An Evaluation of Floor Surfaces
- 1 October 1989
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting
- Vol. 33 (8) , 517-520
- https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128903300802
Abstract
Three floor surfaces (concrete, a San-EZE-7/8″ thick resilient rubber mat, and a Traction Mat-3/8″ rubber mat with raised knob design) were evaluated based on foot dimensions, lower leg and foot temperature and body comfort. Nine college students (2 females) stood for one hour on each of the floor types performing two types of visual inspection: inspecting pennies for a particular year, and inspecting pennies for several years at a time. There was a significant difference in body comfort between floor surfaces. Both mats were better than concrete (although not always statistically significantly so). The Traction mat was better for upper, mid and lower back comfort; the San-EZE mat was better for lower leg, ankle, hindfoot and forefoot. The temperature of the calf and instep was significantly higher for both mats than for concrete.This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit:
- Standing Work: Carpet vs. ConcreteProceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1988
- A Technique for Assessing Postural DiscomfortErgonomics, 1976