Next Article in Journal
Power-Based Statistical Detection of Substance Accumulation in Constrained Places Using a Contact-Less Passive Magnetoelastic Sensor
Previous Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Dynamic Vibration Absorber on Ground-Borne Vibration Induced by Metro
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing Ride Motion Discomfort Measurement Formulas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Vibration
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/vibration8040063
vibration-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Guide to the Effects of Vibration on Health—Quantitative or Qualitative Occupational Health and Safety Prevention Guidance? A Scoping Review

by
Eckardt Johanning
1,2,* and
Alice Turcot
3
1
Center for Family and Community Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA
2
Johanning MD PC, Albany, NY 12203, USA
3
Institute National de Santé Publique du Québec, Quebec, QC G1V 5B3, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vibration 2025, 8(4), 63; https://doi.org/10.3390/vibration8040063
Submission received: 26 August 2025 / Revised: 15 September 2025 / Accepted: 28 September 2025 / Published: 6 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Whole-Body Vibration and Hand-Arm Vibration Related to ISO-TC108-SC4 Published Standards)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

This systematic review examined the health risk assessment methods of studies of whole-body vibration exposure from occupational vehicles or machines utilizing the International Standard ISO 2631-1 (1997) and/or the European Machine Directive 2002/44. This review found inconsistent reporting of measurement parameters in studies on whole-body vibration (WBV) exposure. Although many authors treat the ISO 2631-1 HGCZ as a medical health standard with defined threshold levels, the epidemiological evidence for these limits is unclear. Similarly, the EU Directive offers more comprehensive risk management guidance, but the numeric limits are equal without supporting scientific evidence. Both guidelines likely represent the prevailing societal and interdisciplinary consensus at the time. Authors note discrepancies between international and national standards and adverse WBV exposure outcomes are reported below given boundaries. Future publications should report all relevant parameters from ISO 2631-1 and clearly state study limitations, exercising caution when applying ISO 2631-1 HGCZ in health and safety assessments and considering different susceptibility of diverse populations. We advise reducing WBV exposure to the lowest technically feasible limits wherever possible and applying the precautionary principle with attention to individual differences, instead of depending solely on numeric limits.

1. Introduction

The International Standard Organization (ISO) develops standards based on the consensus of representatives of government agencies, companies, individual experts, and professional organizations from around the world to determine acceptable practices, equipment, measurement methodologies, and criteria for preventing occupational injuries and illnesses [1,2]. The international standard ISO 2631-1 (1997) (Mechanical vibration and shock—evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration, Part 1) provides general requirements for defining methods of quantifying whole-body vibration in relation to human health. In addition, it has the ‘informative’ Annex B guidance for the assessment of whole-body vibration (WBV) with respect to health risk and suggesting a ‘health guidance caution zones’ (HGCZ), Figure B.1, for use [3]. In 2002, the Parliament and Commission of the European Community agreed to ‘minimum health and safety requirements for the exposure of workers to the risks arising from vibration’ (Machine Directive 2002/44/EC) [4,5]. The EU Directive, which incorporates ISO 2631-1 (1997), outlines obligations of employers in addition to exposure measurements and provisions aimed at the reduction or control of exposure to WBV. It defines qualitative requirements and quantitative requirements in the form of “exposure action values” and “exposure limit values” over an eight-hour period [4,6,7]. These guidelines are referenced in industrial hygiene and epidemiological studies and used for comparison in a health risk assessment by the authors. However, often there appears to be a lack of full understanding of the guidance and its limitations regarding the suggested quantitative norms in respect to the assessment of health risk and intervention requirements. The Standard ISO 2631-1 is currently under revision. A review of the scientific basis of the numeric guidance for basic vibration (rms) or suggested parameters for vibration containing multiple shocks (VDV) exposure appears to be needed. In occupational medicine, a distinction may be made between qualitative health guidance that is based on multiple inputs such as worker interviews, work site observations, injury data, organizational context and measurements versus quantitative health guidance that would be based more on numerical data, defined measurement outcomes, and statistical analysis [8,9,10,11,12]. Griffin (2002) defined qualitative guidance as “risks arising from exposure to mechanical vibration [that] shall be eliminated at their source or reduced to their minimum” [13]. The authors’ application of either a quantitative or a qualitative guidance in an occupational risk assessment and intervention of WBV exposure will be appraised in this scoping review of the available health science literature [14]. The objective of this review is to examine if the provided guidance described in the ISO 2631-1 (1997) informative Annex B (Guide to the effects of vibration on health) and/or the ‘EU Directive 2002/44/EC’ was used in published peer-reviewed WBV field exposure studies of various vehicles and equipment. It will be assessed whether the numeric vs. qualitative guidance generally accepted by the experts is considered by the authors (numeric values vs. guidance on reducing risk to a minimum) [13]. Are models of WBV intervention strategies offered by the published studies [15]? Additionally, it will be assessed whether the authors included a discussion of its study limitations. The description of study limitations provides meaningful information for the reader and may guide future research. Complete and honest discussion of the study is considered an obligation and mandatory by many journals and their editors and improves the quality of the study [16,17]. Since many experts have pointed out inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings regarding the ISO 2631-1 (1997) Standard, health guidance such as a discussion of study limitations in field studies addressing health risks of workers appears prudent [13,18,19,20,21,22,23].

2. Materials and Methods

The protocol was drafted using the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols’ (PRISMA-ScR) [24]. The final protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework on 23 June 2025. To be included in this review, selected original papers needed to list either the search term “ISO 2631” and/or the “EU Machine Directive” 2002/44/EC in the searchable text fields “Title, Abstract, All fields” of an institutional library search engine and citation management program (EndnoteTM 2025, built 19000, by Clarivate Analytics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA), providing online searches of the PubMed listings (a free online access to biomedical and life sciences literature citations (but not necessarily the full text) by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine, USA) and Web-of-Science (WoS, a commercial citation indexing of author, topic title, subject keywords, abstract, periodical title, author’s address, and publication year by the Clarivate company)) [25]. Study selection process, please see Figure 1.
Citations covered human WBV exposures and subjects, vehicle testing, epidemiological and occupational health studies, intervention studies, all published in English. Only original, peer-reviewed and online available publication dates from the year 1997 (ISO 2631 Standard Year) to 2025 (current 6/25) were considered. Papers were excluded if they did not fit into the conceptual framework of the study. Excluded were citations that dealt with non-occupational exposure to WBV (i.e., medical treatments utilizing vibrating devices, laboratory/experimental and methodological studies), hand–arm vibration (HAV), building- or comfort-related studies, laboratory studies, motion sickness, animal and children’s studies [27], review publications, as well as studies employing the older version of ISO 2631-1 from 1985.
The final search results were exported into the reference manager software EndnoteTM 2025 built 19000, duplicates were removed, and the rest grouped according to referencing either the “health guidance caution zone” (HGCZ) from ISO 2631-1 Annex B, the EU Directive, or both. The full-text journal publications (n = 74) were retrieved and reviewed in the final detailed analysis specifically for the listing of vibration measurement and evaluation parameters as per ISO 2631-1, and the utilized risk assessment method and guidance.
Furthermore, any discussions regarding study limitations in the determination and assessment of risks were checked (i.e., listing of the basic rms, Crest Factor, VDV, typical driver posture, and the newer part ISO 2631-5 method for evaluation of vibration containing multiple shocks) [28]. Papers were examined if the guidance provisions of the EU directive 2002/44 were considered (i.e., the assessment of the level of exposure to vibration is based on the calculation of daily exposure A(8) expressed as equivalent continuous acceleration over an eight-hour period, calculated as the highest (rms) value, or the highest vibration dose value (VDV) of the frequency-weighted accelerations, determined on three orthogonal axes (1,4awx, 1,4awy, awz for a seated or standing worker) in accordance with Chapters 5, 6, and 7, Annex A and Annex B to ISO standard 2631-1(1997)) [Directive 2002/44/EC Annex B.1] [18].
Guidelines exist for publishing observational studies that suggest including consideration of study bias, data limitations, confounding effects, reproducibility, and an objective assessment of the findings to avoid overinterpretations and suggest recommendations for future research [29,30,31]. Each study was checked for a discussion of study limitations either as a separate paragraph or embedded within the discussion. Furthermore, the listing of the application and limitations cited in the ISO 2631-1 Annex B was examined. Annex B states in the introduction that it applies to “people in normal health regularly exposed to vibration” and it is “based upon data from research on human response to z-axis vibration of seated persons” and “only limited experience for the x-, y-axis seating and all axis standing, reclining and recumbent positions” exist. The basis for the health guidance would be epidemiological studies giving evidence of an elevated risk of health impairment due to long-term exposure with high-intensity WBV affecting mainly the lumbar spine and connected nervous tissue. “Environmental factors” may play a role in “muscle pain”. Furthermore, it clearly says that there is “not sufficient data to show a quantitative relationship between vibration exposure and risk of health effects.”
The results of text analysis and the data-charting were tabulated in a MS spreadsheet (ExcelTM) and summarized (available upon request).

3. Results

A total of 138 publications from 1997 to June of 2025 listed the Standard ISO 2631 and or the EU Directive in the searchable title, abstract, or citation fields in PubMed or in Web of Science. Of these, seventy-four publications were reviewed regarding the use of the health risk assessment by either the ISO 2631-1 (1997) Annex B guidance with the HGCZ or the EU Directive 2002/44, or both. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the studied vehicles and usage/industries and the utilized risk assessment guidance. Studies utilizing the HGCZ for a risk assessment [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] involved heavy vehicles used in mining compared to studies of vehicles in construction and transport that tended to utilize the EU Directive [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81] or both risk assessment guidance [82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104].
Studies included a wide variety of vehicles and situations including heavy earthmoving [21,32,35,49] or agricultural vehicles [52,81,87,104], transport (taxi, rail, buses) [63,69,74,91], aviation (helicopter) [50,89], sport devices [78,79], horses [103], wheelchairs [34,42,46], ambulances [61], stationary devices [92,93,99], and medical devices (MRI) [68]. The majority of the health outcomes studied ranged from WBV exposure related to back disorders [64,71,72] or to neck disorders [76], but also to neonatal head and torso impact [61], feet [39], the circulatory system [92], and semen quality [60].
WBV exposure was explored in epidemiological investigations of vehicle operators [32,35,59,65,71,86,89,90,105]. Several studies focused on comparison of operators’ seat design [37,57,63,70,88,106,107,108].
Most publications used quantitative (numeric) guidance (n = 53; 73%) [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,62,63,64,65,66,68,70,73,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,83,85,87,88,89,91,92,93,95,97,98,100,103,109], while others (n = 20; 27%) followed qualitative recommendations for vibration reduction [47,48,57,58,59,61,67,69,71,72,74,82,84,86,94,96,99,101,102,104]. Studies referencing the HGCZ and EU Directive most often included qualitative guidance (n = 9; 39%) [82,84,86,94,96,99,101,102,104] (Table 2).
The ISO 2631-1 (1997) provides under paragraph 6 a “basic evaluation method” using weighted root-mean-square acceleration (rms). All studies, except for one, reported numerical “rms” values for the basic evaluation method. Furthermore, the standard describes the “applicability” of the basic evaluation method using the HGCZ guidance if the peak vibration crest factor (CF) (“describing the severity of the vibration in relation to its effects on human beings”) is less than nine (ISO 2631-1 6.2), and additional evaluation parameters are suggested such as the fourth power vibration dose value (VDV) (ISO 2631-1 6.3.2). Only 52% of the publications that utilized the HGCZ guidance listed the crest factor (CF) in their publications, and only 14% of the studies referred to the EU Directive as well as the HGCZ guidance in their risk assessment. The additional evaluation method suggesting the fourth power VDV was listed by n = 52 or 70% of the studies, most frequently by publications utilizing the HGCZ and the EU Directive for a risk assessment (n = 17; 74%).
Several studies (n = 17; 23%) also reported the values for an additional proposed risk analysis method for vibration containing multiple shocks described in ISO 2631-5 (2004 or 2018) [110].
In terms of clearly addressing study limitations, as suggested by editor and journal guidelines, only 48% of all publications objectively described such limitations of their findings and only 4% specifically referred to the guidance limitations described in Annex B of ISO2631-1 (1997).

