Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Re-thinking floor mat design from an ergonomics perspective: Can a two- T

part mat system reduce biomechanical loads during normal mat handling
tasks?
Xueke Wanga, Steven Bigelowa, Kelly E. Seagrena, Alaina K. Preddiea, Zimei Wanga,
Ardiyanto Ardiyantoa, W. Gary Allreada,b, Steven A. Lavendera,c,∗
a
Integrated Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, United States
b
Spine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, United States
c
Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Floor mats are commonplace in commercial buildings, particularly in entry ways. These mats are routinely
Musculoskeletal disorders handled by delivery personnel as the mats are picked up for cleaning and clean mats are deployed. A new two-
Low back part mat design, which eliminates the need to move the rubber base during mat change operations, was hy-
Shoulder pothesized to reduce the physical demands on delivery personnel. Electromyographic data from back and
Delivery driver
shoulder muscles and spinal kinematics were obtained as 12 volunteers simulated mat selection, mat deploy-
Floor mat
ment, and mat pick-up tasks. Other factors considered in this study included mat size, pick-up method, and mat
textile orientation during deployment. Results indicated that the two-part design reduced muscle activation
levels across all tasks. Biomechanical benefits were also found when the mats were picked-up using a kick-fold as
opposed to hand-fold method and when mats were deployed with the textile component rolled towards the
inside of the roll.

1. Introduction
Many commercial buildings use floor mats in entryways and corri-
dors to reduce slip and fall risks and to maintain cleanliness. Delivery
drivers routinely visit commercial sites to replace soiled mats with
those that have been cleaned. This requires them to select mats from
within a warehouse, pick up the soiled mats from within customer fa-
cilities, and deploy clean mats. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), in 2015 there were 10,470 overexertion injuries among
light truck and delivery service drivers. Nearly 3400 of those injuries
were related to lifting and lowering. In this same population, there were
5340 back and 2520 shoulder injuries in 2015.
Although highly variable, a typical delivery driver may exchange
80–100 mats per day, in addition to other supplies, such as shop towels
and uniforms. Mats are handled multiple times in this delivery process.
It begins with delivery preparation, wherein drivers lift clean, rolled
mats off a storage cart in the company's distribution center and load
them into a delivery truck. Upon arrival at a delivery site, drivers first
remove soiled mats, by folding them to contain any dirt or debris on the
carpet textile. These are then lifted from the floor and either placed in a
cart or carried directly back to the delivery truck. Then, drivers deploy
clean mats in the same locations as the mats they had previously re-
moved. Fig. 1 shows a delivery driver performing these tasks. The soiled
mats are returned to the cleaning and distribution center after drivers
complete their deliveries, where they are cleaned and placed back into
inventory. Delivery drivers are exposed to a variety of musculoskeletal
risk exposures, such as lifting, lowering, and repetitive movements.
However, we could not find any mention of this occupation or the
specific work tasks they perform in the literature.
A novel, convertible flooring concept was developed that involved a
two-part mat, in which a textile top can be separated for servicing from
a stable base. This concept is believed to provide many potential ben-
efits, including: efficiency (less cost to launder and transport); stability
(eliminating repeated laundering of the base reduces handling, lays
flatter, and becomes less of a slip/trip/fall hazard); ergonomics (less
weight to handle, deploy, and launder); modularity (more-adaptable to
end-customer specifications); and aesthetics (ability to make more-at-
tractive mat).
This study focuses on the potential ergonomic benefits of this con-
vertible flooring design. The two-part system requires only the handling

∗
Corresponding author. Integrated Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, United States.
E-mail address: lavender.1@osu.edu (S.A. Lavender).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.04.010
Received 22 November 2017; Received in revised form 4 April 2018; Accepted 24 April 2018
Available online 05 May 2018
0003-6870/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Wang et al.
Fig. 1. Work postures observed as a deliverydriver deploys a 0.9 m x 1.5 m mat (top row), deploys a 0.9 m x 3.0 m mat(bottom left), picks up a mat using the kick-
fold method (bottom middle), andselects mats for delivery (bottom right).
and cleaning of the textile component and not its base. This might
possibly reduce the biomechanical loads required to select mats at the
distribution center, pick up soiled mats, and deploy clean mats.
Additionally, the biomechanical loads on the back and shoulders are
also anticipated to be affected by other task specific factors, such as the
size of the mats, the textile orientation when rolled, and the specific
method used to pick up the mats. Common mat sizes are 0.9 m × 1.5 m
and 0.9 m × 3.0 m, with the longer mats being heavier and more dif-
ficult both to deploy and pick-up. With a kick-folding method, the de-
livery driver is in an upright posture until the mat is consolidated in a
pile, at which point it is pick up with a short lifting motion. When using
the hand-folding method, drivers are in a sustained flexed trunk posture
as they move forward to gather up the mat in preparation for lifting it
off the floor. The textile orientation, whether the textile is rolled on the
inside and the rubber is on the outside or vice versa, affects how much
of the mat needs to unroll during deployment before the mat contacts
the floor. Thus, these task factors may interact with the mat design and
alter the potential biomechanical benefit that may be achieved using
the two-part mat system.
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate potential bio-
mechanical benefits of handling this novel two-part mat design com-
pared with conventional floor mats, as a function of key tasks per-
formed with them by delivery drivers. As described above, the
biomechanical loads experienced during mat pick-up are likely to be
affected by the size of the mat and the method used to roll the mat
(folding by hand versus kick-folding). Mat deployment is likely affected
by mat size and how the mat is rolled (textile in versus textile out).
Therefore, biomechanical loads are hypothesized to be reduced when:
1) The novel two-part floor mat design is selected, picked up, and de-
ployed; 2) A kick-folding method is used versus a hand-folding method
during mat pick-up; 3) The deployed mats has been rolled with the
textile material facing inward (textile-in) versus when they are rolled
with the textile surface facing outward (textile-out); and 4) Smaller
mats versus larger mats are handled.
18
Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Twelve subjects, seven males and five females, participated in the
study. Their average age, height, and weight was 22 years (range 20–30
years), 175 cm (range 155–193 cm), and 73 kg (range 55–101 kg), re-
spectively. None of the participants were involved in an occupation that
required repeated manual material handling work. Exclusion criteria
during subject selection included significant back, leg, or shoulder pain
in the past year, back surgery, or limited clinical conditions.
2.2. Experimental design
In this within-subject experimental design, participants performed
three mat-handling tasks: mat selection, mat pick-up, and mat deploy-
ment. The independent variables are depicted in Fig. 2. These were: mat
design (conventional vs. two-part); pick-up method (kick-fold vs. fold);
textile orientation during deployment (textile-in vs. textile-out); and
mat size (small vs. large). Table 1 shows the relevant dimensions of the
four mats used in this study. The textile components of the small and
large two-part mats were about 25–33 percent lighter than their con-
ventional mat counterparts, respectively. For the mat selection task,
only the effect of mat design (conventional vs two-part system) was
investigated using the large mat size. In the mat pick-up task, the effects
of mat design, pick-up method, and mat size were investigated. In the
mat deployment task, the effects of mat design, textile orientation, and
mat size were investigated. Participants repeated each condition three
times.
The dependent measures were comprised of surface electromyo-
graphic (EMG) responses and trunk kinematic measures. The EMG data
were obtained from the left and right erector spinae (ERS-L, ERS-R) and
anterior deltoid (DEL-L, DEL-R) muscles, at a frequency of 2000 Hz,
using a wireless surface EMG system (Trigno by Delsys). Additional
Trigno sensors, attached to each lower leg, were sampled for the ac-
celerometer signal which were used to indicate the starting point in mat
X. Wang et al. Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24

Fig. 2. Independent variables studied in the different mat handling tasks.

