Write your message
Volume 7, Issue 4 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020)                   Iran J Ergon 2020, 7(4): 12-20 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Etemadi Nejad S, Hosseininejad E, Yazdani Charati J, Ghaempanah F, Yousefi Chemazkati M, Ahmadi M et al . Effect of Workstation Designed for Sewing, on Neck and Shoulder Muscles of Users. Iran J Ergon 2020; 7 (4) :12-20
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-668-en.html
Effect of Workstation Designed for Sewing, on Neck and Shoulder Muscles of Users
Siavash Etemadi Nejad1 , Esmail Hosseininejad2 , Jamshid Yazdani Charati3 , Fariba Ghaempanah *4 , Mahmoud Yousefi Chemazkati5 , Mojtaba Ahmadi6 , Ali Amani7
1- Associate Professor, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
2- Assistant Professor of Biomechanics, Babolsar University, Babolsar, Iran
3- Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
4- MSc of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran , ghaempanah@rogers.com
5- BS of Occupational Health, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Tonekabon, Iran
6- MSc of Ergonomics, Department of Ergonomics, School of public health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
7- MSc, Department of Ergonomics, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
Keywords: Ergonomics, Design, workstation, Sewing, EMG
Full-Text [PDF 455 kb]   (15637 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (15133 Views)

✅ All four muscles were less active at the new workstation than the conventional workstation, meaning that the designed workstation was able to reduce neck and shoulder muscle activity during work.


Extended Abstract:   (1620 Views)
Introduction

Sewing is one of the jobs in which the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders is high (1). This working group is forced to sit for long periods of time with its head bent on the sewing machine (2). Studies have shown that posture problems are caused by incorrect design of the workstation and equipment used at the workstation (3,4). In previous studies, changes in table and chair design have played a significant role in reducing the musculoskeletal disorders of tailors (5-8). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of workstation designed for sewing by electromyography on the neck and shoulder muscles of users of this occupational group.

 

Materials and Methods

The present study is an analytical intervention. In this study, two workstations were compared. First workstation: (designed workstation) which includes a long table and long chairs (Figure 1) designed according to the standard EN 1729-1: 2015. Second workstation: (common workstation) common type that most tailors now use.


Figure 1. The right figure: working on the slope in front of the chair; the left figure: resting on the negative slope

Thirty-three people (men and women) from young and healthy volunteers between the ages of 18 and 35 were selected by random sampling. The table and chair arrangement is similar to Figure 2.


Figure 2. How to set a table and chair designed for the user

At the first workstation, three modes (based on previous studies) of zero, five, and ten degrees were evaluated (6,7). Signal recording was performed on four superficial muscles of the neck and shoulders (cranial sternal muscles, anterior deltoid, middle deltoid, and posterior deltoid).


 

Results

Table 1. The mean and standard deviation of the electrical activity of the cranial sternal muscle and the significant values and the percentage of reduction of the electrical activity of the trapezius muscle in three modes of the new workstation and its comparison with the commmon workstation

M SD Significance Comparison of the average percentage of reduction in muscle electrical activity change in the above case with the usual workstation
Common workstation 30.58 3.83 - -
New workstation (table at zero degree) 19.03 3.02 >0.001 37.76%
New workstation (table at an angle of five degrees) 12.45 2.37 >0.001 59.28%
New workstation (table at an angle of ten degrees) 15.18 2.46 >0.001 50.35%


Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of anterior deltoid muscle electrical activity and significant values and percentage of reduction of trapezoidal muscle electrical activity in three modes of new workstation and its comparison with conventional workstation

M SD Significance Comparison of the average percentage of reduction in muscle electrical activity change in the above case with the usual workstation
Common workstation 21.8 1.89 - -
New workstation (table at zero degree) 13.63 1.3 >0.001 37.47%
New workstation (table at an angle of five degrees) 11.9 1.5 >0.001 45.41%
New workstation (table at an angle of ten degrees) 12.57 1.2 >0.001 42.66%


Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of electrical activity of the middle deltoid muscle and significant values and percentage of reduction of electrical activity of trapezius muscle in three modes of the new workstation and its comparison with the conventional workstation

M SD Significance Comparison of the average percentage of reduction in muscle electrical activity change in the above case with the usual workstation
Common workstation 31.84 3.11 - _
New workstation (table at zero degree) 17.05 2.07 >0.001 46.45%
New workstation (table at an angle of five degrees) 13.45 2.25 >0.001 57.75%
New workstation (table at an angle of ten degrees) 14.94 2.04 >0.001 53.07%


Table 4. Mean and standard deviation of posterior deltoid muscle electrical activity and percentage reduction of trapezoidal muscle electrical activity in three modes of new workstation and its comparison with conventional workstation

M SD Significance Comparison of the average percentage of reduction in muscle electrical activity change in the above case with the usual workstation
Common workstation 26.6 3.14 - -
New workstation (table at zero degree) 13.92 1.55 <0.001 47.66%
New workstation (table at an angle of five degrees) 11.73 1.97 <0.001 55.90%
New workstation (table at an angle of ten degrees) 13.09 1.88 <0.001 55.90%


 

Discussion

The results showed that all modes of the newly designed workstation have reduced muscle activity compared to the conventional workstation. While none of the comparisons between the different modes of the new workstation showed a significant difference. It also suggests that creating a table angle at a designed workstation has not reduced muscle activity. This result is different from the study by Dull, Balakamakshi and Somadatta tondre, who suggested a 10-degree tilt on the table towards the user. This discrepancy in the present study could be due to the shortness of the test time and the type of task defined for the test takers (6,9,10).

 

Conclusion

The results showed that all four superficial muscles of the neck and shoulders (cranial sternal muscles, anterior deltoid, middle deltoid and posterior deltoid) were less active in the newly designed workstation than in the conventional workstation. This means that the designed workstation has been able to reduce the activity of the neck and shoulder muscles during work.

 

Acknowledgements

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

 

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

 

Type of Study: Review | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2019/10/17 | Accepted: 2019/12/15 | ePublished: 2020/02/20
References
1. Kuijt-Evers LF, Groenesteijn L, de Looze MP, Vink P. Identifying factors of comfort in using hand tools. Applied ergonomics. 2004 Sep 1;35(5):453-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.04.001] [PMID]
2. Harris PM. Nonfatal occupational injuries involving the eyes, 2004. Compensation and working conditions online US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www bls gov/opub/cwc/print/sh20040624ar01p1 htm (accessed 24 Apr 2009). 2008. [Google Scholar]
3. Jafari S, Fazli B, Noorani M, Sharifpour Z, faramarzi R. Musculoskeletal disorders risk assessment by the RULA method and to investigate the effects of ergonomics training on tailor work. Occupational Medicine Quarterly Journal 2013;43-50. [Google Scholar]
4. Waters TS, Putz-Anderson V. Manual Material Handling. Edited by Bhattacharya, A. and McGlothlin, JD (1996). Occupational Ergonomics: Theory and Application. Marcel Dekker Inc. New York. 1996. [Google Scholar]
5. Vanwonterghem K. Work-related musculoskeletal problems: Some ergonomic considerations. Journal of human ergology. 1996 Jun;25(1):5-13. [Google Scholar]
6. Kolich M, Taboun SM. Combining psychophysical measures of discomfort and electromyography for the evaluation of a new automotive seating concept. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics. 2002 Jan 1;8(4):483-96. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2002.11076549] [PMID]
7. Attwood DA, Deeb JM, Danz-Reece ME. Ergonomic solutions for the process industries. Elsevier; 2004 Jan 24. [Book] [Google Scholar]
8. Bernard BP, Putz-Anderson V. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors; a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. [Article] [Google Scholar]
9. Kaergaard A, Andersen JH. Musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and shoulders in female sewing machine operators: prevalence, incidence, and prognosis. Occupational and environmental medicine. 2000 Aug 1;57(8):528-34. [DOI:10.1136/oem.57.8.528] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. Blåder S, Barck-Holst U, Danielsson S, Ferhm E, Kalpamaa M, Leijon M, Lindh M, Markhede G. Neck and shoulder complaints among sewing-machine operators: a study concerning frequency, symptomatology and dysfunction. Applied ergonomics. 1991 Aug 1;22(4):251-7. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(91)90228-A]
11. Wang PC, Harrison RJ, Yu F, Rempel DM, Ritz BR. Follow‐up of neck and shoulder pain among sewing machine operators: The Los Angeles garment study. American journal of industrial medicine. 2010 Apr;53(4):352-60. [DOI:10.1002/ajim.20790] [PMID]
12. Brisson C, Vinet A, Vézina M. Disability among female garment workers: a comparison with a national sample. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 1989 Oct 1:323-8. [DOI:10.5271/sjweh.1843] [PMID]
13. Ayoub MM. Work place design and posture. Human Factors. 1973 Jun;15(3):265-8. [DOI:10.1177/001872087301500309] [PMID]
14. Lueder R. Adjustability in context. Hard facts about soft machines. 1994:25-35. [Book] [Google Scholar]
15. Wick J, Drury CG. Postural change due to adaptations of a sewing workstation. The Ergonomics of Working Postures. Taylor & Francis, London. 1986:375-9. [Google Scholar]
16. Delleman NJ, Dul J. Sewing machine operation: workstation adjustment, working posture, and workers' perceptions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2002;30(6):341-53. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00100-2]
17. Rempel D, Lee DL, Dawson K, Loomer P. The effects of periodontal curette handle weight and diameter on arm pain: a four-month randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2012 Oct 1;143(10):1105-13. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0041] [PMID]
18. Dul J, Van der Grinten MP, Hildebrandt VH. Een ergonomisch onderzoek naar de werkhouding van naaisters in de meubelindustrie. TSG: Tijdschrift voor sociale gezondheidszorg, 9, 66, 277-280. 1988. [Google Scholar]
19. Balakamakshi K, Ganguli AK, Parimalam P. Preliminary investigations into the impact of an ergonomics intervention for garment workers. Ergonomics SA: Journal of the Ergonomics Society of South Africa. 2009 Dec 1;21(2):30-40. [Google Scholar]
20. Yu C-Y, Keyserling WM. Evaluation of a new work seat for industrial sewing operations: results of three field studies. Applied ergonomics. 1989;20(1):17-25. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(89)90004-5]
21. Van Niekerk SM, Louw QA, Hillier S. The effectiveness of a chair intervention in the workplace to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms. A systematic review. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2012 Dec;13(1):145. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-13-145] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Chan J, Janowitz I, Lashuay N, Stern A, Fong K, Harrison R. Preventing musculoskeletal disorders in garment workers: preliminary results regarding ergonomics risk factors and proposed interventions among sewing machine operators in the San Francisco Bay Area. Applied occupational and environmental hygiene. 2002 Apr 1;17(4):247-53. [DOI:10.1080/10473220252826547] [PMID]
23. Tondre S, Deshmukh T. Guidelines to sewing machine workstation design for improving working posture of sewing operator. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2019 May 1;71:37-46. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2019.02.002]
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.

© 2025 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb |