4.7 Article

Effect of elevation change on work fatigue and physiological symptoms for high-rise building construction workers

Journal

SAFETY SCIENCE
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 833-843

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.01.011

Keywords

work fatigue; physiological symptoms; high-rise building construction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the environmental variables encountered by high-rise building construction workers as well as self-reported work fatigue and physiological responses among workers at a construction site. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of elevation change on the prevalence rates of subjective fatigue symptoms and physiological responses, such as calf circumference, blood pressure, heart rate, critical flicker fusion (CFF) and strength, among workers. The measurement of environmental variables showed that wind velocity, temperature and level of ultraviolet light increase at successively increasing elevations. Based on the prevalence rates of post-shift subjective fatigue symptoms, all high-rise building construction workers are categorized as physically-demanding type. The post-shift prevalence rates of subjective fatigue symptoms and heart rate among high-rise building construction workers were found to increase at successively increasing elevations. The results of strength tests showed strength after work was greater than that before work. This indicated work load or elevation change cannot well explain this unexpected change and psychological factors may be involved. Thus, strength test is not a reliable indicator of work fatigue. Significant difference was found in the measurements of CFF value (ascending test) and calf circumference of both legs at various floor heights. This suggested that elevation change will affect workers' visual sensitivity when working at higher floors. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available