| Literature DB >> 32640611 |
Nobuki Hashiguchi1, Kota Kodama1,2, Yeongjoo Lim3, Chang Che4, Shinichi Kuroishi4, Yasuhiro Miyazaki4, Taizo Kobayashi5, Shigeo Kitahara4, Kazuyoshi Tateyama6.
Abstract
It is important for construction companies to sustain a productive workforce without sacrificing its health and safety. This study aims to develop a practical judgement method to estimate the workload risk of individual construction workers. Based on studies, we developed a workload model comprising a hygrothermal environment, behavioral information, and the physical characteristics of workers). The construction workers' heart rate and physical activity were measured using the data collected from a wearable device equipped with a biosensor and an acceleration sensor. This study is the first report to use worker physical activity, age, and the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) to determine a worker's physical workload. The accuracy of this health risk judgment result was 89.2%, indicating that it is possible to easily judge the health risk of workers even in an environment where it is difficult to measure the subject in advance. The proposed model and its findings can aid in monitoring the health impacts of working conditions during construction activities, and thereby contribute toward determining workers' health damage. However, the sampled construction workers are 12 workers, further studies in other working conditions are required to accumulate more evidence and assure the accuracy of the models.Entities:
Keywords: construction hazards; heart rate reserve; wet bulb globe temperature; worker safety; workload estimation
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32640611 PMCID: PMC7374462 DOI: 10.3390/s20133786
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
List of measurement equipment used for measuring meteorology and physiology.
| Measurements | Equipment Model | Accuracy | Resolution | Interval | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working environment | |||||
| Air temperature | AD-5696(A&D Co., Ltd.) | ±1 °C | 0.1 °C | 10 min. | Thermister |
| Relative humidity | ±5% Rh | 0.1% Rh | 10 min. | Capacitance | |
| WBGT | -- | 0.1 °C | 10 min. | -- | |
| Physical workload | |||||
| ECG(Smart clothing) | COCOMI *1 | 1 Ω/sq*2 | 0.3 mm *3 | -- | Stretchable conductive film |
| Heart rate sensor | WHS-2 *4 | -- | 1 kHz *5 | Per beat | Analysis of R-R interval |
| 3-axis acceleration | -- | 31.25 Hz *5 | Per beat | Capacitive sense | |
| Infrastructure | |||||
| Data acquisition time | CC2650 *6 and ThinkPad | -- | 1 ms | Per beat | Synchronized time with server |
| Data transfer | Raspberry Pi Zero W | -- | -- | -- | IEEE802.11 b/g/n |
Note: *1 Figure 1b; *2 sheet resistance of smart clothing; *3 Approximate thickness; *4 Figure 1a; *5 sampling in frequency; *6 Figure 1c.
Figure 1Picture of measurement equipment for physiology in this study. (A) a: Heart rate and acceleration sampling sensor (WHS-2), b: smart clothing (COCOMI), c: data acquisition device (CC2650); (B) System configuration for physiology in this study.
Measurement parameters and measurement methods.
| Measurement | Method | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| BMI | weight/(height)2 | kg/m2 |
| HRworking | average heart rate in 5 min during working hours | bpm |
| HRresting | average heart rate in 5 min during the rest hours | bpm |
| HRmax | 208 − 0.7 × age | bpm |
| %HRR |
| % |
| ACC |
| mG |
Description of the collected data on the subjects.
| ID# | Data Collection | Age | Main Job Task | Height | Weight | Duration of Data Collection | Scheduled Resting | Number of Data * |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | June-29-2018 | 20 | Scaffolder | 159.0 | 57.0 | 450 | 90 | 90 |
| S2 | June-29-2018 | 39 | Scaffolder | 179.0 | 74.0 | 300 | 90 | 60 |
| S3 | June-29-2018 | 32 | Scaffolder | 177.0 | 93.0 | 450 | 90 | 90 |
| S4 | June-29-2018 | 25 | Scaffolder | 182.0 | 82.0 | 450 | 90 | 90 |
| S5 | Nov-15-2018 | 41 | Scaffolder | 176.0 | 70.0 | 510 | 90 | 102 |
| S6 | Nov-15-2018 | 40 | Scaffolder | 176.0 | 75.0 | 510 | 90 | 102 |
| S7 | 36 | Scaffolder | 170.0 | 68.0 | 510 | 90 | 102 | |
| S8 | Nov-15-2018 | 22 | Scaffolder | 165.0 | 55.0 | 510 | 90 | 102 |
| L1 | May-25-2018 | 43 | Worker | 168.0 | 70.0 | 210 | 60 | 42 |
| L2 | May-25-2018 | 50 | Worker | 174.5 | 87.5 | 210 | 60 | 42 |
| L3 | May-25-2018 | 27 | Worker | 170.5 | 62.5 | 150 | 60 | 30 |
| L4 | Nov-15-2018 | 59 | Worker | 169.0 | 76.0 | 150 | 60 | 30 |
Note: * The time interval of one data is 5 min.
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for workers’ risk.
| Variables | ACC | BMI | AGE | WBGT | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | 1.00 | 1.17 | |||
| BMI | 0.021 | 1.00 | 1.48 | ||
| AGE | −0.333 *** | 0.415 *** | 1.00 | 1.43 | |
| WBGT | −0.067 * | −0.387 *** | −0.048 * | 1.00 | 1.20 |
Note: *** indicates p < 0.001 and * indicates p < 0.05.
Overview of subjects’ physical workload measurement.
| ID# | Estimated | Estimated HRresting | HRworking | %HRR | ACC | rACC-%HRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1–S8 | 185.8 ± 5.6 | 75.8 ± 2.5 | 115.0 ± 20.2 | 35.8 ± 18.5 | 152.1 ± 67.0 | - |
| S1 *2 | 194.0 | 77 | 117.9 ± 21.4 | 35.0 ± 18.3 | 195.6 ± 86.3 | 0.808 |
| S2 *3 | 180.7 | 79 | 106.6 ± 16.0 | 27.2 ± 15.8 | 113.9 ± 35.7 | 0.755 |
| S3 *2 | 185.6 | 76 | 112.7 ± 21.9 | 33.4 ± 20.0 | 158.8 ± 55.7 | 0.810 |
| S4 | 190.5 | 75 | 105.0 ± 15.8 | 26.0 ± 13.7 | 188.0 ± 86.9 | 0.800 |
| S5 *1 | 179.3 | 75 | 119.1 ± 17.6 | 42.3 ± 16.9 | 138.6 ± 47.1 | 0.801 |
| S6 *2 | 180.0 | 72 | 111.5 ± 22.4 | 36.5 ± 20.7 | 149.2 ± 64.4 | 0.863 |
| S7 *1 | 182.8 | 80 | 125.7 ± 19.4 | 44.5 ± 18.9 | 139.9 ± 43.4 | 0.895 |
| S8 *2 | 192.6 | 74 | 117.2 ± 17.4 | 36.4 ± 14.7 | 127.4 ± 55.5 | 0.697 |
| L1–L4 | 176.5 ± 7.6 | 77.0 ± 2.0 | 95.0 ± 10.7 | 18.4 ± 10.2 | 106.7 ± 47.4 | - |
| L1 | 174.4 | 76 | 90.4 ± 5.4 | 14.2 ± 5.3 | 99.1 ± 39.5 | 0.770 |
| L2 | 173.0 | 80 | 106.4 ± 11.2 | 28.3 ± 11.9 | 108.2 ± 41.2 | 0.917 |
| L3 | 189.1 | 75 | 89.8 ± 6.9 | 13.0 ± 6.1 | 147.8 ± 57.6 | 0.788 |
| L4 | 166.7 | 76 | 90.4 ± 5.5 | 15.9 ± 6.1 | 74.2 ± 14.8 | 0.814 |
| Total Ave. ± SD | 182.4 ± 8.4 | 76.3 ± 2.4 | 111.7 ± 20.4 | 32.9 ± 18.6 | 144.7 ± 60.3 | - |
Note: *1 Heart rate ≥40% HRR all day; *2 ≥30% HRR frequently occurs; *3 working foreman.
Figure 2Relationship between acceleration (ACC) and heart rate reserve (%HRR) (ScaffolderS1–S8, LaborL1–L4). rS1–S8 denotes the correlation coefficient of the relationship between ACC and %HRR for S1–S8, and rL1–L4 is the correlation coefficient of the relationship between ACC and %HRR for L1–L4.
Overview of subjects’ age and relationship between ACC and %HRR.
| Age Groups (Years) | Number of Data (Sets) | AGE | ACC | %HRR | rACC-%HRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGEyounger | 562 | 28.7 ± 7.2 | 154.7 ± 69.8 | 33.3 ± 18.3 | 0.588 |
| AGEolder | 310 | 46.6 ± 8.0 | 127.1 ± 55.7 | 32.3 ± 19.1 | 0.836 |
| <0.001 | 0.049 | - | |||
Note: AGEyounger and AGEolder denote the group of 20–39 years-old and 30–39 years-old workers, respectively. *: The p-value is obtained from multiple comparisons between AGEyounger and AGEolder, by using the Mann–Whitney U test.
Figure 3Relationship between ACC and %HRR (workers’ age level are 20–39 years-old and 40–59 years-old. r20–39 and r40–59 are the correlation coefficients of the relationship between ACC and %HRR for 20–39 years-old and 40–59 years-old, respectively.
Overview of subjects’ BMI and relationship between ACC and %HRR.
| BMI | Number of Data | BMI | %HRR | ACC | rACC-%HRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMIlow | 222 | 21.3 ± 1.07 | 32.6 ± 17.3 | 157.8 ± 76.6 | 0.610 |
| BMImiddle | 528 | 23.9 ± 1.02 | 33.6 ± 19.3 | 139.7 ± 63.3 | 0.767 |
| BMIhigh | 132 | 29.4 ± 0.46 | 31.8 ± 17.9 | 142.8 ± 56.6 | 0.810 |
| n.s. | 0.011 | ||||
| n.s. | 0.316 | ||||
| n.s. | 0.334 | ||||
Note: BMIlow, BMImiddle, and BMIhigh denote ≤22.5 kg/m2, 22.6–27.5 kg/m2, and ≥27.6 kg/m2, respectively. *: The p-value is obtained from multiple comparisons among BMI groups by using the Kruskal–Wallis test.; n.s.: non-significant.
Figure 4Relationship between ACC and %HRR (Workers’ BMI levels are ≤22.5 kg/m2, 22.5–27.5 kg/m2, and ≥27.6 kg/m2). rlow, rmiddle, and rhigh are the correlation coefficients of the relationship between ACC and %HRR, for ≤22.5 kg/m2, 22.6–27.5 kg/m2, and ≥27.6 kg/m2.
Overview of wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) and the relationship between ACC and %HRR.
| WBGT Groups | Number of Data | WBGT | %HRR | ACC | rACC-%HRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WBGT low | 552 | 16.3 ± 2.75 | 30.7 ± 17.6 | 168.6 ± 77.4 | 0.703 |
| WBGT high | 330 | 27.6 ± 0.21 | 34.3 ± 19.1 | 130.5 ± 53.9 | 0.750 |
| 0.005 | <0.001 | ||||
Note: WBGTlow and WBGThigh are <25.9 °C and ≥25.9 °C on WBGT, respectively. *: The p-value is obtained from multiple comparisons between WBGTlow and WBGThigh by using the Mann–Whitney U test.
Figure 5Relationship between ACC and %HRR (WBGT levels are ≤25.8 °C and ≥25.9 °C). rWBGT high, rWBGT low are the correlation coefficients of the relationships between ACC and %HRR for ≤25.8 °C, ≥25.9 °C.
Estimation by logistic regression model.
| Model | Independent Variables | Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald χ2 | Odds Ratio | 95% CI for Odds | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Constant | −25.6 | 3.40 | 61.3 | <0.001 | 0.000 | – |
| ACC | 0.041 | 0.003 | 183 | <0.001 | 1.042 | 1.036–1.048 | |
| AGE | 0.074 | 0.020 | 14.0 | <0.001 | 1.077 | 1.036–1.120 | |
| BMI | −0.035 | 0.058 | 0.361 | 0.548 | 0.966 | 0.862–1.082 | |
| WBGT | 0.705 | 0.095 | 54.6 | <0.001 | 2.023 | 1.678–2.438 | |
| Model 2 | Constant | −28.1 | 2.35 | 142 | <0.001 | 0.000 | – |
| ACC | 0.041 | 0.003 | 181 | <0.001 | 1.042 | 1.036–1.048 | |
| AGE | 0.066 | 0.014 | 23.1 | <0.001 | 1.068 | 1.040–1.097 | |
| WBGT | 0.742 | 0.074 | 101 | <0.001 | 2.100 | 1.817–2.427 |
Overview of subjects’ physical demand measurement.
| Model | Predicted Risk | Percentage | GoF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed | 0 | 1 | (%) | AIC | Cox–Snell R2 | Nagelkerke R2 | |
| Model 1 | Risk 0 | 487 | 53 | 90.2 | 57.5 | 0.435 | 0.590 |
| 1 | 45 | 297 | 86.8 | ||||
| Overall | 88.5 | ||||||
| Model 2 | Risk 0 | 486 | 54 | 90.0 | 59.5 | 0.434 | 0.589 |
| 1 | 40 | 302 | 88.3 | ||||
| Overall | 89.2 | ||||||