Protecting Without Sacrificing: Ergonomics Quality in Design for Sustainability in Kneepad Design

Abstract

It is increasingly necessary to develop products that are oriented toward not only economic sustainability but also social and environmental sustainability. In this article we illustrate application of the Ergonomics Quality in Design (EQUID 4.0) model in the design and development of a personal protection item for improving working conditions in one of the most common and harmful activities in Latin America: kneeling work in agriculture, construction, and mining. We conclude that the model reinforces the possibilities for ergonomics to support product design and development beyond physical and cognitive dimensions, and we reflect on the experience.

Keywords

ergonomics quality in design kneeling work agriculture construction sustainability innovation

Knee protection is vital in sectors where workers spend long hours kneeling or on uneven surfaces. Table 1 sets out the principal findings documented in scientific literature which justify the importance of seeking solutions for this activity.

Table 1.

Health, Safety, Market, and Work Conditions Related to Kneeling Work.

Location	Aspect	Issue	Source
General	Health	Up to 50% of workers suffer knee-related musculoskeletal disorders during their careers, with aging increasing this risk.	Caubet (2009)
	Market	Design solutions are needed, in order to address causes like pressure on the bursa and poor knee rotation, which lead to bursitis, meniscal tears, and osteoarthritis.	Reid et al. (2010); Virayavanich et al. (2013); Song (2024)
	Market	Current knee braces fall short, as they are lacking in load distribution, fit, posture adaptability, ventilation, and adjustability.	McMillan and Nichols (2005); Village et al., (1993); Xu et al. (2017)
	Work conditions	High informality and weak regulations in construction limit access to safety equipment, thereby increasing the risk of injury.	Pribadi and Chan (2022)
Latin America	Health	Construction, mining, and agriculture report high injury rates, due to physically demanding tasks like masonry, lifting, and adopting awkward postures.	Xiao et al. (2013); Anggreni et al. (2023)
Colombia	Health	92% of musculoskeletal diagnoses in agriculture involve joint disorders, with knee pain being a major cause of work absenteeism.	Arias et al. (2018); Velásquez Bueno and Velásquez Valencia (2013)
	Safety	Knee protectors are rarely used, hindered by discomfort, lack of employer provision, and absence of regulatory mandates.	Blanco Correa et al. (2024); Feola et al. (2009)
	Safety	Existing legislation emphasizes foot and leg protection but overlooks knees.	Resolución 2400 de Mintrabajo (1979); Decreto 1072 Sector Trabajo (2015)
	Health	The absence of mandatory knee protection exacerbates the issue, making it a public health concern.	Duque-Quintero et al. (2025); Vanegas Chía (2017)
	Work conditions	High informality and weak regulations in construction and mining limit access to safety equipment, thereby increasing the risk of injury.	Bravo et al. (2024); Zuluaga and Grisales (2020)
	Work conditions	Sectors like floriculture, which are influenced by international standards, show improved working conditions.	Meier (1999); Sanmiguel-Valderrama (2007)

From various product design and development (PDD) approaches, we chose the Ergonomics Quality in Design (EQUID) model—an initiative by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) aimed at reducing “ergonomic illiteracy” by promoting ergonomics in design (IEA, 2006). EQUID has evolved through several versions (Lange-Morales et al., 2014, 2024; Nael et al., 2008), each of which contributed new perspectives. This project applies Version 4.0, which integrates previous proposals and emphasizes economic, social, and environmental sustainability. The latter is particularly relevant in floriculture, a sector bound by international standards requiring attention to both social and environmental criteria (e.g., https://www.florverde.org/, 2025).

The purpose of this article is twofold: to illustrate the application of EQUID 4.0 in a PDD process in a product with a high physical demand like a kneepad, and to reflect on the experience in terms of ergonomics, quality, sustainability, and potential innovation.

APPLICATION OF EQUID 4.0 IN KNEEPAD DESIGN

EQUID 4.0 is based on five principles: PDD is a situated process; sociotechnical product cycles (CstP) serve as the backbone of PDD; design requirements are differentiated; the product should be oriented toward eco-efficiency or eco-effectiveness; and stakeholder importance and agency (Lange-Morales et al., 2024). Figure 1 summarizes these principles. We illustrate how each of these principles is applied in the design of the kneepad. The order in which the principles are presented is in line with the logic of understanding the design process and answers the following questions: Where is the design process located? Who are the stakeholders? What phases are contemplated in the design process? How is the orientation of the product decided? And finally, what are the design requirements?

Figure 1.

Basic diagram of EQUID 4.0 principles. Taken from Lange-Morales et al., (2024).

A participative ergonomics (Imada, 1991) and focalized ethnography (Lange-Morales, 2022) approach was adopted. Traditional design and ergonomics tools that ergonomics experts could feasibly use without the need for specialized equipment were applied, such as the Likert scale, the Nordic questionnaire (López-Aragón et al., 2017), and the MOST (Lange-Morales et al., 2012), among others. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the general approach, EQUID principles, EQUID requirements, and the methods and tools used.

Figure 2.

Methodological project design and development approach.

There now follows a brief description of key aspects of how each EQUID principle was applied.

PDD is a Situated Process

One of the most important aspects of this principle is its recognition of the capabilities, resources, and values of the organizations that develop the product. In this case, the development was the result of an alliance between a micro-enterprise and a sole proprietor, with support from a usability laboratory, a group of flower-growing companies, and a marketing company. Figure 3 presents a summary of the roles, values, capabilities, and resources of those who formed the alliance.

Figure 3.

Organizations involved in the alliance, roles in the process, values, capabilities, and resources. Based on the diagram in EQUID 4.0.

Stakeholder Importance and Agency

This principle looks in depth at the people-centered approach, in that it recognizes the motivations, concerns, and practices of all stakeholders. We identify three groups of stakeholders. The first group, originators, includes the people and organizations involved in product design and development. The second group, the transferors, refers to the people and organizations involved in the process between production and use of the product. Finally, the third group comprises the people and organizations where the product will be used (recipients). Figure 4 summarizes the most relevant activities of all stakeholders in this development, as well as the point when their participation was included in the process.

Figure 4.

Relevant activities of stakeholders involved in the process. Based on the diagram in EQUID 4.0.

Orientation to Eco-Efficiency or to Eco-Effectiveness

EQUID 4.0 proposes that it should be defined at the vision stage whether the product is oriented toward eco-efficiency or eco-effectiveness. The development of the kneepad was oriented in the first instance toward eco-efficiency; in other words, toward seeking the closure of sustainable cycles of materials that were not glued or ended up as non-recyclable composite materials. This vision was proposed so that, on reaching the disuse and support stage, the technological metabolism of the kneepad’s parts and components would be facilitated. However, if a 100% recovery and recycling of all product components can be achieved with a reverse logistics process, eco-effectiveness could finally be achieved (see Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Product orientation in terms of environmental sustainability and some factors considered. Based on the diagram in EQUID 4.0.

CstP as a Product Development Axis

The structural axis for the design and development of the kneepads was based on the seven stages proposed in EQUID 4.0 (see Figure 1, Principle 2). In the vision stage, we agreed from the outset on a path toward ease of compliance with circular economy requirements for the materials and components used (environmental sustainability). Also, in the concept phase and the design and development phase, we expressed the need to define the best morpho-anatomical coupling, cushioning, and joint stability characteristics when adopting the kneeling posture. These design parameters are oriented toward comfort and dignified, protected work, with a view to avoiding injuries and reducing the possibility of osteoarticular disorders (social sustainability). Furthermore, although it would imply a bigger investment in functional quality and protection, it would be fully offset from two perspectives: on the one hand, more time of use, better quality, and greater comfort during the functional existence of the kneepad, and on the other hand, less absenteeism from work and, in the medium term, a reduction in costs arising from illnesses or injuries deriving from working conditions, due to a lack of adequate personal protection items (economic sustainability). Elsewhere, in the marketing and incorporation stage, we forged a strategic alliance with a marketer, thereby contributing to promoting incorporation and transfer of the new kneepad, with its commercial qualities of protection and the circular economy. Finally, in the disuse and support stage, having focused on eco-efficiency but also on providing items that comply with eco-effectiveness means that the kneepad is a product that can continue to innovate, in terms of materials, until it achieves sustainability.

