JCHAS 772 1–10

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An ergonomic assessment of
sample preparation job tasks in
a chemical laboratory
Previous research had indicated that repetitive motions and static postures could cause musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs). A review of the ergonomic and safety literature indicated a lack of postural assessment
information for job tasks within a chemical laboratory. The study used ergonomic assessment tools to
evaluate the postures associated with laboratory sample preparation tasks. Six sample preparation job tasks
were evaluated by the following tools: anthropometric and environmental data, a Rapid Entire Body
Assessment (REBA), and a BodyMap. The REBA assessed six sub tasks within each sample preparation task.
The relative range of postures associated with observed tasks as were determined. The results indicated
medium to high-risk REBA scores in at least one sub task for each sample preparation job task. The resulting
differences amongst the tasks and sub task REBA scores were due to environmental and anthropometric
variations. Participants noted discomfort in the BodyMap survey, which corresponded to observed awkward
postures in the REBA assessment. Frequent short breaks along with workstation re-design and a stretching
Q2 program could help reduce the noted awkward postures. Further investigation and remediation were
recommended for the chemical laboratory work environment.

Q1 By Meshel A. Mork,
Sang D. Choi
INTRODUCTION
It had been well documented in the
ergonomic and safety literature that
awkward postures are a focal point
for the development of musculoskele-
tal disorders (MSDs). Such disorders
have had a profound impact on worker
injury, health care costs, and business
operation. Through an examination of
Q3 Meshel A. Mork, M.S., is affiliated
with Chemical Emergency Response,
Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene,
United States
(e-mail: Meshel.Mork@slh.wisc.edu).
Q4 Sang D. Choi, Ph.D., M.S., CSP, CPE,
is a Professor of Department of Occu-
pational & Environmental Safety &
Health, Director, Center for Occupa-
tional Safety and Ergonomics Re-
search, University of Wisconsin –
Whitewater, Whitewater, WI 53190,
United States (Tel.: 262 472 1641;
e-mail: chois@uww.edu).
the safety and health literature a lack could be transferred to postural assess-
of information regarding awkward ments in the industry of chemical
postures associated in the chemical sample analysis, as both conducted
laboratory analysis environment was similar tasks.
noted. Most research on laboratory
related postures focused on the chem-
STUDY HYPOTHESIS AND
ical manufacturing industry and not
OBJECTIVES
on the smaller traditional laboratory
sample analysis. For research con-
The hypothesis of the study was as
ducted in a laboratory environment
follows: the ergonomic evaluation of
the ergonomic focus tended toward
sample preparation job tasks conducted
human–machine interactions. Previ-
by laboratorians would elucidate the
ous research had been conducted on
need to remediate awkward work-
the ergonomics associated between
related postures. An assessment objec-
employees in a chemical manufactur-
tive employed a range of evaluative
ing work environment and their pos-
measures that provided both objective
tures relative to mechanical equipment
and subjective assessments for a com-
such as pipettes and biological safety
prehensive postural analysis. From the
cabinets.1,2
observed laboratory postures the objec-
It had been noted that the analytical
tive was to identify a range of postures
techniques often required to complete
experienced by the participant through-
job tasks in the chemical manufactur-
out the identified sample preparation
ing industry could lead to musculo-
tasks. Post sampling the objective was
skeletal discomfort.3 It was found
to make recommendations in the event
that workers either stood or sat for
that the assessment results indicated a
long periods of time and often engaged
need for remediation.
in repetitive motion tasks. The study
attributed lower back discomfort to
improper work surface height between METHODOLOGY
the bench top and the worker. These
identified areas of ergonomic concern A descriptive research design was
in the chemical manufacturing industry utilized for the study. Participants were

1871-5532 ß Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society 1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
JCHAS 772 1–10

observed and evaluated completing
sample preparation job tasks. Both
objective and subjective ergonomic as-
sessment tools were utilized through-
out the study to evaluate work postures
associated with sample preparation by
laboratorians. The assessment tools
used were a REBA, BodyMap, anthro-
pometric and environmental measure-
ments, and a background questionnaire.
Participants
The population for the study consisted
of employees at a chemical analysis
laboratory. Sample preparation tasks
from multiple departments were eval-
uated. The participants were selected
based whether or not they completed
sample preparation job tasks as part
of their normal job function. The
participant pool comprised a range of
job classifications such as: advanced
chemist, chemist, entry-level chemist,
and student laboratory technician
(Table 1). In total there were six parti-
cipants, four male and two female.
Participation in the study was volun-
tary. The sample pool was limited
because in the various laboratory
departments only one employee was
trained per task observed. Due to this
a larger, statistically significant, popu-
lation size was not used.
Task Description
The following were the sample pre-
paration tasks evaluated: blood lead
(blood-Pb) analysis, total phosphorus
(total-P), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN), soluble ortho phosphorus
filtration (ortho-P), chlorophyll filtra-
tion, and air metals analysis.
The blood-Pb, TKN, and total-P
sample preparation tasks were very
similar in method procedure with a
liquid sample aliquoted into a test tube
for further processing; however, air
metals analysis required the filters
instead of liquid sample to be placed
in a test tube. For the air metals task
evaluation, the six postures were con-
sistent with the liquid based methods
though it was observed that the place-
ment of a filter into the test tube was
followed by an addition of an extrac-
tion liquid. The chlorophyll and ortho-
P filtering also differed from the other
tasks but similar to one another in that
the sample was placed through a filter-
ing apparatus. The chlorophyll task
collected the filter as an end result;
whereas, the sol-P task collected the
filtrate extract in the final step.
Within each of the six identified
tasks there were differences between
sample preparation procedures. To
provide greater uniformity across tasks
a range of six sub positions within each
task was selected for evaluation. The
range of positions consisted of the
starting posture, four mid-task pos-
tures, and an end-of-task posture. After
initial observation of the six tasks the
following posture sub positions were
further defined as: (1) Start of task
sample bottle/container pick-up from
sample cart. (2) Mid-task sample
aliquot or filter collection in which
the sample was either aspirated into
the pipette or the filter picked up from
the container. (3) Mid-task sample dis-
pensing of the previously collected
sample into the extraction tube or fil-
tering apparatus. (4) Mid-task sample
manipulation in extraction tube or fil-
tering apparatus, consisted of moving
vial and/or adding reagent(s) to vial.
(5) Pipette tip or filter tweezer disposal
(6) End of task sample handling, the
posture assumed before repeating
the sub-tasks with the next sample in
the queue. For example, Figure 1
depicts the six sub positions for the
TKN procedure.
Data Collection Instruments and
Procedures
Several assessments were utilized
throughout the study to evaluate pos-
tures and perceived discomfort. Both
objective and subjective assessments
were used to obtain detailed quantita-
tive and qualitative descriptions of the
tasks performed by laboratory profes-
sionals. The objective assessment tool
consisted of a REBA. Two subjective
assessments were also administered:
a background questionnaire and a
BodyMap.
An 8-inch Sammons-Preston Inter-
national Standard SFTR pocket goni-
ometer was used to determine all
angles from photos of the six sub po-
sitions within each job task for the
REBA worksheet. Angles were marked
with a numerical indicator at incre-
ments of 10 degrees with a tally mark
for every increment of 5 degrees on the
goniometer. All angle measurements
were recorded to the nearest degree
for each assessment.
Anthropometric and Environmental
Measurements
For each participant select anthropo-
metric values were recorded. Para-
meters appropriate for ergonomic
evaluations had been previously de-
fined with regards to anthropometric
measurement data collection.4 These
definitions were used when participant
data were obtained. Select anthropo-
metric values such as total height, up-
per arm, total arm, shoulder height,
and leg length were recorded. The floor
was chosen as the baseline point of
measure from which several anthropo-
metric and environmental measure-
ments were taken. This baseline was
used so as to maintain a common, non-
varying, point of reference for some of
the measurements.

Table 1. Background and Task Questionnaire Responses: Age, Gender, Job Title, and Task.
Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6
Age (years) 27 61 36 19 33 24
Gender Female Female Male Male Male Male
Job title Chemist Senior chemist Senior chemist Student lab assistant Senior micro-biologist Chemist
List the sample Blood-Pb Total Kjeldahl Total Dissolved ortho Metals analysis in air Chlorophyll
preparation task nitrogen phosphorus phosphorus analysis
being evaluated

2 Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015

Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
JCHAS 772 1–10
Figure 1. TKN task depicting the six sub task postures used for REBA.
Laboratory workbench, chairs, sam-
ple trays, and carts were measured to
determine environmental dimensions
values. Additionally test tube, sample
bottles/containers, and container stor-
age heights were also measured. It was
noted that sample container and tube
size varied between tasks. To obtain a
general idea of the range of materials
handled sample container sizes were
measured for each task. The assump-
tion was made that the container
size would be constant within each
individual task.
Measurements included information
on the length, width, depth, and vol-
ume of the sample bottles. The portion
from the floor to the top of the surface
of interest was measured. These work-
station values were evaluated so a de-
termination of range of motion and
frequency of movement could be con-
sidered for the study. The environmen-
tal values were also compared with the
anthropometric values to see if any
relationship could be inferred with
the previously described REBA and
BodyMap assessments. There were
two general heights at which the ob-
served tasks were completed. The
blood-Pb and air metals had seated
participants; whereas, the other four
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015
Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
tasks had participants that stood while
at the workbench.
Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
A REBA assessment was conducted
from pictures obtained while the par-
ticipants worked during their normal
laboratory shift. A REBA table was
used to record and evaluate all postur-
es.5 The REBA allowed for an objective
ergonomic postural assessment of
the six evaluated tasks. Pictures were
taken at six different sub positions
throughout each task. The pictures
were used to measure all body angles
that corresponded to the REBA work-
sheet steps. The angle values were
evaluated against the REBA step
requirements and the criteria for value
determination. The REBA was then
completed for steps 1–13 to determine
the final posture score at each of
the six positions per participant. The
REBA was utilized as an objective
assessment, results elucidated task
remediation needs.
Background and Task Questionnaire
Participants completed a brief back-
ground questionnaire. This was done
in order to gain background information
on both the participant and the job
task. The information helped to further
describe and define the population for
the study. The questionnaire was a
mixture of Likert and short-answer
questions. Participants were asked a
total of five questions. Short-answer
questions asked the participant’s age,
gender, job title, and task being evalu-
ated. Likert questions determined
the duration of task and the relative
frequency for which the task was
completed on a per week basis.
BodyMap
The comfort of the participants in the
study was measured through the use of
a BodyMap. A BodyMap assessment
form, with directions, was used to eval-
uate participant’s perceived frequency
and level of discomfort.6 This form
asked participants to report on any
discomfort experienced within the last
30 days of work relative to the task
under consideration. The BodyMap
was explained to the participants prior
to completion and the evaluator an-
swered any questions. The BodyMap
responses were placed into a combined
table and color-coded. This combina-
tion represented the likelihood of the
participant to seek treatment for any
areas of discomfort reported.
RESULTS
Anthropometric and Environmental
Data
Select anthropometric and environ-
mental data was collected for each
participant to assess the general appro-
priateness of the current workstation
set-up to neutral body postures. The
values for each participant were then
compared the average US values for
men and women.4 For the female par-
ticipants blood-Pb had a total height
value of roughly 67.00 cm; where
as, the TKN participant had a total
height of 63.00 cm. The average US
female total height was estimated at
63.98 cm. In general the TKN partici-
pant had anthropometric values less
than the US female average while the
blood-Pb had values slightly greater
than the average. The male partici-
pants had total height values that were
all greater than the average US male
3
JCHAS 772 1–10

height of 69.09 cm but varied with

respect to the average value for all
other measurements. For example,
the air metals task had the tallest
participant at 71.75 cm; however, this
participant had a shoulder-to-elbow
height of 13.75 cm, which was less
than the US male average of 14.37.
Environmental measurements were
taken for each sample preparation
task. Workstations deviated from one
another, it was noted if the participant
stood or was seated while the task was
completed. The bench heights were
generally consistent amongst all tasks
with no deviation greater than 2 cm in
height. Sol-P and chlorophyll were the
two tasks that involved a filter appara-
tus. For these tasks height measure-
ments were taken at three points on
the apparatus, the top, middle, and
bottom. Both set-ups were similar
in height values. Additionally, some
workstations had floor mats. If a floor
mat was present the bench height was
measured for both, with and without
the mat. The difference between bench
height with and without a floor mat
was minimal, at roughly 35.40–
36.00 cm, respectively. Of the four
tasks that stood while working only
2, TKN and total-P, had floor mats.
Background and Task Questionnaire
The background and task question-
naire collected a variety of information
from the participants. The content ran-
ged from background information on
participant age, gender, and job title
(Table 1). The first question regarded
participant age. The average age of the
group was 33 years, with a median age
value of 30 years.
Table 2 indicated the amount of time
a single sample preparation took for
the given task. Figure 2 represented
the frequency with which the various
Table 2. Background and Task Questionnaire Responses: General Duration of Task.
Duration of Task Blood-Pb TKN Total-P Sol-P Air Metals Chlorophylls
0–1 hour x x
1–2 hours
2–3 hours
3–4 hours x dle apparatus height was used as the
4–5 hours
5+ hours
Figure 2. Background and task questionnaire responses: amount task is completed
per week.
sample preparation tasks were com-
pleted per week. The amount of time
each participant had been completing
the given job task was evaluated
(Table 3). Results indicated that there
was a range of sample preparation ex-
perience amongst the participant pool.
REBA Assessment
All final REBA scores were determined
for each sample preparation task.
From the evaluation it was noted that
all final REBA scores varied with sub
task position and often produced a
range of low and high scores within
each task (Figure 3). Each task indicat-
ed that at least one sub task had a final
REBA score of medium risk, REBA
score 4–7; with a high risk score in
one sub task for four of the six sample
preparation tasks, REBA score 8–10.
It should be noted that there was no
final REBA of very high risk, score of
11+, for any sub task posture observed.
REBA steps 1 and 9 related to neck and
wrist position, respectively (Figures 4–5).
Across sub tasks there was a frequent
occurrence of high neck postures
scores; where as, wrist postures had
more instances of low scores.
x the standing elbow height was used
x for the other tasks. For the two filtering
x tasks, sol-P and chlorophylls, the mid-
BodyMap Assessment
All BodyMap values of perceived
discomfort and frequency level were
placed into a table, with the final
combined values placed into a table
and color-coded for further analysis
(Figure 6). There were three instances
of red zone values, very likely to seek
treatment, reported by the air metals
and chlorophyll participants. Addi-
tionally there were 14 instances of
yellow zone values distributed across
all participants. The most common
BodyMap response was a green zone
value.
DISCUSSION
Anthropometric and Environmental
Data
Anthropometric considerations were
taken into account when considering
overall scores as well; it demonstrated
the importance of workstation design
considerations for the promotion of
neutral postures. A comparison be-
tween the anthropometric values and
the environmental workstations was
completed for two positions (Figure 7).
The participant elbow height was
compared to both tube and sample
bottle heights. For the blood-Pb and
air metals tasks the participants were
seated. Their seated elbow height was
used for this comparison; whereas,
tube and bench height comparison
component. From the evaluation of

4 Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015

Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
JCHAS 772 1–10

Table 3. Background and Task Questionnaire Responses: Amount of Time Background and Task Questionnaire
Participant has Completed the Task. In general the least experienced parti-
Time in Task Blood-Pb TKN Total-P Sol-P Air Metals Chlorophylls cipants in the sample population spent
the greatest amount of time conducting
0–6 months x
sample preparation for their respective
6–12 months x
tasks. For example, based on the fre-
1–3 years x x
quency and duration responses for
3–5 years
sol-P and blood-Pb these tasks took
5–10 years x
between 3–6 and 0–4 hours per week,
10+ years x
respectively. Comparatively, TKN and
total-P took 3–4 and 2–3 hours per
week, respectively.
10
Between the observed tasks it was
9
8 noted that tasks were conducted fre-
7 quently, several times per week, for
REBA Score

6 short periods of time or once a week

5 for longer durations. It was notable
4 Blood-Pb
that the two oldest participants had
3 TKN
2 the greatest amount of task experience
Total-P and both completed the two least
1
0 Sol-P frequent sample preparation tasks
Air Metals (Tables 1–4). These were the TKN
Chlorophyll and total-P sample preparation tasks.
The longer sample preparation tasks
may have included longer and more
detailed analysis procedures which re-
quired the use of a more experienced
Sub Task
employee. The two participants with
Figure 3. Final REBA scores. the least amount of task experience
were blood-Pb and sol-P. The less ex-
perienced participants were responsi-
workstation height to participant lower arm positions, any angel less ble for the sample preparation tasks
elbow height a general assessment of than 608 would result in a step score with higher frequencies of occurrence
whether or not neutral postures could of 2. or durations of completion (Table 3).
be supported was determined. From the comparison between el-
For tasks where the workstation bow heights and workstation heights REBA Assessment
height was less than the participant it was noted that there was a potential The workstations were set-up in such a
elbow height lower arm posture would for participants to engage in awkward, manner that for the range of sub tasks
have had an angle less than 908 non-neutral postures, in order to reach observed to be completed the partici-
while the upper arm position would their sample tubes (Table 4). Based on pant had to move to both sides of the
have remained within a neutral pos- these values further assessment from body. This resulted in some twisting
ture range 08–208. All neutral posture the REBA and BodyMap provided and bending of the trunk and neck.
determinations were based off of the more detailed information on awk- Long sample tubes and filtering appa-
definitions on the REBA worksheet. As ward postures amongst the sample ratus set-ups showed more awkward
noted in the REBA worksheet, step 8 preparation tasks. upper arm postures when compared
to tasks that had lower to the bench
set-ups. Participants that were seated
3
in a chair were at a closer eye-line to
the sample task, which should have
2 Blood-Pb decreased poor neck posture scores;
REBA Score

TKN however, it was noted in the air metals

Total-P task that it did not help the neck
1
Sol-P postures.
Air Metals
The REBA results varied amongst
0
Chlorophyll
the six primary sample preparation
Sample Sample Sample Sample Pipee Sample tasks with regards to the six sub posi-
Reach Alliquot Dispense Collecon Dispense Release
Sub Task
tions evaluated. In general, there was
an increase in score within the mid-
Figure 4. REBA neck position scores across sub task. task sub positions when compared to

Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015 5

Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
JCHAS 772 1–10

3 while performing collection motions

with the hands. The collection tubes
Blood-Pb and filters were all located away from
2 the body, which then required the par-
REBA Score

TKN ticipant to reach forward from the mid

Total-P sagittal plane. All of the sample prepa-
ration tasks had collection operations
1 Sol-P below eye level, so participants were
Air Metals required to tilt the head downwards to
put the tube/filter within their field of
Chlorophyll
0 vision. The head deviation resulted in
Sample Sample Sample Sample Pipee Sample the observed and reported poor neck
Reach Alliquot Dispense Collecon Dispense Release postures. It was noted that in general
Sub Task all tasks and sub tasks required some
deviation of the neck posture outside
Figure 5. REBA wrist position scores across sub task. the neutral area (Figure 4).
At the sample aliquot step the parti-
the start and end positions (Figure 3). two having the lowest overall final cipants had to raise both the upper and
Postures related to subtasks 3–6 score for the six sub tasks. lower arms and twist the wrists to pour
resulted in the highest final REBA Sub task 4, required the participant sample into the filter cup, as noted
score amongst the tasks, with sub task to raise both the lower and upper arms by the negative difference between

Figure 6. Combined BodyMap results.

Table 4. Anthropometric and Environmental Data.

Description of Task REBA Results Blood-Pb TKN Total-P Sol-P Air Chlorophylls
Metals
Movement from sample Non-neutral lower arm postures x x x x
container to extraction Negative elbow difference x x X
tube or filtering apparatus Non-neutral upper arm postures x
Filtering task x x
Seated during task x x

6 Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015

Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
JCHAS 772 1–10
Figure 7. Elbow and workstation height comparison.
apparatus height and participant
elbow height for the two filtering tasks.
This resulted in significantly higher
Score B values that pushed the final
REBA scores upwards (Figure 8).
Based on the REBA results compared
with the anthropometric and environ-
mental data, the filtering tasks pro-
moted awkward arm postures due to
the higher position of the preparation
points.
The sample release, sub task 6,
resulted in a range of final REBA
scores. The blood-Pb and chlorophyll
participants had to reach forward to
complete their final sample prepara-
tion step. Both were observed to have
awkward trunk, neck, and upper and
lower arm postures. The motion to
reach forward increased both the
Score A and B values, which resulted
in the high risk final REBA scores for
those sub tasks.
The greatest REBA scores between
all sub tasks were found in the air
metals sample preparation task. Air
metals had consistently high neck pos-
ture scores, with a value of three noted
for all sub tasks. The neck postures
combined with poor step 2 trunk posi-
tion scores resulted in high Score A
values (Figure 9). The neck and trunk
postures were exacerbated due to the
participant being seated in a chair.
Though the chair shortened the dis-
tance between the participant’s head
and the sample, which should have
decreased the need to deviate the neck
posture downwards by greater than
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015
Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
208, the poor twisted trunk posture right. The range of postures required
while seated forced the deviated neck by the workstation set-up required
posture. the participant to bend and twist at
The air metals participant sat in the trunk. Additionally air metals also
a slouched position. The task also had high Score B values. This was also
required a range of side-to-side move- due the seated chair posture. By work-
ment as the sample tray was to the far ing seated in the chair the participant
left and the trashcan was to the far was farther away from the sample rack
12
11
10
9 Blood-Pb
8 TKN
REBA Score
7 Total-P
6
5 Sol-P
4 Air Metals
3
2
Chlorophyll
1
0
Sub Task
Figure 8. REBA score B.
12
11
10
9
REBA Score
8 Blood-Pb
7 TKN
6
5 Total-P
4 Sol-P
3 Air Metals
2
1 Chlorophyll
0
Sub Task
Figure 9. REBA score A.
7
JCHAS 772 1–10
6 the right shoulder, back, and neck po-
5 sitions. This was likely due to the lifting
REBA Score
4
3 Blood-Pb
TKN
2
1 Total-P
Sol-P
0 amongst participants with regards to
Air Metals
Chlorophyll
Sub Task
Figure 10. REBA upper arm position scores across sub task.
and had to reach the upper and lower BodyMap Assessment
arm positions forwards. As MSDs develop from joint and mus-
The most favorable final REBA cle fatigue due to repetitive motion tasks
scores were found in the total-P sample the BodyMap results showed frequency
preparation task. Of the six sub tasks and level of discomfort. The results re-
three resulted in scores of negligible lated to the frequency and duration for
risk. The low risk scores were found which the participants had completed
in the middle sub tasks 2–4, which the sample preparation tasks. Based on
differed from the trends found in the BodyMap results participants that
the other sample preparation tasks had completed the task for the least
(Figure 3). The reason for the low score amount of time had the least amount
was the set-up of the workstation. The of yellow to red responses; whereas, the
tube and bench height were not too more senior participants tended to have
high, as observed in the filtering tasks, a greater occurrences of discomfort. For
so as to promote raised arm postures. example, both blood-Pb and sol-P par-
The arm needed only be moved slightly ticipants were the least senior and had
and well within acceptable REBA an- only two indications of somewhat likely
gle ranges to aliquot, dispense, and to seek treatment; comparatively the
collect the sample. This task had two TKN participant was the most senior
sub tasks with medium risk results: sub and had the greatest number of discom-
tasks 1 and 5. Both of these sub tasks fort responses. When a task is complet-
were noted to cause increased reach- ed for a long duration of time, with little
ing postures with the upper and lower variation, joint and muscle rest was not
arms (Figures 10 and 11). Additionally provided which resulted in the noted
the reaching was to the sides of the discomfort.
mid-line of the body so some trunk The general areas of discomfort ex-
twisting was observed. perienced by the participants were in
2 tween REBA neck postures and Body-
REBA Score
1 Blood-Pb
TKN
Total-P
0 Sol-P
Air Metals
Chlorophyll
Sub Task
Figure 11. REBA lower arm position scores across sub task.
8 Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015
Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
and grasping movements associated
with the sample preparation tasks
and that most participants were ob-
served to be right handed.
The BodyMap results varied
both frequency and level of discomfort.
Figure 6 indicated that two partici-
pants, sol-P and air metals, reported
constant discomfort at the mid-to-low-
er back position. For all participants,
except blood-Pb, the mid-to-lower
back was cited as an area of frequent
to constant discomfort. Foot/ankle
frequency values were attributed to
the range of motions the tasks re-
quired. The repetitive motions associ-
ated with the sample preparation tasks
increased the likelihood of discomfort.
All participants indicated some level
of discomfort in one or more of the
following areas: shoulder, upper arm,
and upper and mid-to-lower back. The
recorded frequency and discomfort
values between the participant’s Body-
Map surveys generally corresponded
to areas of high REBA values observed
for the same areas of the body. For
example, the blood-Pb participant
indicated moderate right shoulder
discomfort and was observed through
REBA pictures to have an upper arm
posture that was greater than 208 and/
or abducted (Figure 10). The frequency
and level of discomfort reported
by participants in the right shoulder
and wrists were also supported by the
anthropometric values, which indicat-
ed participants would need to bend at
awkward angels to reach the different
workstation heights across sub tasks.
However, there was a difference be-
Map results. The REBA neck postures
between the six tasks were noted to be
awkward with a deviation greater
than 208 for almost all of the tasks
and across sub tasks (Figure 4). The
BodyMap scores from the study indi-
cated some level of frequency of dis-
comfort. From the results, four out of
six participants reported this, though
it was objectively observed in all.
Combined frequency and discomfort
BodyMap scores resulted in a range of
responses. The air metals and chloro-
phylls were the only two participants
JCHAS 772 1–10
whom had combined BodyMap values
in the red zone indicating that they
were very likely to seek treatment
(Figure 6). The chlorophyll participant
had red zones in both the left and right
ankle and foot. That participant was
observed to complete the sample prep-
aration task while standing with no
floor mat. The low-to-mid back body
point resulted as the most commonly
cited area of discomfort (Figure 6).
This indicated that treatment was
somewhat likely to very likely for them
to seek treatment. With regard to TKN,
the right hand discomfort could have
been attributed to the bent wrist pos-
tures observed for sub positions 2, 3,
and 4.
Study Limitations
A general limitation to the study was
the small sample pool of participants.
There were only six participants in
total for the various assessments. The
laboratory sampled was an analysis
facility rather than a manufacturing
or production facility. Most depart-
ments were small with less than
10 employees and only 1–2 employees
conducting a sample preparation task
at a time. Therefore a larger sample
pool was not readily available. Any
statistically compiled data from the
study would not be significant to sup-
port any of the identified trends.
The BodyMap asked participants to
identify any discomfort experienced in
the last 30 days related to the specified
sample preparation job task. Personal
health information related to the par-
ticipant’s history of injury or activity
level was not considered in the study. It
was possible that a chronic condition,
unrelated to the job task, could be a
contributing factor in the reported dis-
comfort. This was a subjective assess-
ment and as such was also limited by
the willingness and ability of the par-
ticipant to relate their experience with
the task and any associated discomfort.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Short-Term Recommendations
For a short-term solution it was recom-
mended that frequent, short, breaks
be taken by sample preparation parti-
cipants. Frequent breaks of around
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015
Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
5 min per one hour of work provide
employees with an opportunity to rest
joints and muscles used in the repeti-
tive motion sample preparation tasks.
It had been noted that short mini-
breaks for tasks that supported upper
body static postures resulted in a de-
crease of musculoskeletal related dis-
orders.7 It was found that the use of
frequent breaks reduced the occur-
rence of MSDs such as tendinitis of
the shoulders and forearm and carpal
tunnel syndrome in the wrist. It was
noted in the study through both
the REBA and BodyMap assessments
that the right arm and wrist, as well
as the back, were frequent areas of
discomfort.
If participants were encouraged to
take breaks and walk around or sit for
a brief period of time they could pro-
mote increased circulation to the re-
petitive task affected joints. Seated tasks
such as blood-Pb and air metals parti-
cipants could take a short walk to re-
lieve the stress placed upon the back
from sitting. For tasks that required
standing, total-P, sol-P, TKN, and
chlorophylls, could have participants
sit to rest for their short break, which
would take stress off of the feet and legs.
Long-Term Recommendations
There are two components for the
long-term solution to reduce the ob-
served awkward postures associated
with sample preparation tasks: work-
station design and the implementation
of a stretching program. Due to the
variations amongst the six observed
tasks workstation design consider-
ations need be tailored to the individ-
ual tasks, general recommendations
were provided.
Ergonomic risks were increased due
to the observed awkward postures re-
lated to workstation design. It was
recommended that workstation set-
up be re-designed to avoid twisting
and bending side postures. For exam-
ple, samples are placed on trays that sit
lower than the bench surface. These
could be placed on the bench surface,
which would enable participants to
keep their arms near the mid-line of
the body. This would circumvent
shoulder abduction associated with
reaching across or to the sides of the
body to grab a sample from a cart as
noted in sub task 1 postures from the
TKN, sol-P, total-P, and chlorophyll
tasks.
The final long-term recommenda-
tion component was to implement a
stretching program. Previous research
had stated that a stretching program in
conjunction with engineering controls
had shown some benefit in the reduc-
tion of MSDs for repetitive motion job
tasks.8 Through stretching activities
improved circulation was promoted
to joints and muscles that may become
fatigued by the observed repetitive stat-
ic postures. For example, right arm,
wrist, and shoulders were identified
as areas with poor posture that parti-
cipants indicated discomfort, stretch-
ing would promote increased oxygen
and nutrient flow to the stressed areas
of the body and could lessen the
amount of fatigue experienced by the
participant.
CONCLUSIONS
A postural assessment and ergonomic
evaluation of six laboratory preparation
tasks was conducted. The anthropo-
metric and environmental data indicat-
ed that the workstation set-ups for the
six tasks were conducive to awkward
postures for the participants observed.
It was noted that all observed REBA
tasks had at least one sub task in
the moderate to very high score range.
This indicated that those task positions
required further investigation and re-
medial change. Through the use of a
BodyMap survey discomfort values
and anthropometric data, a relationship
was observed between the different
assessments and across sample prepa-
ration tasks. Areas noted in the Body-
Map of perceived discomfort often
corresponded to areas with high scores
on the REBA assessment. Trends were
identified across sub tasks and between
different sample preparation tasks.
Based on the results, recommendations
were made to reduce awkward postures
for both a short- and long-term timeline.
It was recommended that changes to
work station set-up and a stretching
program be implemented for the
promotion of neutral postures. REBA
scores could be reduced with the imple-
mentation of the recommended work
9
JCHAS 772 1–10
station set-up adjustments. BodyMap
scores may also be reduced with partic-
ipation in a stretching program.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the University of
Wisconsin Whitewater Occupational
and Environmental Health and Safety
Department and collaborator Noel V.
Stanton for their assistance with study
development and implementation.
REFERENCES
1. Klein, R. C.; King, C.; Labbie, P. Protect-
ing service and maintenance workers
10
Please cite this article in press as: Mork, M.A., Choi, S.D., An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical
laboratory, J. Chem. Health Safety (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.11.003
during laboratory chemical hood
repairs. Chem Health Saf, 2003, 3,
23–27.
2. David, G.; Buckle, P. A questionnaire
survey of the ergonomic problems asso-
ciated with pipettes and their usage with
specific reference tow work-related
upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon,
1997, 28(4), 257–262.
3. Emery, R. J.; Delclos, G. L. World at
work: research and testing laboratories.
Occup Environ Med, 2005, 62, 200–204.
4. Pheasant, S. Bodyspace, 2nd ed. Taylor
& Francis Inc.: London, UK, 1996.
5. Hignett, S.; McAtamney, L. Technical
note: rapid entire body assessment. Appl
Ergon, 2000, 31, 201–205.
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2015
6. Cameron, J. A. Assessing work-related
body-part discomfort: current strategies.
Int J Ind Ergon, 1996, 18(5–6), 389–
398.
7. Piligian, G.; Herbert, R.; Hearns, M.;
Dropkin, J.; Landsberigs, P.; Cherniack,
M. Evaluation and management of
chronic work-related musculoskeletal
disorders of the distal upper extremity.
Am J Ind Med, 2000, 37, 75–93.
8. Costa, B. R.; Vieira, E. R. Stretching to
reduce work-related musculoskeletal
disorders: a systematic review. J Rehabil
Med, 2008, 40, 321–328.