4. Discussion

This systematic review evaluated the reported measurement parameters and examined the health risk assessment methods of studies of whole-body vibration exposure from occupational vehicles or machines utilizing the International Standard ISO 2631-1 (1997) and/or the European Machine Directive 2002/44. The ISO Standard is currently under review by the Technical Committee ISO/TC 108/SC 4. The Standard ISO 2631, consists of following parts, under the general title Mechanical vibration and shock—evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration: Part 1: General requirements, the primary purpose of which is to define methods of quantifying whole-body vibration in relation to “human health and comfort”, and Annexes A to E. Annex B, titled “Guide to the effects of vibration on health”, which is explicitly “for information only”, is commonly used for a quantitative (numeric) risk assessment by investigators and apparently considered by many authors as a quasi-health standard. Although the standard states that there is no clear and universally recognized dose–response relationship or “threshold” effect of vibration on health, Annex B provides under B.3 boundaries of “health effects” which are “clearly documented and/or objectively observed” and “above the zone health risks are likely”. The standard lists several epidemiological studies in Annex E; however, there are no references cited in the standard that support this statement for the basic evaluation method, (rms) as well as the vibration dose value’s (VDV) lower and upper boundaries. Regardless, epidemiological studies and meta-analyses show that with the increase in WBV exposure levels and duration, an increased risk of low-back pain (LBP), sciatic pain, and degenerative changes in the spinal system, including lumbar intervertebral disc disorders and the connected nervous system, has been shown [111,112,113,114,115,116]. It may be argued to keep WBV generally as low as possible, since there is no absolute “safe” level for WBV that would apply to all workers and their vehicles, differing work conditions, non-occupational settings, different populations, and sex/gender and age groups [115,117]. Even the EU Directive A(8) exposure limit appears not fully protective, and elevated risk of low-back pain (LBP) was demonstrated in an epidemiological study [118]. In this context use of the “safe” boundaries borrowed from the ISO 26131-1 or EU Directive for the therapeutic use of WBV exposure in treatments of various medical conditions and ailments is questionable.
In occupational medicine and public health, in situations where a clear dose–response relationship and causal relationship cannot be fully established but adverse health effects are observed, the precautionary principles for preventive action are applied, such as, for example, with the harmful effects of tobacco smoking or cancer-causing agents [119]. The application of the precautionary principle can range from increased surveillance of worker injury rates and a qualitative risk assessment to a hierarchy of controls including administrative and industrial hygiene interventions or full substitution, depending on the severity and uncertainty of the risk [120].
It appears that almost all of the authors applying the HGCZ have not considered the specific conditions and limitations set forth in Annex B in their risk assessment, namely that it applies to “people in normal health” and that only measurements of the vertical axis (z = axis) should be compared to the caution zones and only if the crest factor (CF) is below nine. The HGCZ boundaries otherwise may underestimate “health disorders”. It is remarkable that only half of the studies reported the crest factor (CF). The alternative risk assessment method under ISO 2631-1 using the estimated vibration dose value (eVDV) has been reported by 70% of the studies. However, the corresponding lower and upper bounds of the zone have also not been referenced or validated with epidemiological studies, and the source of the suggested values in ISO 2631-1 (1997) is unknown. The recommendation of the HGCZ in Annex B is “mainly based on exposures in the range of 4 to 8 h”, which none of the reviewed studies mentioned, and many studies do not specify typical exposure durations. Modifying or confounding factors such as operator’s posture, temperature, draught, age and gender, and rest periods are not considered in the algorithm of the HGCZ, and authors of the reviewed publications often did not include these “environmental factors” in their publication. In a laboratory study age and gender were found to have significant effects on fatigue strength of the spine, with gender differences extending beyond those accounted for by endplate area disparities [121]. These are factors that should have been discussed in a study limitation section (like Section 5) to help the reader to better understand numeric values and to avoid under- or overestimating the true health risk. In the European Union, the Directive 2002/33/EC was adopted in 2002, addressing “minimum health and safety requirements regarding exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration)” [5,6,7,18]. It is a framework for national standards within the EU that builds on employers’ duties to manage risks to health and safety of employees. It uses exposure action (EAV) and limit values (ELV) for whole-body vibration and introduces a risk management approach for professional drivers and machine operators by setting minimum requirements for the prevention of vibration related health problems. These EAV and ELV of the EU Directive have been used by the authors in this review to quantify risks but only 27% of the reviewed studies proposed qualitative guidance with recommendation for prevention. Griffin (2004) [13], pointing out discrepancies of the ISO 2631 with the EU Directive and the British Standard 6841 (1987) requirements, was advocating a “qualitative guidance” (reducing risk to a minimum) rather than quantitative (numeric) guidance. Such a health surveillance and monitoring program has been described by Hulshof et al. (1993) and others [122]. A “holistic approach” to reduce WBV exposure to professional drivers in context with other risk factors, such as postural concerns and manual handling operations, was detailed by Nelson discussing the EU Directive (2005) [5]. Both guidelines reflect the prevailing societal and interdisciplinary consensus at the time, rather than relying solely on occupational or public health principles.
The key challenges in establishing limits for occupational medicine regarding whole-body vibration (WBV) include inconsistencies in exposure assessment methods, limited consideration of individual differences, and a lack of integration of long-term cumulative effects. There is notable variability among standards and regulatory frameworks, such as the European Directive 2002/44/EC and ISO 2631-Part 1 or 5. These standards employ different metrics (e.g., A (8), VDV, Sed, Risk Factor R), which can produce differing risk assessments for identical exposure scenarios and may complicate the determination of safe exposure thresholds. The calculation algorithm for in the current ISO 2631-5 (2018) which replaces the 2004 version, has undergone technical revisions to more accurately represent occupational exposures below 1 g. However, the software used for “less severe conditions” calculations is still based on an outdated software program and requires updating. Existing limits often do not fully account for factors like body mass index, posture, and anthropometric differences that can impact susceptibility to WBV-related health effects. Most regulatory limits focus on short-term (daily) exposure, neglecting the cumulative effects of WBV over a worker’s career. Musculoskeletal disorders and other adverse outcomes may result from long-term, repeated exposure, which is not adequately captured by daily exposure limits [13,49,85]. There is a lack of consensus on the best way to characterize and measure WBV exposure, especially regarding impulsive versus continuous vibration, predominant versus non-predominant axes, and the translation of exposure metrics to actual health outcomes. This introduces uncertainty in risk prediction and complicates the implementation of effective preventive measures.
In the USA, no Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation or standard specifically for WBV exists and there are no numeric guidelines for EAV or ELV. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and regulatory agencies have adopted the qualitative approach of keeping exposure as low as technically possible in the workplace, and musculoskeletal disorders should be generally addressed with ergonomic programs [123,124]. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has adopted key portions of ISO 2631 as a consensus standard under S3.18. The ANSI S3.18/ISO 2631 standard is strictly voluntary and should not be considered a health standard such as those issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The ‘American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist’ (ACGIH), a professional organization, has proposed the concept of ‘Threshold Limit Values’ (ACGIH-TLVw) as industry guidelines for the control of WBV at the workplace, which are also voluntary guidelines and not enforceable by law in the USA. The Navy and Marine Corps Force Health Protection Command issued a “Human Vibration Guide 2023” for industrial hygienist and safety professionals but mischaracterizes that ISO has established occupational exposure limits (OELs) along with the ACGIH and ANSI and refers to the HGCZ [125].
In several European countries spinal injury caused by WBV is recognized as an occupational disease and may be compensable. The WBV-related injury claims process includes a review of the work history, and a workplace exposure assessment which is typically based on measurements following the ISO 2631 Standard [126].
Much of the research that is the background of the HGCZ relates to back disorders in workers with very high WBV exposure, seated and healthy subjects in laboratory experiments, and older studies of vehicles reporting vertical (z = axis direction) vibration only and not all x-, y-, and z-directions, expressed as the vector sum [127,128]. This may have been in part due to technical limitations. Considering multi-axis vibration (vector sum) and spinal loading may explain discomfort and harmful effects even at lower levels than suggested by the HGCZ [100,129]. For all these reasons, the use of the HGCZ boundaries for other outcomes, i.e., semen, circulative or cognitive function, medical diagnostic or therapeutic equipment, as well as infants or children, is clearly questionable and would not be supported by the scientific data.

