Effects of Safety Harnesses Protecting against Falls from a

Height on the User’s Body in Suspension

Krzysztof Baszczyński

Paul B. Tchounwou, Academic Editor

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

The present work concerns the impact of safety harnesses on the

human body in the context of suspension trauma. Phenomena at the
man/harness interface were studied on a group of men professionally
working at a height and using personal protective equipment (PPE). In
the study, subjects wearing a safety harness were suspended for 3 min
in controlled conditions. Three types of safety harnesses of different
design were used. The harnesses were evaluated on the basis of the
subjects’ opinions expressed in a questionnaire administered
following trials. The most important phenomena observed were the
compression exerted by textile straps, inconvenient body position, as
well as straps tightening around the neck and torso. The results of
trials involving human subjects were convergent and complementary
with tests using an anthropomorphic dummy, enabling an evaluation
of the basic designs of safety harnesses.

Keywords: falls from a height, full body harnesses, ergonomics,

suspension trauma

1. Introduction

Analyzing the diversity of work sites in the contemporary industry in

terms of their spatial orientation, one can note that many of them are
elevated above the surrounding level. This is mostly found in such
sectors as the construction, energy, and mining industries, etc.
Consequently, in many cases workers are at risk of falling from a
height, which is consistent with data on workplace accidents [1]. For
instance, according to the annual report of the Central Statistical Office
for 2020 [2], in Poland there were a total of 4227 accidents involving
workers falling from a height that year, of which 30 led to serious
injury, and 31 to death. In the construction industry alone, there were
445 accidents of this kind, of which 11 were lethal and 11 serious,
while in manufacturing there were 1040 accidents, of which 7 were
lethal and 7 serious. The risk of falling from a height in industrial
settings can be mitigated by a variety of methods. The most important
of them include organizational-technical measures, collective
protection measures, as well as personal protective equipment (PPE).
Among these methods, PPE is of particular note due to its widespread
use.

PPE kits against falling from a height always contain a harness to be

worn by the user [3,4]. Depending on its design, a harness may be
used to arrest a fall, prevent a fall from occurring, support the
worker’s position, or enable work in a suspended position by rope
access. In all of these cases, the user is supported by a harness, and so
its elements, such as textile straps as well as adjustment and
connecting buckles, compress the human body. In the case of fall-
arrest harnesses complying with the standard EN 361:2002 [5], this
compression occurs during the dynamic process of arresting the
user’s fall and continues as the user remains suspended. In the case of
work positioning and restraint harnesses meeting the requirements of
EN 358:2018 [6], compression is mostly exerted under static loading
on users supporting themselves by means of those harnesses. Finally,
harnesses consistent with the standard EN 813:2008 [7] exert a static
force on the user’s body in suspension.

The impact of a harness on the human body encompasses the pressure

exerted by its constituent straps, by the forced positioning of the user
suspension, as well as by attachment, connection, and adjustment
elements (buckles) impacting the user during fall arrest. These
phenomena may generate hazards to the user’s health, or even life. Of
special note are hazards related to the user being suspended following
a fall arrest, as he or she awaits assistance and evacuation from a
height. These hazards are mostly associated with compression on the
body surface and with mobility constraints, which may disrupt
circulation, leading to loss of consciousness, or even death. These
phenomena are related to suspension trauma, which is a state of
shock caused by the passive suspension of a person in a safety harness
[8,9]. This issue and articles devoted to it are presented in the next
section of this article. Due to the gravity of the problem, the present
study aims to evaluate the impact of commercially available safety
harnesses on the user’s body in suspension.

