Abstract

Few ergonomic measurement tools explicitly state when and how to sample exposures. Traditional ergonomic sampling has used short, task-based or worst-case measurements, but these may misrepresent exposures, since they neglect the temporal variations throughout the workday. Understanding the representativeness of data from shorter measurement durations compared with full-shift measurements allows for optimization of measurements resources. This study compared a variety of low back electromyography (EMG) exposure metrics measured over a full-shift with the same metrics sampled over shorter durations to identify whether shorter durations provide representative measures of exposure. Portable EMG devices were used to measure low back EMG for 138 full work shifts in a range of jobs in heavy industry. Using a random start time, each full shift of data was resampled for 4 hr, 2 hr, 1 hr, 10 min, and 2 min. Exposure metrics from each duration were compared with the full shift using absolute and percent error, bias, and limits of agreement. Comparisons between one full shift and two full shifts were made for the subset of 35 workers with two measured workdays. Compared with full-shift data, bias is very low at all sampling durations. However, as sampling durations decreased from a full-shift to a few min, the absolute error, percentage error, and limits of agreement for exposure estimates show more deviation from full-day estimates. Estimates of mean and 90th percentile exposure averaged 8% error for 4-hr durations and 14% error for 2-hr durations. The errors for 4-and 2-hr measurement durations may be acceptable for many applications, particularly if the trade-off is measuring more subjects. Sampling durations of 1 hr or less seem likely to produce very large errors over all exposure metrics, particularly for the range and peak exposures. Depending on the purpose of measurement and the detail required, 4 hr or even 2 hr appears to be long enough to reasonably estimate full-shift exposure.