5. Study Limitations

This study considered original publications in English and cited in only two common online citation resources (PubMed maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the commercial Web-of-Sciences citation service), accessed online and with a reference manager software. There are other citations and reference managers available that may have produced more and other publications with the desired keywords. However, PubMed and Web of Science are well-known tools used by occupational health professionals to quickly assess the availability of peer-reviewed literature.
Some publications cannot be clearly divided into qualitative or quantitative guidelines; classification depends on the reviewer’s interpretation of the reported results, discussion, conclusion, and data, which may introduce bias.
The description of study limitations is not a requirement for all journals and in some situations, it may be omitted for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, a superior quality publication of a study nowadays should not be without a clear description of objective shortcomings, biases, and confounders.
The Standard ISO 2631-1 (1997) does not mandate the reporting of certain or all parameters defined in the text, such as the basic rms, crest factor (CF), MTVV, VDV, and measurement parameters such as the magnitude or duration of sampling, driver posture, weight, height, gender, or age. It is up to the authors, peer reviewers, and editors to provide guidance. However, proper reporting of all collected measurement data, measurement conditions, including “environmental factors” as discussed in ISO 2631-1 (1997), and worker experiences will help the reviewer to make a better assessment of the provided exposure information and application for an occupational health risk evaluation.

6. Conclusions

This review of original publications of whole-body vibration (WBV) health studies found inconsistent reporting of exposure measurement parameters and risk assessment guidance. In summary, the primary challenges include methodological inconsistency, limited individualization, insufficient assessment of cumulative exposure, and ongoing uncertainty regarding the relationships between specific exposure levels and health outcomes. Each risk assessment method, whether strictly quantitative (providing specific numeric guidelines) or qualitative (offering a more holistic and comprehensive occupational health prevention perspective) may present distinct advantages and disadvantages but these should be subject to a discussion of study limitations. Both guidelines reflect the prevailing societal and interdisciplinary consensus at the time, rather than relying solely on occupational or public health principles. We recommend reporting all relevant parameters from ISO 2631-1 (1997) obtainable with current measurement equipment (i.e., basic rms, values for all axes (x-, y-, and z-direction), vector sum, CF, VDV Sd, or RA calculations according to ISO 2631-5:2018(E)), the actual measurement duration and 8 h extrapolation, peak values, “environmental” conditions, work site observations, work shift duration, and, if possible, worker injury data, organizational context, and reports of worker experiences, as well as clearly stating study limitations. Readers are advised to exercise caution and consider its stated limitations when applying the ISO 2631-1 HGCZ in health and safety assessments. We recommend minimizing WBV exposure to the lowest technically feasible limits wherever possible and applying the precautionary principle, considering individual differences, rather than relying only on numeric limits.

Author Contributions

E.J. conceptualized the study and performed data collection. E.J. and A.T. performed statistical analysis and coordinated data interpretation. E.J. drafted the initial manuscript and coordinated revisions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request by authors as permitted by copyrights. Restrictions may apply to the free availability of some of this data. Data were obtained from PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed on 22 July 2025) and Web of Science (www.webofscience.com, accessed on 26 August 2025) and are available from the author E.J. with the permission of applicable sources.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Author E.J. is US member of the ISO/TC 4 appointed by ISO Member Body ANSI (United States). E.J. has been evaluating and treating workers with WBV exposure and represented some in disability claims. He follows the Ethical Guidelines of the International Committee of Occupational Health (ICOH), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), and the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC) (all available online).

References

  1. Armstrong, T.J.; Burdorf, A.; Descatha, A.; Farioli, A.; Graf, M.; Horie, S.; Marras, W.S.; Potvin, J.R.; Rempel, D.; Spatari, G.; et al. Scientific basis of ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2018, 44, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Armstrong, T.J.; Burdorf, A.; Descatha, A.; Farioli, A.; Graf, M.; Horie, S.; Marras, W.S.; Potvin, J.R.; Rempel, D.; Spatari, G.; et al. Authors’ response: Letter to the Editor concerning OCRA as preferred method in ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2018, 44, 439–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. ISO 2631-1:1997; Mechanical Vibration and Shock—Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration, in Part 1: General Requirements. ISO International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
  4. Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the Minimum Health and Safety Requirements Regarding the Exposure of Workers to the Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Vibration); European Commission: Official Journal of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
  5. Nelson, C.M.; Brereton, P.F. The European vibration directive. Ind. Health 2005, 43, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bovenzi, M. Health risks from occupational exposures to mechanical vibration. Med. Lav. 2006, 97, 535–541. [Google Scholar]
  7. Donati, P.S.M.; Szopa, J.; Starck, J.; Iglesias, E.G.; Senovilla, L.P.; Fischer, S.; Flaspoeler, E.; Reinert, D.; de Beeck, R.O. Workplace Exposure to Vibration in Europe: An Expert Review; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  8. Giacomini, M.K.; Cook, D.J. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000, 284, 478–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sofaer, S. Qualitative methods: What are they and why use them? Health Serv. Res. 1999, 34, 1101–1118. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kelle, U.; Tempel, G. Understanding through qualitative methods-the contribution of interpretative social research to health reporting. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2020, 63, 1126–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mays, N.; Pope, C.; Popay, J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2005, 10 (Suppl. 1), 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gordon, D.R.; Ames, G.M.; Yen, I.H.; Gillen, M.; Aust, B.; Rugulies, R.; Frank, J.W.; Blanc, P.D. Integrating qualitative research into occupational health: A case study among hospital workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 47, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Griffin, M.J. Minimum health and safety requirements for workers exposed to hand-transmitted vibration and whole-body vibration in the European Union; a review. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004, 61, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Peters, M.D.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H.; McInerney, P.; Parker, D.; Soares, C.B. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hulshof, C.T.; Verbeek, J.H.A.M.; Braam, I.T.J.; Bovenzi, M.; van Dijk, F.J.H. Evaluation of an occupational health intervention programme on whole-body vibration in forklift truck drivers: A controlled trial. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 63, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ross, P.T.; Bibler Zaidi, N.L. Limited by our limitations. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2019, 8, 261–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sumpter, J.P.; Runnalls, T.J.; Johnson, A.C.; Barcelo, D.A. ‘Limitations’ section should be mandatory in all scientific papers. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857, 159395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Griffin, M.J.; Howarth, H.V.C.; Fischer, S.; Kaulbars, U.; Donati, P.M.; Bereton, P.F. Non-Binding Guide to Good Practice for Implementation Directive 2002/44/EC (Vibration at Work); Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dong, R.G.; Welcome, D.E.; McDowell, T.W. Some important oversights in the assessment of whole-body vibration exposure based on ISO-2631-1. Appl. Ergon. 2012, 43, 268–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Maeda, S. Necessary research for standardization of subjective scaling of whole-body vibration. Ind. Health 2005, 43, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mansfield, N.J.; Newell, G.S.; Notini, L. Earth moving machine whole-body vibration and the contribution of Sub-1Hz components to ISO 2631-1 metrics. Ind. Health 2009, 47, 402–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Waters, T.; Rauche, C.; Genaidy, A.; Rashed, T. A new framework for evaluating potential risk of back disorders due to whole body vibration and repeated mechanical shock. Ergonomics 2007, 50, 379–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bainbridge, A.; Moutsos, I.; Johnson, A.; McMenemy, L.; Ramasamy, A.; Masouros, S.D. Whole body vibrations and lower back pain: A systematic review of the current literature. BMJ Mil. Health 2025, e002801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. The EndNote Team. EndNote 2025; Clarivate: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  26. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Giacomin, J. Absorbed power of small children. Clin. Biomech. 2005, 20, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. ISO 2631-5:2004(E); Mechanical Vibration and Shock-Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration-Part 5: Method for Evaluation of Vibration Containing Multiple Shocks. International Standard Organization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
  29. Cuschieri, S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2019, 13 (Suppl. 1), S31–S34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ghaferi, A.A.; Schwartz, T.A.; Pawlik, T.M. STROBE Reporting Guidelines for Observational Studies. JAMA Surg. 2021, 156, 577–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Moher, D.; Schulz, K.F.; Simera, I.; Altman, D.G. Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010, 7, e1000217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Atal, M.K.; Palei, S.K.; Chaudhary, D.K.; Kumar, V.; Karmakar, N.C. Occupational exposure of dumper operators to whole-body vibration in opencast coal mines: An approach for risk assessment using a Bayesian network. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022, 28, 758–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Burgess-Limerick, R.; Lynas, D. Long duration measurements of whole-body vibration exposures associated with surface coal mining equipment compared to previous short-duration measurements. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2016, 13, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Candiotti, J.L.; Neti, A.; Sivakanthan, S.; Cooper, R.A. Analysis of Whole-Body Vibration Using Electric Powered Wheelchairs on Surface Transitions. Vibration 2022, 5, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chaudhary, D.K.; Palei, S.K.; Kumar, V.; Karmakar, N.C. Whole-body vibration exposure of heavy earthmoving machinery operators in surface coal mines: A comparative assessment of transport and non-transport earthmoving equipment operators. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022, 28, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, J.C.; Chang, W.R.; Shih, T.S.; Chen, C.J.; Chang, W.P.; Dennerlein, J.T.; Ryan, L.M.; Christiani, D.C. Predictors of whole-body vibration levels among urban taxi drivers. Ergonomics 2003, 46, 1075–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Conrad, L.F.; Oliver, M.L.; Jack, R.J.; Dickey, J.P.; Eger, T.R. Selecting seats for steel industry mobile machines based on seat effective amplitude transmissibility and comfort. Work 2014, 47, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dhatrak, S.V.; Shah, I.A.; Prajapati, S.S. Determinants of discomfort from combined exposure to noise and vibration in dumper operators of mining industry in India. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2024, 21, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Eger, T.; Thompson, A.; Leduc, M.; Krajnak, K.; Goggins, K.; Godwin, A.; House, R. Vibration induced white-feet: Overview and field study of vibration exposure and reported symptoms in workers. Work 2014, 47, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Garcia-Mendez, Y.; Pearlman, J.L.; Boninger, M.L.; Cooper, R.A. Health risks of vibration exposure to wheelchair users in the community. J. Spinal. Cord. Med. 2013, 36, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Grenier, S.G.; Eger, T.R.; Dickey, J.P. Predicting discomfort scores reported by LHD operators using whole-body vibration exposure values and musculoskeletal pain scores. Work 2010, 35, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Hischke, M.; Reiser, R.F., 2nd. Effect of Rear Wheel Suspension on Tilt-in-Space Wheelchair Shock and Vibration Attenuation. PM&R 2018, 10, 1040–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Howard, B.; Sesek, R.; Bloswick, D. Typical whole body vibration exposure magnitudes encountered in the open pit mining industry. Work 2009, 34, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jack, R.J.; Oliver, M.; Dickey, J.P.; Cation, S.; Hayward, G.; Lee-Shee, N. Six-degree-of-freedom whole-body vibration exposure levels during routine skidder operations. Ergonomics 2010, 53, 696–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lan, F.Y.; Liou, Y.W.; Huang, K.Y.; Guo, H.R.; Wang, J.D. An investigation of a cluster of cervical herniated discs among container truck drivers with occupational exposure to whole-body vibration. J. Occup. Health 2016, 58, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lee, C.D.; Daveler, B.J.; Candiotti, J.L.; Cooper, R.; Sivakanthan, S.; Deepak, N.; Grindle, G.G.; Cooper, R.A. Usability and Vibration Analysis of a Low-Profile Automatic Powered Wheelchair to Motor Vehicle Docking System. Vibration 2023, 6, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lynas, D.; Burgess-Limerick, R. Whole-Body Vibration Associated with Dozer Operation at an Australian Surface Coal Mine. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2019, 63, 881–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lynas, D.; Burgess-Limerick, R. Whole-body vibration associated with underground coal mining equipment in Australia. Appl. Ergon. 2020, 89, 103162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Marin, L.S.; Rodriguez, A.C.; Rey-Becerra, E.; Piedrahita, H.; Barrero, L.H.; Dennerlein, J.T.; Johnson, P.W. Assessment of Whole-Body Vibration Exposure in Mining Earth-moving Equipment and Other Vehicles Used in Surface Mining. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2017, 61, 669–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De Oliveira, C.G.; Nadal, J. Transmissibility of helicopter vibration in the spines of pilots in flight. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2005, 76, 576–580. [Google Scholar]
  51. Paddan, G.S.; Griffin, M.J. Evaluation of Whole-Body Vibration in Vehicles. J. Sound Vib. 2002, 253, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Park, M.S.; Fukuda, T.; Kim, T.-G.; Maeda, S. Health risk evaluation of whole-body vibration by ISO 2631-5 and ISO 2631-1 for operators of agricultural tractors and recreational vehicles. Ind. Health 2013, 51, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Pollard, J.; Porter, W.; Mayton, A.; Xu, X.; Weston, E. The effect of vibration exposure during haul truck operation on grip strength, touch sensation, and balance. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2017, 57, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Prajapati, S.S.; Jhariya, B.; Deshmukh, A.A. Whole-body Vibration Exposure Experienced by Dumper Operators in Opencast Mining According to ISO 2631-1:1997 and ISO 2631-5:2004: A Case Study. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 24, 114–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sharma, A.; Mandal, B.B. A Critical Assessment of Boundary Limits of Health Risks Associated with WBV Exposure Based on Field Studies on LHD Vehicles in Indian Underground Coal Mines. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2024, 28, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Smets, M.P.; Eger, T.R.; Grenier, S.G. Whole-body vibration experienced by haulage truck operators in surface mining operations: A comparison of various analysis methods utilized in the prediction of health risks. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Smith, S.D. Seat vibration in military propeller aircraft: Characterization, exposure assessment, and mitigation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2006, 77, 32–40. [Google Scholar]
  58. Upadhyay, R.; Jaiswal, V.; Bhattacherjee, A.; Patra, A.K. Role of whole-body vibration exposure and posture of dumper operators in musculoskeletal disorders: A case study in metalliferous mines. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022, 28, 1711–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Upadhyay, R.; Bhattacherjee, A.; Patra, A.K.; Chau, N. Association between Whole-Body Vibration exposure and musculoskeletal disorders among dumper operators: A case-control study in Indian iron ore mines. Work 2022, 71, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Zarei, S.; Dehghan, S.F.; Vaziri, M.H.; Gilani, M.A.S.; Ardakani, S.K. Assessment of semen quality of taxi drivers exposed to whole body vibration. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2022, 17, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Blaxter, L.; Yeo, M.; McNally, D.; Crowe, J.; Henry, C.; Hill, S.; Mansfield, N.; Leslie, A.; Sharkey, D. Neonatal head and torso vibration exposure during inter-hospital transfer. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H 2017, 231, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Blood, R.P.; Rynell, P.W.; Johnson, P.W. Whole-body vibration in heavy equipment operators of a front-end loader: Role of task exposure and tire configuration with and without traction chains. J. Saf. Res. 2012, 43, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Blood, R.P.; Yost, M.G.; Camp, J.E.; Ching, R.P. Whole-body Vibration Exposure Intervention among Professional Bus and Truck Drivers: A Laboratory Evaluation of Seat-suspension Designs. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2015, 12, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bovenzi, M.; Schust, M.; Menzel, G.; Hofmann, J.; Hinz, B. A cohort study of sciatic pain and measures of internal spinal load in professional drivers. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 1088–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bovenzi, M.; Schust, M.; Menzel, G.; Prodi, A.; Mauro, M. Relationships of low back outcomes to internal spinal load: A prospective cohort study of professional drivers. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2015, 88, 487–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Calvo, A.; Preti, C.; Caria, M.; Deboli, R. Vibration and Noise Transmitted by Agricultural Backpack Powered Machines Critically Examined Using the Current Standards. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Coggins, M.A.; Van Lente, E.; Mccallig, M.; Paddan, G.; Moore, K. Evaluation of hand-arm and whole-body vibrations in construction and property management. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2010, 54, 904–914. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Ehman, E.C.; Rossman, P.J.; A Kruse, S.; Sahakian, A.V.; Glaser, K.J. Vibration safety limits for magnetic resonance elastography. Phys. Med. Biol. 2008, 53, 925–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hanumegowda, P.K.; Gnanasekaran, S. Risk factors and prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in metropolitan bus drivers: An assessment of whole body and hand-arm transmitted vibration. Work 2022, 71, 951–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Jonsson, P.M.; Rynell, P.W.; Hagberg, M.; Johnson, P.W. Comparison of whole-body vibration exposures in buses: Effects and interactions of bus and seat design. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 1133–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McBride, D.; Paulin, S.; Herbison, G.P.; Waite, D.; Bagheri, N. Low back and neck pain in locomotive engineers exposed to whole-body vibration. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2014, 69, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Milosavljevic, S.; Mcbride, D.I.; Bagheri, N.; Vasiljev, R.M.; Mani, R.; Carman, A.B.; Rehn, B. Exposure to whole-body vibration and mechanical shock: A field study of quad bike use in agriculture. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2011, 55, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Noorloos, D.; Tersteeg, L.; Tiemessen, I.J.; Hulshof, C.T.; Frings-Dresen, M.H. Does body mass index increase the risk of low back pain in a population exposed to whole body vibration? Appl. Ergon. 2008, 39, 779–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Okunribido, O.O.; Shimbles, S.J.; Magnusson, M.; Pope, M. City bus driving and low back pain: A study of the exposures to posture demands, manual materials handling and whole-body vibration. Appl. Ergon. 