition 2: With normal
workman gloves
Fig. 7(b): Comparison of avg. of total vibration magnitudes (ahv) of all the 12 operators in Condition 1: Without gloves and Condition 3: With heavy workman
gloves
Fig. 7(c): Comparison of avg. of total vibration magnitudes (ahv) of all the 12 operators in Condition 1: Without gloves and Condition 4: With vibration
reducing gloves .

6
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

Table 4 2009), allowing that the frequency-weighted acceleration of the tool

Median and Standard deviation of total magnitude of vibration, ahv, for all could be increased when the glove is used; this could reduce the effec­
evaluated conditions. tiveness of the glove.
Bare hand (i. With normal With heavy With Factor favorable for reducing tool vibration may have adverse effects
e., without workman workman vibration on human hand. For example, increasing hand forces especially push or
gloves) glove gloves reducing feed force could effectively reduce the fundamental vibration of a
gloves
chipping hammer (Dong et al., 2004). In order to control the increased
Median (m/ 13.13 11.65 10.35 7.62 tool vibration, a worker could apply larger forces on the chipping
s2 )
hammer in the gloved hand test condition than those in the bare hand
Standard 1.26 1.58 1.87 1.43
deviation test condition. This may also result partially from the largely reduced
(m/s2) hand perception, sensation, and grip strength due to the use of the VR
glove. The increased push force in the gloved hand test condition could
significantly reduce the frequency-weighted acceleration. Furthermore,
McConville, 2012; Hamouda et al., 2014). Reduction of vibrations by increasing the hand forces could also marginally increase the glove
over 64.5% and 85.6%, was achieved by using standard gloves and effectiveness itself in some frequency ranges (McDowell et al., 2013).
anti-vibration gloves, respectively (Milosevic and McConville, 2012). These glove effects are nature phenomena; they should be accounted as
The reduction percentage found in the current study is not such high, part of the glove effectiveness in terms of the vibration exposure
perhaps, because the current investigation was based on actual scenario reduction. However, the increased hand forces should be generally
in the construction site (chipping hammers generally operated in middle considered an adverse effect of the glove, because the increased hand
frequency 25–250 Hz at varying magnitude), whereas in the previous forces could cause more injuries or disorders of the hands than that
study (Milosevic and McConville, 2012) used the vibration at 57 Hz with could be reduced from the reduced vibration exposure. In fact,
constant magnitude. Hamouda et al. (2017) compared mean palm vi­ increasing the push force also increases the vibration at high fre­
bration transmissibility of four subjects and found that air and hybrid quencies, which may cause more injuries to the human fingers. Overall,
vibration reducing gloves provide attenuation of vibration transmitted it is not worth treading the reduced hand vibration exposure with
to the palm above 40 Hz. However, the gel and leather gloves revealed largely increased hand forces. This has been identified as a major
nearly unity transmissibility in most of the frequency range (Hamouda constraint for increasing the cushioning function or effectiveness of the
et al. (2017). VR gloves. Therefore, further studies are recommended to investigate
The reduction in HAV exposures achieved with heavy workman potential adverse effects of VR gloves, before promoting VR gloves for
gloves is greater as compared that for the normal workman gloves, task specific work as reported in the current study.
indicating that heavy workman gloves may indicate a reduced HAV When the exposure time is 2 h, among all three conditions where
exposures, although most suitable type of glove to wear with hand held gloves were used (Table 2), a significant reduction in daily vibration
vibrating tool is anti-vibration (AV) gloves, which have not been exposure values can be found in Condition 4 where a pair of vibration-
investigated in this field study. The materials used for the heavy reducing gloves was used (Fig. 6 (a)). In Condition 4, all daily vibration
workman glove would be made is comfortable to wear in hot-humid exposure values are slightly less than the exposure limiting value (ELV).