Table 1 pick-up conditions. Three-dimensional spine posture, velocity, and ac-

Size and weight of four mats used in the study. celeration data were obtained using the Lumbar Motion Monitor, or
Mat Design Size Length (m) Width (m) Thickness (mm) Weight (kg)
LMM (NexGen Ergonomics). The LMM was secured on the torso and
waist using a hook-and-loop harness system; spine kinematic data were
Two-part Small 1.5 0.9 3.82 2.08 sampled at 60 Hz.
Large 3.0 0.9 5.06 4.90
Conventional Small 1.5 0.9 5.09 3.22
Large 3.0 0.9 5.56 6.67
2.3. Procedure

A training session was provided for each participant prior to their

data collection session. At the beginning of this session, participants

19
X. Wang et al.
signed a consent document approved by the University's Institutional
Review Board. The researchers introduced participants to the mat-
handling tasks, by showing videos of an experienced individual per-
forming each of the tasks. The videos also acted as a guide for parti-
cipants to complete the tasks. Fig. 2 illustrates postures extracted from
the training videos for the different variations of the deployment and
pick-up tasks, including the upper arm and back postures. With both
pick-up methods, the participants lifted the mat with a stoop style lift.
Likewise, the selection task was performed with a stoop style lift, as
three large mats were lifted at one time (consistent with our worksite
observations). Participants were provided with opportunities to prac-
tice each of the tasks until their proficiency became apparent to the
research team. Floor markings indicated where the conventional mats
were to be placed during deployment. The two-part mat system had a
fixed base that remained on the floor, negating the need for markings.
The data collection session was carried out one-to-two days after
training. When the participant arrived, electrodes for EMG data col-
lection were placed over the ERS-L and ERS-R muscles at the L3 level
approximately 3 cm lateral to the spinous process. The electrodes for
the DEL-L and DEL-R muscles were placed over the belly of each
muscle. A sample of resting EMG data was collected with the partici-
pant standing in a neutral, relaxed posture. After establishing resting
EMG values, the participant performed a series of isometric maximal
voluntary contractions (MVC) for the purposes of EMG normalization.
Two repetitions of each exertion were performed for each muscle. The
ERS-L and ERS-R were measured at the same time, while the DEL-L and
DEL-R were measured individually, with a one-minute break between
exertions. After completing the normalization exertions, the LMM was
placed on the participant using a hook-and-loop harness, such that the
base was located at the level of L5/S1 and the inferior aspect of the
thoracic unit was located at approximately the T10 level of the spine.
During the mat selection condition, participants picked up three
large mats simultaneously from a 12 cm high pallet positioned on the
floor. Data collection was initiated prior to the verbal instruction to
begin the task and terminated after the mats were raised to waist level.
After repeating the lift three times, the participant completed three
more lifts of three large mats of the other mat design. The order in
which mat selection occurred was counterbalanced across participants.
The sequences of repeated blocks of mat deployment and mat pick-
up tasks were randomized, based on mat design and size. Within the
mat deployment tasks, the sequence of textile-orientation conditions
was also randomized. For the pick-up method, the sequence of kick-
folding and hand-folding conditions was randomized for the mat pick-
up tasks. Within each task condition, three replications of the deploy-
ment and pick-up task combination were performed sequentially.
To better ensure generalizability of the results to more experienced
delivery drivers, the accuracy of the mat deployment and mat pick-up
tasks were evaluated by the investigators and repeated when necessary.
For example, a mat deployment trial was considered successful if the
mat was deployed within the designated tape marks on the floor. If not,
the data were discarded, and the trial was repeated. Mat pick-up trials
were repeated where the subject could not kick the mat into a roll
successfully or did not fold the mat in a way that would prevent dirt
from falling out of the mat.
2.4. Data analysis
For the muscle activities, the root mean square (RMS) transformed
EMG data were exported from the data collection software
(MotionMonitor, Innsport). Each data file was reviewed using a Matlab
program to identify where the activity of interest was initiated. The
initiation of mat deployment activities were signaled by the significant
increase in deltoid activations. The initiation of the mat pick-up using
the hand-fold method was signaled by pause in the leg accelerometer
data (after the subject approached the mat) and the increased back and
shoulder muscle activities. The mat pick-up task with the kick-fold
20
Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24
method was signaled via the leg accelerometer data. The mat selection
process was signaled by the large increase in erector spinae activity.
The end of the data file marked the termination of the task. Once the
window of interest within each data file was identified, the Matlab
program normalized the EMG relative to maximal resting values, using
the following equation:.
Test EMG − Resting EMG
NormEMG = × 100%
Max EMG − Resting EMG
*Max EMG – Peak EMG data collected from isometric maximal vo-
luntary contractions
*Resting EMG – Baseline EMG data collected when subject in relax
standing position
*Test EMG – EMG data collected from mat handling trials
Within each activity, the 90th percentile normalized EMG value and
the mean normalized EMG value were extracted for each muscle's data.
In addition, task durations for mat deployment and mat pick-up were
obtained using the initiation rules specified above. Cumulative EMG
levels were assessed by multiplying the mean EMG by the task duration
for the mat deployment and pick-up tasks. For each task, maximal
postural deviation of the torso in the sagittal, frontal, and transverse
planes were obtained from the LMM data. Maximal torso velocity and
acceleration data were also obtained for each plane of motion.
A series of within-subject ANOVAs were used to assess the effect of
the independent variables on the task duration, 90th percentile EMG
values, cumulative EMG values, and LMM measures.
3. Results
3.1. Deployment
Mat Design. Table 2 provides the p-values for the ANOVAs con-
ducted on the EMG and kinematic data obtained during mat deploy-
ment. The two-part mat design significantly reduced the 90th percentile
EMG activity in the both the back and the shoulder muscles (Fig. 3).
Muscle activities for both the ERS-L and ERS-R were reduced by 16
percent, and the left and right deltoid muscle activities were reduced by
22 and 15 percent, respectively. However, the two-part mat increased
the cumulative EMG for the back muscles, largely due to the 1.2 s in-
crease in average task duration. This slower task was accompanied by
increased sagittal flexion with the two-part mat (50°) versus the con-
ventional mat (46°), along with decreased sagittal velocity and accel-
eration.
Mat Size. The larger mat size increased the 90th percentile EMG
response in the ERS-R by 8 percent. For the 90th percentile activity in
the DEL-L, the 14 percent reduction when deploying the small two-part
mat, relative to the same size conventional mat was increased to 29
percent when the larger mat sizes were deployed. However, for each of
the sampled muscles, the larger mat size significantly increased the
cumulative EMG by 24–56 percent. This may be due to the handling of
the larger mat increasing the task duration by 1.5 s, which is primarily
due to the added difficulty of deploying and correctly positioning a
longer mat.
Textile Orientation. Textile-orientation significantly affected both the
90th percentile and cumulative EMG values. Relative to mats rolled
with the textile out, mats rolled textile-in reduced the peak ERS-L and
ERS-R muscle activities by 9 and 7 percent, respectively (Fig. 4). The
textile-in orientation also reduced the left deltoid activity by 14 per-
cent. A closer look at the significant 90th percentile ERS-L response
indicated that the textile-in orientation was only beneficial for the
conventional mat. For the 90th percentile response of the DEL-L, the
textile-in orientation only reduced this muscle's activity for the larger
sized mat. The textile-in orientation reduced the cumulative EMG in the
ERS muscles by 6 percent and the cumulative EMG in the DEL-L by 11
X. Wang et al. Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24

