Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645

www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Factors associated with construction worker

eye injuries
a,* b
Jimmie Hinze , Geneva Giang
a
Center for Construction Safety and Loss Control, M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-5703, USA
b
Concentra Inc., 5080 Spectrum Dr., Suite 400W, Addison, TX 75001, USA

Abstract

This paper reports on the results of a study of construction worker eye injuries collected by a firm
that provides medical treatment services to over 40,000 construction workers each year. The records
maintained by these clinics were examined for information related to injury causation and specific
factors associated with construction worker eye injuries. A study was conducted on a random sample
of a portion of the data involving construction workers eye injuries. The objective was to identify
factors that were associated with eye injury causation. Over 600 eye injuries were examined. There
was an equal distribution of right eye and left eye injuries. It was noted that for nearly 80% of the eye
injuries, no eye protection was worn at the time of the injury. When dust particles were involved in
the injury, no eye protection was worn in 97% of the instances. Specific patterns of injuries were
noted. For example, when grinding metal, 66% of the injuries were to the right eyes. Additionally,
the use of drills was associated with significantly more right eye injuries, while the use of hammers
was associated with significantly more left eye injuries. These findings suggest that right or left eye
injuries are associated with certain tools and tasks, suggesting that additional research is warranted
in this area. Eye protection is one means of reducing these types of injuries, but it appears that task
layout and tool design may also have an influence.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Construction tasks; Eye injuries; Eye protection; Tools

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hinze@ufl.edu (J. Hinze).

0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.015
 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645 635

1. Introduction

Understanding the root causes of injuries is perhaps the beginning of enlightenment

that can ultimately lead to the development of interventions that can be successfully imple-
mented to curtail future injury occurrences. This is a fundamental premise in accident pre-
vention and is also evident from the mandated injury reporting requirements of employers.
The Employer’s First Report of Injury, a report required by US workers’ compensation
carriers for each injury (excluding first aid cases) that occurs, includes a portion in which
the employer is to describe the underlying cause of the injury. From this information, the
employer can readily reflect on preventative measures that might be implemented. This
information could be useful in implementing programs that would help prevent future
injury occurrences.
Eye injuries are one source of concern to construction employers. Eye injuries consti-
tute a significant portion of the injuries sustained by construction workers (Hinze et al,
2006a). The general perception is that eye injuries could be dramatically reduced through
rigorous adherence to practices that protect the eyes. Eye protection, in the form of safety
glasses, goggles, and face shields, has been available for many years. In only recent years
have many US construction companies begun to require their workers to wear some form
of eye protection at all times when on the construction site. While some firms are becom-
ing more proactive about protecting the eyes of their employees, others continue to show a
disregard for the need to address the potential of eye injuries. While the overall costs of
most eye injuries are generally relatively small, a serious injury could be costly for an
employer and such an injury could be devastating to an employee. The objective of this
research was to identify key factors associated with eye injuries. The primary purpose
of this study was to develop an understanding of the risks of eye injuries that are associ-
ated with specific crafts, the risks associated with specific tools/tasks, and other factors
that might explain more about the occurrence of eye injuries among construction workers.
By having a better understanding about the causes of eye injuries, construction firms could
make significant improvements in their overall safety performances. Safety and health offi-
cials, safety consultants and other stakeholders could also benefit from information of
construction worker eye injuries and their associated causative factors.

2. Literature review

Many studies have been conducted on different types of industrial injuries. Studies of
injuries in the construction industry are less common. Each year over 400,000 occupa-
tional safety and health administration (OSHA) recordable construction worker injuries
are documented in the United States. Over 1,000 construction workers die as a result of
work-related accidents (National Safety Council). For 2004, the US Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics (BLS) reported nonfatal occupational injury and illness incidence rates of 6.4
recordable cases per 100 full time construction workers, with 2.4/100 cases involving days
away from work (BLS, 2004). Various studies have examined the details surrounding acci-
dents in which construction workers were killed. Few have examined the information
related to construction worker injuries and this is a shortcoming that has been recognized
on a global scale (Koehn et al., 1995) and (Suazo and Jaselskis, 1993). Most resources on
the internet that address eye safety are focused on the sale of products to protect the eyes
of workers.
636 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645

