¹vhp human performance, Den Haag, Netherlands
²TNO, Leiden, Netherlands

Text

Introduction: Telescopic washing poles (TWP) are frequently used tools by window cleaners, which allow for window cleaning at height without the use of ladders. Although the risk of falling from ladders is eliminated, using TWP is physically strenuous, especially for neck, shoulders and back. Regulations on duration of use have been established, but practice learns that these regulations are not followed and other extra tools, that could reduce workload while working with TWP, are not commonly used. To reduce absenteeism due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in the window cleaning sector, a better understanding of work methods and tools in relation to physical workload is needed. Therefore, a study was conducted comparing physical strain and user experience for different work methods and tools during window cleaning. A second goal was to identify the (dis)advantages of using different tools paired with the barriers for implementation.

Methods: Ten male window cleaners with varying age, who all had at least 6 months of experience working with TWP and were injury free, were selected for this study. All subjects performed a typical window cleaning task that consisted of cleaning a surface at three different heights, repeated randomly for 8 different work methods (TWP, TWP + walking technique, TWP + prism glasses, TWP + neck support, TWP + exoskeleton (2 types), TWP + harness-pulley system & traditional window cleaning at aerial platform). Ater each condition the subjects were interviewed about their experiences in physical workload, locally experienced discomfort (LEO), desired force support and preferences and (dis)advantages of the work method. For 5 of the 10 subjects, postures and movements were measured. Force measurements were done during 3 conditions of using TWP. Separate group interviews were conducted at ten window cleaning companies about physical workload and health, work experience, onboarding process and training, use and implementation of tools and work methods, workplace culture, opportunities to reduce workload and the context in which TWP is used.

Results: Effective work methods like traditional window cleaning at aerial work platforms or using tools in combination with TWP, like prism glasses and the harness-pulley system, reduce physical workload, while other tools have limited impact. Window cleaners prefer traditional work using an aerial platform for working at height. Despite tools that reduce workload, window cleaners prefer TWP without extra tools to reduce workload, citing inefficiency and impracticality.

Discussion: Despite high physical workload while working with TWP, extra tools to reduce workload are rarely used due to inefficiency, impracticality, and cultural resistance. Employers are open to change, but tool implementation often lacks sufficient attention and habituation time. In the sector, barriers such as efficiency, unfair competition from self-employed workers, industry culture, and lack of enforcement of existing task duration rules make it difficult to reduce the use of TWP.

Conclusion: Using extra tools could effectively reduce physical strain in window cleaning with TWP, yet more attention must be drawn to successfully implement these tools in daily practice.