# Evaluating the Efficacy of a Passive Exoskeleton for Enhancing Ergonomics in Manufacturing
## 4 Conclusions  
This study conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of a passive back-supporting exoskeleton (BExo) in reducing physical exertion and enhancing ergonomic posture during manual material handling tasks in manufacturing settings. Our findings show that the exoskeleton significantly decreased discomfort and physical exertion in critical areas such as the back, shoulders, and knees, which are often prone to injury in industrial environments. By enhancing ergonomic postures, the exoskeleton alleviates immediate physical strain and contributes to the long-term prevention of musculoskeletal disorders, a leading cause of workplace injuries. The ANOVA results revealed that the exoskeleton significantly reduced the perceived physical exertion across various tasks and body parts. Notably, significant reductions were observed in the lower back, shoulders, and knees, underscoring the device's effectiveness in mitigating physical strain. These findings were further corroborated by the survey results, which indicated that the users experienced improved posture and reduced fatigue. Our results corroborate existing research on the effectiveness of exoskeletons in reducing physical strain in specific body regions, based on experimental studies involving healthy individuals [8; 9; 18; 19; 29; 34; 43; 44]. Despite these positive outcomes, the survey also highlighted areas for improvement, particularly in reducing feelings of constraint and improving overall comfort. The participants expressed generally positive attitudes towards the exoskeleton, rating its trustworthiness, ergonomic impact, and overall helpfulness highly. However, moderate scores for perceived empowerment and willingness to reuse suggest that further refinement is needed to enhance user experience and acceptance. Addressing these issues, particularly, the feelings of constraint and the physical effort required to use the device, could significantly improve its usability and effectiveness. Our results agree with previous studies that identified critical concerns regarding the design and social perception of the exoskeleton, including its comfort and ease of use and the stigma associated with wearing such devices in the workplace [33; 45]. The study was limited by its sample size and demographic, which primarily involved young, healthy college students. This demographic may not fully represent the diverse workforce in manufacturing settings. Additionally, the analysis had many levels, increasing the likelihood of statistical errors. While the findings provide valuable insights, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results to a broader population due to these limitations. Future research should aim to include a larger and more diverse sample to enhance the robustness and generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the study relied solely on survey methods and did not use biophysical measures like electromyography (EMG), which means it was not confirmed whether the exoskeleton was optimally adjusted according to users' body specifics. This limitation underscores the need to incorporate more precise, physiological assessments in future studies. Additionally, the laboratory environment does not entirely mimic the complexities and variations of real-world manufacturing scenarios, potentially affecting the generalizability of the results. These factors highlight the importance of conducting further research involving more diverse populations and real-world settings to validate and expand upon these findings. Future research should focus on larger, more diverse populations and include field studies to assess the practical applications of exoskeletons in actual work environments. It is crucial to also explore the long-term effects of exoskeleton use on worker health and productivity, including potential negative outcomes such as dependency or over-reliance on the technology.