It is estimated that nearly 11% of all construction worker injuries are eye injuries (Hinze
et al, 2006a). Furthermore, nearly 11,000 serious eye injuries occur each year in which the
workers are required to miss days at work and even lose the ability to continue their con-
struction jobs (Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, 2002).
Despite the large number of injuries, several studies have demonstrated how estimates
from the BLS and other sources underestimate the number and incidence of worker ill-
nesses and injuries (Hunting et al., 1994; Glazner et al., 1998; Leigh et al., 2004). It is noted
that under-reporting of injuries is most common for the less severe injuries. Eye injuries
are also expected to be under-reported. The examination of the possible contributors of
injuries can help to make the workplace safer for the construction workers and this will
ultimately improve the entire industry.
In general, the studies that examined the root causes of serious construction injuries and
fatalities were conducted by isolating the incidents that were related to one particular type
of accident, e.g. falls, struck by, caught in/between, electrical shock and other (Hinze,
1996). The focus was not on the type of injury that was sustained by the injured worker.
This approach was used in most instances because of the serious nature of the injuries or
because the accidents resulted in fatalities. This approach appears appropriate for serious
injuries as preventative measures can be devised once patterns of accident causation are
identified (Hinze, 1996). Eye injuries do not generally result in life-threatening injuries
and, as a result, have perhaps been largely ignored by safety researchers. A single study
in Hong Kong had its focus on eye injuries (Yu et al., 2004).
A recent study of eye injuries among construction workers noted that age did not appear
to be a factor that would result in more eye injuries among a particular group of workers
(Hinze et al, 2006a). Half of the construction worker injuries involved injuries to the hands,
lumbar spine, upper extremities, and eyes. It was reported that eye injuries were, as a gen-
eral injury category, among the least costly injuries. The fact that eye injuries are not gen-
erally costly should not motivate the industry to reduce its focus on these types of injuries.

3. Methodology

The objective of this research was to examine the underlying conditions that existed at
the time that construction worker eye injuries occurred. In order to conduct this study, it
was necessary to obtain construction worker injury descriptions involving eye injuries.
Since only eye injuries were to be analyzed, a large database was needed. The source of
information that was utilized for this study was provided by Concentra Inc., an occupa-
tional medicine health care provider. Concentra provides occupational medicine services
through 250 medical clinics located in 34 states within the United States. Concentra main-
tains a proprietary information management system that contains patient demographic
and injury data as well as outpatient treatment, diagnostic, billing, and outcomes informa-
tion. This system tracks information on injury care provided to approximately 500,000
workers annually which equates to approximately 10% of all occupational illnesses and
injuries in the US (BLS, 2002). The Concentra database contained information on over
40,000 injured construction workers that occurred each year since 2000. Injuries not
included in this database are the more serious injuries which resulted in treatment in emer-
gency rooms and at trauma centers.
The information from Concentra was the sole source utilized for this research effort.
Typical components of the database maintained by Concentra include the patient contact
 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645 637