2. State of the Art

Harness design largely depends on its intended purpose. The key

structural features of harnesses are specified in the European
standards on PPE protecting against falls from a height. The basic
requirements and test methods for sit harnesses designed for the
support of users performing rope access work are contained in the
standard EN 813:2008 [7]. In addition to requirements concerning
static and dynamic strength parameters, the standard also defines
methods for testing ergonomic properties. Tests should also involve
the evaluation of harness impact on the human body by human
subjects wearing such harnesses. The basic requirements and test
methods for work positioning and restraint harnesses are laid out in
the standard EN 358:2018 [6]. In turn, special safety harnesses for
mountaineering are described in EN 12277:2015+A1:2018 [10]. The
most important type of harnesses designed for arresting falls in
industrial settings are full body harnesses meeting the requirements
of EN 361:2002 [5]. The design of safety harnesses protecting against
 falls from a height and issues associated with their use have been
discussed in publications by Sulowski [3,4] and Baszczyński [11].

The application of PPE is one of the most widespread methods of

protecting people against falling from a height. However, despite
numerous advantages, this method also carries some specific hazards.
Analysis of reports on accidents involving users donning PPE of this
type reveals the problem of suspension trauma arising as a result of
users being suspended in a harness; which has been discussed in
publications [8,9,12,13,14]. This concerns both industrial settings as
well as mountaineering and speleology. The problem occurs mostly in
the case of using the harnesses specified in the standards EN
361:2002 [5], EN 813:2008 [7], and EN 12277:2015+A1:2018 [10].
Suspension trauma constitutes a serious hazard to human health and
life, both following fall arrest and during purposeful suspension
without any dynamic forces. This kind of trauma may lead to limb
numbness, difficulty breathing, acute pain, loss of consciousness, and
even death in the worst-case scenario. According to publications
[14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22], suspension trauma predominantly
affects individuals who pursue mountaineering and speleology.
Studies presented in [23,24,25,26,27] indicate that the causes and
severity of suspension trauma are associated both with the properties
of the human body and external factors, such as harness design. The
main factors associated with the user’s body cited in the
aforementioned publications include:

• Anatomical features;
• Body dimensions and weight;
• Psycho-physical state;
• The influence of substances such as medications, alcohol, etc.;
• Loss of consciousness due to (e.g., impact against objects while falling
from a height).
 The most important external factors determining the occurrence and
severity of suspension trauma are:

• Suspension duration;
• Movement impairment during suspension;
• The angle between the user’s torso and the vertical;
• Leg position in suspension;
• Harness fit to the user’s body,
• Harness design, including harness attachment point position;
• Compression of the human body by harness straps and buckles.

The cited publications indicate that the most severe responses of the
human body to suspension are attributable to the compression
exerted by the constituent elements of harnesses, such as textile
straps as well as adjustment and connecting buckles. The
experimental results given in publications [28,29,30,31,32] indicate
that anthropomorphic dummies are the most valuable tools in
researching the mechanical phenomena associated with the impact of
mechanical factors on the human body. The compression exerted by
harnesses of different designs on the surface of the human body in
suspension was studied using the anthropometric dummy Hybrid III
50M Pedestrian [33,34]. The pressure was measured by means of
Tekscan devices [35], which enabled the mapping of pressure
distribution on surfaces. The obtained results were presented in a
paper by Baszczyński [36]. It was found that the greatest pressure was
exerted by thigh straps in the crotch area of the dummy. It was also
found that the main factors affecting the magnitude of the pressure
were: safety harness design, its fit to the shape of the dummy, and the
type of the attachment point (sternal or dorsal). A fall arrest study
involving an anthropomorphic dummy wearing harnesses of different
design is described in paper [37]. The study involved, inter alia, the
measurement of the compression of the dummy surface under
dynamic conditions using FujiFilm Prescale film [38], which changes
its color tone depending on the contact pressure applied. The results
showed a strong impact exerted by the textile straps used in the
harness, and especially by their edges.

Analysis of current knowledge indicates that the examined

phenomena are crucial from the standpoint of PPE users working at a
height. Thus, the question arises as to whether the compression of the
user’s body is the only adverse phenomenon in the case of suspension
and how it is perceived by users (i.e., whether their experiences are
convergent with the results of the tests conducted on anthropometric
dummies). This paper presents findings from a study on the impact of
harnesses protecting against falls from a height on the user’s body in
suspension. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the effect
of the basic designs of safety harnesses that are currently used in
Poland on the experiences of their users in a state of controlled static
loading.

3. Study Material

The study involved four typical designs of safety harnesses currently

used in Poland for work at heights in a variety of workplaces. The
harnesses are shown in Figure 1, and their basic design features are
characterized in Table 1. The selected harnesses are primarily meant
for fall arrest using dorsal (models H1, H2, H3, and H4) and sternal
(models H2, H3, and H4) attachment points. Harness H4 can also be
used for body positioning during work at a height due to lateral
attachment points on its waist belt, as well as for work in a suspended
position due to the presence of a ventral attachment point at the front
of the waist belt, near the user’s center of gravity. In all of the models,
the load-bearing (primary) straps are made from webbing from
polyamide or polyester fibers with a width of at least 40 mm, with the
auxiliary (secondary) straps having a width of at least 20 mm. In the
case of harnesses H1, H2, and H3, their shoulder straps are continuous
with the thigh straps, crossing at hip level. Additionally, these
harnesses feature chest straps connecting the shoulder straps at
sternum level. Harness H4 has thigh straps in the form of loops
encircling the thighs, connected at the front and back with the
shoulder straps.

Figure 1
Safety harnesses tested in terms of their effects on the user’s body in suspension.

Table 1
Safety harnesses used in the tests.

Attachment Point Elements Other

Symb Manufactur Cushionin for Work Design
Model Dorsa Sterna Ventr
ol er g Pads Positionin Feature
l l al g s
Thigh
straps
CA- Assecuro Sp.
H1 + − − − − crossing
101 z o.o., Poland
at the
hip
H2 S-300 Lubawa + + − − − Thigh
 Attachment Point Elements Other
Symb Manufactur Cushionin for Work Design
Model Dorsa Sterna Ventr
ol er g Pads Positionin Feature
l l al g s
S.A., Poland straps
crossing
at the
hip
Thigh
straps
P451P Kaya Safety,
H3 + + − + − crossing
O Turkey
at the
hip
Thigh
straps in
Singing Rock work
Techni the
H4 s.r.o., Czech + + + + positionin
c form of
Republic g belt
closed
loops
Open in a separate window

All of the tested harnesses were of medium-large size and fit the
human subjects.
Go to:

4. Test Method

The effects of safety harnesses on a suspended human body were

evaluated using the method specified in the standard EN 813:2008 [7].
In this method, a human subject wearing a safety harness is lifted by
one of its attachment points, suspended for a set period of time, and
then lowered and questioned about any adverse effects exerted by the
harness on his or her body. Sample images of human subjects
suspended in safety harnesses are presented in Figure 2.
 Figure 2
Sample images of human subjects suspended in safety harnesses.

According to the adopted method, all harness models and their

attachment points were tested in the following steps:

• The study participants were coached on the test procedure and safety
precautions as well as told what they should pay attention to in terms
of the effects of the harness on their body.
• The participants were familiarized with the harness; they donned it
and the harness was fit to their body according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.
• The participants performed several exercises such as forward bends,
squats, and jumps to verify harness fit to their body.
• A 2 m long Kevlar rope was attached to the selected attachment point
on the harness, with its other end being attached to the hook of a
lifting device.
• After the participant’s consent, the lifting device was switched on and
the participant was lifted approx. 10–15 cm above floor level.
• The participant remained suspended for 3 min (time was controlled
with a stopwatch),
• During the test the participant and the harness were photographed.
• The participant was lowered to the floor and took off the safety
harness.
• The participant filled out the questionnaire, thus recording the test
results.
• The participant rested for approx. 30 min and performed light
physical exercises to restore normal body function.