2007, 38, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Filho, J.G.P.; Neto, M.F.; Quintas, J.P.R.; Gomes, H.M. Case study on vibration health risk and comfort levels in loading crane trucks. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2019, 34, e1448–e1463. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rehn, B.; Nilsson, T.; Lundström, R.; Hagberg, M.; Burström, L. Neck pain combined with arm pain among professional drivers of forest machines and the association with whole-body vibration exposure. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1240–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sanchez-Perez, J.F.; Comendador-Jimenez, B.; Castro-Rodriguez, E.; Cánovas, M.; Conesa, M. Characterization of workers or population percentage affected by low-back pain (LPB), sciatica and herniated disc due to whole-body vibrations (WBV). Heliyon 2024, 10, e31768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Supej, M.; Ogrin, J.; Holmberg, H.C. Whole-Body Vibrations Associated With Alpine Skiing: A Risk Factor for Low Back Pain? Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tarabini, M.; Saggin, B.; Scaccabarozzi, D. Whole-body vibration exposure in sport: Four relevant cases. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 1143–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Thrailkill, E.A.; Lowndes, B.R.; Hallbeck, M.S. Vibration analysis of the sulky accessory for a commercial walk-behind lawn mower to determine operator comfort and health. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vallone, M.; Bono, F.; Quendler, E.; Febo, P.; Catania, P. Risk exposure to vibration and noise in the use of agricultural track-laying tractors. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2016, 23, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Birlik, G. Occupational exposure to whole body vibration-train drivers. Ind. Health 2009, 47, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Cann, A.P.; Salmoni, A.W.; Eger, T.R. Predictors of whole-body vibration exposure experienced by highway transport truck operators. Ergonomics 2004, 47, 1432–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. de la Hoz-Torres, M.L.; Aguilar, A.J.; Martinez-Aires, M.D.; Ruiz, D.P. A methodology for assessment of long-term exposure to whole-body vibrations in vehicle drivers to propose preventive safety measures. J. Saf. Res. 2021, 78, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. de la Hoz-Torres, M.L.; Aguilar, A.J.; Ruiz, D.P.; Martinez-Aires, M.D. Whole Body Vibration Exposure Transmitted to Drivers of Heavy Equipment Vehicles: A Comparative Case According to the Short- and Long-Term Exposure Assessment Methodologies Defined in ISO 2631-1 and ISO 2631-5. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Funakoshi, M.; Taoda, K.; Tsujimura, H.; Nishiyama, K. Measurement of whole-body vibration in taxi drivers. J. Occup. Health 2004, 46, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Futatsuka, M.; Maeda, S.; Inaoka, T.; Nagano, M.; Shono, M.; Miyakita, T. Whole-body vibration and health effects in agricultural machinery drivers. Ind. Health 1998, 36, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Johnson, P.W.; Zigman, M.; Ibbotson, J.; Dennerlein, J.T.; Kim, J.H. A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Truck Seat Intervention: Part 1-Assessment of Whole-Body Vibration Exposures. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2018, 62, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kåsin, J.I.; Mansfield, N.; Wagstaff, A. Whole body vibration in helicopters: Risk assessment in relation to low back pain. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2011, 82, 790–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kim, J.H.; Zigman, M.; Aulck, L.S.; Ibbotson, J.A.; Dennerlein, J.T.; Johnson, P.W. Whole Body Vibration Exposures and Health Status among Professional Truck Drivers: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2016, 60, 936–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lewis, C.A.; Johnson, P.W. Whole-body vibration exposure in metropolitan bus drivers. Occup. Med. 2012, 62, 519–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mahbub, M.H.; Hiroshige, K.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hase, R.; Harada, N.; Tanabe, T. A systematic review of studies investigating the effects of controlled whole-body vibration intervention on peripheral circulation. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2019, 39, 363–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mahbub, M.H.; Hase, R.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hiroshige, K.; Harada, N.; Bhuiyan, A.N.M.N.H.; Tanabe, T. Acute Effects of Whole-Body Vibration on Peripheral Blood Flow, Vibrotactile Perception and Balance in Older Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mandal, B.B.; Mansfield, N.J. Contribution of individual components of a job cycle on overall severity of whole-body vibration exposure: A study in Indian mines. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2016, 22, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Mayton, A.G.; Jobes, C.C.; Gallagher, S. Assessment of whole-body vibration exposures and influencing factors for quarry haul truck drivers and loader operators. Int. J. Heavy Veh. Syst. 2014, 21, 241–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Mayton, A.G.; Porter, W.L.; Xu, X.S.; Weston, E.B.; Rubenstein, E.N. Investigation of human body vibration exposures on haul trucks operating at U.S. surface mines/quarries relative to haul truck activity. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 64, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Medina Santiago, A.; Torres, J.A.O.; Gracidas, C.A.H.; Garduza, S.H.; Franco, J.D. Diagnosis and Study of Mechanical Vibrations in Cargo Vehicles Using ISO 2631-1:1997. Sensors 2023, 23, 9677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Moschioni, G.; Saggin, B.; Tarabini, M. Long term WBV measurements on vehicles travelling on urban paths. Ind. Health 2010, 48, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Orelaja, O.A.; Wang, X.; Ibrahim, D.S.; Sharif, U. Evaluation of Health Risk Level of Hand-Arm and Whole-Body Vibrations on the Technical Operators and Equipment in a Tobacco-Producing Company in Nigeria. J. Healthc. Eng. 2019, 2019, 5723830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rehn, B.; Nilsson, T.; Olofsson, B.; Lundström, R. Whole-body vibration exposure and non-neutral neck postures during occupational use of all-terrain vehicles. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2005, 49, 267–275. [Google Scholar]
  101. Sherwin, L.M.; Owende, P.; Kanali, C.; Lyons, J.; Ward, S. Influence of tire inflation pressure on whole-body vibrations transmitted to the operator in a cut-to-length timber harvester. Appl. Ergon. 2004, 35, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wolfgang, R.; Burgess-Limerick, R. Whole-body vibration exposure of haul truck drivers at a surface coal mine. Appl. Ergon. 2014, 45, 1700–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Zeng, X.; Trask, C.; Kociolek, A.M. Whole-body vibration exposure of occupational horseback riding in agriculture: A ranching example. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2017, 60, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Zeng, X.; Kociolek, A.M.; Khan, M.I.; Milosavljevic, S.; Bath, B.; Trask, C. Whole body vibration exposure patterns in Canadian prairie farmers. Ergonomics 2017, 60, 1064–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Tiemessen, I.J.; Hulshof, C.T.; Frings-Dresen, M.H. Low back pain in drivers exposed to whole body vibration: Analysis of a dose-response pattern. Occup. Environ. Med. 2008, 65, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Davies, H.W.; Wang, F.; Du, B.B.; Viventi, R.; Johnson, P.W. Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration in Commercial Heavy-Truck Driving in On- and Off-Road Conditions: Effect of Seat Choice. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2022, 66, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ittianuwat, R.; Fard, M.; Kato, K. Evaluation of seatback vibration based on ISO 2631-1 (1997) standard method: The influence of vehicle seat structural resonance. Ergonomics 2017, 60, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fard, M.; Lo, L.; Subic, A.; Jazar, R. Effects of seat structural dynamics on current ride comfort criteria. Ergonomics 2014, 57, 1549–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Goglia, V.; Grbac, I. Whole-body vibration transmitted to the framesaw operator. Appl. Ergon. 2005, 36, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. ISO 2631-5 (2018); Mechanical Vibration and Shock—Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration, in Part 5: Method for Evaluation of Vibration Containing Multiple Shocks. ISO–International Organization of Standards: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