information and demographics, employer contact information, chief complaint, the

patient statement, the history of present illness (mechanism of injury, pain description,
associated symptoms, etc.), social history, past medical history, review of systems, exam
components, studies, diagnosis, and treatment plans. While some coded information was
included in the database, this generally related more to the diagnosis and treatment of the
injury and was not of any particular value to this research effort. The information of
interest consisted of the medical transcriptions which generally gave brief descriptions
that included varying details about the conditions existing at the time of the injury, the
task being performed when the injury occurred, the nature of the injury, the diagnosis,
and information on the treatment. Since the transcriptions were prepared by physicians,
nurses and medical assistants, they tend to be more heavily focused on providing infor-
mation on the treatment of the injuries. Although the information about accident causa-
tion was generally brief, sufficient information was generally provided to obtain
meaningful information about the circumstances associated with the occurrences of the
injuries.
It should be noted that the data had the identifying patient information deleted from
the files prior to releasing the information for analysis. This was done to maintain compli-
ance with the health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) that was passed
on August 21, 1996. This act ensures greater confidentiality of the information contained
in patient records. As such, the data that were analyzed did not include any identifiers or
any other sensitive information, e.g. drug test results. Because of these constraints of ano-
nymity in the data, it was not possible to double check information or to obtain more
detailed information directly from the injured individuals.
The data provided by Concentra were examined and a random selection of the eye inju-
ries was made. The information from 601 randomly selected construction worker eye inju-
ries was included in the final data analysis. The analysis was conducted by carefully
reading the transcriptions and gleaning the meaningful information. The transcription
information was carefully read and this information was reduced to coded information
that pertained to the factors related to the causation of the injuries. After this information
was coded, the data were analyzed with the use of Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS).

4. Results

Since the transcriptions are not specifically formatted to capture particular types of
information, there was some variation in the nature of the information that could be
retrieved, i.e., standardized descriptions of accident causation were not provided in the
records. When the results of the data analysis are presented it should be noted that some
information was not always available and for some cases it was not pertinent.
The eye injuries were examined by the time of year when they occurred. Results show
that over 45% of the eye injuries took place during the four-month period from May
through August (see Table 1). This may reflect the period in the year when construction
work is most intensive. The months associated with the smallest number of eye injuries
were November and December and these may reflect times during which construction
work is least intense. The injury distribution among the remaining months were more
even, however; the high number of eye injuries during January (more than twice the num-
ber for December) cannot be readily explained.
638 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645

Table 1
Eye injuries by month of the year
Description: month eye injury occurred? Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
January 53 9.5
February 44 7.9
March 49 8.8
April 36 6.5
May 65 11.7
June 56 10.1
July 66 11.9
August 64 11.5
September 33 5.9
October 44 7.9
November 23 4.1
December 22 4.0
Total 555 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 46 injuries.

The data were examined further to determine if other patterns of occurrence might be
identified. An interesting distribution was noted with 60 of the injuries that involved dust
in the eye. Of those dust-related injuries, 56% occurred in the four-month period from
February through May. This may reflect the period of the year when many site work activ-
ities take place. This is the time of year when the site work is particularly intense because
many projects begin during this time period. When only cement-related injuries were con-
sidered, it was found that nearly 41% of the injuries occurred in September. While this may
be the month when considerable concrete work is done, the data represent 27 injuries,
which may be an insufficient number from which to draw meaningful conclusions.
Of the 601 eye injuries that were investigated, fourteen were sustained by women. With
the small percentage of eye injuries occurring among women (approximately 2%), no fur-
ther analysis could be performed to examine the issue of gender as it pertained to eye inju-
ries. The number of women with eye injuries may be a reflection of the proportion of
women in the construction industry, but there are probably actually more women working
in construction. What is not known is the types of work and the exposure risks experienced
by women on construction sites.
The ages of the workers who sustained eye injuries ranged from 18 to 70. The distribu-
tion of the ages of these workers appears to be similar to the age distribution of workers in
the construction industry (see Table 2). The age group from 25 to 35 and the age group
from 36 to 50 had comparable numbers of eye injuries.
Most of the medical transcripts provided information about whether or not the injured
worker was wearing eye protection at the time of the injury. Of those instances in which
this information was provided, it was noted that nearly 80% of the injured workers were
not wearing eye protection at the time of their injuries (see Table 3).
It was also revealed that for 96.7% of the eye injuries involving dust that the workers
were not wearing eye protection. This would imply that these workers were not expecting
that they were placing their own eye safety at risk. On the other hand, over 26% of the
workers working near cement were wearing eye protection, indicating that at least some
workers recognized the hazards posed by cement. Other tasks were also found to influence
 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645 639

Table 2
Age of construction workers with eye injuries
Age of injured Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
18–24 107 18.5
25–35 200 34.5
36–50 196 33.9
Over 50 75 13.0
Total 578 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 23 injuries.

