Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

What does ergonomics have to do with nanotechnologies? A case study

Louis Galey a, *, Sabyne Audignon a, Olivier Witschger b, S�ebastien Bau b, Nathalie Judon b,
Aude Lacourt a, Alain Garrigou a
a
Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, team EPICENE, UMR 1219, 146 rue L�eo Saignat, F-33000, Bordeaux, France
b
Institut National de Recherche et de S�ecurit�e (INRS), Rue du Morvan, CS 60027, 54500, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France

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

Keywords: Despite recent concerns for workers’ health, exposure situations to nanoparticles can occur in numerous
Design project workplaces. Understanding how exposures occur considering human work in these transformations remains a
Participatory ergonomics crucial issue of nanotechnologies. The objective of this article is to understand exposure situations to nano­
Measurement
particles, their determinants and the resources to act on them.
Nanotechnologies
This understanding was achieved by specific measurement of nanoparticles aerosols, combined with an
analysis of work activity (actions performed and physical strain) in a rubber industry. The presentation of real
time measurements, associated with the video of work situations, during confrontation interviews becomes a
means of making exposing work activities visible, to analyze and transform them from the points of view
formulated by the company’s stakeholders. In this way, characterized “typical exposure situations” serve to
trigger discussions and open up new spaces for debate highlighting how innovation affects work and gives rise to
enhanced prevention projects.

1. Introduction
Almost all industrial sectors have workplace environments where
worker exposure to airborne nanoparticles may occur. Nanoparticles
(NPs) have a nominal diameter smaller than about 100 nm, or clump
together as aggregates or agglomerates ranging in size from a few tens of
nanometers up to several micrometers (ISO TS 80004, 2015). These
airborne NPs can be released as an unintentional by-product of a pro­
cess, in which case they are generally designated as “ultrafine particles”.
Alternatively, they may be released during the production or handling of
manufactured nanomaterials (Debia et al., 2016), called “engineered
nanoparticles”. Occupational exposure to ultrafine particles can occur
where high-energy (temperature, speed or combustion) processes take
place. These processes may be innovative (thermal spraying, additive
manufacturing, etc.) or more commonplace (welding, thermoplastics
processing, etc.) (Pietroiusti and Magrini, 2014; Viitanen et al., 2017).
Many toxicological studies have underlined the health effects of the
inhalation of NPs: oxidative stress, genotoxicity and inflammatory re­
sponses (Bakand and Hayes, 2016). Due to their size, these particles
induce more intense biological responses than bulk materials of the
same chemical composition for the same mass concentration, and
physiological barriers become permeable (Oberdo €rster et al., 2005).
Such evidence has questioned the mass paradigm and has highlighted
that other toxicity determinants (Bakand and Hayes, 2016) such as
particle number, particle surface area and reactivity, particle size and
shape should be measured.
In this context of uncertainty regarding exposure and its associated
human health effects, assessing exposure to NPs in occupational settings
is a challenge. Several measurement strategies have been proposed but
no consensus has emerged, and the ordinary practices of industrial hy­
gienists and preventionists are affected (Ostraat et al., 2013; Eastlake
et al., 2016).
Ergonomics, as defined by the International Ergonomics Association
for instance, is still insufficiently considered in current innovation
strategies, and in the resulting transformation of work practices induced
by innovations. Furthermore, developing attractive and safe work has
come to rely on consideration for sustainability (Bolis et al., 2016) as
well proficient innovations. In addition, we observe that the questions
raised by nanotechnologies have been discussed in several ergonomics
congresses (IEA, 2018; SELF 2017, 2018), but few papers have yet been
published (Kim, 2016).
In human factors and ergonomics, we would like to refer to the
founding work of Chowdhury et al. (2012) and Karwowski (2005) that
introduce the domain of nanoergonomics to describe some potential

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: louis.galey@u-bordeaux.fr (L. Galey).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103116
Received 31 October 2018; Received in revised form 4 March 2020; Accepted 6 April 2020
Available online 27 April 2020
0003-6870/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Galey et al.
implications for human interaction and work resulting from nanotech­
nology. The authors describe new areas of intervention for the ergono­
mist based on the possible applications of these nanotechnologies to
develop working conditions (Chowdhury et al., 2012).
Our multidisciplinary approach, crossing practices from various
occupational health disciplines (industrial hygiene, toxicology, epide­
miology and ergonomics), forms a field of ergonomics research
(Garrigou et al., 2019) that must meet the new challenges of a changing
world (Genaidy and Karwowski, 2006).
The purpose of this article is to contribute to developing and
implementing a method – articulating measurements and work activity
analysis – to characterize typical exposure situations (TESs). The body of
knowledge thus developed can then form a basis to include prevention
from the design stage as well as to develop innovative prevention pro­
jects that can alter existing work situations. The point in both cases is to
make work situations safer in the future.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Assessment of occupational exposure to nanoparticles
The existing strategies to assess exposure to NPs are complex to
follow because they differ from one another and require a lot of exper­
tise. The diversity of objectives, NPs, available measurement in­
struments, and actors proposing these strategies also explains the range
of current strategies. To document the most relevant characteristics of
NPs, several instruments must therefore be used in the field
(Asbach et al., 2017).
The importance of integrating contextual information that could
influence exposure has been underlined (Woskie et al., 2010), and some
of this information has finally been integrated and described in assess­
ment strategies (Bekker et al., 2015; OECD, 2015; Eastlake et al., 2016;
EN 17058, 2018). Conversely, we observe that integrating a description
of a task or an activity is becoming an area of interest to investigate
exposure.
Other industrial hygiene practices, such as video exposure moni­
toring, consisting in synchronizing videos of work and real-time mea­
surements with computer software to assess exposure, show that greater
consideration is being given to what can occur in workplaces (Ros� en
et al., 2005; Beurskens-Comuth et al., 2011; Haas and Cecala, 2017). A
presentation of the results in the company helps to train workers and
assess the efficiency of the implemented control measures (Ros�en et al.,
2005). In a more sociotechnical systems perspective (Haas et al., 2014;
Haas et al., 2016, 2019), the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) reports the use of a free video exposure monitoring
software (EVADE), giving key tools and a method to identify exposures
and develop prevention solutions in the context of mining works
(Haas and Cecala, 2017). However, few researchers or preventionists
use this video exposure monitoring tool today (Douwes et al., 2017).
In the field of safety by design for nanotechnologies the character­
istics of real concrete work and their implications on safety at an orga­
nizational level are sometimes ignored (Schwarz-Plaschg et al., 2017;
Kraegeloh et al., 2018). Moreover, nanotechnologies develop socio­
technical endeavors which result in overcoming technical artifacts
(Kant, 2017); this must be taken into consideration when implementing
these changes.
For health and safety development, further studies in design ergo­
nomics research applied to nanotechnologies are needed (Kim, 2016;
Hodson et al., 2019) since general recommendations are not sufficient in
themselves to avoid exposure situations (Schulte et al., 2008; NIOSH,
2009; Woskie, 2010; ISO TS 12901, 2012; Schulte et al., 2014; ISO TR
12885, 2018; Díaz-Soler et al., 2019).
Despite this closer look at exposure situations, real work is not
analyzed as thoroughly as in activity centered ergonomics (Daniellou,
2005).
2
Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116
2.2. Lessons from ergonomics
Several fields of ergonomics point to methodologies that take into
account human work as it is really done (De Keyser, 1992; Daniellou,
2005; Dul and Neumann, 2009; Delgoulet et al., 2012; Hall-Andersen
and Broberg, 2014; Falzon, 2014; Bolis and Sznelwar, 2016). That type
of ergonomics is related more generally to ergonomics work analysis
(Leplat, 1978; De Keyser, 1991; Wisner, 1995; Teiger and Montreuil,
1996; Lacomblez, 1996; Leinonen and Kisko, 1998; Dempsey, 2000; De
Miranda Prottes et al., 2012; Kloetzer, 2013; B�eguin et al., 2015; Hof­
mann et al., 2017; Carvalho et al., 2018; Cuny-Guerrier et al., 2019).
Research associating activity-centered ergonomics and exposure to
chemical products has already been carried out more particularly in the
field of agriculture (Garrigou et al., 2011; Sznelwar, 1992) or in road
paving work (Judon et al., 2015).
To include human work in the context of nanotechnologies, the basic
unit of work analysis in typical action situation (TAS) oriented to­
wards the design of new work situations opens up possibilities. In the
approach adopted by activity ergonomists in participatory design pro­
cesses, TAS was prompted by the lack of consideration of human work.
These TASs based on current work serve to build requirements for the
stakeholders involved in the process of work design projects, and help
identify critical points (Garrigou et al., 1995; Barcellini et al., 2014;
Dutier et al., 2015).
Reference situations in existing work practices have to be identified
in contexts similar to future work so as to bring concrete and practical
elements to the process to be designed (Daniellou and Garrigou, 1992;
Daniellou, 2004). From these reference situations, TASs can be
described. The whole set of TASs constitutes a library of situations that
will support the design project. These TASs contain variabilities that
could be encountered in future situations, including degraded and
normal modes, transition and maintenance, events and incidents, etc.
Among these variabilities, exposure to chemicals is rarely considered
(Garrigou et al., 1995).
Most commonly (Garrigou et al., 1995; Barcellini et al., 2014), TASs
are defined by the objectives to be achieved (the task); the criteria; the
stakeholders involved in them; the sources of information; the required
means and tools; the constraints of accomplishing these objectives; and
the external or internal factors that can influence the achievement of the
objectives.
Once specified, TASs inform design projects in different ways
depending on the design stage. At the beginning of the project, TASs can
enrich and add detail to project specifications. Next, TASs are gathered
in the scenarii used to support simulations of future work (Barcellini
et al., 2014; Daniellou and Garrigou, 1992). Formalization of TASs can
be achieved by means of prototypes, models, work organization pro­
posals or technical suggestions.
The design of work situations calls for participatory ergonomics
practices (Haines et al., 2002; Morris et al., 2004; Broberg et al., 2011).
The co-construction and use of TASs by workers and management is a
key point in the process, requiring strong involvement of the company
stakeholders. The discussion spaces created through the involvement of
company stakeholders are a basis for reflection. They combine several
rationales (Barcellini et al., 2014) and take the diverse constraints of
participants into consideration. One of the benefits of the use of TASs in
design ergonomics is that it opens “space to shape potential future activ­
ities” (Garrigou et al., 1995), taking into account human work and its
requirements.
We thus further developed TASs into typical exposure situations
(TESs), where actual work in the presence of NPs must be transformed to
mitigate exposures. In the same way as TASs, TESs account for exposing
activities, their conditions, and disclose the resources and relevant pa­
rameters to alter the construction of prevention positively. In our
context, the aim of the method is to describe TESs with workers and
management to develop their resources to act on exposure.
L. Galey et al.
Table 1
Main characteristics of the company, worker and operation.
Field (number of employees) Worker characteristics Prescribed operation
Rubber industry (80) Age ¼ 25 Weighing of powders consisting in
Height ¼ 1.60m using bag (25 kg) or big bag to weigh
Weight ¼ 55 kg powders in new bag on a scale.
3. Method
The first stage of the study was to develop an operational method
articulating the measurements of NPs and work activity analyses. A
working group of experts from disciplines such as metrology of aerosols,
industrial hygiene, epidemiology and ergonomics was created. Mea­
surement instruments were selected and tested for their relevance in
describing the actual toxicity determinants of NPs (number and mass
concentration, size and chemical composition for instance).
The second stage was to implement the method in the company
presented in Table 1. All situations that can expose the worker to NPs
were studied and looked into so as to define what could be referred to as
TESs. Typical in the sense that they are representative of the repetition
of the same determinants leading to exposure, be it once a year or
several times a day. The core business of the company is mixing powders
as an additive into rubber. The weighing operation was chosen with the
workers and the management, for the representativeness of the actions
carried out by the worker in this company (and in other industries), and
the dusty nature of the materials handled at this workstation.
When implementing this methodology (see Fig. 1), even though
preventionists were the main discussion partners, the project was pre­
sented to health and safety committees at its start and conclusion.
Fig. 1. Design of the study implemented in the rubber industry to specify TES
through video and measurement.
3
Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116
Duration Nature of particles
Day 1 (D1): 1h25 carbon black, kaolin, calcium carbonate
Day 2 (D2): 1h37 zinc borate, hydrated alumina, carbon black…
Individual semi-structured interviews with workers, management staff
and preventionists were carried out to collect safety documents, discuss
actual exposure situation representations, and find out how safety rules
were established. Then, three main steps, summarized in Fig. 1, were
carried out.
1. This collaborative work to construct the intervention prompted the
selection of a work situation. The operation consisting in weighing
powders on a scale was selected for in-depth characterization of
TESs, combining video recordings, sampling and real-time mea­
surements. A preliminary hypothesis strengthened by the first work
observation questioned a possible link between the handling of the
bags used by the worker to weigh powders on the scale and exposure
situations. More precisely, two assessments were carried out with the
same worker, over two different days (see Table 1). The instruments
described in Table 2 were used to perform the assessment leading to
the characterization of the TESs. Measurements were made in the
breathing zone of the worker (W) with a DiSCmini (Fierz et al.,
2011), a PDR1500 (Halterman et al., 2017), a Sioutas (Misra et al.,
2002) and a MPS (R’Mili et al., 2013). The same measurement in­
struments were placed 20 m from the workstation to measure the
background (B) aerosol (Kuhlbusch et al., 2011). This strategy en­
ables a comparison of worker (W) and background (B) concentra­
tions. The internal clock of the real-time instruments was set before
each assessment to ensure perfect synchronization between the video
and the measurements. The videos were recorded throughout the
entire duration of the operation, filming a clock (also synchronized
with the measurement instruments) at the beginning of the video for
further synchronization. In addition, a chest belt was placed onto the
worker for a real-time recording of the heart rate (Kim et al., 2013).
This sampling strategy was chosen to estimate the exposure resulting
from the work activity.
A video exposure monitoring software (CAPTIV), initially developed
by Martin et al. (1999) from INRS (France’s national institute for
research and safety), was used to link the videos of the work activity and
real-time measurements (DiSCmini, PDR1500 and Zephyr belt).
2. We then processed the data gathered with the software as follows:
- spotting “exposure peaks” in terms of heart rate or pollutant
concentration, and identifying the activity corresponding to these
peaks. We simply clicked on the peak display footage of the activity
performed at the time it was synchronized with the real-time
measurement data. This is particularly effective when conducting
both hazard analyses (frequent in prevention) and activity
analyses.
- post-coding of work activity parameters (see Table 3) in order for
the time-related statistics to be generated and exposure conditions
to be subsequently documented. First, this coding of work activities
was chosen according to the pre hypothesis formulated on expo­
sure conditions. In our case, the coding of the work activity stages
was chosen to describe actions performed by the worker.
From this activity coding, we produced crossed statistics repre­
sented by boxplots on cumulated time for each of these activity
stages and associated real-time NPs measurement results (recorded
with the DiSCmini). These descriptive statistics related to NPs mea­
surements for each activity stages were median concentration, the
L. Galey et al. Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116

Table 2
Instrument for the characterization of worker activity and aerosol parameters.
Tool Characteristic Position
3
AEROSOL Real-time Diffusion charger Number (and surface) concentration (#/m ) of particles from 10 nm to 700 nm W/B
DiSCmini (Testo)
3
Photometer Mass concentration (μg/m ) of particles from 0,1 μm to 4 μm W/B
PDR 1500 (Thermo Scientific, Personal Data Ram)
Sampling Personal cascade impactor Chemical analysis, mass concentration, size distribution. ICP AES-MS W/B
Sioutas personal cascade impactor (SKC Inc.)
Mini particle sampler Elemental analysis, shape, size. Electron microscopy W/B
MPS (Ecomesure)
WORKER Physiological sensors Worker’s heart rate W
Zephyr belt
Camera Worker’s operating mode and contextual information W
Sony HDR CX 450

Table 3 3. The TESs resulting from the implementation of the method were
Description of the coded work activity stages. presented during confrontation interviews, as defined by Mollo and
Coded activity Corresponding work activity Falzon (2004). These interviews involved the development of re­
stages flexive activity (Scho €n, 1983; Mollo and Nascimento, 2014) by
Prepares The worker changes the empty bag to be weighed on the scale interviewing one or more workers along with traces of the activity
workstation or interacts with the computer (videos, photographs, etc.) (Mollo and Falzon, 2004; Clot and Kos­
Prepares to weigh The worker brings a new bag of powder and opens the bag tulski, 2011; Ouellet, 2012; Fazion and Lousada, 2016). We chose the
Weighs The worker is handling powders during the transfer of powders term “confrontation” not in the sense of conflict, but in the sense of
into the weighing bag
Ends weighing The worker closes the weighed bag and transfers it into a tray
confronting one or several workers and company stakeholders with
Moves The worker is walking or driving a forklift traces of the activities carried out. These confrontation interviews
Cleans The worker is cleaning the workstation aimed to enrich analysis of the work activity of interest, to imagine
Changes big bag The worker is handling the empty big bag and replacing it with and share new ways to carry out the work, and to question the set
a new one
rules as well as the representations (Mollo and Nascimento, 2014).
This process was supported by factual materials describing and
inter-quartile range, the percentiles 2.5 and 97.5. Last, a physical stating the characteristics of the work.
strain analysis was performed for each of these activity stages with These interviews relied on video clips of work activity and real-time
the video exposure monitoring software. We used the grid by Meu­ measurements. The exposure peaks recorded by the researchers and
nier et al. (1994) to perform this assessment, based on guidelines the corresponding work activity displayed by the video exposure
from the American Industrial Hygiene Association (1971). Use of monitoring program supported the discussion. The objective was to
heart rate recordings remains a benchmark in the assessment of focus discussion on the practices actually implemented by the
physical strain (Kolus et al., 2016). Depending on the level of heart workers to understand how exposure can occur during work
rate for each activity stage, a physical strain score from 1 to 5 was situations.
attributed. A score of 1 stands for “light work”, while a score of 5
stands for a “very heavy work” (see Table 4). Three confrontation interviews were done as follows: one interview
(with video only) with the observed worker (1h21), one interview (with
The heart rate score used (Meunier et al., 1994) calculated from video and real-time measurements) with three workers (1h15) and one
heart rate recording considers the average heart rate (avHR) of the interview (with video and real-time measurements) with workers,
operator, the percentile 99 and the relative cardiac cost (RCC). The management staff (production manager, director, head of research and
rating for each of these three variables (average HR, percentile 99 and development) and the occupational physician (1h20). Then the
RCC) can range from 1 to 5 points. The addition of these three variables confrontation interviews were transcribed and coded to describe the
gives a heart rate score from 1 to 15 points for each action performed by TESs. When the statements corresponded to a theme, they were coded
the operator (see Table 5). into the theme in order to identify how the method could contribute to
The RCC in percent is calculated from the following formula: describing exposure situations. The themes were the following:
“human”, “technical” or “organizational determinants of exposure”, “rep­
RCC ¼
avHR P1
� 100 resentation”, “work activity”. This qualitative analysis of the statements
ð220 ageÞ P1 (Miles et al., 2013) was a key point in understanding how the method
can help to describe relevant information regarding exposing activity
avHR ¼ average heart rate; P1 ¼ 1st percentile of the recorded heart rate
analysis, and illustrates the results of these interviews.
values; age ¼ operator age.

Table 4
Physical strain assigned to the operator according to the heart rate score Table 5
(Meunier et al., 1994). Heart rate scoring grid according to average heart rate of the operator, the
Physical strain Heart rate score Example of situation percentile 99 and the relative cardiac cost (Meunier et al., 1994).
5 Very heavy 13 to 15 points Foundry worker Score Average HR (bpm) Percentile 99 (bpm) RCC (%)
4 Heavy 10 to 12 points Heavy work with heat
5 points 120 and above 150 and above 40 and above
3 Quite heavy 7 to 9 points …
4 points 110 to 119 140 to 149 30 to 39
2 Moderate 4 to 6 points …
3 points 100 to 109 130 to 139 20 to 29
1 Light 1 to 3 points Assembly line (sitting work),
2 points 90 to 99 120 to 129 10 to 19
surveillance agent, office work
1 point 80 to 89 110 to 119 0 to 10

4
L. Galey et al. Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116

4. Results 4.2. Step 2: documenting TESs through videos and measurements

The work performed at this workstation consists in preparing bags.
To do this, the operator must weigh approximately 10 kg of powders
from 25 kg bags of raw material and transfer them into a smaller bag.
The first day, the worker handled about 1000 kg of powders (500 kg
from the 25 kg bags of raw material and the remaining from the weighed
bags transported manually to be placed on a tray) for the duration of the
observation (1h25). The second day, the worker handled 1180 kg (590
kg from the 25 kg bags of raw material and the remaining from weighed
bags transported manually) in 1h37.
Table 6 summarizes general results regarding the weighing opera­
tions carried out by the worker over two different days.
4.1. Step 1: characterization of TES through measurements and work
activity
From step 1 of our method, data on exposure of the worker and
associated work activity emerge. Fig. 2 describes an increase in exposure
to carbon black micro- and nanoparticles recorded when a weighed bag
is closed by the worker. This kind of work activity also leads to vigorous
physical strain.
From step 2 of the method, several TESs were objectified by spotting
exposure peaks through the synchronization of videos of work activity
and measurements (see Fig. 3). The values presented in Fig. 3 are the
maxima recorded by the real-time instruments worn by the worker
(DiSCmini and PDR1500) during the increase in exposure related to
these activities. In this industry, exposure situations occur when the
worker empties the bag for weighing, closes the weighed bag, empties
the bucket or the scoop used to weigh powders, loads the bucket and
cleans the workplace with a broom.
The results of physicochemical analysis (obtained through sampling
with MPS and personal cascade impactor) are not presented here, since
that is not the objective of this article. However, all the handled powders
were identified by this analysis in the breathing zone of the workers, at
the nano- and micrometer scale, consolidating the validity of the results
of the real-time instruments.
From the crossed statistics resulting from the coding of the work
activity and real-time measurements, occupational exposure was
assessed to show the levels of exposure depending on the work activity
stages (see Fig. 4). The most exposing activity stages are when the
worker weighs, ends weighing (including closing the weighed bag and
folding the bag collar leading to the aerosolization of powders) and

Table 6
General results of the powder weighing operation.
Day Duration Nature of particles Work activity stages Contextual information
(number of bags weighted) (percentage of operation duration)

D1 1h25 Carbon black (16), Prepares workstation (16) Work environment:

CaCO3 (17), kaolin (17) Prepares to weigh (11) Standard industrial premises (24,9m(L)x16,35(W)x6,
Weighs (28) 41(H) ¼ 2609 m3), open metallic curtains.
Ends weighing (16) Protection and ventilation:
Moves (13) No general ventilation, local exhaust. Short sleeve
Cleans (7) non-protective cotton work clothes (maintained by operator),
Other (9) cut-resistant gloves, no respiratory protection. Powders are visible
D2 1h37 B4O9Zn3 (13), Prepares workstation (17) on workstation, face and clothes.
Al(OH)3 (4), carbon black (42) Prepares to weigh (10) Co-activity:
Weighs (25) Premises open on big bag (7 m) and mixer (50 m). Operator works alone.
Ends weighing (15)
Changes carbon black big bag (5)
Moves (21)
Cleans (1)
Other (6)

Fig. 2. Video exposure monitoring software interface to identify TESs articulating video footage of work activities and real-time measurements of nanoparticles in
the rubber industry.

5
L. Galey et al. Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116

Fig. 3. Example of TESs characterized by exposure peaks.

Fig. 4. Crossed statistics of exposures associated with activity stages for day 1 (D1) and day 2 (D2). The square shows the average concentration, the box shows the
inter-quartile range, the line within the box shows the median, the whiskers show the percentiles 2.5 and 97.5.

cleans the workstation. These results can be explained by the TESs
previously described (see Fig. 3).
The analysis of physical strain shows that the most physical activity
stages scored a maximum level of 5 according to Table 4 (when the
worker prepares to weigh, weighs, or ends weighing), which can be
explained by the bag handled matching the highest levels of exposure.
This combination of exposure and physical strain should be taken into
consideration in prevention action, in that the amount of air breathed by
a worker can theoretically vary from 6,3 l min 1 during light work to
128,7 l min 1 during very heavy work (Stradling et al., 1985; De Castro
et al., 2017) due to the variation in breathing rates and tidal volume
(ICRP, 1994).

6
L. Galey et al. Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116

4.3. Step 3: specification of TES during confrontation interviews
Step 3 of our method, consisting in collective confrontation in­
terviews based on TESs (such as the one described in Fig. 3) with
workers and management, contributed to developing an understanding
of exposure situations. Table 7 describes how the discussion based on
TES helped to gain an understanding of the determinants of exposure
and the associated work activity. In this discussion, workers explain how
the equipment used to weigh powders can lead to exposure, as the
cleaning of work clothes is not operational and this can lead to other
exposure situations.
In addition, workers were able to voice their representations and
concerns, reflecting fears related to exposures. Furthermore, oral de­
scriptions related to the strategies of workers to avoid exposures are
obtained, as detailed in Table 8.
The company was autonomous to implement the prevention

Table 7
Illustration of TES understanding resulting from confrontation interviews based on video footage and measurements.
Action Determinants of exposure Work activity

Technical Organizational Human

Worker - Carbon black powder.
weighs
- Weighing 25 kg bags and big
bags.
- Variety of containers, bags
or big bags.
- Manual weighing with a
scoop, a bucket or by hand.
- Cotton t-shirt and trousers
not company laundered.
- No respiratory protection.
-Insufficient local exhaust.
- Aim: weigh 16 bags of carbon black.
- Weighing controlled by scales and lab.
- Risk assessment identifies dust without detail on
the situation.
- No mandatory personal protective equipment.
- Daily variability, ahead of production schedule.
- Discrepancy between the new container of raw
materials in big bags and the projected set up of a
hopper.
- Fear of becoming ill despite Worker opens the bag at the top
claiming that risks are relative. and uses the scoop, and then
- Some operators on sick leave after weighs.
a work accident.
- Spits out black phlegm after
work.
- Low skill worker, limited regional
employment opportunities.
- Job perceived as uninteresting.
- Worker’s height.

Table 8
Illustration of worker representations, worker strategies to avoid exposures and prevention actions discussed with the company stakeholders.
Worker representations Worker strategies to avoid exposures Prevention actions

Worker: Oh yeah, it definitely comes through. Paper
masks? It comes through them […] I remember in the
beginning when I first worked here, I would put them
on, I’d put them on all the time. And at night, you take it
off and spit into the bin just for a look like, and your
spit’s black. And in the end you tell yourself, right, that
mask is staying here. And there you go, later on they put
some for us.
Worker: […] it’s true that I’m kind of getting scared. First,
I’m young, and I don’t want to … it would be dumb to
croak because of substances like that, right? I’ve been
talking to people and they’ve checked it out on-line and
there’s people who die because of the job […] Then
again, you see all sorts on the Internet, and you’re not
sure you want to believe them, but you’ve got to be
careful. I’m wondering and trying to look out for
myself.
Researcher: And the hoods [respiratory protection], did
you ask for them?
Worker: Yeah, I did. I took one I’m the only one who’s got
one, the others didn’t take one, like.
Researcher: And do you use it?
Worker: Sometimes yes. Now with the black, I’m using it
more. […] this comes from us, them [management] they
provide them [paper masks, filtering respirators, hoods]
so there you go. It’s up to us to get ourselves sorted, go get
them. It’s only that every time we’ve got to go to the office
to get them, and for just one mixing session, we’re not
going to get into a hassle.
Worker: That one’s aw-ful!!
Researcher: And that one, can you smell it?
Worker: Nope, no smell, nothing. You can smell
something, but later.
Researcher: Can you taste it too?
Worker: Err, nah, you gotta keep your mouth shut.
Researcher: What does that mean? When you’re doing it,
you keep your mouth shut?
Worker: Yeah, right, I’d rather shut my mouth.
Researcher: And you try to breathe less as well?
Worker: Yeah, I reckon so […] I think now I’m doing it
yeah. In the beginning I would breathe a little less, and I
that now, it’s become automatic, like. […] that one, yeah,
we make sure that … we put it on but keep our head
sideways so as to get no smell and no taste. It doesn’t feel
like we’re breathing it in, but I think we are anyway, even
though just a little.
An automated weighing process from big bags in a hopper
has been implemented during the research action to avoid
worker handling bags. This arrangement must reduce the
bag carrying leading to physical strain and dust spraying
during the weighing process
Other practices were discussed to tie the bag without
driving out the air after the weighing:
- tie the bag with a half internode
- using two bags and only close the outer bag
- fold the bag into a gooseneck
These quick fixes appeared from a comparison with
another workstation and a discussion with the health and
safety specialist
Improve ventilation by setting up a half-moon suction area
around the aperture of the weighed bag
The cleaning procedure was under consideration to use a
vacuum instead of the broom to clean the workstation
Discussion was initiated with the management regarding
deep organizational and cultural changes need to develop
prevention practices going through:
- layout of the changing rooms with a compartment for
personal clothes and a compartment for work clothes
- regular and systematic cleaning of all work clothes
(trousers and shirt)
- provision of a lunch break area separate from the
sanitary facilities

7
L. Galey et al.
solutions after the confrontation interviews realized in June 2018. It
means that some of the actions implemented in the company were
potentially based upon the knowledge developed through TES during
the three confrontation interviews with workers, management and
health and safety committee. Even if it is early to analyze the conse­
quences of the research action implementation, several actions have
been discussed with the director and the health and safety committee at
the end of these confrontation interviews (see Table 8).
Step 3, with the combination of video and measurements presented
to company stakeholders to discuss exposing work activities is a new
perspective to enhance the development of prevention in nanotech­
nology. This collective reflexive activity analysis develops the identifi­
cation of a TES (step 1) into a detailed specification of a TES (step 3).
Simultaneous viewing of activity footage and synchronized exposure
data during confrontation interviews makes it possible to understand
how exposure occurs. This in turn helps workers and management
articulate and question what they do and how they do it, and consider
exposure levels (45% in number of occurrence of the coded theme
relative to work activity). The relevance or efficiency of implemented
prevention practices are collectively debated with respect to the real
exposure situation. It is then possible to define priorities among the
prevention actions to be implemented.
5. Discussion
Initially, technical, organizational and human determinants are
influenced by a functionalist proposal of safety description (Reason,
1997). Even if this representation is focused on determinants, our
mobilization of this model with company stakeholders allows to discuss
other dimensions of exposure situations and work, such as workers
representations, work activity and the resources of the company for
prevention. An advantage to describe TES through these basic compo­
nents is to foster an appropriation by company stakeholders or other
occupational health disciplines. Fig. 5 introduces the TES components
through technical, organizational, and human determinants. More pre­
cisely, in addition to these determinants, TESs can be specified through
the worker’s operating mode, the worker’s logic of action, the temporal
Fig. 5. TES components adapted from Garrigou et al. (1995), Daniellou (2004) and Barcellini et al. (2014).
8
Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116
characteristic of the performed exposing activity, the particular in­
cidents that may arise in normal or degraded mode, information sought,
contamination, respiratory tract distance, physical strain that can be
measured, and resources and constraints to act on exposure. The so­
ciocultural dimension of the work also has to be considered when
exploring occupational exposures.
The first two steps in our methodology highlight exposures induced
by nanotechnologies. Even if incidental situations leading to exposure
have not been identified in this particular operation, the methodology
offers prospects to take variability and other unpredictable events into
account. In another operation in the same company, we identified an
incidental TES when the worker changes the saturated powder collec­
tion tanks of the exhaust ventilation system. Regarding the potential of
bag closing to generate exposures, similar conclusions are made by Haas
and Cecala (2017).
The perspective of changing the work situation has been discussed in
step 3 of the confrontation interviews, supported by the association of
measurements and videos of work situations, and thus highlighting
exposing work activities in the company. Since the objective of the
“confrontation interview” (Mollo and Falzon, 2004) is to gain a better
understanding of work activity and exposure, using traces of activity to
develop discussion (Mollo and Nascimento, 2014), we consider that the
terms “activity-based reflexive interview” would also be appropriate.
Confronting workers or management to activity videos and measure­
ment data in the present study helps to gain complementary detailed
discussion and understanding of work activity that would not be shared,
or even generated, otherwise. This knowledge is relative to the psy­
chosocial dimension of work, risk perceptions, compromises to reach
objectives, explanations of operating modes, understanding of exposure
situations, and preventive actions built by the company or actually
implemented by the worker.
While the first step in our methodology consists in establishing hy­
potheses on the exposure situations, the joint use of measurements and
work activity analyses serves to support the objectification of exposure
situations. These records of the activity (Leplat and Hoc, 1981; Hoc and
Leplat, 1983; Mollo and Falzon, 2004) are a way of collecting objective
exposure data. Nevertheless, observation is already a way to identify
L. Galey et al.
TESs, as the first step in the method has shown us. In some cases,
measurements can highlight an exposure that would otherwise remain
imperceptible by sight or smell. For instance, the TES occurring when
the worker closes each bag was not an initial hypothesis of our case
study. Moreover, measurements specify the nature of NPs or the situa­
tion in which workers are exposed, associated as a complementary tool
to those usually used by ergonomists (Lowe et al., 2019). A contribution
of TESs is the integration of representations, beliefs, fears and concerns
of workers in situations considered as exposing. Consideration of this
subjectivity is necessary to improve safety practices. Depending on the
objectives, several levels of TES description can be devised (i.e. weigh­
ing in a bag, or weighing in a new bag consisting in loading and
emptying dust with a bucket from a big bag).
The basic unit of the real exposure situation analysis proposed by
TES can be used by a diversity of stakeholders, whether internal or
external to companies: industrial hygienists, preventionists, epidemiol­
ogists, ergonomists, occupational physicians, etc. As an object of medi­
ating discussions between different stakeholders and occupational
health disciplines, TES is reminiscent of object-boundary selection in
participative ergonomics processes (Broberg et al., 2011). These objects
are essential to encouraging stakeholder participation and involvement,
hence a cooperative design. They are needed to create a common lan­
guage that allows the representation of the knowledge and ideas of
stakeholders (Broberg et al., 2011).
As it creates detailed and systemic knowledge on exposures, epide­
miologists can also integrate TESs. For industrial hygienists, inclusion of
the influence of physical strain, and exposing work activities and their
determinants in exposure assessments becomes achievable. For ergon­
omists, the basic unit of TES can be incorporated into a scenario to form
a valuable basis from which actual work situations can be transformed
or design processes enriched, as can be done for TAS (Garrigou et al.,
1995; Barcellini et al., 2014). Thus, TES is a useful tool to build a more
operational prevention system and to design innovative prevention
projects. TESs also offer the opportunity to bring information into the
design stage of innovative projects based on nanotechnologies.
The implementation of the method is important to enable these
stakeholders to understand the observation data generated and their
usefulness, while developing a climate of confidence and a dynamic
around the project. In this regard, all the spaces allowing participation of
company stakeholders play a structuring role in relation to project
performance. It is the ergonomist’s role to develop participation of the
stakeholders concerned (Haines et al., 2002) and promote a framework
to enhance this participation.
Indeed, although situations may be approached through ergonomics
methods, understanding the causes of possible health effects remains a
riddle (Garrigou et al., 2004). Solving this riddle requires investigation
within the company, calling on all stakeholders and using relevant
exposure analysis techniques. The participation of various stakeholders
with expertise and experience of the work contributes to new, precise
TESs that were not initially identified or did not occur in step 1 of the
exposure assessment, or ensures that the TESs are accurate and detailed.
In the future, complementary research could focus on psychosocial
dimensions to understand more precisely the workers’ points of view
concerning health risks (Dejours and Deranty, 2010; Clot and Kostulski,
2011; Hubault and Sznelwar, 2012) related to nanotechnologies (L’Al­
lain et al., 2015), to integrate them in prevention strategies. In addition,
further studies on various fields will have to be developed using the
same method to strengthen these trends as these results are based upon
one exploratory case study. This comprehensive work focusing on a
detailed single case (Yin, 2009) must help to initiate a sharing and
generalization of the method (Stake, 1994). Furthermore, similar
methodologies were developed in several companies and targeted
several operators in the last decade consolidating these results (Garrigou
et al., 2009; Judon et al., 2019).
9
Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116
6. Conclusion
To conclude on ergonomics and the development of nanotechnol­
ogies, this work demonstrates that ergonomics has something to
contribute (Chowdhury et al., 2012) to nanotechnologies.
This article proposed a multidisciplinary methodology articulating
work activity analysis (through video recording of work situations and
interviews) and measurements (of NPs aerosols and heart rate of the
worker) to characterize TESs. TESs are basic units to analyze exposing
work activities. These TESs are built with adaptative temporal frames
and must help to link current exposure situations in a view to act on the
future potential exposure situations.
The results from a research intervention in a rubber industry illus­
trate how a participatory approach based on video and measurements is
a resource to understand the exposing work, as it is actually performed,
as well as limitations for the development of safety practices. Presen­
tation of TESs to company stakeholders to build prevention re­
quirements become possible based upon a collective understanding of
the exposing work activities, and mobilization of the resources. Aerosol
and heart rate measurements associated with activity analysis are
powerful tools to make exposures visible and stimulate debates on work
activity. TESs gather detailed information on activities and the de­
terminants of exposure (technique, human and organizational), physical
strain, and resources during exposure situation.
More precisely, the case study relying on a weighing operation brings
to light the importance of manual weighing as well as closing bag ac­
tions, cleaning with a broom, or incidental intervention on ventilation,
on the overall recorded exposure. Representations and strategies of the
worker to avoid exposure situations are also accessible by this method.
This work reinforces the demonstration that ergonomics is relevant
when exposures to NPs or more generally to chemicals can occur, that is
often overlooked. The results of this case study underline the need to
develop, and the possibilities for implementing field studies. In this way,
setting up requirements for the safe and sustainable development of
nanotechnologies with human work in mind could become possible.
This work paves the way for future participatory research in the context
of occupational exposure to chemicals, to implement TESs at the work
design stage.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the workers and the company
involved in this study. The research leading to these results has received
funding from the Aquitaine Region [grant number 2015-1R30504], the
ANSES [grant number PNR EST-2014/1/162], and the INRS. The au­
thors also thank Remy Anselm for is careful reading and advice on this
manuscript.
References
American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1971. Ergonomics guide to assessment of
metabolic and cardiac costs of physical work. A.I.H.A. 32, 560–564.
Asbach, C., Alexander, C., Clavaguera, S., Dahmann, D., Dozol, H., Faure, B., Fierz, M.,
Fontana, L., Iavicoli, I., Kaminski, H., MacCalman, L., Meyer-Plath, A., Simonow, B.,
van Tongeren, M., Todea, A.M., 2017. Review of measurement techniques and
methods for assessing personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials in workplaces.
Sci. Total Environ. 603–604, 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.03.049.
Bakand, S., Hayes, A., 2016. Toxicological considerations, toxicity assessment, and risk
management of inhaled nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17 (6) https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijms17060929.
Barcellini, F., Van Belleghem, L., Daniellou, F., 2014. Design projects as opportunities for
the development of activities. In: Falzon, P. (Ed.), Constructive Ergonomics. CRC
Press, pp. 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17456-16.
L. Galey et al.
B�
eguin, P., Duarte, F., Sznelwar, L.I., 2015. Introduction to the special section on activity
theory for work analysis and design. Production 25 (2), 255–256. https://doi.org/
10.1590/0103-6513.ED2502.
Bekker, C., Kuijpers, E., Brouwer, D.H., Vermeulen, R., Fransman, W., July 2015.
Occupational exposure to nano-objects and their agglomerates and aggregates across
various life cycle stages; A broad-scale exposure study. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 59 (6),
681–704. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev023 mev023.
Beurskens-Comuth, P.A.W.V., Verbist, K., Brouwer, D., 2011. Video exposure monitoring
as part of a strategy to assess exposure to nanoparticles. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 55 (8),
937–945. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mer060.
Bolis, I., Brunoro, C.M., Sznelwar, L.I., 2016. Work for sustainability : case studies of
Brazilian companies. Appl. Ergon. 57, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apergo.2015.10.003.
Bolis, I., Sznelwar, L.I., 2016. A case study of the implementation of an ergonomics
improvement committee in a Brazilian hospital – challenges and benefits. Appl.
Ergon. 53, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.09.012.
Broberg, O., Andersen, V., Seim, R., 2011. Participatory ergonomics in design processes :
the role of boundary objects. Appl. Ergon. 42 (3), 464–472. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apergo.2010.09.006.
Carvalho, P. V. R. de, Righi, A.W., Huber, G.J., Lemos, C. de F., Jatoba, A., Gomes, J.O.,
2018. Reflections on work as done (WAD) and work as imagined (WAI) in an
emergency response organization : a study on firefighters training exercises. Appl.
Ergon. 68, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.016.
Chowdhury, A., Sanjog, J., Reddy, S.M., Karmakar, S., 2012. Nanomaterials in the field
of design ergonomics : present status. Ergonomics 55 (12), 1453–1462. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00140139.2012.720287.
Clot, Y., Kostulski, K., 2011. Intervening for transforming : the horizon of action in the
Clinic of Activity. Theor. Psychol. 21 (5), 681–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0959354311419253.
Cuny-Guerrier, A., Savescu, A., Tappin, D., 2019. Strategies to commit senior
subcontractor managers in participatory ergonomics interventions. Appl. Ergon. 81,
102878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102878.
Daniellou, F., 2004. 21. L’ergonomie dans la conduite de projets de conception de
syst�emes de travail. In: Falzon, P. (Ed.), Ergonomie, 1r �ed. Presses Universitaires de
France, p. 359. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.falzo.2004.01.0359.
Daniellou, F., 2005. The French-speaking ergonomists’ approach to work activity : cross-
influences of field intervention and conceptual models. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 6
(5), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500078252.
Daniellou, F., Garrigou, A., 1992. Human factors in design : sociotechnics or ergonomics?
In: Nagamachi, M., Helander, M. (Eds.), Design for Manufacturability : A Systems
Approach to Concurrent Engineering in Ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, pp. 55–63.
De Castro, R.R.T., Lima, S.P., Sales, A.R.K., da N�obrega, A.C.L., 2017. Minute-ventilation
variability during cardiopulmonary exercise test is higher in sedentary men than in
athletes. Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 109 (3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.5935/
abc.20170104.
De Keyser, V., 1991. Work analysis in French language ergonomics : origins and current
research trends. Ergonomics 34 (6), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00140139108967344.
De Keyser, V., 1992. Why field studies?. In: Design for Manufacturability : A Systems
Approach to Concurrent Engineering in Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London and
Washington, pp. 305–316.
De Miranda Prottes, V., Oliveira, N.C., de Oliveira Andrade, A.B., 2012. Ergonomic work
analysis as a tool of prevention for the occupational safety and health management
system. Work 41 (Suppl. 1), 3301–3307. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0597-
3301.
Debia, M., Bakhiyi, B., Ostiguy, C., Verbeek, J.H., Brouwer, D.H., Murashov, V., October
2016. A systematic review of reported exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Ann.
Occup. Hyg. 60 (8), 916–935. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mew041 mew041.
Dejours, C., Deranty, J.-P., 2010. The centrality of work. Crit. Horiz. 11 (2), 167–180.
https://doi.org/10.1558/crit.v11i2.167.
Delgoulet, C., Cau-Bareille, D., Chatigny, E., Gaudart, C., Santos, M., Vidal-Gomel, C.,
2012. Ergonomic analysis on work activity and training. Work 41 (2), 111–114.
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1286.
Dempsey, P.G., 2000. Industrial engineering meets ergonomics work analysis. Ergon. Des
8 (4), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/106480460000800402.
Díaz-Soler, B.M., Martínez-Aires, M.D., L� opez-Alonso, M., 2019. Potential risks posed by
the use of nano-enabled construction products : a perspective from coordinators for
safety and health matters. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.02.056.
Douwes, J., Cheung, K., Prezant, B., Sharp, M., Corbin, M., McLean, D., t Mannetje, A.,
Schlunssen, V., Sigsgaard, T., Kromhout, H., LaMontagne, A.D., Pearce, N.,
McGlothlin, J.D., 2017. Wood dust in joineries and furniture Manufacturing : an
exposure determinant and intervention study. Annals of Work Exposures and Health
61 (4), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx020.
Dul, J., Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl.
Ergon. 40 (4), 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001.
Dutier, J., Guennoc, F., Escouteloup, J., 2015. The Ergonomist : a full design actor
example of an ergonomic action. Procedia Manufacturing 3, 5830–5837. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.837.
Eastlake, A.C., Beaucham, C., Martinez, K.F., Dahm, M.M., Sparks, C., Hodson, L.L.,
Geraci, C.L., 2016. Refinement of the nanoparticle emission assessment technique
into the nanomaterial exposure assessment technique (NEAT 2.0). J. Occup. Environ.
Hyg. 13 (9), 708–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2016.1167278, 0(ja), 0-
0.
EN 17058, 2018. EN 17058—Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Inhalation Exposure
to Nano-Objects and Their Agglomerates and Aggregates. CEN.
10
Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116
Falzon, P., 2014. Constructive Ergonomics. CRC Press.
Fazion, F., Lousada, E.G., 2016. Self-confrontation interviews as an engine to
development : dialogue of a teacher with her practice. DELTA Documentacao de
Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada 32 (1), 215–236. https://doi.org/
10.1590/0102-445009940345193358.
Garrigou, A., Daniellou, F., Carballeda, G., Ruaud, S., 1995. Activity analysis in
participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. Int. J. Ind. Ergon.
15 (5), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(94)00079-I.
Fierz, M., Houle, C., Steigmeier, P., Burtscher, H., 2011. Design, Calibration, and Field
Performance of a Miniature Diffusion Size Classifier. Aerosol Science and
Technology 45 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.516283.
Garrigou, A., Baldi, I., Le Frious, P., Anselm, R., Vallier, M., 2011. Ergonomics
contribution to chemical risks prevention : an ergotoxicological investigation of the
effectiveness of coverall against plant pest risk in viticulture. Appl. Ergon. 42 (2),
321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.001.
Garrigou, A., Judon, N., Galey, L., 2019. Contributions of ergonomics to the development
of prevention Projects : the role of intermediate prevention objects. In: Bagnara, S.,
Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th
Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). Springer
International Publishing, pp. 2008–2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
96071-5_211.
Garrigou, A., Peeters, S., Jackson, M., Sagory, P., Carballeda, G., 2004. 30. Apports de
l’ergonomie a � la pr�
evention des risques professionnels. In: Falzon, P., Ergonomie
(Eds.), 1r �ed. Presses Universitaires de France, p. 497.
Garrigou, A., Vallier, M., Pasquereau, P., Carballeda, G., Faure, A., Ferenc, T.,
Carayon, B., 2009. An ergotoxicological approach of the shipbuilding workers
exposition to solvents. In: Proceedings of the 17th Congress of the International
Ergonomics Association, Beijing, August 9-14.
Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., 2006. Nanotechnology occupational and environmental
health and safety : education and research needs for an emerging interdisciplinary
field of study. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
16 (3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20051.
Haas, E.J., Cecala, A.B., 2017. Quick fixes to improve workers’ health : results using
engineering assessment technology. Min. Eng. 69 (7), 105–109. https://doi.org/
10.19150/me.7622.
Haas, E.J., Cecala, A.B., Colinet, J.F., 2019. Comparing the implementation of two dust
control technologies from a sociotechnical systems perspective. Mining, Metallurgy
and Exploration 36 (4), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0063-9.
Haas, E.J., Hoebbel, C.L., Rost, K.A., 2014. An analysis of trainers’ perspectives within an
ecological framework : factors that influence mine safety training processes. Safety
and Health at Work 5 (3), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2014.06.004.
Haas, E.J., Willmer, D., Cecala, A.B., 2016. Formative research to reduce mine worker
respirable silica dust exposure : a feasibility study to integrate technology into
behavioral interventions. Pilot and Feasibility Studies 2 (1). https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40814-016-0047-1.
Haines, H., Wilson, J.R., Vink, P., Koningsveld, E., 2002. Validating a framework for
participatory ergonomics (the PEF). Ergonomics 45 (4), 309–327. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00140130210123516.
Hall-Andersen, L.B., Broberg, O., 2014. Integrating ergonomics into engineering design :
the role of objects. Appl. Ergon. 45 (3), 647–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apergo.2013.09.002.
Halterman, A., Sousan, S., Peters, T.M., 2017. Comparison of Respirable Mass
Concentrations Measured by a Personal Dust Monitor and a Personal DataRAM to
Gravimetric Measurements. Ann. Work Expo. Health 62 (1), 62–71. https://doi.org/
10.1093/annweh/wxx083.
Hoc, J.M., Leplat, J., 1983. Evaluation of different modalities of verbalization in a sorting
task. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 18 (3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373
(83)80011-X.
Hodson, L., Geraci, C., Schulte, P., 2019. Continuing to Protect the Nanotechnology
Workforce : NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Plan for 2018–2025, 2019-116; p. 66.
OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention Publication (NIOSH).
Hofmann, D.A., Burke, M.J., Zohar, D., 2017. 100 years of occupational safety research :
from basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety
and risk. J. Appl. Psychol. 102 (3), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000114.
Hubault, F., Sznelwar, L.I., 2012. Can activity be understood out of subjectivity? Work
(Reading, Mass 41 (Suppl. 1), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0642-26.
ICRP, 1994. Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection. ICRP
Publication 66. Ann. ICRP 24.
ISO TR 12885, 2018. ISO TR 12885—Nanotechnologies—Health and Safety Practices in
Occupational Settings Relevant to Nanotechnologies. ISO.
ISO TS 12901, 2012. ISO TS 12901-1 : Nanotechnologies—Occupational Risk
Management Applied to Engineered Nano-Materials. Part 1 : Principles and
Approaches. ISO.
ISO TS 80004, 2015. ISO TS 80004-1:2015—Nanotechnologies—Vocabulary—Part 1 :
Core Terms. ISO.
Judon, N., Galey, L., Saint Dizier de Almeida, V., Garrigou, A., 2019. Contributions of
participatory ergonomics to the involvement of workers in chemical risk prevention
projects. Work 64 (3), 651–660. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-193001.
Judon, N., Hella, F., Pasquereau, P., Garrigou, A., 2015. Vers une pr�evention int�egr� ee du
risque chimique li�e a � l’exposition cutan�ee au bitume des travailleurs de la route.
Elaboration d’une m�ethodologie dans le cadre de l’ergotoxicologie. Perspectives
�
interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la sant�e 17–2 https://doi.org/10.4000/
pistes.4586.
L. Galey et al.
Kant, V., 2017. Nanotechnology and HFE : critically engaging human capital in small-
scale robotics research. Cognit. Technol. Work 19 (2–3), 419–444. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10111-017-0414-6.
Karwowski, W., 2005. Ergonomics and human factors : the paradigms for science,
engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems.
Ergonomics 48 (5), 436–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130400029167.
Kim, I.J., 2016. Ergonomic challenges for nanotechnology safety and health practices.
J. Ergon. 6 (5) https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7556.1000e160.
Kim, J.H., Roberge, R., Powell, J.B., Shafer, A.B., Williams, W.J., 2013. Measurement
accuracy of heart rate and respiratory rate during graded exercise and sustained
exercise in the heat using the Zephyr BioHarnessTM. Int. J. Sports Med. 34 (6),
497–501. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1327661.
Kloetzer, L., 2013. Development of professional concepts through work Analysis : tech
diving under the loop of activity clinic. Mind Cult. Activ. 20 (4), 318–337. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2012.688087.
Kolus, A., Imbeau, D., Dub� e, P.-A., Dubeau, D., 2016. Classifying work rate from heart
rate measurements using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Appl. Ergon. 54,
158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.12.006.
Kraegeloh, A., Suarez-Merino, B., Sluijters, T., Micheletti, C., 2018. Implementation of
safe-by-design for nanomaterial development and safe Innovation : why we need a
comprehensive approach. Nanomaterials 8 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/
nano8040239.
Kuhlbusch, T.A., Asbach, C., Fissan, H., G€ ohler, D., Stintz, M., 2011. Nanoparticle
exposure at nanotechnology workplaces : a review. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 8, 22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-8-22.
Lacomblez, M., 1996. Ergonomic work analysis and professional training. Saf. Sci. 23
(2–3), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-7535(96)00056-2.
L’Allain, C., Caroly, S., Drais, E., Witschger, O., 2015. Concevoir la pr�evention d’un
risque �emergent : une d�emarche fond� ee sur les repr�esentations et les activit�es.
Perspect. Interdiscip. travail sant�e 17–1 https://doi.org/10.4000/pistes.4421.
Leinonen, T., Kisko, K., 1998. A new method for work analysis. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 21 (5),
361–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00085-6.
Leplat, J., 1978. Factors determining work-load. Ergonomics 21 (3), 143–149. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00140137808931709.
Leplat, J., Hoc, J.M., 1981. Subsequent verbalization in the study of cognitive processes.
Ergonomics 24 (10), 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138108924896.
Lowe, B.D., Dempsey, P.G., Jones, E.M., 2019. Ergonomics assessment methods used by
ergonomics professionals. Appl. Ergon. 81, 102882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apergo.2019.102882.
Martin, P., Brand, F., Servais, M., 1999. Correlation of the exposure to a pollutant with a
task-related action or Workplace : the CAPTIVTM system. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 43 (4),
221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4878(99)00026-5.
Meunier, P., Smolik, H.J., Knoche, C., 1994. Astreinte cardiaque et travail. Quelle grille
d’�evaluation choisir ? Cahiers de m� edecine interprofessionnelle CAMIP, 1994-2,
pp. 153–168.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Salda~ na, J., 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE.
Misra, C., Singh, M., Shen, S., Sioutas, C., Hall, P.M., 2002. Development and evaluation
of a personal cascade impactor sampler (PCIS). Journal of Aerosol Science 33 (7),
1027–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8502(02)00055-1.
Mollo, V., Falzon, P., 2004. Auto- and allo-confrontation as tools for reflective activities.
Appl. Ergon. 35 (6), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2004.06.003.
Mollo, V., Nascimento, A., 2014. Reflective practices and the development of individuals,
collectives and organizations. In: Falzon, P. (Ed.), Constructive Ergonomics. CRC
Press, pp. 236–251.
Morris, W., Wilson, J.R., Koukoulaki, T., 2004. Developing a Participatory Approach to the
Design of Work Equipment : Assimilating Lessons from Workers’ Experience (TUTB).
NIOSH, 2009. Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology : Managing the Health and Safety
Concerns Associated with Engineered Nanomaterials (No 2009-125). NIOSH.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-125/.
11
Applied Ergonomics 87 (2020) 103116
Oberd€ orster, G., Oberd€ orster, E., Oberd€
orster, J., 2005. Nanotoxicology : an emerging
discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ. Health Perspect. 113
(7), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7339.
OECD, 2015. Harmonized Tiered Approach to Measure Ad Assess the Potential Exposure
to Airborne Emissions of Engineered Nano-Objects and Their Agglomerates and
Aggregates at Workplaces. ENV/JM/MONO(2015)19, No. 55.
Ostraat, M.L., Thornburg, J.W., Malloy, Q.G.J., 2013. Measurement strategies of airborne
nanomaterials. Environ. Eng. Sci. 30 (3), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1089/
ees.2012.0331.
Ouellet, S., 2012. Ergonomic analysis of work activity for the purpose of developing
training programs : the contribution of ergonomics to vocational didactics. Work 41
(Suppl. 1), 4572–4576. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0753-4572.
Pietroiusti, A., Magrini, A., 2014. Engineered nanoparticles at the workplace : current
knowledge about workers’ risk. Occup. Med. 64 (5), 319–330. https://doi.org/
10.1093/occmed/kqu051.
Reason, J., 1997. Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents. Ashgate, Hants).
R’Mili, B., Le Bihan, O., Dutouquet, C., Aguerre-Chariol, O., Frejafon, E., 2013. Aerosol
Science and Technology 47 (7), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02786826.2013.789478.
Ros�en, G., Andersson, I.-M., Walsh, P.T., Clark, R.D.R., S€ a€
am€ anen, A., Heinonen, K.,
Riipinen, H., P€aa€kk€onen, R., 2005. A review of video exposure monitoring as an
occupational hygiene tool. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 49 (3), 201–217. https://doi.org/
10.1093/annhyg/meh110.
Sch€on, D.A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner : How Professionals Think in Action. Basic
Books.
Schulte, P.A., Geraci, C.L., Murashov, V., Kuempel, E.D., Zumwalde, R.D., Castranova, V.,
Hoover, M.D., Hodson, L., Martinez, K.F., 2014. Occupational safety and health
criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology. J. Nanoparticle Res. 16 (1)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-2153-9.
Schulte, P., Geraci, C., Zumwalde, R., Hoover, M., Kuempel, E., 2008. Occupational risk
management of engineered nanoparticles. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 5 (4), 239–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620801907840.
Schwarz-Plaschg, C., Kallhoff, A., Eisenberger, I., 2017. Making nanomaterials safer by
design? NanoEthics 11 (3), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0307-4.
Stake, R.E., 1994. Case studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 236–247.
Stradling, J.R., Chadwick, G.A., Frew, A.J., 1985. Changes in ventilation and its
components in normal subjects during sleep. Thorax 40 (5), 364–370. https://doi.
org/10.1136/thx.40.5.364.
Sznelwar, L.I., 1992. Analyse ergonomique de l’exposition de travailleurs agricoles aux
pesticides. Essai ergotoxicologique [Doctoral thesis]. CNAM, Laboratoire d’ergonomie.
Teiger, C., Montreuil, S., 1996. The foundations and contributions of ergonomics work
analysis in training programmes. Saf. Sci. 23 (2–3), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0925-7535(96)00034-3.
Viitanen, A.-K., Uuksulainen, S., Koivisto, A.J., H€ ameri, K., Kauppinen, T., 2017.
Workplace measurements of ultrafine particles—a literature review. Ann. Work
Expo. Health 61 (7), 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx049.
Wisner, A., 1995. Understanding problem building: ergonomic work analysis.
Ergonomics 38 (3), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139508925133.
Woskie, S., 2010. Workplace practices for engineered nanomaterial manufacturers. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews. Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology 2 (6), 685–692.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.101.
Woskie, S.R., Bello, D., Virji, M.A., Stefaniak, A.B., 2010. Understanding workplace
processes and factors that influence exposures to engineered nanomaterials. Int. J.
Occup. Environ. Health 16 (4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1179/
107735210799159950.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, fourth ed. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.