The Experts below are selected from a list of 1998 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yoon Kyu Chung - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Epidemiologic study of hand and upper extremity injuries by power tools.
Archives of Plastic Surgery, 2019Co-Authors: Jin Hee Choi, Yoon Kyu ChungAbstract:BACKGROUND: Hand injuries caused by chain saws, electric saws, and hand Grinders range from simple lacerations to tendon injuries, fractures, and even amputations. This study aimed to understand the distribution of various types of hand and upper extremity injuries caused by power tools, in order to help prevent them, by investigating the incidence and cause of power tool injuries treated over a 4-year period at a single institution in Korea. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients who visited a single institution for power tool-induced injuries from 2011 to 2014. The distribution of sex, age, injured body part, type of injury, and mechanism of injury sustained by patients who received hand and upper extremity injuries from using an engine saw, electric saw, or hand grinder was evaluated. RESULTS: Among 594 subjects who were injured by power tools, 261 cases were hand and upper extremity injuries. The average age was 53.2 years. Tendon injury was the most common type of injury. An electric saw was the most common type of power tool used. More injuries occurred in non-occupational settings than in occupational settings. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, power tool-induced hand and upper extremity injuries were mostly caused by direct contact with electric saw blades. More injuries occurred due to non-occupational use of these tools, but the ratios of amputations and structural injuries were similar in the non-occupational and occupational groups.
Ingrid Liljelind - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Variability in hand-arm vibration during grinding operations.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2011Co-Authors: Ingrid Liljelind, Jens Wahlström, Leif Nilsson, Allan Toomingas, Lage BurströmAbstract:Background: Measurements of exposure to vibrations from hand-held tools are often conducted on a single occasion. However, repeated measurements may be crucial for estimating the actual dose with good precision. In addition, knowledge of determinants of exposure could be used to improve working conditions. The aim of this study was to assess hand–arm vibration (HAV) exposure during different grinding operations, in order to obtain estimates of the variance components and to evaluate the effect of work postures. Methods: Ten experienced operators used two compressed air-driven angle Grinders of the same make in a simulated work task at a workplace. One part of the study consisted of using a grinder while assuming two different working postures: at a standard work bench (low) and on a wall with arms elevated and the work area adjusted to each operator’s height (high). The workers repeated the task three times. In another part of the study, investigating the wheel wear, for each grinder, the operators used two new grinding wheels and with each wheel the operator performed two consecutive 1-min grinding tasks. Both grinding tasks were conducted on weld puddles of mild steel on a piece of mild steel. Measurements were taken according to ISO-standard 5349 [the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration (m s−2) averaged over 1 min]. Mixed- and random-effects models were used to investigate the influence of the fixed variables and to estimate variance components. Results: The equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration assessed when the task was performed on the bench and at the wall was 3.2 and 3.3 m s−2, respectively. In the mixed-effects model, work posture was not a significant variable. The variables ‘operator’ and ‘grinder’ together explained only 12% of the exposure variability and ‘grinding wheel’ explained 47%; the residual variability of 41% remained unexplained. When the effect of grinding wheel wear was investigated in the random-effects model, 37% of the variability was associated with the wheel while minimal variability was associated with the operator or the grinder and 37% was unexplained. The interaction effect of grinder and operator explained 18% of the variability. In the wheel wear test, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted accelerations for Grinder 1 during the first and second grinding minutes were 3.4 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively, and for Grinder 2, they were 3.1 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively. For Grinder 1, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration during the first grinding minute was significantly higher (P = 0.04) than during the second minute. Conclusions: Work posture during grinding operations does not appear to affect the level of HAV. Grinding wheels explained much of the variability in this study, but almost 40% of the variance remained unexplained. The considerable variability in the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration has an impact on the risk assessment at both the group and the individual level.
-
can we explain the exposure variability found in hand arm vibrations when using angle Grinders a round robin laboratory study
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2010Co-Authors: Ingrid Liljelind, Jens Wahlström, Leif Nilsson, M Persson, Tohr NilssonAbstract:OBJECTIVES: To quantify variance components of hand-arm vibration exposure from data collected in a laboratory study of four different angle Grinders.METHODS: Four different angle Grinders were sen ...
Lage Burström - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Variability in hand-arm vibration during grinding operations.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2011Co-Authors: Ingrid Liljelind, Jens Wahlström, Leif Nilsson, Allan Toomingas, Lage BurströmAbstract:Background: Measurements of exposure to vibrations from hand-held tools are often conducted on a single occasion. However, repeated measurements may be crucial for estimating the actual dose with good precision. In addition, knowledge of determinants of exposure could be used to improve working conditions. The aim of this study was to assess hand–arm vibration (HAV) exposure during different grinding operations, in order to obtain estimates of the variance components and to evaluate the effect of work postures. Methods: Ten experienced operators used two compressed air-driven angle Grinders of the same make in a simulated work task at a workplace. One part of the study consisted of using a grinder while assuming two different working postures: at a standard work bench (low) and on a wall with arms elevated and the work area adjusted to each operator’s height (high). The workers repeated the task three times. In another part of the study, investigating the wheel wear, for each grinder, the operators used two new grinding wheels and with each wheel the operator performed two consecutive 1-min grinding tasks. Both grinding tasks were conducted on weld puddles of mild steel on a piece of mild steel. Measurements were taken according to ISO-standard 5349 [the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration (m s−2) averaged over 1 min]. Mixed- and random-effects models were used to investigate the influence of the fixed variables and to estimate variance components. Results: The equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration assessed when the task was performed on the bench and at the wall was 3.2 and 3.3 m s−2, respectively. In the mixed-effects model, work posture was not a significant variable. The variables ‘operator’ and ‘grinder’ together explained only 12% of the exposure variability and ‘grinding wheel’ explained 47%; the residual variability of 41% remained unexplained. When the effect of grinding wheel wear was investigated in the random-effects model, 37% of the variability was associated with the wheel while minimal variability was associated with the operator or the grinder and 37% was unexplained. The interaction effect of grinder and operator explained 18% of the variability. In the wheel wear test, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted accelerations for Grinder 1 during the first and second grinding minutes were 3.4 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively, and for Grinder 2, they were 3.1 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively. For Grinder 1, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration during the first grinding minute was significantly higher (P = 0.04) than during the second minute. Conclusions: Work posture during grinding operations does not appear to affect the level of HAV. Grinding wheels explained much of the variability in this study, but almost 40% of the variance remained unexplained. The considerable variability in the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration has an impact on the risk assessment at both the group and the individual level.
Kang Nam Hun - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
traveling way grinding machine of automated guideway transit type light weight railway
2010Co-Authors: Kang Nam HunAbstract:PURPOSE: A grinding machine of a travelling way for an Automated Guideway Transit lightweight railway is provided to reduce construction time of a lightweight railway by uniformly grinding a travelling way along a guide track. CONSTITUTION: A grinding machine of a travelling way for an AGT lightweight railway is composed of a grinding main body(2), Grinders(5), and a driving unit. One or more rollers(1) are installed in the side surface of the grinding main body. The grinding main body is moved along a guide track. The Grinders are installed in the bottom surface of the grinding main body. Multiple abrasives(3) are rotatably installed in frames(4) of the Grinders. The driving unit uniformly rotates the abrasives of the Grinders.
-
traveling way grinding machine of automated guideway transit type light weight railway
2010Co-Authors: Kang Nam HunAbstract:PURPOSE: A grinding machine of a travelling way for an Automated Guideway Transit lightweight railway is provided to reduce construction time of a lightweight railway by uniformly grinding a travelling way along a guide track. CONSTITUTION: A grinding machine of a travelling way for an AGT lightweight railway is composed of a grinding main body(2), Grinders(5), and a driving unit. One or more rollers(1) are installed in the side surface of the grinding main body. The grinding main body is moved along a guide track. The Grinders are installed in the bottom surface of the grinding main body. Multiple abrasives(3) are rotatably installed in frames(4) of the Grinders. The driving unit uniformly rotates the abrasives of the Grinders.
Jin Hee Choi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Epidemiologic study of hand and upper extremity injuries by power tools.
Archives of Plastic Surgery, 2019Co-Authors: Jin Hee Choi, Yoon Kyu ChungAbstract:BACKGROUND: Hand injuries caused by chain saws, electric saws, and hand Grinders range from simple lacerations to tendon injuries, fractures, and even amputations. This study aimed to understand the distribution of various types of hand and upper extremity injuries caused by power tools, in order to help prevent them, by investigating the incidence and cause of power tool injuries treated over a 4-year period at a single institution in Korea. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients who visited a single institution for power tool-induced injuries from 2011 to 2014. The distribution of sex, age, injured body part, type of injury, and mechanism of injury sustained by patients who received hand and upper extremity injuries from using an engine saw, electric saw, or hand grinder was evaluated. RESULTS: Among 594 subjects who were injured by power tools, 261 cases were hand and upper extremity injuries. The average age was 53.2 years. Tendon injury was the most common type of injury. An electric saw was the most common type of power tool used. More injuries occurred in non-occupational settings than in occupational settings. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, power tool-induced hand and upper extremity injuries were mostly caused by direct contact with electric saw blades. More injuries occurred due to non-occupational use of these tools, but the ratios of amputations and structural injuries were similar in the non-occupational and occupational groups.