Table 3
Wearing of eye protection and eye injuries
Description: was eye protection worn? Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
Yes 103 20.2
No 407 79.8
Total 510 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 91 injuries.

the wearing of eye protection by some workers. When working with hand tools, 7.1% of
the injured workers had been wearing eye protection. Additionally, 17.0% of the workers
handling materials and 30.4% of the workers working with power tools were wearing eye
protection at the time of their injuries.
The task being performed at the time of the injury occurrence was provided for many of
the injuries. The most common tasks being performed by the injured workers were grind-
ing metal and masonry work (see Table 4). Some of the injured workers were presumably
general laborers for whom the physicians had difficulty in defining their work tasks. It is
suggested from the findings that most of the trades commonly found on construction pro-
jects are susceptible to eye injuries.
Further analysis gave a more detailed examination of the task being performed at the
time of the injury. Specifically, the injury occurrences were examined as they pertained to
the use of either the use of power tools, hand tools, or material handling. Only a small
percentage of the injuries were significantly associated with the use of hand tools. Most
of the injuries were associated with either materials handling or with the use of power tools
(see Table 5).
The performance of some tasks is associated with specific tools. These tools often bear a
reflection of the trade of the worker. When provided, this information was examined. For
example, the common tools of carpenters include hammers and saws, while welders utilize
welding machines and grinders. Among the injured construction workers, the most com-
mon tools were noted to be grinders, heavy machinery, welders, drills, hammers, and
power saws (see Table 6). The tools can readily be identified as being the tools used by iron
workers, carpenters, etc.
The information was examined to determine if the eye injuries involved one eye more
than the other or if both eyes were injured in the accidents. The results, shown in Table
7, show that there is virtually no difference in the frequency with which one eye or the
other is injured. In addition, both eyes were involved in more than twelve percent of
640 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645

Table 4
Type of work associated with eye injuries
Task being performed Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
Grinding metal 59 14.7
Masonry 53 13.2
Electrical 35 8.7
Roofing 34 8.5
Sawing wood 30 7.5
Landscaping 30 7.5
Welding 30 7.5
Insulation 27 6.7
Cleaning 26 6.5
Hammering 21 5.2
Framing 18 4.5
Painting 13 3.2
Mechanical 13 3.2
Plumbing 12 3.0
Sandblasting 1 0.2
Total 402 100

Table 5
Eye injuries and tool use or material handling
Were tools or materials being used? Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
Power tool 193 39.4
Hand tool 42 8.6
Material handling 255 52.0
Total 490 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 111 injuries.

Table 6
Eye injuries and the specific tool used
Specific tool/substance used Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
Grinder 50 11.4
Heavy machinery 49 11.1
Welder 30 6.8
Drill 28 6.4
Hammer 24 5.5
Power saw 22 5.0
Chemicals 17 3.9
Sand blaster 11 2.5
Knife 9 2.0
Chipper 2 0.5
Leaf blower 2 0.5
None 196 44.5
Total 440 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 161 injuries.

the injury cases. Additionally, most injuries (92.7%) were exclusively eye injuries. In a few
cases, the area around the eye might have also sustained an injury, as with metal particles
 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645 641

Table 7
Specific eye that was injured
Description: which eye was injured? Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
Right 247 43.2
Left 253 44.2
Both 72 12.6
Total 572 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 29 injuries.

