Evaluation of dust control technologies
for drywall finishing operations: industry implementation trends,
worker perceptions, effectiveness and usability
by Deborah E. Young
Ph.D. Dissertation Abstract, August 2007
Click
Here to access the full dissertation document
Drywall finishing operations have been associated with worker exposure
to dust that contains known particulate respiratory health hazards,
such as silica, talc, and mica. Despite the existence of
engineering, work-practice, and personal-protective-equipment (PPE)
control technologies for the mitigation of this hazard, worker
exposures persist in the drywall finishing industry. This
research employed a macroergonomic framework to evaluate this problem
and identify barriers to dust control technology adoption in the key
subsystems: personnel, technological, and organizational.
In the first study, the organizational subsystem was evaluated through
a telephone interview of 264 drywall finishing firm owners. This
study found the most commonly used dust control technology was
respiratory protection. Cost, usability, environmental factors,
and productivity were barriers identified in preventing adoption of
other technologies. Less than half of the firm owners perceived a
serious degree of risk to work productivity or customer satisfaction
arising from the dust. Half of all interviewees perceived a
serious risk to worker health stemming from dust exposure.
In the second study, of the technological subsystem, 16 participants
performed simulated drywall finishing tasks with each of four methods,
in a laboratory setting. Respirable and thoracic sized particles
were monitored during the tasks and compared among the technologies
used. Participants performed usability evaluations of the four
tools. The ventilated sander produced less respirable-size class
dust than did the other three tools. Both the ventilated sander
and wet method produced less thoracic-size class dust than did the
other two tools. The block sander produced more dust than the
other three tools. Usability evaluations revealed that the block
sander was easiest to learn, easiest to use, and perceived to be the
best overall, while the wet method and pole sander were considered to
have poor usability in terms of ease of use and productivity.
Usability problems associated with perceived comfort and ease of use
were identified for the ventilated sander, but it was tied for “overall
best” with the block sander. Written responses pertaining to this
ranking score indicated that participants noted the improved dust
conditions during the use of the ventilated sander and, therefore,
ranked it as overall best, despite usability problems identified.
Several re-design recommendations were made based on these results.
In the third study, the personnel subsystem was evaluated through
semi-structured in-depth personal interviews of 10 drywall finishing
workers in Southwest Virginia. The Health Belief Model was
employed to assess barriers to technology adoption, as its conceptual
framework and constructs of perceived risk, perceived susceptibility,
perceived benefits, and perceived barriers were explored.
Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed through
content analysis procedures. Results showed that workers have a
high perception of the risk associated with drywall dust, but a lower
perception of individual susceptibility to disease as a result of
occupational exposure. Barriers to the use of dust control
technologies were identified as being associated with organizational
and usability factors. Most participants indicated having access
only to respiratory protection, among the available dust control
methods. Usability issues of comfort were identified as barriers
to the use of that technology.
A final chapter incorporates the findings of these three studies into a
macroergonomic tool, the Systems Analysis Tool, to evaluate and
recommend potential future interventions to improve the use of dust
control technologies in the drywall finishing work system.
Recommendations for future research are offered.