Work-related musculoskeletal injuries and disorders remain an important problem in the construction industry. Exoskeletons are an emerging wearable technology that assists or augments a user’s physical activity or capacity. This technology is a potential solution to reduce the physical demands and fatigue experienced by construction workers and help improve worker safety, health, and performance. As a first step towards enabling exoskeleton use in construction, we captured the perspectives of construction industry stakeholders regarding adopting exoskeletons and continued use in practice. Stakeholder responses highlighted several important questions and concerns, which were grouped using qualitative content analysis into three categories: 1) expected benefits, 2) exoskeleton technology adoption factors, and 3) perceived barriers to use. Uncertainties were expressed about the practical value and usability of exoskeleton technologies, and the impact of this technology on worker safety. Given this, and the limited state of current evidence, we summarize important research gaps that need to be addressed in future for successful adoption and use of exoskeleton technologies in the construction industry.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of two different passive back-support exoskeleton (BSE) designs during repetitive lifting in different postures. Background: Although BSEs have been proposed as a potential intervention for reducing physical demands, limited information is available about the impacts of different exoskeleton designs in diverse work scenarios. Method: Eighteen participants (gender-balanced) performed lab-based simulations of repetitive lifting tasks. These tasks were performed in 12 different conditions, involving two BSEs and a control condition, two levels of lifting symmetry (symmetric and asymmetric), and two postures (standing and kneeling). Outcome measures described muscle activity and energy expenditure, along with perceived discomfort, balance, and usability. Results: Using both BSEs significantly reduced peak activity of the trunk extensor muscles (by ~10%–28%) and energy expenditure (by ~4%–13%) in all conditions tested. Such reductions, though, were task dependent and differed between the two BSEs. In most of the tested conditions, using BSEs positively affected subjective responses regarding perceived exertion and usability. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the beneficial effects of a BSE are task specific and depend on the specific BSE design approach. More work is needed, though, to better characterize this task specificity and to determine the generalizability of BSE effects on objective and subjective outcomes for a wider range of conditions and users. Application: Our results provide new evidence to guide the selection and application of passive BSE designs in diverse lifting tasks.

With a long-term goal of improving quantification of physical exposures in the workplace, this study examined the ability of a commercially available inertial motion capture (IMC) system in quantifying exposures during five different simulated manual material handling tasks. Fourteen participants repeated all these tasks in three 20 min sequential time blocks. Performance of the IMC system was compared against an optical motion capture (OMC) system (‘gold standard’) in terms of joint angles, angular velocities and moments at selected body parts. Though several significant changes in performance over time were found, the magnitudes of these were relatively small and may have limited practical relevance. The IMC system yielded peak kinematic values that differed by up to 28% from the OMC system. The IMC system, in some cases, incorrectly reflected the actual extremity positions of a participant, and which can cause relatively large errors in joint moment estimation. Given the potential limitations, practical recommendations are offered and discussed. Practitioner Summary: Use of an inertial motion capture system can advance the quantification of physical exposures in situ. Results indicate a good potential capacity for capturing physical exposure data in the field for an extended period, while highlighting potential limitations. Future system application can help provide better understandings of dose-exposure relationships.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of two different passive back-support exoskeleton (BSE) designs, in terms of trunk muscle activity, perceived low-back exertion, and task performance. Background: BSEs have the potential to be an effective intervention for reducing low-back physical demands, yet little is known about the impacts of different designs in work scenarios requiring varying degrees of symmetric and asymmetric trunk bending during manual assembly tasks. Method: Eighteen participants (gender balanced) completed lab-based simulations of a precision manual assembly task using a “grooved pegboard.” This was done in 26 different conditions (20 unsupported; 6 supported, via a chair), which differed in vertical height, horizontal distance, and orientation. Results: Using both BSEs reduced metrics of trunk muscle activity in many task conditions (≤47% reductions when using BackX™ and ≤24% reductions when using Laevo™). Such reductions, though, were more pronounced in the conditions closer to the mid-sagittal plane and differed between the two BSEs tested. Minimal effects on task completion times or ratings of perceived exertion were found for both BSEs. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that using passive BSEs can be beneficial for quasi-static manual assembly tasks, yet their beneficial effects can be task specific and specific to BSE design approaches. Further work is needed, though, to better characterize this task specificity and to assess the generalizability of different BSE design approaches in terms of physical demands, perceived exertion, and task performance. Application: These results can help guide the choice and application of passive BSE designs for diverse work scenarios involving nonneutral trunk postures.