After the test, the participants filled out a questionnaire about their
experience while being suspended in the safety harness; the questions
concerned:

• Points at which the straps, connecting buckles, attachment points, and

other harness elements compressed the participant’s body (the
participant was asked to mark those points on a chart);
• The degree of discomfort caused by the pressure of harness elements;
• Any uncomfortable body position forced by the harness;
• Any breathing difficulty;
• Numbness or tingling of body parts;
• Any hindrance to mobility in suspension;
• General comfort in suspension.

The degree of discomfort caused by the pressure of harness elements

was assessed on a dedicated scale:

“1”—light pressure not causing discomfort;

“2”—pressure causing slight discomfort, acceptable over a period of

more than 10 min;

“3”—pressure causing strong discomfort, bearable over a period of

less than 10 min;
“4”—pressure causing strong discomfort involving limb numbness,
difficulty breathing; etc.,

“5”—pressure causing pain as a result of which the participant had to

be lowered to the floor less than 3 min after lifting.

Due to the potential health hazard to the participants, according to the

guidelines contained in Annex A to the standard EN 813:2008 [7], all
trials were conducted under the supervision of a doctor equipped
with first aid medical equipment in case of the participant fainting or
being hurt. The participant was elevated approximately 10–15 cm
above the laboratory floor. The experimental station featured a 30 cm
tall platform near the suspended participant so that he could stand up
at any point in time. Furthermore, the supervising technician was
ready to lower the participant immediately at any time in case of any
danger.

Pursuant to the standard EN 813:2008 [7], the described harness tests

require the participation of two human subjects differing in terms of
weight by at least 30 kg and in height by at least 15 cm. Similarly, the
study conducted at the BIA in Germany and described by Kloß [39]
involved two subjects with three-axis accelerometers installed on
their heads and near their center of gravity. In order to evaluate
harnesses for a greater number of subject height and weight variants,
the present study involved 10 men aged 30–59 who are professional
firefighters specializing in height rescue involving the use of PPE
against falling from a height. The participants reported that in their
work they use different kinds of safety harnesses, both those
protecting against falling from a height and those designed for work in
a suspended position. The participants’ health as well as mental
aptitude and physical fitness for work at a height were confirmed by
appropriate medical certifications. The participants were 172–188 cm
tall and weight from 72 to 100 kg, which is consistent with the
 requirements of the standard EN 813:2008 [7]. Each participant
participated in eight harness suspension trials.

During the trials the participants wore light clothes that did not hinder
their movements, such as T-shirts, track suit pants, and sports shoes.

5. Study Results

The questionnaires filled out by the participants were used to evaluate

of the users’ experience while being suspended in different models of
safety harnesses. The results consisted of the following elements:

• Photographs of harnesses with points marked by the users as causing

discomfort while in suspension;
• Description of the type of harness effect causing discomfort at a given
point, such as thigh strap compression of the crotch area;
• Lw parameter representing the number of participants indicating a
given point in the harness as causing noticeable discomfort, in relation
to the total number of participants;
• W parameter representing the mean perceived degree of discomfort
caused at a given point according to the scale presented in Section 4 of
the article.

These results are presented in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure

6. Moreover, the participants’ observations from the trials are
presented in Table 2.
Figure 3
Test results for harness H1.
Figure 4
Test results for harness H2.
Figure 5
Test results for harness H3.
 Figure 6
Test results for harness H4.

Table 2
Participants’ observations from the trials.

Attachment Point
Safety (Symbols as in Figure
Observation
Harness 3, Figure 4, Figure
5 and Figure 6)
• Toe numbness (one case)
H1 X • Chest compression by shoulder straps (one
case)
• Suspension time shortened to 2 min due to
X strong thigh pain caused by compression in the
H2 crotch area (one case)
Y • Sit strap shifted above the buttocks (four cases)
• Shoulder straps tightening around the base of
X
the neck (one case)
H3
• Spinal pain in the lumbar area due to posterior
Y
hyperextension while suspended (three cases)
• Upward shift of the waist strap causing
X compression of the abdomen and ribs (three
H4 cases)
• Downward shift of the posterior part of the
Z
thigh straps causing discomfort (one case)
Open in a separate window

Analysis of the test results indicates a number of recurrent

observations made by the participants. The most important
observations are presented below in descending order of frequency,
from the most common to individual remarks.

