裝卸大型輪胎作業氣動板手輔具之人因評估

The Ergonomic Assessment Using Assistant Tools for Loading and Unloading Large-Scale Tires

10.6848/JWL.201203_3(1).0004

吳水丕(Swei-Pi Wu)；鍾亞宸(Ya-Chen Chung)

輪胎維修 ； 大型氣動板手輔具 ； 作業姿勢 ； 肌電圖 ； 大型輪胎 ； large-scale pneumatic wretch's assistant tool ； working posture ； EMG ； large-scale tires

工作與休閒學刊

3卷1期（2012 / 03 / 01）

39 - 57

繁體中文

隨著經濟的發展與交通系統的改善，台灣地區的車輛逐年增加，維修保養的需求也日益上升。維修人員經常因笨拙的姿勢及重複性的過度施力，造成肌肉骨骼的傷害。也因此，本研究擬針對作業姿勢與使用的輔具類型對於維修人員之效應予以探討。研究旨在探討不同的輔具類型（推車型、吊架型）及作業姿勢（站姿、跪姿）對於心搏率（HR）、肌電訊號（EMG）、主觀施力知覺（RPE）與主觀偏好排序之效應，共徵募12位男性慣用右手之大學生進行實驗。為了比較起見，將實際作業中採站姿無輔具的方式也納入實驗項目，因此每位受試者均需進行五次實驗，包括站姿無輔具、站姿推車輔具、站姿吊架輔具、跪姿推車輔具，以及跪姿吊架輔具。研究結果顯示：（1）在比較有無使用輔具之結果顯示，有使用輔具確實能夠降低維修人員之負荷；（2）輔具類型對於EMG與PRE有顯著效應。在EMG方面，推車型比吊架型為佳；在RPE方面，以吊架型較推車型佳；（3）作業姿勢對於HR、EMG與RPE有顯著效應。在HR、RPE方面，皆以站姿優於跪姿；EMG方面，左／右橈側屈腕肌與右肱二頭肌之肌肉群乃以跪姿較站姿佳，其餘肌肉群皆以站姿較跪姿佳；（4）輔具類型與作業姿勢對於HR、EMG具有顯著的交互作用，在HR方面，採站姿、使用吊架型輔具，及採跪姿、使用推車型輔具為佳；在EMG方面，採站姿、使用吊架型輔具，及採跪姿、使用推車型輔具為佳，但對於右肱二頭肌而言則以站姿、使用推車型輔具，及採跪姿、使用吊架型輔具為佳。（5）整體而言，主觀偏好排序方面，以跪姿、使用推車型輔具最為受試者喜愛，其次為站姿、使用推車型輔具，而以站姿、無使用輔具最差。

Accompanied with economic development and the improvement in transportation systems, the number of vehicles in Taiwan has increased year after year as well as the requirements for repair and maintenance. Worker musculoskeletal system disorders are easily caused using awkward postures with repetitive overexertion. This research investigates the effects caused by working posture and the types of assistant tools for maintaining worker safety. This study discusses the effects caused by different types of the assistant tools (trolley and hanger) and working postures (standing and kneeling position) on Heart Rate (HR), Electromyograms (EMG), Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) and Subjective Preference Ranking (SPR). The participants in this experiment were 12 male right-handed college students. The standing position without assistant tools in practical working situation was also involved in this experiment for comparison. Each of the participants participated in five experiments, including standing position without assistant tools, standing position with trolley assistants, standing position with hanger assistants, kneeling position with trolley assistants and kneeling position with hanger assistants. The results of this study indicated (1) comparing the use of assistants revealed that using assistants could reduce the load workers maintained. (2) The types of the assistants had significant effects on EMG and RPE. The trolley type assistant was better than the hanger type concerning EMG. The hanger type was better than the trolley type concerning RPE. (3) The working posture had a significant effect on HR, EMG and RPE. The standing position was better than the kneeling position concerning HR and RPE. The kneeling position was better than the standing position for both flexor carpi radialis sides and the right biceps brachii muscles concerning EMG. The standing position was better than the kneeling position for the other muscles. (4) The type of assistants and working posture had significant interactions concerning HR and EMG. The standing position with hanger assistants and kneeling position with trolley assistants were better concerning HR. Standing position with hanger assistants and kneeling position with trolley assistants were better concerning EMG. However, standing position with trolley assistants and kneeling position with hanger assistants were better for right biceps brachii. (5) Overall, the kneeling position with trolley assistants was the most preferred the participants, followed by the standing position with trolley assistants and standing position without any assistants as the least desirable.

1. 陳志勇、鍾綉貞、陳德鴻(2006)。重體力工作之評估研究-以鏟沙與敲擊作業為例。勞工安全衛生研究季刊，14(3)，242-252。
   連結：
2. 蔡正勝、徐銘善、蘇桔良，2001，汽車修理保養業概況，http://www.evta.gov.tw/。
3. 行政院交通部交通統計資料，2008，http://www.motc.gov.tw/。
4. Brouha, L.(1967).Physiology in Industry.New York:Pergamon.
5. Caldwell, L.S.,Chaffin, D.B.,Dukes-Dobos, F.N.,Kroemer, K.H.E.,Laubach, L.L.,Snook, S.H.,Wasserman, D.E.(1974).A Proposed standard procedure for static muscle strength testing.American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,35(4),201-206.
6. Chung, M. K.,Lee, I.,Yeo, Y. S.(2001).Physiological workload evaluation of screw driving tasks in automobile assembly jobs.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,28,181-188.
7. Fast, A,Wang, FS,Adrezin, RS,Cordaro, MA,Ramis, J,Sosner J.(1995).The Instrumented Walker: Usage Patterns and Forces.Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil,,76(5),484-491.
8. Gallagher, S.(2005).Physical limitations and musculoskeletal complaints associated with work in unusual or restricted postures: A literature review.Journal of Safety Research,36,51-61.
9. Gallagher, S.,Marras, W.S.,Bobick, T.G.(1988).Lifting in stooped and kneeling postures: effects on lifting capacity, metabolic costs, and electromyography of eight trunk muscles.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,3,65-76.
10. Hook, F.W.V.,Demonbreun D.,Weiss, B.D.(2003).Ambulatory devices for chronic gait disorders in the elderly.American Family Physician,67(8),1717-1724.
11. Ives, J. C.,Wigglesworth, J. K.(2003).Sampling Rate Effects on Surface EMG Timing and Amplitude Measures.Clin. Biomech.,18,543-552.
12. Kant, I.,Motermans, J.H.V.,Borm, P.J.A.(1990).Observations of working postures in garages using the Ovako Working Posture Analysing System(OWAS) and consequent workload reduction recommendations.Ergonomics,33(2),209-220.
13. Lee, I.(1997).Pohang University of Science and Technology.
14. NIOSH(1992).Selected Topics in Surface Electromyography for Use in the Occupational Setting: Expert Perspectives.U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
15. Schultz, A. B.,Alexander, N. B.,Ashton-MiIler, J. A.(1992).Biomechanical Analysis of Rising from a Chair.J. Biomech.,25,1383-91.
16. 吳昇光(2003)。肌肉骨骼評估。台北:合記圖書出版社。
17. 周義哲(2007)。大仁科技大學。
18. 彭游、吳水丕(1993)。靜態肌力測試方法論。明志工專學報，25，147-152。
19. 謝銘峯(2008)。華梵大學。