We all know someone who, after years or even months of performing a repetitive task, has developed carpal tunnel syndrome or some other type of repetitive stress injury. Back in 2004, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that repetitive motions, including grasping tools, scanning groceries, and typing, were the leading cause of lost workdays in 2002. A 1996 report from the U.S. Department of Labor (oddly, the most recent data I could find) clocked the overall annual costs (direct and indirect) to employers due to their workers’ repetitive stress injuries at $100 billion.
Most employers these days are very cognizant of the toll that repetitive stress injuries take on their workforce and on their bottom line, and ergonomic consultants provide design help to assist employees in correcting or avoiding these types of injuries. But as a growing number of workers begin to use smartphones and other mobile devices in the workplace, there is some evidence indicating that their use is leading to a rise in complaints of neck, wrist and shoulder pain.
So, looking beyond that, what about the new range of workplace wearables, such as smart glasses, smart watches, activity monitors and the like? Might they lead to a new set of workplace wellness concerns? That is not a question I had entertained before speaking with Anura Fernando, a principal engineer at Underwriters Laboratories (UL). But it makes sense that UL is investigating the potential impacts of wearable technology, given its deep background in workplace safety issues.
In the workplace, Fernando says, “wearables are a relatively new phenomenon,” which is all the more reason UL wants to get ahead of any potential health and safety issues facing workers who are beginning to use wearable technologies. “In an enterprise setting,” he explains, “we’re looking at wearing these devices for eight-hour shifts, so it’s important to consider day-to-day, long-term use.”
Thus far, two broad areas that UL has considered are heat and optical emissions from these devices. Heat is something designers of electronics have been trying to manage since Hewlett and Packard set up shop in a garage, of course, but it could take on new significance when the electronics are strapped to a wrist or worn on a head for eight or more consecutive hours. The initial heat-emissions standards created by groups such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) were not written for those types of use cases, Fernando told me.
Standards groups have set a 122 degrees Fahrenheit (50 degrees Celsius) heat limit for IT equipment that may be touched “continuously,” such as laptops, but “those levels might no longer be applicable for something worn on skin,” Fernando says. “So there is research going on in the international standards community” that is readdressing those standards with an eye toward wearable technology. The researchers are looking to address potential hazards that devices that meet existing heat limits could pose for human tissue, he adds. That might eventually mean establishing limits specifically for wearables.
When it comes to optical radiation, UL is specifically looking at the use of augmented-reality features in smart glasses. These devices broadcast images or video onto the interior of specially designed eyeglasses, so that a user sees the imagery in addition to whatever else is in her or his field of vision. In the workplace, these glasses are being used for things like broadcasting tutorials or providing other assistance to maintenance or assembly workers. For example, someone working on a subassembly for an airplane part can be guided through the process, through audio and visual instructions, without having to take his or her hands off the actual parts. The augmented-reality capabilities can also show what the part should look like when it’s complete.
However, health and safety experts are wondering what long-term exposure to these augmented-reality glasses could mean for a user’s optical health. Such research is in a very early stage, Fernando says, but “It could be important to evaluate that type of product with regard to the UV light that is being emitted.”
My intent here is not to whip up a frenzy of fear, but rather to suggest taking the long view when it comes to technology adoption, and to know what issues researchers and regulators are considering with regard to workplace wearables. These are important considerations for both ends users and manufacturers of these devices. Future regulations could impact all stakeholders.
Fernando left me with these parting words: “A lot of startups will embark on a new idea without fully appreciating the hurdles they need to get through. So, unfortunately, if they don’t think of those things and if they don’t partner with organizations that have expertise [in testing and designing for compliance], then they might not succeed in their plans.”
Mary Catherine O’Connor is the editor of Internet of Things Journal and a former staff reporter for RFID Journal. She also writes about technology, as it relates to business and the environment, for a range of consumer magazines and newspapers.