Ergonomics Requirements are Differentiated

In order to achieve quality in ergonomics and human factors (E/HF) and ensure sustainability, this principle recognizes the need to differentiate between requirements that are specific to the organization and those inherent in the design process (EQUID 3.0). On the one hand, organizational requirements establish the cultural and strategic framework that allows design decisions to be aligned with the company’s sustainability objectives (EQUID 4.0). On the other hand, design process requirements define the mechanisms by which the needs of users and other stakeholders are identified, validated, and translated into tangible product features (EQUID 2.0). When the protection element for work that involves a kneeling posture in agriculture, mining, and construction was being developed, the evolution of the EQUID model was essential when it came to structuring a process that integrates both the internal guidelines of the organization and the ergonomic needs of the users. Table 2 summarizes the activities, their purpose, methodology and location, participants, participant inclusion criteria, participation length and frequency, key aspects considered, and results obtained. This procedure method was used throughout the process, thereby meeting EQUID requirements.

Table 2.

Aspects Considered in Line With EQUID Requirements.

Among the internal guidelines established, we found the commitment of top management to the application of state-of-the-art ergonomics principles reflected in periodic meetings to review design progress, formal documentation of decisions, and continuous validation of alignment with the organizational quality policy. The organization defined specific ergonomic quality objectives and integrated them into the overall project objectives, establishing plans for user evaluations, design reviews, and post-sale satisfaction measurements. In addition, an internal communications manager was appointed, in order to ensure that these guidelines were known by all project stakeholders and thereby promote a culture of responsible innovation, safety, and differentiation in the market. This organizational scaffolding enabled the design process to develop in a coherent and structured manner, focused on responding to the characteristics and expectations of real users in the flower and construction sectors.

As far as the design process requirements are concerned, the kneepad project was structured in line with the stages recommended in EQUID 2.0, starting with the initial definition of user needs. A detailed analysis of user profiles, including age, gender, level of experience, and time of use contexts, was carried out, in order to ensure that the design responded to both anthropometric variability and real work situations at flower farms and on construction sites (see Figure 6). The requirements documentation also included the identification of risk factors, such as prolonged knee postures, irregular and sharp surfaces, exposure to moisture, and contact with tools or chemicals, which are critical to ensuring safety and comfort. Based on this information, we defined ergonomic performance criteria, such as fitting time, ease of adjustment, stability during movement, and perception of protection, accompanied by a test plan that enabled the product to be validated in simulated (usability laboratory) and real (crops) conditions.

Table 3 presents the direct relationship between some of the risk factors identified in the needs assessment, the design parameters defined, the performance criteria established, and the validation methods used in the development process.

Table 3.

Relationship Between Risk Factors, Design Parameters, Performance Criteria, and Validation Method.

