HAND-ARM VIBRATION
BETTER MEASURES
Ideagen explores ISO/TS 22270, a new standard that brings consistency to on-body monitoring of hand-arm vibration.
For workers who develop hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), the consequences are permanent – numbness, pain, loss of dexterity, damage that follows them long after they’ve left the job that caused it. HAVS has been a recognised occupational disease for decades, yet cases continue to be reported every year. A new publication from the International Standards Organisation (ISO) due to be published imminently might just be the development that changes that.
The severity of HAVS has long been well understood, and the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 set clear exposure action values and exposure limit values in response. The difficulty has always been understanding true exposure, specifically, the gap between what established approaches can capture and what is genuinely happening to an individual worker on the ground. ISO/TS 22270 is the development that begins to close that gap.
ISO 5349, the standard that underpins HAV risk assessment, was developed in the 1980s for a different technological era focusing on measuring vibration at the tool handle. To meet the requirements of the standard, measurements must be taken using a triaxial accelerometer. This requires a wired sensor to be attached to the tool’s handle and operated by a trained technician. This is a method that works in controlled conditions for spot measurements, but has inherent limitations in real working environments and daily exposure assessment. Vibration data from manufacturers is measured under standardised conditions that don’t always reflect operational reality. Exposure times are difficult to record with precision. And critically, neither measure fully accounts for the variables that determine how vibration is actually transmitted to an individual – grip, posture, working method, the condition of equipment on a given day. ISO 5349 acknowledges these limitations in its own Annex D. They are not a failure of the standard; they are an honest reflection of what any tool-based measurement approach can and cannot tell you.
For years, wearable and on-body monitoring technologies have offered a potential way forward – monitoring vibration directly on the worker, during normal work, across a full shift or longer. Rather than estimating exposure from manufacturer data and trigger times, a device worn on the wrist or hand can capture what an individual is actually experiencing: the tools they used, how they used them, and for how long. The problem was the absence of any international framework to govern them. Without a standard to ensure consistency and reliability, duty holders had no basis for confidence in whether such devices could be trusted for risk assessment and compliance purposes.
ISO/TS 22270 fills that gap. Developed by more than 25 experts from research institutions, national regulators including the HSE, and manufacturers across the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, the USA and Japan,
16
Visual representation. Actual product may vary slightly in dimensions and appearance
it was accepted by member states in December 2025. It will be the first international standard to provide practical guidance specifically for systems that monitor HAV exposure on the body rather than at the tool.
The specification serves two audiences: manufacturers of HAV monitoring systems, who must now declare their systems’ capabilities against a consistent benchmark, and those using such systems in the field, who gain a trusted methodology for interpreting and acting on the data they produce. The result is that body-mounted monitoring data can, for the first time, be relied upon within a recognised international framework to inform risk management decisions.
It is worth being clear about what ISO/TS 22270 is not. It does not replace ISO 5349 or the existing regulatory framework. It does not mandate continuous monitoring. And it does not render existing approaches obsolete. What it does is recognise modern monitoring technology as a legitimate and now standardised consideration in how HAV exposure can be assessed – one that complements established methods and, in the right circumstances, provides a more representative picture of individual exposure. This technical guidance also importantly serves to aide health and safety professionals, establishing a standardised performance criteria when making purchasing decisions related to the selection of hand-arm vibration monitoring technology.
That last point is where the significance lies for safety professionals. Body-mounted monitoring conducted across a full working day, using multiple tools and work processes, can capture exposure patterns that infrequent, tool-based snapshots simply cannot. It reflects what is genuinely happening rather than what the data estimates should be happening. For organisations looking to strengthen their approach to HAV risk management, that is a meaningful step forward – and a development worth understanding now.
To find out more, visit Ideagen Wearable Safety.
https://www.reactec.com/
WWW.TOMORROWSHS.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