striking the face and eyes when grinding metal. Additional review of the data showed that
26.4% of the dust and cement-related eye injuries impacted both eyes. When handling
cement, over 70% of the injuries involved both eyes.
In terms of the seriousness of the injuries, it was found that 67% of the eye injuries
required treatment by a physician. A visit to a physician that is not considered to be treat-
ment is where the physician merely examines the eye. For example, a particle in the eye
might have been removed successfully at the project site, but a visit to the physician might
be mandated as a precautionary measure.
Further analysis revealed that the distribution of injuries between the right eyes, left
eyes and both eyes appeared to be task specific. For example, tasks performed with hand
tools resulted in a disproportionate number of injuries to the left eyes of workers, while
working with power tools or handling materials did not seem to appreciably influence
the distribution of eye injuries (see Table 8). This was not the case; however, when specific
tasks were considered. It was noted that grinding and drilling activities resulted in more
right eye injuries, while power saw work resulted in more left eye injuries. Work with ham-
mers was associated with more left eye injuries. Working with chemicals or heavy equip-
ment resulted in more cases where both eyes were injured.
Another aspect of the injury accidents that could be gleaned from most of the transcrip-
tions related to the position of the injured worker, namely whether the injured worker was
operating the tool at the time of the injury or if the worker was a bystander when the

Table 8
Eye injuries as related to task performed
Description Eye that was injured Number of Injuries (N) and the extent that
eyewear was worn at the time of injury
Right (%) Left (%) Both (%)
General task
Power tools 46.0 39.6 14.4 (N = 148) 30% wore eye protection
Hand tools 63.2 23.7 13.2 (N = 42) 7% wore eye protection
Handling materials 37.5 47.8 14.7 (N = 235) 17% wore eye protection
Specific task
Grinding 70.2 24.6 5.3 (N = 57) 41% wore eye protection
Drilling 67.9 32.1 0 (N = 28) 64% wore eye protection
Hammering 25.0 62.5 12.5 (N = 24) 5% wore eye protection
Power saw 22.7 63.6 13.6 (N = 22) 50% wore eye protection
Chemicals 0 42.9 57.1 (N = 14) 0% wore eye protection
Heavy equipment 30.6 38.8 30.6 (N = 49) 5% wore eye protection
Total 43.2 44.2 12.6 (N = 510) 20.2% wore eye protection
642 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645

injury occurred. Nearly two-thirds of the injured workers were identified as being opera-
tors while the remaining workers were bystanders at the time of the injury (see Table 9).
The type of object or material that caused the injuries to the eyes was identified for
nearly half of the injuries. In some cases, the material in the eye had already been success-
fully flushed out of the eye while the worker was still at the construction site or it might
have been removed naturally by tearing or some other means. The particles or items
removed from the eyes or which were known to have caused the injuries are shown in
Table 10. Note that nearly half of the items that injured the eyes were metal fragments.
The other materials included dust, liquid/chemicals, concrete dust, and wood. The mate-
rials listed were not always those that were removed. In many cases, as already noted, the
material was removed by the time the injured worker sought medical treatment.
As mentioned earlier, nearly 80% of the injured workers were not wearing eye protec-
tion at the time of injury occurrences. It is widely accepted in the construction industry
that most eye injuries could be prevented by wearing proper eye protection, whether in
the form of glasses, goggles or face shields. Additional analysis was conducted to deter-
mine if other factors were possibly related to the wearing of eye protection. Of those work-
ers who stated they were wearing eye protection at the time of injury occurrence, 71% were
operators, as opposed to being bystanders. Of all operators, nearly 26% wore eye protec-
tion, while less than 17% of the bystanders wore eye protection. The smaller number of
bystanders wearing eye protection suggests that bystanders are less aware of the dangers
posed by the work environment. Of course, the percentage of operators wearing eye pro-
tection is still quite small. Another finding about wearing eye protection related to the eyes
that were injured. Among those injured workers who wore eye protection, 1% sustained
injuries to both eyes, while among those who did not wear eye protection, 16% of the inju-
ries affected both eyes.

Table 9
Role of the injured worker at the time of injury occurrence
Role of injured worker? Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
Operator 345 64.8
Bystander 187 35.2
Total 532 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 69 injuries.