Risk factor	User needs	Design parameter	Key performance indicator (KPI)	Validation method
Pressure concentrated on sensitive areas.	Adequate protection to concentrated pressure.	Uniform pressure distribution on the bearing surface (N/cm²).	The kneepad should reduce the peak force on the knee to ≤450 N and the average force to ≤200 N, distributing the load evenly over the critical areas (patella, tibial tuberosity, and femoral condyles). There should be no pressure points with more than 15% difference between contact zones. (Jampala, 2011).	Test with pressure sensors on static load platform and in real use (kneeling tests with pressure measurement in different postures and times of use).
Accumulation of sweat and uncomfortable thermal sensation.	Reduction of heat sensation.	Subjective evaluation of thermal comfort using perception scales.	The kneepad should provide a neutral or slightly cool thermal sensation (less than or equal to body temperature 37°C), with no perceptible accumulation of sweat on the skin.	Prolonged use test under controlled conditions (minimum 2 hours at an ambient temperature of 30°C), with post-use thermal perception surveys and subjective response analysis.
Displacement or malposition of the kneepad during use.	The kneepad must remain correctly positioned during knee work to ensure protection.	Position maintenance without sliding (mm).	The kneepad remains fixed during repeated flexion/extension movements (e.g., 20 cycles). Use straps that are at least 40 mm wide, continuously adjustable without skipping, and that maintain a minimum distance of 10 mm from the center of the back of the knee. (UNE Asociación Española de Normalización, 2024)	Test bench with gait and flexion cycle (minimum 120 knee steps), followed by field validation with observation of the fit in real activity.
Exposure to chemicals, fertilizers, and water.	High durability and resistance.	Chemical formulation of polymers against degradation by pesticides and fertilizers.	The kneepad must incorporate hydrophobic coatings to ensure high water resistance and retain its structural integrity in wet conditions, remaining dry even under a 750 N load. (Marshall, 1990; [UNE] Asociación Española de Normalización, 2024).	Field tests with the product manufactured according to chemical formulation, with samples of polymers, against the risk factor. Conformity with the technical data sheets of the polymers.
Object or material penetration.	Impact and penetration protection.	Resistance to penetration.	The kneepads must withstand full penetration at a force of at least 100 ± 5 N. The internal face must not show a deflection greater than 5 mm. (UNE Asociación Española de Normalización, 2024).	Penetration test according to EN 14404:2004 with application of forces of approx. 100 N.

These structure guided design decisions by prioritizing adjustments and validating solutions based on predefined performance criteria are shared among designers, users, and management. Successive prototype development meant that periodic reviews could be conducted, where results were compared with these criteria, field performance was assessed, and necessary corrections were made by the design team under project management supervision. Final ergonomic validation involved structured user testing in both simulated lab conditions and real work scenarios, and collecting objective and subjective data against agreed acceptance thresholds. A post-sale evaluation plan was also established, in order to monitor user satisfaction, identify improvement opportunities, and inform future product versions and innovations .

Figure 6.

Workers wearing kneepad prototypes in floriculture and construction scenarios

RESULTS

The benchmarking that formed part of the concept phase identified 21 similar products that could be categorized in four typologies proposed by Xu et al. (2017). Based on this classification, the principal result of the PDD process can be categorized in the hard cap/rigid shell type, due to its materials, weight, and load distribution characteristics. However, the product obtained does not share the tendency to slip that can occur with this typology. As a complement to the product itself and thanks to the degree of innovation obtained, it was possible to apply for a utility model patent and an industrial design registration. Figure 7 summarizes the features of the product.

Figure 7.

Features of the designed kneepad regarding the market, sustainability, and innovation

DISCUSSION

EQUID 4.0 is a model born from an initiative to take ergonomics to every sphere possible, founded on quality and sustainability. It also promises to contribute to innovation, in terms of both product and processes. We reflect on these aspects, that is, quality, sustainability, and innovation in relationship to ergonomics. It is pertinent to point out that PDD is part of industries’ know-how, and it therefore tends to be considered an industrial secret, since it gives them a differentiating factor on the market. It is accordingly not common for companies to publish this know-how, which limits the possibilities for discussion.

No articles were found that relate quality, sustainability, and innovation aspects to the PDD for kneepads for work, and few works explicitly integrate the four fundamental axes, that is, ergonomics, quality, sustainability, and innovation in other scenarios. Several case studies support the importance of connecting ergonomics with quality and how this increases the possibilities for innovative design (Prasad et al., 2024), but the most common association between ergonomics and quality is found through the application of QFD as a tool (Pinthanon et al., 2025; Rianmora et al., 2023).

The prevailing trend in PDD is to understand ergonomics as a quality of a product. This happens because ergonomics in design often focuses only on the physical and cognitive dimensions and neglects organizational aspects that can misalign design and management needs. There are methods from macroergonomics for diagnosing and promoting organizational changes (e.g., Kleiner, 2006), but there are few (if any) models from macroergonomics for addressing PDD. EQUID 4.0 addresses this gap by incorporating organizational ergonomics (e.g., management commitment, communication, and training), thus reinforcing both the design process and organizational practices.

Many aspects of product design and development are not in the sphere of ergonomics, such as materials, for example, yet they play a decisive role in variables like weight, comfort, and durability. Not only do they directly affect the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of a product, they are very often antagonistic: polyurethane offers mechanical advantages but is highly contaminating; ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) is very light but has no memory; silicone acts very well as a buffer but is very expensive and heavy. Having a clear vision and an awareness of the product being oriented towards human and environmental sustainability in parallel meant that the design team had to look for alternatives that contributed to innovation.

Interesting works exist that relate innovation to prospective ergonomics approaches (Liem & Brangier, 2012), documents that talk of the importance of ergonomic design in product innovation (Windrum et al., 2017), and research that closes gaps and integrates ecodesign and ergonomic innovation (Murani, 2022). However, innovation cannot always be an aim that is proposed from the vision stage. Cases can arise which follow a rigorous process based on the quality and comprehensiveness of ergonomic aspects yet fail to develop alternatives that meet real patentability requirements and requirements for the new product to be adopted socially, which is the real innovation. In relation to the above, what was obtained by rigorously applying ergonomics procedures in the kneepad design was to establish “non-negotiables” for achieving the three dimensions of sustainability, which in the end forced the team to think of novel alternatives that ended up as vindications that were able to be subjected to patent processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the EQUID 4.0 model in a personal protection product showed that it is a robust model for PDD, thereby positioning ergonomics beyond a product quality, as a strategic ally for increasing the possibilities of innovation.

Designing products oriented toward overall sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) requires models that make a consistent decision-making process possible. EQUID 4.0 showed that it is useful for that purpose by ensuring that all stakeholders participate in the process, thereby establishing a clear framework for making decisions.

There is a need to continue working on documentation and the publication of case studies, to encourage product development companies to use the model, especially those companies whose economic resources are limited.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Karen Lange-Morales is full-time professor at the School of Industrial Design, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. She studied industrial design and has a PhD in Public Health. Her working areas include organizational ergonomics, systems thinking, design project, ergonomics quality in design, sociomaterial practices, and sustainability. She has contributed at several committees at the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) and has several publications in renowned journals and books. ORCID iD:

Juan Carlos Angulo López is research assistant at the Human Dimensioning Laboratory, Department of Design, College of Design, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. He is currently pursuing a Master of Science (M.S.) in Human Factors and Ergonomics. He holds a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Industrial Design and a Specialization in Ergonomics. At the time this research project was conducted, he served as a Product Design Researcher and Development professional at Ergofactos S.A.S. His research focuses on anthropometry, human factors engineering, ergonomic product development, and digital human modeling. ORCID iD:

Gabriel García-Acosta is full-time professor at the School of Industrial Design, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. He is an industrial designer, has a magister in Ergonomics, and a PhD in project engineering and innovation. His research interests include participatory design, transitional design, systems design, ergonomics and sustainability, sociotechnical systems, and ethics. Senior consultant in ergonomics for several productive sectors (banking, farming, oil industry, health, manufacturing, among others). Some of his contributions include several books, research articles, and patents. ORCID iD:

Miguel Ángel Ovalle Amarillo is an independent industrial designer, technician in machines/tools in Bogotá, Colombia, and holds a magister in Education. He was professor of industrial design at Javeriana University and at Los Andes University, Bogotá, Colombia. He has vast experience as a researcher in design, pedagogy, and technical protocols of intellectual property, including patents, nominations, and publications of his products. Entrepreneur in product design and manufacturing, molds, and plastics engineering. ORCID iD:

References

Anggreni

K. N.

Nugraha

M. H. S.

Wibawa

Novi

(2023). Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among farmers in Pancasari village, Sukasada district, Buleleng regency: A preliminary study. Kinesiology and Physiotherapy Comprehensive, 2(3), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.62004/kpc.v2i3.38

Arias

Rodríguez

Zapata

Vásquez

E. M.

(2018). Incapacidad laboral por desórdenes musculo esqueléticos en población trabajadora del área de cultivo en una empresa floricultora en Colombia. https://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/medtra/v27n3/1132-6255-medtra-27-03-166.pdf

Bravo

A. F.

Sánchez

A. H.

Bedoya-Rodríguez

F. J.

(2024). Seguridad y salud en el trabajo en el sector informal: estudio bibliográfico sobre el contexto global y el estado de Colombia. Signos, 16(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.15332/24631140.8725

Caubet

(2009). Musculoskeletal disorders of the knee of workers. La Revue Du Praticien, 59(9), 1261–1263. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19961084/

Blanco Correa

A. M.

Gutiérrez Carmona

Martínez López

I. E.

Cuartas Giraldo

Óscar A.

(2024). Vacíos jurídicos desde el derecho laboral en el suministro de los elementos de protección personal en los motociclistas con vinculación laboral en Colombia. Gestión De La Seguridad Y La Salud En El Trabajo, 6(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.15765/5dvc0q18

Decreto 1072 de 2015 . Sector trabajo - Gestor normativo. (s/f). Gov.co. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=72173

Duque-Quintero

S. P.

Duque-Quintero

González-Sánchez

(2025). Hacia la universalización del sistema de riesgos laborales para la protección de los trabajadores rurales en Colombia. Revista EIA, 22(43), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.24050/reia.v22i43.1835

Feola

Binder

C. R.

(2010). Why don’t pesticide applicators protect themselves? Exploring the use of personal protective equipment among Colombian smallholders. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 16(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1179/107735210800546218

Imada

A. S.

(1991). The rationale and tools of participatory ergonomics. In Noro

Imada

A. S.

(Eds.), Participatory ergonomics. Taylor & Francis.

10.

International Ergonomics Association . (2006). IEA 50^th anniversary. IEA press.

11.

Jampala

S. H.

(2011). Evaluation of knee joint stresses during kneeling work. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s67d38wx

12.

Kleiner

B. M.

(2006). Macroergonomics: Analysis and design of work systems. Applied Ergonomics, 37(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.07.006

13.

Lange-Morales

(2022). Entre ergonomía y etnografía: Bocetos del uso de dispositivos médicos en sala de operaciones. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

14.

Lange-Morales

García-Acosta

Bruder

(2014). The EQUID approach: Improving ergonomics quality in product life cycle. In Broberg

(Ed.), Human factors in organizational design and management XI – Nordic ergonomics society annual conference – 46 (I–II, pp. 435–440). IEA Press.

15.

Lange-Morales

García-Acosta

Bruder

(2024). Conceptual framework for the design and development of sustainability-oriented products: Toward EQUID 4.0. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 25(5), 615–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2023.2292614

16.

Lange-Morales

García-Acosta

Urueña-Téllez

Pérez

(2012). Work situation operative model MOST: Linking diagnosis and intervention to improve work conditions. Work, 41(Suppl 1), 136–139. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0147-136

17.

Liem

Brangier

(2012). Innovation and design approaches within prospective ergonomics. Work, 41(Suppl 1), 5243–5250. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0013-5243

18.

López-Aragón

López-Liria

Callejón-Ferra

Gómez-Galán

(2017). Applications of the standardized nordic questionnaire: A review. Sustainability, 9(9), 1514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091514

19.

Marshall

R. A.

(1990). Moisture absorption by PVC plastisol components. Journal of Vinyl and Additive Technology, 12(4), 195–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/VNL.730120403

20.

McMillan

Nichols

(2005). Osteoarthritis and meniscus disorders of the knee as occupational diseases of miners. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62(8), 567–575. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2004.017137

21.

Meier

(1999). Cut-flower production in colombia—A major development success story for women? Environment and Planning A, 31(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1068/A310273

22.

Murani

(2022). Integrated eco-design and ergonomic innovation into product design and development. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific international conference on industrial engineering and operations management. Bahru, Malaysia, September 13-15, 2022, pp. 13–15.

23.

