Construction Solutions - Pneumatic Drywall Finishing Systems



Solution: Pneumatic Drywall Finishing Systems
	E-mail this Solution to a Friend


	Description:	Finishing drywall using traditional mudboxes requires lots of effort and repetition. Your body is forced into awkward positions that can lead to serious wrist, shoulder, arm, and back injuries. Working with bent wrists, and with your back bent or twisted, is common in hand finishing. You repeat certain difficult hand, arm, and back movements over and over. Some tools used in this work (such as flat and corner "mudboxes”) may also cause problems because you use a lot of strength to push on them. The combination of pushing and working in an awkward position causes fatigue as well as tired and sore muscles. Eventually it can increase your chance of developing a muscle or joint injury. The photo on the left shows the problem, while the photo on the right illustrates the solution. More Detail A pneumatic drywall finishing system allows you to avoid hand finishing, and you won’t have to use flat and corner mudboxes. Although the work will still require some awkward positions and motions, you will not be exerting high forces at the same time or for as long a time. An air compressor gives enough pressure to force the drywall compound through the flat- and corner-finishing heads of the pneumatic system. This pneumatic assist reduces the tight grip and force exerted to squeeze mud out of unpowered bazooka-style finishing tools. Less Detail
	Risks Addressed:	Injuries associated with repetitive bending and force exerted in awkward postures when finishing drywall joints.
	How Risks are Reduced:	The pneumatic system requires much less physical effort than hand finishing, and it cuts down on the repeated wrist, arm, and back movements. It also takes less effort to use than these automatic tools. You do not need to push with the same strong force used with mudboxes. You only have to guide the powered tool down the corner or flat joint. Quality of Evidence Independent published studies have found a risk reduction. Safety and health experts believe there is a risk reduction. Reducing forces required to perform the task will reduce the probability of musculoskeletal strain injury.
	Effects on Productivity:	These systems should reduce a worker’s chance of developing muscle and joint injuries. In one study most workers who tried the pneumatic system liked it better than the regular tools. Workers reported that their muscles were not as tired, and they did not have as much pain after using the pneumatic system. There can also be an improvement in productivity. Workers in the study said the pneumatic system is faster than the older fnishing boxes. Some workers said that it took a while to learn the new system. Although using the system was slow at frst, it became faster within two months. There are some drawbacks to the pneumatic system. The air and electrical lines may restrict your movement while you work. The new system also takes longer to move, set up, and clean than hand finishing equipment. Therefore, it may not be as practical for small finishing jobs. Quality of Evidence Manufacturers or vendors have reported an increase in productivity. Safety and health experts believe there is an increase in productivity. Once the equipment is set up (requires air compressor) and workers become comfortable with the equipment, there is evidence that these pneumatic systems allow quicker work with less fatigue.
	Return on Investment:	No specific calculation ROI information exists for this particular solution, however, there are some general approaches that might be useful for a “Return On Investment” analysis. For a general discussion of these approaches, visit our “Return on Investment Calculation” page.
	Availability:	Where to Get It Apia-Tech Inc., Kaukauna, WI, www.apla-tech.com Approximate Cost Pneumatic finishers start around $3,500 and cost more depending on features.
	Additional Considerations:	The large mud resevoir and hose may increase the use-weight of the tool in comparison to unpowered options. There is likely to be a learning curve for workers not familiar with this tool to work at optimal performance.
	Sources:	Albers, James T., and Estill, Cheryl F. Simple Solutions: Ergonomics for Construction Workers. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2007-122. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh. See other solutions from this NIOSH document visit: http://www.cpwr.com/simple.html.