# A Review on Ergonomics in Agriculture. Part II: Mechanized Operations
## 4 Results
### Supopsis of the Methodologies, Ergonomic Interventions and Risk Factors for the Development of MSDs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Ref.** & **Main Results** & **Risk Factors** & **Authors’ Suggestions** \\ \hline
[54] & Isometric muscle strength of the right & Incorrect design of handling & Design of tractor controls based on \\  & limbs was significantly higher than the & tools & isometric muscular strength data \\  & corresponding left ones & & \\  & The WBV and mechanical shocks were & & \\  & higher than the permitted limits; Low & WBV, mechanical shocks & Shock absorbers \\  & back pain was the most reported & & \\  & complaint & & \\  & Electronic speed regulation is suggested & & \\  & in typical field tasks, while it should not & WBV & Electronic speed regulation in typical \\  & be used in transportation on asphalt roads & & field tasks \\  & Vibration dose values and mechanical & & \\  & shocks exceeded standard limit & & \\  & thresholds; Lower and upper back pains & & \\  & were reported & & \\  & Heavier and taller operators driving in & & \\  & difficult terrains and at high speeds & & \\  & should be particularly vigilant for risk of & & \\  & a loss of control & & \\  & The highest vibration was along & & \\  & x-direction; The maximum vibration & & \\  & reductions occurred with rubber handles; & & \\  & Interventions decelerated the occurrence & & \\  & of white finger syndrome & & \\  & A mixture of operator’s height, & & \\  & mechanical factors and type of terrain can & WBV, Body height and mass, & Anthropometrics should be \\  & worsen the impact of body mass on & sheep farms & considered in the designing of seating \\  & vibration exposure & & \\  & The highest total vibration doses occurred & & \\  & in August and April; The maximum mean & & \\  & daily exposure appeared during April, & & \\  & August, September and October & & \\  & Decrease of acceleration in all axes and & & \\  & total vibration values were noted by & & \\  & using the 2 tuned vibration absorbers & & \\  & Lateral vibrations can exceed the vertical & & \\  & ones, while they increase linearly with the & & \\  & tractor-seat height above the ground & & \\  & WBV and trunk rotation simultaneously & & \\  & exposure increases the risk for low back & & \\  & pain and discomfort in the right shoulder & & \\  & and thighs & & \\  & Tools facilitating a neutral wrist and & & \\  & symmetrical body postures can help to & & \\  & increase the efficiency of muscle use and & & \\  & reduce MSDs & & \\  & Prolonged vibration exposure resulted in & & \\  & loss of hand grip strength, fingers’ & & \\  & numbness and blanching & & \\  & The higher WBV was observed during & & \\  & downhill driving with 4-wheel drive & & \\  & Coir cushion (80 mm thickness) and & & \\  & a high-density polyurethane foam (44 mm & & \\  & thickness) demonstrated the maximum & & \\  & and minimum compressive forces, & & \\  & respectively & & \\  & Significant increase of the center of & & \\  & pressure for the lifting task & & \\  & WBV levels exceeded the Japanese and & & \\  & European threshold limits & & \\  & Positive HATV symptoms relationships & & \\  & between the low-moderate and high & & \\  & exposure groups & & \\  & The simulated olive harvesting & & \\  & performed via this Round Robin test & & \\  & proved to be consistent with field tests & & \\  & Tractors play a key role in the & & \\  & development of lateral vibrations, while & & \\  & the implements in the horizontal ones; & & \\  & The plough showed the highest vibration & & \\  & The daily vibration values were higher & & \\  & than the permitted ones; The & & \\  & characteristics of the soil affected only the & & \\  & vibration in the z axis & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: List of the selected journal papers along with their main results, identified risk factors and authors’ suggestions.