Risk exposure to vibration and noise in the use of agricultural track-laying tractors

Mariangela Vallone 1  ,  
Filippa Bono 2,  
Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, University of Palermo, Italy
Department of Economic Business and Statistical Sciences, University of Palermo, Italy
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
Ann Agric Environ Med 2016;23(4):591–597
Human exposure to mechanical vibration may represent a significant risk factor for exposed workers in the agricultural sector. Also, noise in agriculture is one of the risk factors to be taken into account in the evaluation of workers’ health and safety. One of the major sources of discomfort for the workers operating a tractors is the noise to which they are exposed during work. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of exposure to whole-body vibration for the operator driving track-laying tractors in vineyard orchard and the noise level. The experimental tests were performed with six different track-laying tractors coupled with the same rototilling machine. The results showed that the vibration values of track-laying tractors coupled to rototilling machine, referred to the 8-hour working day, were always higher than 0.5 m s-2, the daily exposure action value established by Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament. The daily noise exposure levels always exceeded the exposure limit value of 87 dB(A) established by Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament. The ANOVA repeated measures model showed that the factor ‘site’, namely, the soil characteristics, did not influence the vibration level on the X and Y-axes of the tractors measured, regardless of their age. In the Z-axis, the vibration level was enhanced as the soil structure increased. As tractor age increased, the influence of soil characteristics was less important. In term of the age of the tractor and the number of hours worked, it was possible to identify three risk classes, which were up to 3,000 hours worked and offered a low risk; from 3,000 – 6,000 hours worked with a medium risk, and over 6,000 hours with a high risk level.
Mariangela Vallone   
Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, University of Palermo, Italy
1. Kogler R, Quendler E, Boxberger J. Analysis of occupational accidents with agricultural machinery in the period 2008–2010 in Austria. Safety Science. 2015; 72: 319–328.
2. Milosavljevic S, Mani R, Ribeiro DC, Vasiljev R, Rehn B. Exploring how anthropometric, vehicle and workplace factors influence whole-body vibration exposures during on-farm use of a quad bike. Int J Indust Ergon. 2012; 42: 392–396.
3. Scarlett AJ, Price JS, Stayner RM. Whole-body vibration: evaluation of emission and exposure levels arising from agricultural tractors. J. Terramechanics. 2007; 44: 65–73.
4. European Commission. 2002. European Directive of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) 2002/44/EC. In: Official Journal, L 177/13, 06/07/2002.
5. Jayasuriya HPW, Sangpradit K. Dynamic performance and ride comfort evaluation of the seat suspension system in a small agricultural tractor to attenuate low-frequency vibration transmission, Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 2014; 16(1): 207–216.
6. Melemez K, Tunay M, Emir T. The role of seat suspension in whole-body vibration affecting skidding tractor operators. J Food Agric Environ. 2013; 11: 1211–1215.
7. Servadio P, Marsili A, Belfiore NP. Analysis of driving seat vibrations in high forward speed tractors. Biosystems Engineering. 2007; 97: 171–180.
8. Pessina D, Facchinetti D, Bonalume V. Evaluation of vibration levels improves the efficiency of modern tracklaying tractors. J Agric Engineering. 2012; XLIII: 43–47.
9. Bodria L, Pellizzi G, Piccarolo P Meccanica e meccanizzazione agricola. Edagricole, Italy. 2013.
10. Aybek A, Kamer HA, Arslan S. Personal noise exposures of agricultural tractors. Appl Ergon. 2010; 41: 274–281.
11. Bilski B. Exposure to audible and infrasonic noise by modern agricultural tractors operators. Appl Ergon. 2013; 44: 310–214.
12. Dewangan KN, Prasanna Kumar GV, Tewari VK. Noise characteristics of tractors and health effect on farmers. Appl Acoustics. 2005; 66: 1049–1062.
13. Jaliliantabar F, Rabbani H Lorestani A, Javadikia P, Gholami R. Noise evaluation of MF285 tractor while pulling a trailer in an asphalt road. CIGR Journal. 2010; 14(4): 50–55.
14. Karamounsantas D, Varzakas T, Kanakis A, Dalamagas BC. Noise levels produced by agricultural machinery and different farming processes. Int J Acoustics Vibration. 2009; 14(4): 220–225.
15. Vallone M, Catania P. Noise risk assessment in a bottling plant of a modern Italian winery. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 2014; 120 (3): 277–283. DOI 10.1002/jib.131.
16. Deborah IN, Robert YN, Marison CB, Marilyn F. The global burden of occupational noise induced hearing loss. Am J Ind Med. 2005; 48 (6): 446–458.
17. European Commission. 2003. European Directive of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) 2003/10/EC. In: Official Journal, L 42/38, 15/02/2003.
18. Moselhi M, El-Sadik YM, El-Dakhakhny A. A six year follow up study for evaluation of the 85 dBA safe criterion for noise exposure. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1979; 40 (5): 424–426.
19. International Labour Organization (ILO). 2004. Health, Safety and Environment: A Series of Trade Union Education Manuals for Agricultural Workers. ISBN:92–2–115 192–1.
20. Pezzi F. Traditional and new deep soil tillage techniques in Italy. Transactions of the ASAE 2005; 48(1): 13–17.
21. Hendrick JG. A powered rotary chisel. Transactions of the ASAE. 1980; 1349–1352.
22. ISO 2631–1, 2008. Mechanical Vibration and shock – Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration. Part – 1: General Requirements. International Standard Organization, Geneva.
23. ISO 9612:2009. Acoustics – Determination of occupational noise exposure – Engineering method.
24. Box GEP. Some theorems on quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems, I. Effect of inequality of variance in the one-way classification. Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1954; 25: 290–302.
25. Milliken GA, Johnson DE. Analysis of Messy Data, Volume 1: Designed Experiments. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, 2009.FL: CRC Press.
26. Winer BJ, Brown D R, Michels K M. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. 3rd ed. 1991. New York: McGraw–Hill.
27. Geisser S, Greenhouse SW. An extension of Box’s results on the use of the F distribution in multivariate analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1958; 29: 885–891.
28. Huynh H, Feldt L S. Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. J Educ Statistics. 1976; 1: 69–82.
29. Servadio P, Belfiore N P. Influence of tyre characteristics and travelling speed on ride vibrations of a modern medium powered tractor. Part I: Analysis of the driving seat vibration. CIGR Journal, 2013; 15(4): 119–131.