  111. Bovenzi, M.; Hulshof, C.T. An updated review of epidemiologic studies on the relationship between exposure to whole-body vibration and low back pain (1986–1997). Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1999, 72, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Bernard, B.P.; Putz-Anderson, V.; Burt, S.E.; Cole, L.L. Low back and musculoskeletal disorders: Evidence for work-relatedness. In Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) and Workplace Factors; Bernard, B.P., Al, E., Eds.; U.S. Department Health and Human Services-CDC&P-National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Cincinnati, Oh, USA, 1997; Chapter 6; pp. 1–99. [Google Scholar]
  113. Teschke, K.; Nicol, A.; Davies, H.; Ju, S. Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders Among Motor Vehicle Drivers and Heavy Equipment Operators—A Review of the Scientific; Vancouver Campus: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  114. Seidel, H.; Hinz, B.; Hofmann, J.; Menzel, G. Intraspinal forces and health risk caused by whole-body vibration–predictions for European drivers and different field conditions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2008, 38, 856–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Burström, L.; Nilsson, T.; Wahlström, J. Whole-body vibration and the risk of low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2015, 88, 403–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Wahlstrom, J.; Burström, L.; Johnson, P.W.; Nilsson, T.; Järvholm, B. Exposure to whole-body vibration and hospitalization due to lumbar disc herniation. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2018, 91, 689–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Skröder, H.; Pettersson, H.; Albin, M.; Gustavsson, P.; Rylander, L.; Norlén, F.; Selander, J. Occupational exposure to whole-body vibrations and pregnancy complications: A nationwide cohort study in Sweden. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 77, 691–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Bovenzi, M.; Schust, M.; Mauro, M. An overview of low back pain and occupational exposures to whole-body vibration and mechanical shocks. Med. Lav. 2017, 108, 419–433. [Google Scholar]
  119. Grandjean, P.; Bailar, J.C.; Gee, D.; Needleman, H.L.; Ozonoff, D.M.; Richter, E.; Sofritti, M.; Soskolne, C.L. Implications of the Precautionary Principle in research and policymaking. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2004, 45, 382–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Taylor, T.K.; Das, R.; Mueller, K.L.; Pransky, G.S.; Harber, P.; McLellan, R.K.; Hartenbaum, N.P.; Behrman, A.J.; Roy, D.R.; Blink, R.C. Safely Returning America to Work Part II: Industry-Specific Guidance. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 63, e373–e391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Schmidt, A.L.; Paskoff, G.; Shender, B.S.; Bass, C.R. Risk of lumbar spine injury from cyclic compressive loading. Spine 2012, 37, E1614–E1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Hulshof, C.T.; Verbeek, J.H.; van Dijk, F.J. Development and evaluation of an occupational health services program on the prevention and control of effects of vibration. Occup. Med. 1993, 43 (Suppl. 1), S38–S42. [Google Scholar]
  123. Cohen, A.G.C.C.; Fine, L.J.; Bernard, B.P.; McGlothlin, J.D. (Eds.) Elements of Ergonomics Programs-A Primer Based on Workplace Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorder, PB97-117; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  124. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Elements of Ergonomics Programs. 2024. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ergonomics/ergo-programs/ (accessed on 24 August 2025).
  125. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, U.S. Navy Website: Human Vibration Guide. 2023. Available online: https://www.med.navy.mil/Portals/62/Documents/NMFA/NMCPHC/root/Industrial%20Hygiene/Human-Vibration-Technical-Guide.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2025).
  126. Johanning, E. Whole-body vibration-related health disorders in occupational medicine--an international comparison. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 1239–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Dupuis, H.; Zerlett, G. Whole-body vibration and disorders of the spine. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1987, 59, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Seidel, H.; Bluethner, R.; Hinz, B. Effects of sinusoidal whole-body vibration on the lumbar spine: The stress-strain relationship. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1986, 57, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kia, K.; Bae, H.T.; Johnson, P.W.; Dennerlein, J.T.; Kim, J.H. Evaluation of vertical and multi-axial suspension seats for reducing vertical-dominant and multi-axial whole-body vibration and associated neck and low back joint torque and muscle activity. Ergonomics 2022, 65, 1696–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vibration 08 00063 g001
Figure 1. Study selection process (Template Source: Page MJ, et al. [26] This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Figure 1. Study selection process (Template Source: Page MJ, et al. [26] This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Vibration 08 00063 g001
Table 1. Studies of vehicles and usage/industry and the utilization of the risk assessment guidelines [46,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,60] following the ISO 2631-1 Annex B guidance or the EU Directive.
Table 1. Studies of vehicles and usage/industry and the utilization of the risk assessment guidelines [46,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,60] following the ISO 2631-1 Annex B guidance or the EU Directive.
Machinery/VehicleUsage/IndustryHGCZHGCZ and EU-DirectiveEU Directive
1tractor, combine, horseagriculture 134
2helicopter, propeller aircraftaviation 200
3truck, dumper, skidderconstruction 315
4forest machine, frame saw, timber harvesterforestry 111
5ambulance, wheelchair, MRIhealth/medical422
6forklift, platform, pot haulerindustrial 110
7dumpster, haul truck, earth mover, dozermining 1540
8ski, snowboards, bicycle, kitesport002
9bus, cars, taxi, all-terrain vehicle, railtransport397
10stationary platformindustrial020
sum302321
Table 2. Studies utilizing risk assessment guidance, reported ISO 2631-1 parameters, discussion of study limitations, and the use of quantitative (numeric) versus qualitative risk assessment (for details see under result).
Table 2. Studies utilizing risk assessment guidance, reported ISO 2631-1 parameters, discussion of study limitations, and the use of quantitative (numeric) versus qualitative risk assessment (for details see under result).
All Studies%HGCZ%HGCZ and EU Directive%EU Directive%
Total no. of studies74100%30100%23100%21100
Basic rms listed739930100229621100
Crest factor (CF) listed385117571461733
VDV listed5270227317741362
ISO 2631-5 included172351762669
Study limitation included3649165310431048
ISO 2631-1 Annex B limitation342714n/an/a
Quantitative guidance5472258314611571
Qualitative guidance2027517939629
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Johanning, E.; Turcot, A. Guide to the Effects of Vibration on Health—Quantitative or Qualitative Occupational Health and Safety Prevention Guidance? A Scoping Review. Vibration 2025, 8, 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/vibration8040063

AMA Style

Johanning E, Turcot A. Guide to the Effects of Vibration on Health—Quantitative or Qualitative Occupational Health and Safety Prevention Guidance? A Scoping Review. Vibration. 2025; 8(4):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/vibration8040063

Chicago/Turabian Style

Johanning, Eckardt, and Alice Turcot. 2025. "Guide to the Effects of Vibration on Health—Quantitative or Qualitative Occupational Health and Safety Prevention Guidance? A Scoping Review" Vibration 8, no. 4: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/vibration8040063

APA Style

Johanning, E., & Turcot, A. (2025). Guide to the Effects of Vibration on Health—Quantitative or Qualitative Occupational Health and Safety Prevention Guidance? A Scoping Review. Vibration, 8(4), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/vibration8040063

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop