Write your message
Volume 7, Issue 2 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2019)                   Iran J Ergon 2019, 7(2): 11-18 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Arabian A, Makkiabadi B, Masjoodi S, Azam K, Ghafari E, Torabi Nassaj E et al . Ergonomic Assessment of the Sit-Stand Seat on Urban Bus Transport. Iran J Ergon 2019; 7 (2) :11-18
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-639-en.html
1- Msc Student, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences,Tehran, Iran
5- Professor, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , zakerian@sina.tums.ac.ir
Full-Text [PDF 458 kb]   (10783 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (9051 Views)
Extended Abstract:   (3510 Views)
Introduction

Due to the rapid growth of metropolitan areas and the lack of public transport within the city today, many people are traveling in a standing position when using these vehicles, including buses. Surveys show that most non-accidental injuries to passengers on public transport occur in a standing position (8). The results show that in the short period of the first 35 minutes, between the three modes, sitting, standing and standing-sitting, the least fatigue was related to standing-sitting (11). Since the average time for an inter-city commute is less than 35 minutes (12); the purpose of this study was to perform an ergonomic evaluation of the standing-seating area for commuters on the intercity busses.

 

Materials and Methods

The present study was a descriptive-analytical and experimental study on 8 young men with a mean age of 25.25 (SD). This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Code: IR.TUMS.SPH.REC.1397.076). In order to evaluate the ergonomic status of the standing-seated seat and to compare it with the standing position of the passengers, the model intercity bus (Benz 457) was used. For this purpose, electromyography and Borg scale were used for ergonomic evaluation of both conditions, respectively. Initially, the idea of ​​using a standing-sitting seat for public transport within the country's intellectual property center was registered at 97732. The dimensions of the seat surface are shown in Figure 1.
 


Figure 1. Standing-sitting seat designed specifically for intercity public transport (A: open mode; B: folded mode).


Figure 2 shows the status of the participants on the intercity bus. The bus traffic scenario consists of a 30 second interval, performed for everyone on a smooth, non-traffic road. The UK's DataLOG MWX8 Surface Electromyography (Biometrics Ltd) was used to measure the level of contractile activity of the leg muscles. For this purpose, the target muscles were first identified according to previous studies (9,14-16), and finally two muscles (internal twin and sole) were selected for recording electromyographic data. Prior to the start of the defined scenario, maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) was recorded for all participants’ target muscles separately by electromyographs using existing protocols (18). Each condition was repeated 3 times for each individual and each time the EMG signals were recorded. Then, the perceived feeling of discomfort was recorded after 15 minutes of using the standing-sitting seat using 10-point Borg scale for shoulder, arm, forearm, hand, waist, hip, thigh, leg, foot, and whole body.
 


Figure 2. Situation of participants in the intercity bus (right: standing, left: standing-sitting).


 

Results

The results showed that in the whole body and all organs except for the buttock, perceived discomfort in the standing posture was higher than in the standing /sitting posture (Figure 3).
According to Table 2, the level of contractile activity of both the left and right leg muscles in the standing-sitting position was significantly lower than in the standing position.

 

Figure 3. Comparison of perceived discomfort in standing and standing-sitting positions (* = (P<0.05)).

Table 2. Results of muscle contraction activity in standing and standing-sitting position.


The results show that in both standing and sitting-position the soleus muscle had more contractile activity than the internal gastrocnemius muscle. Figure 4 shows the electromyographic signal of the soleus muscle over time in both standing and standing-sitting positions.
 


Figure 4. Electromyographic signal of right and left soleus muscles in two standing and standing/sitting modes in three intervals of acceleration, steady speed and deceleration of intercity bus.


 

Discussion

Previous studies have reported an increased sense of discomfort in a standing/sitting position compared to a standing position (11,23,24). One of the most important reasons for commuters' standing travel on busy city buses is space constraints (5). It is notable that, the saddle like seats due to its small size compared to the seats on the city bus needs little space. Although previous research confirms the improvement of lower extremity and whole body discomfort when using standing-sitting chair compared to standing posture (11,25); however, studying the upper and lower limbs show that sitting-chair use in relation to posture standing had no effect on the discomfort of these organs and in some cases even increased discomfort (11,23), which contradicts the findings of the present study. One reason for this contradiction is that the standing-sitting seats for the bus has completely eliminated the activity of getting the balance handle, and passengers travel without any activity on the upper limbs.
Although no studies have been reported on the use of standing-seating to control foot area stress in intercity public transport, the findings of the present study are consistent with the results of various studies aimed at improving working conditions using standing-seating (11,23-25,27).
Studies on the effect of standing-sitting chair on standing posture have shown that contractile activity of the internal gastrocnemius and soleus muscles decreased in standing-sitting position (24). In this study, as in the present study, in addition to the type of selective muscle, the results of comparing the muscular activity of the two states were similar. The only difference between these two studies is the placement of standing-sitting chairs, as the study aforementioned studies the use of standing-sitting chairs for occupations with long standing. However, in the present study, the use of standing-sitting seats for commuters on the intercity bus has been considered.


 

Conclusion

According to the findings, this chair was able to improve the standing position of passengers by reducing the contraction of the leg muscles and improving the discomfort of different body parts except for the hips. Therefore, the seated seating area for in-car public transport can be used as a suitable tool in all intercity public transport services including the subway, rapid bus transports, and bus to improve the ergonomic conditions of standing passengers.
 

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all those who helped them writing this article.

 

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.


 

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2019/06/30 | Accepted: 2019/08/27 | ePublished: 2019/11/11

References
1. Sustainable WBCf, Development. Mobility 2001 Report. 2001. [Report online; available from: http://docs.wbcsd.org/2001/12/Mobility2001_FullReport.pdf
2. Hataminejad H, Purahmad A, Faraji Sabokbar H, Azimi A. Satisfaction analysis of public transportation users in the south alborz. Journal of Urban Economics and Management. 2015 Mar 15;3(9):105-23.
3. Pucher J, Korattyswaroopam N, Ittyerah N. the crisis of public transport in india: overwhelming needs but limited resources. Journal of public transportation. 2004;7(4):1. [DOI:10.5038/2375-0901.7.4.1]
4. Aidoo EN, Agyemang W, Monkah JE, Afukaar FK. passenger's satisfaction with public bus transport services in Ghana: A case study of Kumasi-Accra route. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management. 2013 May 1;8(2):33-44.
5. Omranzadeh B, Garakhlou M, Purahmad A. Analyses and efficiency evaluation of BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) system and its public satisfaction in tehran metropolis. Human Geography Research. 2010; 42(3), 19-38.
6. Pereira C, da Silva RA, de Oliveira MR, Souza RD, Borges RJ, Vieira ER. Effect of body mass index and fat mass on balance force platform measurements during a one-legged stance in older adults. Aging clinical and experimental research. 2018 May 1;30(5):441-7. [DOI:10.1007/s40520-017-0796-6] [PMID]
7. Palacio A, Tamburro G, O'Neill D, Simms CK. Non-collision injuries in urban buses-Strategies for prevention. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009 Jan 1;41(1):1-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2008.08.016] [PMID]
8. Halpern P, Siebzehner MI, Aladgem D, Sorkine P, Bechar R. Non-collision injuries in public buses: a national survey of a neglected problem. Emergency medicine journal. 2005 Feb 1;22(2):108-10. [DOI:10.1136/emj.2003.013128] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Schubert P, Liebherr M, Kersten S, Haas CT. Biomechanical demand analysis of older passengers in a standing position during bus transport. Journal of Transport & Health. 2017 Mar 1;4:226-36. [DOI:10.1016/j.jth.2016.12.002]
10. Sarraf TA, Marigold DS, Robinovitch SN. Maintaining standing balance by handrail grasping. Gait & posture. 2014 Jan 1;39(1):258-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.07.117] [PMID]
11. Chester MR, Rys MJ, Konz SA. Leg swelling, comfort and fatigue when sitting, standing, and sit/standing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2002 May 1;29(5):289-96. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00069-5]
12. Iran, Transportation and Traffic Organization of Tehran Municipality (2017). Excerpts of statistics and information of tehran transportation and traffic. Retrieved from Transportation and Traffic Organization of Tehran Municipality:
13. Arabian, A., & Zakerian, A. (2018). miniature chair specialized for places with space limitation. In: Iran, Patent and Trademark Office, I.P.O, A47C 3/00, Iran. http://ipm.ssaa.ir/Search-Result?page=1&DecNo=139750140003003893&RN=97732
14. Iwamoto Y, Takahashi M, Shinkoda K. Differences of muscle co-contraction of the ankle joint between young and elderly adults during dynamic postural control at different speeds. Journal of physiological anthropology. 2017 Dec;36(1):32. [DOI:10.1186/s40101-017-0149-3] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Uchida Y, Demura S. Differences in leg muscle activity and body sway between elderly adults able and unable to maintain one-leg stance for 1 min: the effect of hand support. Aging clinical and experimental research. 2016 Aug 1;28(4):669-77. [DOI:10.1007/s40520-015-0461-x] [PMID]
16. Wang Y, Watanabe K, Asaka T. Aging effect on muscle synergies in stepping forth during a forward perturbation. European journal of applied physiology. 2017 Jan 1;117(1):201-11. [DOI:10.1007/s00421-016-3514-8] [PMID]
17. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. Journal of electromyography and Kinesiology. 2000 Oct 1;10(5):361-74. [DOI:10.1016/S1050-6411(00)00027-4]
18. Konrad P. The abc of emg. A practical introduction to kinesiological electromyography. 2005 Apr;1(2005):30-5.
19. Borg G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990 Jan 1;16(Suppl 1):55-8. [DOI:10.5271/sjweh.1815] [PMID]
20. Ulin SS, Ways CM, Armstrong TJ, Snook SH. Perceived exertion and discomfort versus work height with a pistol-shaped screwdriver. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1990 Nov 1;51(11):588-94. https://doi.org/10.1202/0002-8894(1990)051<0588:PEADVW>2.0.CO;2 [DOI:10.1202/0002-8894(1990)0512.0.CO;2]
21. Daneshmandi H, Choobineh AR, Rajaee-Fard A-R. Validation of Borg's RPE 6-20 Scale in Male Industrial Workers of Shiraz City Based on Heart Rate. Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal. 2012;11(1):1-10.
22. Shen W, Parsons KC. Validity and reliability of rating scales for seated pressure discomfort. International journal of industrial ergonomics. 1997 Dec 1;20(6):441-61. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00068-6]
23. Antle DM, Vézina N, Côté JN. Comparing standing posture and use of a sit-stand stool: analysis of vascular, muscular and discomfort outcomes during simulated industrial work. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2015 Feb 1;45:98-106. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2014.12.009]
24. Sartika SJ, Dawal SZ. A comparison of the effect of using sit/stand stool on prolonged standing task. Age (years). 2010;24(1.51):25-5.
25. Le P, Marras WS. Evaluating the low back biomechanics of three different office workstations: Seated, standing, and perching. Applied ergonomics. 2016 Sep 1;56:170-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.04.001] [PMID]
26. Nicoletti C, Läubli T. Leg and back muscle activity, heart rate, performance and comfort during sitting, standing, and using a sit-stand-support with different seat angles. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2018 Sep 1;67:73-80. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2018.04.011]
27. De Bruyne MA, Van Renterghem B, Baird A, Palmans T, Danneels L, Dolphens M. Influence of different stool types on muscle activity and lumbar posture among dentists during a simulated dental screening task. Applied ergonomics. 2016 Sep 1;56:220-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.014] [PMID]
28. Hall JE. Guyton and Hall textbook of medical physiology e-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015 May 31.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb |