An air-spring standing platform does not increase overall movement or metabolic cost during simulated work tasks

• Published in: International journal of industrial ergonomics Vol. 69; pp. 104 - 109
• Main Authors: Noonan, Alex M., Solomon, Michael, Gregory, Diane E., Burr, Jamie F., Brown, Stephen H.M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 01.01.2019; Elsevier BV
• Subjects: Air springs; Biomechanics; Calorie; Centre of pressure; Discomfort; Energy expenditure; Ergonomic; Ergonomics; Force plates; Low back pain; Mathematical models; Mats; Metabolism; Movement; Musculoskeletal diseases; Pain; Pressure; Risk factors; Simulation; Statistical analysis; Task analysis; Workstations; Calorie; Energy expenditure; Ergonomic; Low back pain; Centre of pressure
• ISSN: 0169-8141; 1872-8219
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2018.10.005

Due to the increased popularity of standing-based occupational work stations there is a growing need to understand the impact of ergonomic aids such as standing mats. In particular, while standing mats have been studied in relation to musculoskeletal discomfort and pain, there have been no studies exploring the effects of their use on metabolism and caloric expenditure. The purpose of this study was to examine the metabolic, biomechanical, and pain/discomfort responses to the use of an air-spring standing mat over a 2-h work-simulated standing period. Sixteen participants visited the lab on two separate occasions, each to perform a 2-h standing simulated-work session, once with and once without a standing mat. Metabolic data were recorded at the start, midpoint, and end of the standing sessions. Force plate centre of pressure (COP) and visual analog discomfort score (VAS) measurements were taken every 15 min. Results demonstrated that there was no difference in caloric expenditure between the two sessions. COP variables demonstrated less movement on the standing mat compared to the control day; however, only one of the eight variables (root-mean-square velocity in the medial-lateral direction) was statistically significant (p = 0.02). VAS scores showed no clear benefit of the standing mat on low back or lower limb discomfort. The short-term introduction of an air-spring standing mat during simulated work tasks appears to have no clear benefits on energy expenditure, biomechanical centre of pressure variables, or for alleviating musculoskeletal discomfort. Whether longer term exposure to this type of mat has differential effects remains to be addressed. •A compliant air-spring standing mat did not increase metabolic expenditure during standing work compared to control.•There was a trend of decreased CoP movement when performing standing work on the air-spring mat compared to control.•There was no difference in lower limb/foot or low back discomfort when working on the air-spring mat compared to control.