Table 2
Summary of ANOVA statistical tests (p values) for the EMG and LMM measures – Mat design (D), size (S), and textile-orientation (T) in deployment activities.
Dependent Measure Deployment

Design (D) Textile Orientation (T) Size (S) D*T D*S T*S D*T*S

DEL-L-90 < 0.001 < 0.001 – – 0.015 0.039 –

DEL-R-90 < 0.001 – – – – – –
ERS-L-90 < 0.001 < 0.001 – 0.003 – – –
ERS-R-90 < 0.001 0.003 < 0.001 – – – –

DEL-L-Cumulative – < 0.001 < 0.001 – – – –

DEL-R-Cumulative – – < 0.001 – – – –
ERS-L-Cumulative 0.038 0.014 < 0.001 – – – –
ERS-R-Cumulative 0.005 0.027 < 0.001 – – – –

Sagittal flexion < 0.001 – < 0.001 – 0.002 – –

Lateral flexion – – < 0.001 – – – –
Twisting – – – – – – –

Sagittal Velocity < 0.001 – 0.013 – – 0.015 –

Lateral Velocity – – – – – – –
Twisting Velocity – – – – 0.017 – –

Sagittal Acceleration 0.030 – 0.004 – – – –

Lateral Acceleration – – – – – – –
Twisting Acceleration – – – 0.021 0.021 – –

percent. There were no main effects for kinematic changes due to the
textile-orientation.