weather prevailing in tropical environment. Heavy workman gloves, In addition, with Condition 4, two operators have exposure values which
which are ergonomically designed to reduce hand fatigue, will provide are slightly less than the exposure action value (EAV) (Fig. 6(a)).
required manual dexterity, and the grip strength, as compared to the However, for the chipping hammer operators in construction industry,
vibration-reducing gloves, which are ergonomically designed to damp only wearing vibration-reducing gloves seems to be not sufficient to
the vibration. reduce health risk of HAV exposure.
The reduction percentage of vibration-reducing (VR) gloves found in When the actual exposure time of 1 h was considered, a dominant
the current study is 40% whereas for the practical applicable VR gloves reduction in A (8) values can be seen in Condition 4 where a pair of
available on the market could only reduce less than 25% of the weighted vibration-reducing glove was used. In Condition 4, the daily vibration
acceleration of chipping hammers (Dong et al., 2002, 2014). Possible exposure values of all individual are significantly less than ELV. Reduced
reason for greater reduction found in the current study is that the gloves HAV exposure time will directly reduce daily vibration exposure values
could be more effective when the vibration magnitudes are larger than significantly (Equation (1)). If possible, further reduction in HAV
those used in the laboratory experiments. The large vibration exposure exposure time than 1 h can be recommended for chipping hammer
may cause the separation of the hand contact from the tool handle. The operators.
use of a glove may affect the hand-tool contact or their interactions. However, the vibration magnitudes (ahv) and the percentage of vi­
Although chipping hammer operators were engaged in the same task bration reduction are not affected by the exposure time. These two are
with and without glove conditions, condition of the working materials mostly depend on the vibration exposure level and the damping method
(i.e., either new concrete, or old concrete) can have an effect on glove of vibration (Equation (2)). This indicates that close monitoring and
effectiveness. The palm adapter used in the vibration measurement assessing of operators HAV exposure levels and strengthening safety
could rock and impact on the tool handle in the bare hand test condition, rules to wear gloves may help to protect operators from possible HAV
especially in the palm resonant frequency range (25–40 Hz) (Xu et al., syndrome, especially in tropical weather conditions, where use of
2014). This resonant frequency may coincide with the tool’s funda­ vibration-reducing gloves (VR) or anti-vibrating (AV) are very limited.
mental vibration frequency. The instability of the adapter in the tests There are several limitations in the current field investigation. The
could be increased in a large vibration exposure, because the hand could most important limitation is parameters affecting HAV (i.e., hand forces
loss contact on the handle. The rigid impact of the adapter on the handle and postures), that have been evident in laboratory investigations have
could also increase the dc-shifts. As a result, the vibration measured in not been fully controlled in this investigation. Hand forces and postures
the bare hand test condition could be overestimated (Xu et al., 2014). may affect both the tool vibrations and the glove performance. They
On the other hand, the fundamental vibration frequency of chipping were roughly controlled by keeping advising each operator to maintain
hammers is usually in the range of 25–40 Hz (Dong et al., 2002, 2014). the same hand forces and postures as consistent as possible in the gloved
The use of a VR glove could increase the tool or handheld work piece and ungloved test conditions, while performing the usual task assigned
vibration, especially in the fundamental vibration frequency range (Xu to them, as the main focus of the study is to consider actual scenarios
et al., 2018), because the use of a VR glove generally reduces the prevailing in the civil engineering construction site. Tool-specific and
impedance of the hand-arm system applied on the tool (Dong et al., task specific testing to evaluate potential effectiveness of

7
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

vibration–reducing glove with better controlled parameters are recom­ Directive 2002/44/EC, 2002. European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising
mended for further investigations.
from physical agents (vibration).
Another limitation is inability to record simultaneous measurements. Dong, R.G., McDowell, T.W., Welcome, D.E., Warren, C., Schopper, A.W., 2004. An
Although the same participants were used to measure the four sets of evaluation of the standardized chipping hammer test specified in ISO 8662-2. Ann.
condition (with and without glove conditions), while involving in the Occup. Hyg. 48 (1), 39–49.
Dong, R.G., McDowell, T.W., Welcome, D.E., Warren, C., Wu, J.Z., Rakheja, S., 2009.
same task, the exposures were not measured simultaneously due to the Analysis of anti-vibration gloves mechanism and evaluation methods. J. Sound Vib.
difficulty in fixing two accelerometers on the palm. Further studies are 321, 435–453.
recommended with simultaneous measurements by installing an accel­ Dong, R.G., Welcome, D.E., Peterson, D.R., Xu, X.S., McDowell, T.W., Warren, C.,
Asaki, T., Kudernatsch, S., Brammer, A., 2014. Tool-specific performance of
erometer on the tool handle at a location close to the hand grip location vibration-reducing gloves for attenuating palm-transmitted vibrations in three
without affecting the operation of a chipping hammer. orthogonal directions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44, 827–839.
Dong, R.G., McDowell, T.W., Welcome, D.E., Rakheja, S., Caporali, S.A., Schopper, A.W.,
2002. Effectiveness of a transfer function method for evaluating vibration isolation
4. Conclusions performance of gloves when used with chipping hammers. Journal of Low Frequency
Sound, Vibration, and Control 21 (3), 141–156.
Griffin, M.J., 1990. Handbook of Human Vibration. Academic Press Limited, London.
The risks of hand arm vibration (HAV) exposures by chipping
Griffin, M.J., 1998. Evaluating the effectiveness of gloves in reducing hazards hand
hammer operators are well recognized; they must be assessed and transmitted vibration. Occup. Environ. Med. 55, 340–348.
controlled by employers. For chipping hammer operators, the daily Hamouda, K., Rakheja, S., Marcotte, P., Dewangan, K.N., 2017. Fingers vibration
transmission performance of vibration reducing gloves. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 62, 55–69.
exposure values of vibrations are well above the required limits when
Heaver, C., Goonetilleke, K.S., Ferguson, H., Shiralkar, S., 2011. Hand-arm vibration
any vibration control technique was not applied. All operators, hand syndrome: a common occupational hazard in industrialized countries. J. Hand Surg.
arm vibration (HAV) exposure levels exceeded the exposure action value 36 (5).
(EAV) and about 83% of the operators exceeded the exposure limit Hewitt, S., 2010. Triaxial measurements of the performance of anti-vibration gloves. HSE
Research Report, p. RR795.
values (ELV). With total exposure time of 1 h, vibration exposure values ISO 5349-1, 2001. Mechanical Vibration e Measurement and Evaluation of Human
are largely reduced as compared to the exposure limiting value (ELV). Exposure to Hand-transmitted Vibration e Part 1: General Requirements.
A reduction in the vibration exposure levels was observed when International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 5349-2, 2001. Mechanical Vibration − Measurement and Evaluation of Human
using protective gloves. With normal workman gloves magnitude Exposure to Hand-Transmitted Vibration, Part 2: Practical Guidance for the
reduction of 8.3% was achieved whereas with heavy workman glove it Measurement at the Workplace. International Organization for Standardization,
was 14.6%. HAV magnitude reduction of 40% was found with the Geneva, Switzerland.
López-Alonso, M., Pacheco-Torres, R., Martínez-Aires, D., Ordoñez-García, J., 2013.
vibration-reducing gloves, showing the greatest magnitude reduction Comparative analysis of exposure limit values of vibrating hand-held tools. Int. J.
achieved among the three types of gloves investigated. However, this Ind. Ergon. 43, 218–224.
study reports preliminary results that need to be confirmed in further Madhavei, M.K.J., De Silva, G.H.M.J.S., 2019. Whole body vibration exposures of roller
compactors: characteristics and effect of waste rubber in damping the vibration. Int.
investigations.
J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 24, 25–29.
For the chipping hammer operators, wearing vibration-reducing McDowell, T.W., Dong, R.G., Welcome, D.E., Warren, C., Xu, X.S., 2013. Vibration-
gloves while keeping the exposure time less than 1 h will be effective reducing gloves: transmissibility at the palm of the hand in three orthogonal
directions. Ergonomics 56 (12), 1823–1840.
to reduce the risk of HAV syndrome. Where ever possible, further
Milosevic, M., McConville, K.M.V., 2012. Evaluation of protective gloves and working
reduction in HAV exposure time less than 1 h can be recommended for techniques for reducing hand-arm vibration exposure in the workplace. J. Occup.
chipping hammer operators, although the reduction in exposure time Health 54, 250–253.
has to be kept in a satisfactory value, to fulfil the day today tasks in the Necking, L.E., Lundborg, G., Lundström, R., Thornell, L.E., Dahlin, L.B., Fridén, J., 2004.
Hand muscle pathology after long-term vibration exposure. J. Hand Surg. 29 (5).
actual site conditions. Phillips, J.I., Heyns, P.S., Nelson, G., 2007. Rock drills used in South African mines: a
Close monitoring and assessing of operators HAV exposures and comparative study of noise and vibration levels. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 51 (3), 305–310.
strengthening safety rules to wear gloves would be effective to protect Rakheja, S., Dong, R.G., Welcome, D.E., Schopper, A.W., 2002. Estimation of toolspecific
isolation performance of anti-vibration gloves. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 30 (2), 71–87.
operators from HAV syndrome, especially in tropical weather condi­ Rempel, D., Antonucci, A., Barr, A., Michael, R.C., Martin, B., 2018. Electrical rotary ver
tions, where the use of vibration-reducing glove or anti-vibrating gloves pneumatic rock drill : difference in handle vibration and productivity drilling into
is not very common. Findings of the current study can also be used to concrete. In: Proceedings: the 7 Th American Conference on Human Vibration.
Rezali, K.A.M., Griffin, M.J., 2016. Transmission of vibration through gloves: effects of
improve vibration– reducing gloves further with the view of tool specific material thickness. Ergonomics 59 (8), 1026–1037.
and task specific in reducing HAV transmitted while enhancing manual Roseiro, L.M., Neto, M.A., Amaro, A.M., Alcobia, C.J., Paulino, M.F., 2016. Hand-arm
dexterity and grip strength. and whole-body vibrations induced in cross motorcycle and bicycle drivers. Int. J.
Ind. Ergon. 56, 150–160.
Roseiro, L.M., Paulino, M.F., Neto, M.A., Amaro, A.M., 2018. Analysis of hand-arm
vibration syndrome in drummers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 66, 110–118.
Declaration of competing interest Su, A.T., Darus, A., Maeda, S., Bulgiba, A., Miyashita, K., 2012. The clinical features of
hand-arm vibration syndrome in a warm environment—a review of the literature.
J. Occup. Health 54 (5).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Su, A.T., Maeda, S., Fukumoto, J., Miai, N., Isahal, M., Yoshiola, A., Nakajima, R.,
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Bulgiba, A., Miyashita, K., 2014. A cross sectional study on hand-arm vibration
the work reported in this paper. syndrome among a group of tree fellers in a tropical environment. Ind. Health 52 (4),
367–376.
Swuste, P., Drimmelen, D., Burdotf, A., 1997. Application of design analysis to solution
References generation: hand arm vibrations in Foundation pile head removal in the construction
Industry. Saf. Sci. 27 (3), 85–98.
Vihlborg, P., Bryngelsson, I., Lindgren, B., Gunnarsson, L.G., Graff, P., 2017. Association
ASA S2.70, 2006. American National Standard Guide for the Measurement and
between vibration exposure and hand-arm vibration symptoms in a Swedish
Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration Transmitted to the Hand. American
mechanical industry. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 62, 77–81.
National Standard Institution.
Virokannas, H.H., Anttonen, H., Niskanen, J., 1994. Health risk assessment of noise,
Ainsa, I., Gonzalez, D., Lizaranzu, M., Bernad, C., 2011. Experimental evaluation of
hand-arm vibration and cold in railway track maintenance. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 13,
uncertainty in hand arm vibration measurements. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 41, 167–179.
247–252.
Bovenzi, M., Franzinelli, A., Scattoni, L., Vannuccini, L., 1994. Hand-arm vibration
Wimer, B.M., McDowell, T.W., Xu, X.S., Welcome, D.E., Warren, C., Dong, R.G., 2010.
syndrome among travertine workers: a follow up study. Occup. Environ. Med. 51,
Effects of gloves on the total grip strength applied to cylindrical handles. Int. J. Ind.
361–365.
Ergon. 40 (5), 574–583.
CEN/TR 15350, 2013. Mechanical Vibration-Guideline for the Assessment of Exposure to
Hand -transmitted Vibration Using Available Information Including that provided by
Manufacturers of Machinery. British Standard Institution.
De Silva, G.H.M.J.S., Karunarathna, R.M.K.S., 2017. Assessment of hand arm vibration
exposures of operators in Civil Engineering Construction Industry. Journal of the
Construction Industry Development Authority (CIDA) 15, 33–39.

8
G.H.M.J.S. De Silva and T.R.S.T. Wijewardana International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 86 (2021) 103197

Xiao, B., Zhang, D., Yan, M., 2019. Cold water immersion test (10 ◦ C, 10 min) for Xu, X.S., Dong, R.G., Welcome, D.E., McDowell, T.W., Wu, J.Z., Wimer, B., Warren, C.,
diagnosing vibration-induced white finger among a group of polishers in a 2014. An examination of the handheld adapter approach for measuring hand-
subtropical environment. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 92, 865–872. transmitted vibration exposure. Measurement 47, 64–77.
Yao, Y., Rakheja, S., Marcotte, P., 2020. AV Gloves, Not Necessarily, Amplify Fingers-
Transmitted Vibration.