Table 10
Type of object that caused the eye injury
Type object or material Frequency Percent of eye injuries (%)
Metal fragment 141 48.1
Dust 62 21.2
Liquid/chemical 40 13.6
Concrete dust 27 9.2
Wood 17 5.8
Glass 4 1.4
Nail 2 0.7
Total 293 100
Note: Information not provided in transcripts for 308 injuries.
 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645 643

Additional analysis was conducted to determine if other factors were impacted by the
position held by the worker, namely whether they were operators of tools or equipment
versus being bystanders. The data showed that operators were generally older than the
bystanders. For example, over 52% of the operators were over the age of 35 while 67%
of the bystanders were equal to or under the age of 35. This may indicate that the bystand-
ers are generally less experienced and less skilled workers. This is further suggested by the
fact that of the injured operators, over 53% of those who were injured used power tools
while fewer than 8% of the bystanders used power tools. In fact, of the bystanders with
eye injuries, nearly 77% were involved in materials handling at the time of injury occur-
rence and not involved with operating or using tools.
Results show that in general, construction workers do not fully appreciate the risks of
eye injuries as noted by the large percentage of construction workers who did not wear eye
protection at the time of the injury occurrences. When the type of object causing the injury
was considered, some interesting results were noted. For example, when the material caus-
ing the injury was metal fragments, the workers were wearing eye protection in over 36%
of the instances. This suggests that despite the eye protection, the workers were not wear-
ing the appropriate eye protection, i.e., they were wearing safety glasses when goggles or
face shields would offer better protection.
Eye protection was rarely worn when dust particles or cement powder were agents con-
tributing to the eye injuries, i.e., eye protection was not worn by 91% of these injured
workers. This suggests that the workers were not considering the dust to be a potential
agent of injury. Of the dust and cement powder eye injuries, 58% were sustained by
bystanders and not the operators. Results further suggest that eye protection (when worn)
offers effective control to protect the eyes. Furthermore, it was noted that when dust and
cement powder eye injuries occurred, over 26% of the eye injuries affected both eyes.
Of the injured workers who wore protective eyewear, 49% of the workers were associ-
ated with the use of power tools, while 3% of the workers who wore eye protection were
working with hand tools. Additionally, of those workers who wore eye protection, over
60% were involved in either sawing wood or in grinding metal. This seems to suggest that
at least some of the workers recognized that eye protection must be worn around power
tools.

5. Conclusions

From the results a number of conclusions can be drawn. Most importantly, eye injuries
are not random occurrences. Some types of work tasks are clearly associated with a dis-
proportionate number of the eye injuries. For example, grinding metal, masonry work,
welding, roofing and sanding wood account for over 50% of the construction worker
eye injuries. Metal fragments are a particular concern where eye injuries are concerned.
When grinding metal, more workers wore eye protection than when performing other
tasks. This suggests that while workers were wearing eye protection, they were wearing
an inappropriate type of eye protection. For example, they may have worn safety glasses
when they should have worn goggles or face shields. Most notable, for the entire injured
worker population, most injuries occurred when workers were not wearing eye protection.
Failure to wear eye protection is significantly related to an inordinate number of eye inju-
ries that could have been avoided. From this, it can be inferred that most of these injuries
were preventable.
644 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645

Dust and cement powder pose a significant threat to eye safety and in general are not
recognized as such. Most eye injuries involving dust and cement powder occurred when
very few workers were wearing eye protection. This is further suggested by the findings
that illustrate that when eye protection was not worn in the presence of dust and cement
powder, the risk of injuring both eyes was dramatically increased. The results indicate that
eye injuries may be influenced by the types of tools or types of tasks being performed.
While work involving conditions where dust or fine particulates (such as cement) are in
the air are associated with both eyes being injures, work with some tools is associated with
particular eyes being injured. This is presumably associated with the basic tool design, the
manner in which these tools are held, or the particular motion of the tool.

