Article 2 #3’2020

DOI: 10.33868/0365-8392-2020-3-263-7-12
© Nataliiа Borodina, Doctor of Technical Science (D.Sc.), Senior Researcher, professor of department of technologies of study, labor protection and design, e-mail:, ORCID: 0000-0002-5942-5658;
© Serhii Cheberiachko, Doctor of Technical Science (D.Sc.), Professor, Professor of the Department of Labour Protection and Civil Safety, e-mail:, ORCID: 0000-0003-3281-7157;
© Oleg Deryugin, Candidate of Technical Science (PhD), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Transportation Management,, ORCID: 0000-0002-2456-7664
(Bilotserkivsky Institute of Continuous Professional Education, Dnipro University of Technology)

Abstract. It was determined that injuries and the occurrence of occupational diseases of the limbs (fingers, hand, elbow, forearm, shoulder, etc.) of the musculoskeletal system of workers of car service enterprises when performing production activities for the maintenance and repair of cars, in which a hand tool is used, is a quite common phenomenon that currently constitutes a task of research of current importance.
Object of the study – ergonomic risks arising while working with hand tools.
Purpose of the study – to assess the ergonomic risks of the limb’s injuries and of the occurrence of occupational diseases of the musculoskeletal system of the worker while using hand tools at car repair entities.
Method of the study – to use the “TILE” (“Task, Individual, Load, and Environment”) principle for study of the upper limbs of the human body biomechanics. This principle indicates the need for a physiological assessment of manual labor (weight, rhythm, pace, intensity, etc.) and for a verification of the adequacy of manual labor conditions and the working environment and of their impact on employee health.
To calculate the ergonomic risk of injury and the occurrence of occupational diseases, the “RULA” (“Rapid Upper Limb Assessment”) method was used, with the assistance of which the conformity of the ergonomics of hand tools to the working conditions has been assessed.
Results of the study – discovered that use of the ergonomic tools can reduce the ergonomic risks of limb’s injury and occupational diseases of the musculoskeletal system of the worker, as well as increase productivity by up to 30%. Recommendations for rational sizes and shapes of various hand tools are given. The results of the study can be used for further development of the assessment of ergonomic health risks of workers in industrial enterprises.
Keywords: technological processes of a car service, risk management of workers’ injuries, ergonomic risks, hand tools, labor productivity.


  1. On labor protection [Pro okhoronu pratsi. The law of Ukraine, 21 November, 2002, № 229-IV], – Retrieved from: [In Ukraine]
  2. Some issues of investigation and accounting of accidents, occupational diseases and accidents at work, [Deyaki pytannya rozsliduvannya ta obliku neshchasnykh vypadkiv, profesiynykh zakhvoryuvanʹ i avariy na vyrobnytstvi, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 30 November, 2011, №1232]. – Retrieved from: [In Ukraine]
  3. Waters, T.R., Putz-Anderson, V. & Garg A. Applications manual for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science 1994. Available from:
  4. Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). 2014. Oregon OSHA Technical Manual (TM), Ventilation Investigations, Section III, Chapter 3. Available at:
  5. Tullar, J.M., Brewer, S., Amick, B.C., Irvin, E., Mahood, Q., Pompeii, L.A., Wang, A., Van Eerd, D., Gimeno, D. & Evanoff, B. (2010). Occupational safety and health interventions to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms in the health care sector. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(2):199-219. DOI:10.1007/s10926-010-9231-y.
  6. What Does TILE Stand For? The TILE & LITE Acronyms / High Speed Training, 2019. – Retrieved from:
  7. Ku, C.H., Radwin, R.G., & Karsh B. T. (2007). Power hand tool kinetics associated with upper limb injuries in an automobile assembly plant. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 4(6), 391-399. DOI:10.1080/15459620701326521.
  8. Dababneh, A., Lowe, B., Krieg, E., Kong, Y.K., & Waters, T. (2004). A Checklist for the Ergonomic Evaluation of Nonpowered Hand Tools. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 1(12), D135-D145. DOI: 10.1080/15459620490883150.
  9. Myers, J.R., & Trent, R.B. (1988). Hand tool injuries at work: A surveillance perspective. Journal of Safety Research, 19, 165-176.
  10. Aghazadeh, F., & Mital, A. (1987). Injuries due to hand tools. Applied Ergonomics, 4, 273-278. DOI: 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90134-7.
  11. Woodson, W.E., Tillman, B., & Tillman, P. (1992). Human Factors Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, P. 846. ISBN 9780070717688.
  12. Canada Safety Council (CSC): Hand Protection Occupational Safety and Health, (Data Sheet No. H-5). Ottawa: CSC, 1984.
  13. Mital, A. & Sanghavi, N. (1986). Comparison of maximum volitional torque exertion capabilities of males and females using common hand tools. Human Factors, 28(3), 283-293. DOI: 10.1177/001872088602800304.
  14. Helander, M.G. (1991). Safety hazards and motivation for safe work in the construction industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 8, 205-223. DOI: 10.1016/0169-8141(91)90033-I.
  15. Ershov, M.N. (2010). Ergonomics of hand construction instrument. Closing of optimal characteristics of spades which are used in construction. [Ergonomika ruchnogo stroitel’nogo instrumenta. K voprosu o vybore optimal’nykh kharakteristik lopat, primenyayemykh v stroitel’stve]. Vestnik MGSU, 4, 288-295. [In Russian]
  16. Lewis, W.G., & Narayan, C.V. (1993). Design and sizing of ergonomic handles for hand tools. Applied Ergonomics, 24, 351-356. DOI: 10.1016/0003-6870(93)90074-J.
  17. Dababneh, A., & Waters, T. (1999). The ergonomic use of hand tools: Guidelines for the practitioner. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14, 208-215. DOI: 10.1080/104732299302954.
  18. Eastman Kodak Company. (2003). Ergonomic Design for People at Work. New York: John Wiley & Son, P. 736. ISBN 9780471418634.
  19. Stanton, N., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., & Hendrick, H.W. (2005). Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. Taylor & Francis, P. 768. ISBN 9780415287005.
  20. 20. Alleblas, C.C.J., Vleugels, M.P.H. & Nieboer, T.E. (2016). Ergonomics of laparoscopic graspers and the importance of haptic feedback: the surgeons’ perspective. Gynecological Surgery, 13, 379-384. DOI:10.1007/s10397-016-0959-z.
  21. Harih, G. & Dolšak, B. (2014). Comparison of subjective comfort ratings between anatomically shaped and cylindrical handles. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 943-954. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.11.011.
  22. González, A.G., Salgado, D.R. & García Moruno, L. (2015). Optimisation of a laparoscopic tool handle dimension based on ergonomic analysis. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 48, 16-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2015.03.007.
  23. Min’ko, V.М. (2008). Mathematical modeling in labor protection, [Matematicheskoye modelirovaniye v okhrane truda]: Monograph, Kaliningrad, KSTU, 247. ISBN 978-5-94826-204-8. [In Russian]