3.2. Pick-up

Pick-up Method. Overall, there were substantial differences in the

Fig. 3. Mat design effect on the 90th percentile EMG response from back and
shoulder muscles during mat deployment (*** indicates p < 0.001). Error bars
represent one standard error of the mean.
Fig. 4. Mat rolling orientation effect on 90th percentile back and shoulder
muscle activities. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.
90th percentile and cumulative EMG measures for each muscle across
the two pick-up methods (Fig. 5). Both the 90th percentile values and
the cumulative EMG values were reduced by about 25 percent for each
of the ERS muscles and by about 75 percent for the DEL muscles when
the kick-fold method was used, relative to the hand-folding method.
The kicking method also reduced sagittal trunk flexion by 3percent and
sagittal velocity by 5 percent. However, the kicking method took two
seconds longer to complete.
Pick-up Method and Size by Mat Design Interactions. There was a
strong interaction effect (p < 0.001) between the pick-up method and
mat design for duration. While in both cases, the two-part mat design
required more time to complete activities, the differences were quite
small for the folding method and but required an additional 1.4 s for
kicking method with the two-part mat design. The interaction effect
between the mat design and mat size also indicated that the two-part
design required more time to complete the pick-up activity, with the
larger mat requiring more time than the smaller mat. However, upon
closer inspection, only the smaller mat showed a significant difference
between the two designs.
Given that the pick-up tasks are performed very differently, these
two methods were analyzed separately for the effects due to mat design
and mat size. Table 3 summarizes the statistical tests conducted on the
EMG and kinematic data during mat pick-up using both methods.
Hand Fold Method: With the hand-folding method, the 90th per-
centile response of ERS-R was reduced by 6 percent when the two-part
mat design was used. The deltoid muscles and the ERS-L showed sig-
nificant design by size interactions for both the 90th percentile and the
cumulative EMG values. These interactions indicate that the advantage
of using the two-part design became more apparent with larger mat
size. The exception to this was the DEL-L where the 90th percentile
muscle activity and cumulative activity was lower using the smaller
conventional mat than the two-part mat. When the larger mat was
handled, the 90th percentile value was lower with the two-part mat
system but the cumulative EMG values for this muscle were not dif-
ferent.

21
X. Wang et al. Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24

Fig. 5. Pick-up method effect on the a) Peak and b) Mean x Duration muscular responses. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

There were also differences in the sagittal trunk flexion and sagittal
velocity between the two mat design conditions. Specifically, the two
part mat design led to two degrees more forward bending than was
observed with the conventional design. Similarly the sagittal velocity
increased by approximately 2.5°/second. Across both mat designs, there
was about 5 more degrees of lateral flexion and twisting when picking
up the smaller mats as compared with the larger mats. In addition, the
smaller mat led to a 59 percent increase in the peak lateral velocity and
a 53 percent increase in the peak twisting velocities averaged across
participants.
Kick-Fold Method. With the kick-fold method, that two-part design
reduced the 90th percentile ERS activity bilaterally by 12 percent.
Overall, the 90th percentile deltoid activities were not statistically
different across mat sizes; however, both deltoid muscles showed a
significant mat design by mat size interaction effect, in which the two-
part mat resulted in slightly more deltoid activity when picking up the
smaller mat size. However, all 90th percentile deltoid activations with
the kick-fold method were very low (below 10 percent MVC), for both
deltoid muscles across all mat type and size conditions.
With respect to the cumulative EMG values, the two-part system
increased the left and right deltoid recruitment by 22 and 9 percent,
respectively. However, these cumulative EMG values ranged between
17 and 25 percent MVC x sec., much lower than the 81 to 108 percent
MVC x sec. observed for the hand-fold method. Like the 90th percentile
responses, the cumulative EMG responses were significantly higher in
the deltoid muscles when picking up the smaller two-part mats with the
kick method, but no different when picking up the larger mats.
However, the significant interaction effect for the cumulative ERS-L
muscle response indicated that there were no differences with the small
mat and significantly less muscle activation when picking up the larger
two-part mat than when picking up the conventional mat.
With regards to spine kinematics, the two-part mat system sig-
nificantly increased the peak forward flexion, by 2.5°. More notable
differences were observed in the kinematics due to mat size. As with the
hand-fold method, the amount of lateral bending and twisting were 87
percent and 71 percent greater, respectively, when picking up the
smaller mats. Similar trends were seen in the spine velocity data.
3.3. Selection
Both left and right 90th percentile ERS values were significantly
(p < 0.001) reduced when selecting the group of three large two-part
mats as compared with three large conventional mats. These values
were reduced by 9 percent (p < 0.01) and 13 percent for the ERS-L and
ERS-R, respectively. This task also took 0.2 s less with the two-part mats
(p < 0.001). There were no observable differences in DEL use due to
mat design. Mat design also had a significant effect on several spine
kinematic values. Relative to the conventional mat, the amount of lat-
eral bending, lateral bending velocity, and lateral acceleration were
significantly reduced by 20, 16, and 12 percent, respectively, when the
two-part mat was used (p < 0.05). Likewise, the two-part mat reduced
the amount of spine twisting, twisting velocity, and twisting

Table 3
Summary of ANOVA statistical tests (p values) for the EMG and trunk kinematic measures by folding method, mat design, and mat size.
Dependent Measure Hand Fold Kick Fold

Design Size DXS Design Size DXS

(D) (S) (D) (S)

DEL-L-90 – < 0.001 < 0.001 – – 0.016

DEL-R-90 – < 0.001 0.035 – – 0.016
ERS-L-90 – – 0.023 < 0.001 – –
ERS-R-90 < 0.001 0.039 < 0.001 – –

DEL-L-Cumulative 0.013 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 0.005
DEL-R-Cumulative 0.031 < 0.001 0.002 – < 0.001 0.001
ERS-L-Cumulative – < 0.001 < 0.001 – < 0.001 0.025
ERS-R-Cumulative – < 0.001 – – < 0.001 0.003

Sagittal Flexion 0.034 – – 0.024 –

Lateral Flexion
Twisting
Sagittal Velocity
Lateral Velocity
Twisting Velocity
Sagittal Acceleration
Lateral Acceleration
Twisting Acceleration
– 0.024 – – 0.006 –
– 0.031 – – 0.009 –
0.004 0.007 – – – –
– 0.020 – – 0.007 –
– 0.038 – – 0.020 –
– – – – – –
– 0.024 – – 0.009 –
– 0.035 – – 0.041 –

22
X. Wang et al.
acceleration by 19, 26, and 24 percent, respectively (p < 0.01).
4. Discussion
Overall, the two-part mat design significantly reduced demands on
the ERS muscles in each of the tasks studied. Similar significant effects
were seen for the DEL muscles during mat deployment. The two-part
mat design requires a delivery driver to only lift the top textile com-
ponent of the mat, which weighs approximately two-thirds to three-
quarters of a conventional mat (depending on mat size). Buseck et al.
(1988) showed that lifting lighter objects, such as the top portion of the
two-part mat design, reduces biomechanical loads on the spine. The
actual differences between mat design conditions ranged between 4 and
7.5 percent MVC, which corresponds to a 16 percent reduction in the
Erector Spinae muscles and an 18 percent reduction in the Deltoid
muscles. However, the biomechanical significance of these reduction
need to be considered in the context of reduced cumulative exposure
over the course of a workday. Deployment duration for the two-part
mat was longer than the conventional mat because the two parts of the
mat must be aligned. Note that, since this study was completed, the
design of the two part mat system has been modified such that the
upper layer removable mat is slightly larger than the base. This was
done partially to accommodate more variation in mat deployment
among handlers without adversely affecting mat aesthetics. We believe
it also would likely reduce deployment duration differences compared
to conventional mats.
The kick-folding technique was shown to be advantageous. This,
when compared to hand-folding, reduced the 90th percentile EMG for
the ERS muscles. However, the cumulative EMG for the DEL muscles
increased with the two-part mat system, although overall the values
were quite low relative to the cumulative EMG from the deltoids with
the hand-fold method. Trunk flexion, sagittal velocity, and sagittal ac-
celeration were also reduced when kicking. The upright posture when
kick-folding allows the driver to complete the initial part of the task
without using the deltoid muscles. These shoulder muscles were only
used as the driver lifted the folded mat from the floor. Overall, the
decreased muscle activity and spine motions could reduce driver injury
risk. Nearly 40 years ago, Andersson et al. (1977) demonstrated the
reductions that occur in spinal disc pressure when working in upright
instead of flexed postures. It should be noted that the kicking method
was found to be only about two seconds slower than hand-folding in
this study. This additional time typically occurred at the beginning of
the process, when subjects initially kicked the mat. This difference may
be shorter with the recent mat design modification mentioned earlier,
where the top layer overhangs the base mat. In real environments with
dirty mats, the kicking process may need to be done more slowly to
prevent accumulated dirt from being thrown off the mats and onto the
floor. However, it should be acknowledged that the kick-folding
method may adversely affect postural stability and may not be appro-
priate in environments where the delivery driver is standing on a
slippery floor, due to flooring material, water, or other contaminants.
Relative to the textile-out orientation, the textile-in orientation
significantly reduced muscle activity in both ERS muscles and one of
the measured deltoid muscles. The effects of the textile-in orientation
were stronger for the larger mats as compared with the smaller mats for
all muscles, even though the DEL-L was the only muscle to show this
significant interaction effect. While the magnitude of these effects were
small (a reduction of two to four percent MVC), the relative reductions
were between 6 and 13 percent across the four muscles sampled. Again,
while not a large effect, the biomechanical significance may become
relevant when one considers the number of mats deployed by delivery
drivers over the course of a work shift. However, it should be noted that
there are two practical limitations to the textile-in orientation. First,
pulling rolled mats over one another in this orientation, during any
driver selection or sorting activities, may become more difficult, as the
outside rubber surface has a higher coefficient of friction than the
23
Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24
textile. Second, the textile-in orientation may make it harder to dis-
tinguish specialty or custom mats prior to deployment.
Smaller mats reduced biomechanical loads during both deployment
and pick-up. Larger mats are longer, which produced lengthier task
durations for all activities and significant increases in cumulative EMG
activity during deployment and pick-up. During deployment, the ad-
vantages of using the two-part mat became more apparent with larger
mats in terms of 90th percentile DEL-L muscle recruitment levels, al-
though similar trends were observed for the DEL-R and the ERS-L
muscles. This is not surprising, given the weight differential between
mat sizes. While there was less forward and lateral spine bending when
deploying larger mats, sagittal plane velocities and accelerations were
increased, which is consistent with increased spine loads (Granata and
Marras, 1995). A similar result was obtained for the pick-up task;
however, the larger mats were associated with less spine lateral bending
and twisting. To offset the biomechanical costs of handling the larger
mats, delivery drivers could potentially use two smaller mats instead of
the larger size tested here. This would increase mat-handling frequency
throughout every step in the mat-delivery process. However, given the
relatively low average lifting frequencies associated with this type of
delivery work, it is unlikely that doubling the lifting frequency will
significantly affect the low back disorder risk (Marras et al., 1993).
Further investigation should consider how this increased frequency
would impact individuals working in the cleaning and distribution
center operations.
This study was able to describe the biomechanical impact of the
primary tasks associated with floor mat delivery, but a limitation of this
study is that our participants were not exposed to the whole body vi-
bration that drivers would normally be exposed to during the delivery
process. Vibration exposure has been linked with low back pain in truck
drivers (Robb and Mansfield, 2007), particularly when manual material
handling activities also are involved (Okunribido et al., 2008). Mehta
et al. (2015) showed significant fatigue developed in the erector spinae
muscles, as measured through tissue oxygenation levels, while being
seated for 60 min on a vibratory platform. Relative to a control condi-
tion without vibration exposure, the vibration exposure led to increases
in the amount of spine twisting and the twisting velocity as these par-
ticipants performed 60 min of repetitive lifting. In other words, beha-
vioral changes occurred that would likely further increase injury risk in
delivery personnel as they handle floor mats.
Another limitation of this study is that the demands associated with
cleaning and rolling processes were not studied. Mats are washed and
dried at cleaning facilities that have varying degrees of automation.
Once mats have been laundered, they are pulled from a pile and rolled.
The forces required to extract mats from a pile would be highly vari-
able, but they are hypothesized to be less if lighter, two-part mats are
used. Likewise, we believe that shorter and lighter mats also would be
easier to extract from a pile and rolled. A third limitation of this study is
that we were unable to obtain upper extremity kinematic data across
experimental conditions. These data would have likely shown notable
differences due to textile orientation during mat deployment. Finally,
the subjects in this study were not experienced mat handlers. Use of
actual delivery drivers would have provided more accurate compar-
isons of mat-handling durations due to mat designs textile orientation,
and size.
5. Conclusion
In summary, the use of a two-part mat design reduced the weight of
the materials handled during the selection, deployment, and pick-up
tasks studied here, compared to conventional mats. This reduced peak
biomechanical loads, as measured using the 90th percentile EMG
signal, as subjects performed simulated mat deployment, pick-up, and
selections tasks. While cumulative EMG measures showed more of a
mixed response, this was largely due to increased duration of the mat
deployment and pick-up tasks, the duration of which could be expected
X. Wang et al.
to decrease with more experienced workers and with the design mod-
ifications discussed above. And while the trunk kinematics also showed
mixed responses to the two-part mat design, most of these differences
due to mat design were relatively small. In summary, it appears as if the
two-part mat design would provide beneficial ergonomic effects for
delivery drivers. Use of a textile-in orientation may also benefit drivers,
as this study found reduced shoulder muscle activities during mat de-
ployment. In addition, this study has shown that the kick-folding
method for mat pick-up should be recommended for drivers, as long as
any contaminants on soiled mats can be contained. Overall, the results
from this study indicate that there are opportunities to reduce the
physical demands on mat delivery personnel, not only through the
physical attributes of the mats used, but through the incorporation of
selected best practices (e.g., textile roll orientation and pick-up
method). Further studies are needed to address the ergonomics needs of
mat delivery personnel, as this appears to be an under-studied work
process in the ergonomics literature.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Martin Pierce, Ty Dawson, Kamila
24
Applied Ergonomics 72 (2018) 17–24
Purkarova, and Dale Kitchen for their assistance with this project. This
effort was partially funded by Milliken & Company.
References
Andersson, G.B.J., Ortengren, R., Nachemson, A., 1977. Intradiskal pressure, intra-ab-
dominal pressure and myoelectric back muscle activity related to posture and
loading. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 129, 156–164.
Buseck, M., Schipplein, D.D., Andersson, G.B.J., Andriachi, T.P., 1988. Influence of dy-
namic factors and external loads on the moment at the lumbar spine in lifting. Spine
13 (8), 918–921.
Granata, K.P., Marras, W.S., 1995. An EMG-assisted model of trunk loading during free-
dynamic lifting. J. Biomech. 28, 1309–1317.
Mehta, J.P., Lavender, S.A., Jagacinski, R.J., Sommerich, C.M., 2015. Exploring the ef-
fects of seated whole body vibration exposure on repetitive asymmetric lifting tasks.
J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12, 172–181.
Okunribido, O.O., Magnusson, M., Pope, M.H., 2008. The role of whole body vibration,
posture and manual materials handling as risk factors for low back pain in occupa-
tional drivers. Ergonomics 51, 308–329.
Robb, M.J.M., Mansfield, N.J., 2007. Self-reported musculoskeletal problems amongst
professional truck drivers. Ergonomics 50, 814–827.
Marras, W.S., Lavender, S.A., Leurgans, S.E., Rajulu, S.L., Allread, W.G., Fathallah, F.A.,
Ferguson, S.A., 1993. The role of dynamic three-dimensional trunk motion in occu-
pationally-related low back disorders: The effects of workplace factors, trunk position
and trunk motion characteristics on risk of injury. Spine 18, 617–628.