Nael

Bobjer

McLoone

Kwahk

J. K.

Friesdorf

Glende

Bruder

(2008). EQUID design process requirements. International Ergonomics Association. https://iea.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/EQUID.pdf

24.

Pinthanon

Rianmora

Yenradee

(2025). Sustainable design concept for a trendy beverage container. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 18(1), 2492158. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2025.2492158

25.

Prasad

K. G. D.

Murthy

P. K.

Sravani

K. D. S.

Manasa

B. L.

Kumari

B. L.

(2024). Ergonomics intervention in an innovative product development through user-centred product design approach – A case study. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 11(1), 107–108. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHFE.2024.137118

26.

Pribadi

K. S.

Chan

T.-K.

(2022). Construction workers and the informal sector. En Construction in Indonesia (1st ed., p. 18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003149866-4

27.

Reid

C. R.

Bush

P. M.

Cummings

N. H.

McMullin

D. L.

Durrani

S. K.

(2010). A review of occupational knee disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10926-010-9242-8

28.

Resolución 2400 de 1979 Ministerio del Trabajo . (s/f). Gov.co. https://www.alcaldiabogota.gov.co/sisjur/normas/Norma1.jsp?i=53565

29.

Rianmora

Tongpinkaew

Netkueakun

(2023). Product characteristics versus customer perceptions on a health-related product. Cogent Engineering, 10(1), 2216851. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2216851

30.

Sanmiguel-Valderrama

(2007). The feminization and racialization of labour in the Colombian fresh-cut flower industry. Journal of Developing Societies, 23(1-2), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X0602300205

31.

Song

(2024). Biomechanical mechanisms and prevention strategies of knee joint injuries on football: An in-depth analysis based on athletes’ movement patterns. Molecular & Cellular Biomechanics, 21(3), 524. https://doi.org/10.62617/mcb524

32.

Asociación Española de Normalización (UNE) . (2024). Equipos de protección individual. Rodilleras para trabajos en posición arrodillada. Parte 1: Métodos de ensayo (UNE-EN 14404-1:2024). Madrid, España: UNE. https://www.une.org/encuentra-tu-norma/busca-tu-norma/norma?c=N0073102

33.

Vanegas Chía

J. A.

(2017). Desarrollo de un sistema de gestión de la seguridad y salud en el trabajo SGSST, bajo el decreto 1072 de 2015 para la empresa Colnotex S.A. https://hdl.handle.net/10901/10583

34.

Velásquez Bueno

D. M.

Velásquez Valencia

J. C.

(2013). Morbilidad laboral en el sector agrícola en trabajadores afiliados a una administradora de riesgos laborales (ARL) de Colombia, durante el periodo 2011-2012. https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/11503

35.

Village

Morrison

J. B.

Leyland

(1993). Biomechanical comparison of carpet-stretching devices. Ergonomics, 36(8), 899–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139308967955

36.

Virayavanich

Alizai

Baum

Nardo

Nevitt

M. C.

Lynch

J. A.

McCulloch

C. E.

Link

T. M.

(2013). Association of frequent knee bending activity with focal knee lesions detected with 3T magnetic resonance imaging: Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Arthritis Care & Research, 65(9), 1441–1448. https://doi.org/10.1002/ACR.22017

37.

Windrum

Frenken

Green

(2017). The importance of ergonomic design in product innovation. Lessons from the development of the portable computer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(6), 953–971. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtx006

38.

Xiao

McCurdy

S. A.

Stoecklin-Marois

M. T.

C.-S.

Schenker

M. B.

(2013). Agricultural work and chronic musculoskeletal pain among Latino farm workers: The MICASA study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 56(2), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJIM.22118

39.

Jampala

Bloswick

Zhao

Merryweather

(2017). Evaluation of knee joint forces during kneeling work with different kneepads. Applied Ergonomics, 58, 2017, 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.003

40.

Zuluaga

L. M.

Grisales Vargas

A. L.

(2020). La (in)justicia espacial y la producción social de los asentamientos informales en Colombia. Cuadernos de Geografía: Revista Colombiana de Geografía, 29(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.15446/RCDG.V29N1.73099