6. Recommendations

Since most of the eye injuries tend to occur when workers do not wear eye protection,
an obvious solution to this issue is a close adherence to the requirements for construction
workers to wear eye protection. This eye protection will often consist of safety glasses, but
consideration must be given to the specific conditions to determine if goggles or face
shields might be more appropriate. Coupled with this effort should be the education of
workers on the appropriate eye protection to wear under given circumstances. Workers
clearly do not accurately assess when eye protection is to be worn. Serious consideration
should be given by every construction firm to mandate that all workers on their construc-
tion sites wear eye protection at all times. Safety personnel should remain current on safety
matters by referring to such resources as the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) and gleaning the most relevant information (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
topics/eye/#stats). Firms should also implement carefully-developed programs to educate
and remind their workers about the importance of eye safety. In one reported study on a
large construction project, eye injuries were substantially reduced within a few months
when an eye safety program of education and compliance was instituted (Hinze et al.,
2006b).
Most injuries (nearly 80%) are the result of exposure to either metal fragments (iron fil-
ings) or dust (including cement powder). Workers should be educated about these dangers.
Of course, the results showed that some eye injuries still occurred in such environments
when eye protection was worn. To curtail these types of injuries, efforts should be
expended to reduce eye exposures. Protection from metal fragments might improve with
the use of improved methods of eye protection, such as goggles or face shields. Similarly,
dust might be better controlled by using some type of wetting methods, vacuum systems,
or ventilation to reduce the concentration of particulates in the air.
While this study disclosed some interesting findings, some conclusions remain specula-
tive. Another study of this type should be conducted with a larger database. The findings
suggest that a larger sample size would result in conclusions that could be substantiated.
The topic of eye injuries warrants additional research. The suggestion that some tools
and tasks are associated with injuries that more commonly impact either the right eye or
the left eye should be examined further. This research should first confirm if right (or left)
eye injuries are more likely to occur with the performance of certain tasks when using spe-
cific tools. Consideration should be given to the evaluation of power tools and their impact
on eye safety. Some tools appear to pose a greater threat to the right eyes of workers while
others are a greater threat to the left eyes of workers. This phenomenon should be
 J. Hinze, G. Giang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 634–645 645

explored in a study where a larger sample size is utilized. If the findings of this study are
replicated, consideration should be given to the redesign of tools and/or the appropriate
use of these tools that does not create an undue hazard for the eyes.

References

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, 2002. Hazard Alert – Eye Injuries in Construction, eLCOSH, Available from:
<http://www.cdc.gov/eLCOSH/docs/d0100/d000018/d000018.html>.
Glazner, J., Borgerding, J., Lower, J., Bondy, J., Mueller, K., Kreiss, K., 1998. Construction injury rates may
exceed national estimates: evidence from the construction of Denver International Airport. American Journal
of Industrial Medicine 34 (2), 105–112.
Hinze, J., 1996. Revised coding system for construction fatalities and injuries. In: Proceedings of the First
International Conference of CIB W99, Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites, Lisbon.
Hinze, J., Devenport, J., Giang, G., 2006a. Analysis of construction worker injuries that do not result in lost time.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 132 (3), 321–326.
Hinze, J., Madariaga, M., and Pizarro, D., 2006. Target Safety. Construction Industry Institute, Research Report
216-2.
Hunting, K.L., Nessel-Stephens, L., Sanford, S.M., Shesser, R., Welch, L., 1994. Surveillance of construction
worker injuries through an urban emergency department. Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine
36 (3), 356–364.
Koehn, E., Kothari, R., Chih-Shing, P., 1995. Safety in developing countries: professional and bureaucratic
problems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 121 (3), 261–265.
Leigh, J., Marcin, J., Miller, T., 2004. An estimate of the US Government’s undercount of nonfatal occupational
injuries. Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine 46, 10–18.
Suazo, G., Jaselskis, E., 1993. Comparison of construction safety codes in United States and Honduras. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 119 (3), 560–572.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in 2004. (12/18/2003). Washington DC: BLS
Available from: <http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf>.
Yu, T., Liu, H., Hui, K., 2004. A case – control study of eye injuries in the workplace in Hong Kong.
Ophthalmology 111 (1), 70–74.