• Compression of the crotch area by the thigh straps. This phenomenon

was mostly observed for suspension in harnesses H1, H2, and H3
using both the dorsal (X) and sternal (Y) attachment points. The edges
of the thigh straps exerted pressure on the crotch area of the subject
causing severe pain, which in one case led to quitting the trial before 3
 min. The severity of pain caused by thigh strap compression of the
crotch area was significantly lower in the case of harness H3, which
featured cushioning pads. This phenomenon was the least pronounced
in the case of harness H4, especially when suspended from the ventral
attachment point, enabling the subject to adopt a sitting-like position.
As a result, the subjects’ thighs remained vertical, while the thigh
straps with cushioning pads were loaded across their width. Given
literature reports, e.g., in publications
[8,9,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], this phenomenon
should be deemed one of the most dangerous in situations of humans
being suspended in safety harnesses, as it may lead to serious
circulatory disturbances in the legs. This was corroborated by leg
numbness in one subject suspended in harness H1.
• Compression of the base of the neck by the shoulder straps. This
phenomenon was mostly found for safety harnesses H1, H2, and H4
while using the dorsal (X) attachment point. It was caused by the fact
that the shoulder straps were brought closer together at neck level as
the dorsal attachment point shifted upwards when the user’s weight
acted on the harness. This effect was not reported when sternal (Y)
and ventral (Z) attachment points were used.
• Chest compression by the shoulder straps at clavicle level. This
phenomenon was found for safety harnesses H1, H2, H3, and H4 while
using the dorsal (X) attachment point, which forced the subject to lean
forward. The pressure exerted by the shoulder straps on the chest in
that position were perceived as very uncomfortable.
• Compression exerted by the sit strap connecting the thigh straps
below the buttocks. This phenomenon was found for safety harnesses
H2 and H3 while using the sternal (Y) and dorsal (X) attachment
points. It was caused by the sit strap moving upwards as the user’s
weight acted on the harness. As a result, the sit strap exerted pressure
above the buttocks rather than support the user below them.
However, compression from the sit strap was not experienced as very
uncomfortable.
• Compression exerted by the shoulder and thigh straps crossing at hip
level. This phenomenon was found for safety harnesses H2 and H3
while using the sternal (Y) attachment point. Forces acting on the
shoulder and thigh straps brought them closer together, thus exerting
pressure on the user’s body. Compression from the shoulder and thigh
belts crossing at hip level was not perceived by the participants as
very uncomfortable.
• Compression of the abdomen and inferior ribs by the waist belt (for
positioning). This phenomenon was found for safety harness H4 while
using the dorsal (X) attachment point. It was caused by the waist belt
being pulled upward (as a result of the user’s body acting on the
harness) and by the participant leaning forward due to the use of the
dorsal attachment point.
• Posterior spinal hyperextension. This phenomenon was found for
safety harness H3 while using the sternal (Y) attachment point. It was
caused to the insufficient tensioning of the shoulder straps resulting in
the upper part of the user’s back being unsupported. Thus, the
participant had to correct his position by muscle contraction while
suspended.

Go to:

6. Summary

A summary of the presented results in terms of the relationship

between safety harness design and the recorded observations of the
study participants is given below:

• Harness models H1, H2, and H3 in which the shoulder and thigh straps
crossed at hip level caused compression of the crotch area while using
both dorsal (X) and sternal (Y) attachment points. This phenomenon
was also found in a study examining the pressure of thigh straps on an
anthropometric dummy [36]. This is caused by the “vertical”
orientation of the thigh straps and the resulting compression by the
edges of textile straps. Both studies involving human subjects and an
 anthropometric dummy [36] showed that the use of cushioning pads
(as in harness H3) alleviates the problem by reducing compression.
• Harness H4 generated the lowest degree of unacceptable thigh strap
compression, especially when the participant was suspended from the
ventral attachment point (Z). As that attachment point is situated near
the human center of gravity, the user’s thighs were oriented
horizontally, while thigh straps with cushioning pads were loaded
across their entire width. This phenomenon was also observed in a
study of thigh strap compression on the surface of an anthropometric
dummy [36].
• In harness models H1, H2, and H4 suspended from the dorsal (X)
attachment point, the edges of the shoulder straps exerted pressure
on the base of the neck. This was caused by the shoulder straps
coming too close together at neck level. From the standpoint of
harness design, this resulted either from an inappropriate location of
the dorsal attachment point (X) or its upward displacement due to
harness loading.
• In some cases of suspension from the dorsal attachment point (X), the
shoulder straps of harnesses H1-H4 compressed the front of the chest
at clavicle level, which was also noted in paper [36]. In terms of safety
harness design, this was attributable to the too low position of the
dorsal attachment point (X) and the loosening of the shoulder straps.
• In harness models H2 and H3 compression was exerted by shoulder
and thigh straps crossing at hip level when the sternal attachment
point (Y) was used. This was caused by the forces acting on the
shoulder and thigh straps, which brought them closer together, thus
putting pressure on the user’s body. This effect was also reported
from a study involving an anthropometric dummy [36].
• In harness H4, the waist belt (for work positioning) compressed the
user’s abdomen and inferior ribs when suspended from the dorsal
attachment point. This was caused by the upward movement of the
waist belt in conjunction with the user leaning forward. From the
standpoint of safety harness design, this phenomenon was
attributable to excessive elasticity of the harness part (straps) below
 the waist belt, which was not able to prevent belt shifting under
loading.
• Harness H3 suspended from the sternal attachment point (Y) caused
the posterior spinal hyperextension of the suspended user. This was
attributable to the insufficient tensioning of the shoulder straps and
the low position of the attachment point, as a result of which the
upper part of the user’s back remained unsupported. Analysis in terms
of safety harness design indicates that the problem was caused by the
fact that the frontal attachment point was located too close to the
user’s center of gravity, as well as by the loosening of the shoulder
straps (e.g., by the slippage of the textile straps in adjustment
buckles).

7. Conclusions

Findings from the presented study involving human subjects are

substantially convergent with those obtained from a study involving
an anthropometric dummy [36]. These results show that harness
design is essential to ensuring comfort and safety in suspension. The
critical aspects of harness design in this respect are the arrangement
of straps and their features such as width, the rigidity of their edges,
and the presence of cushioning pads. From the standpoint of user
comfort and safety in suspension, the best properties were found for
harnesses with a ventral attachment point located near the user’s
center of gravity. In contrast, the worst properties in this respect were
exhibited by harnesses with dorsal attachment points.

The presented research results, in addition to scientific significance,

also have practical applications since they can be used to design new
constructions of safety harnesses that guarantee greater safety and
comfort for their users.

There were several limitations in presented study. The first limitation

concerned static test conditions. For safety reasons, the participants
were lifted and lowered to the floor at low speed. This situation differs
significantly from the real conditions of arresting a fall from a height
and going into suspension of a user of a safety harness. The second
limitation was related to the selection of safety harnesses for testing.
Only harnesses intended for use in industrial environments, meeting
the requirements of the standards EN 361:2002 [5] and EN813:2008
[7], were selected. The study was not extended to mountaineering
harnesses. The third serious limitation was the use of only
professional firefighters specializing in height rescue involving the use
of PPE against falling from a height. In real working conditions in
industry, employees using personal equipment protecting against falls
from a height are often not as physically fit and trained as study
participants, which may affect the results of the study.

In addition, during the tests, it was observed that the human subjects
carefully fit the harnesses to their body. This means that the fit could
significantly affect the comfort in the state of suspension. This
problem has not been solved so far and it is planned to undertake
research in this area. As a result of these studies, a measure of the fit
of the harness to the user’s body and an assessment of its impact on
comfort in the suspended state should be developed. Thanks to this, it
will be possible to develop a procedure for checking the correct fit of
the harness intended for users of personal equipment protecting
against falls from a height. It is also planned to undertake study
related to the assessment of the harness’s effect on the user’s body in
dynamic conditions (i.e., during the fall arrest). These tests will take
into account the participation of larger group of human subjects,
various harness constructions as well as various types of connecting
and shock-absorbing components affecting the fall arrest force
[40,41,42].
Go to:

Funding Statement
This paper is based on the results of a research task carried out as part
of the fifth stage of the National Program “Improvement of safety and
working conditions”, partly supported in 2020–2022—within the
scope of research and development—by the National Centre for
Research and Development. The Central Institute for Labor
Protection—National Research Institute is the Program’s main
coordinator.
Go to:

Institutional Review Board Statement

The ethical review and approval of this study were waived for this
study as they were carried out in accordance with the requirements of
the standard EN 813 Personal fall protection equipment—Sit
harnesses.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the

study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Go to:

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Footnotes
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.

Go to:

References
1. Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy (PIP) Raport z Działalności Państwowej Inspekcji
Pracy w 2021 roku [Report on the Activities of the National Labor Inspectorate in
2021]. PIP: Warszawa, Poland. [(accessed on 15 December
2022)];2022 Available
online: https://www.pip.gov.pl/pl/f/v/269141/Sprawozdanie%20z%20dzialaln
osci%20Panstwowej%20Inspekcji%20Pracy%20-%202021.pdf

2. Główny Urząd Statystyczny (GUS) Wypadki Przy Pracy w 2020 r [Accidents at

Work in 2020]. GUS: Warszawa, Gdańsk, Poland. [(accessed on 4 November
2022)];2019 Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rynek-
pracy/warunki-pracy-wypadki-przy-pracy/wypadki-przy-pracy-w-2020-
roku,4,14.html

3. Sulowski A.C. Fall arresting systems-classification. In: Sulowski A.C.,

editor. Fundamentals of Fall Protection. International Society for Fall Protection;
Toronto, ON, Canada: 1991. pp. 285–301. [Google Scholar]

4. Sulowski A.C. Fall arresting systems-selection of equipment. In: Sulowski A.C.,

editor. Fundamentals of Fall Protection. International Society for Fall Protection;
Toronto, ON, Canada: 1991. pp. 303–320. [Google Scholar]

5. Personal Protective Equipment against Falls from a Height–Safety

Harnesses. European Committee for Standardization (CEN); Brussels, Belgium:
2002. [Google Scholar]

6. Personal Protective Equipment for Positioning during Operation and Prevention

of Falls from a Height–Safety Belts and Lanyards for Positioning during Operation
or Restriction of Movement. European Committee for Standardization (CEN);
Brussels, Belgium: 2018. [Google Scholar]

7. Personal Protective Equipment against Falls from a Height–Sit

Harnesses. European Committee for Standardization (CEN); Brussels, Belgium:
2008. [Google Scholar]

8. Amphoux M. Physiopathological aspects of personal equipment for protection

against falls. In: Sulowski A.C., editor. Fundamentals of Fall
Protection. International Society for Fall Protection; Toronto, ON, Canada: 1991.
pp. 33–48. [Google Scholar]

9. Hearon B.F., Brinkley J.W. Fall arrest and post-fall suspension: Literature
review and directions for further research. In: Sulowski A.C.,
editor. Fundamentals of Fall Protection. International Society for Fall Protection;
Toronto, ON, Canada: 1991. pp. 123–138. [Google Scholar]

10. Mountaineering Equipment-Harnesses-Safety Requirements and Test

Methods. European Committee for Standardization (CEN); Brussels, Belgium:
2018. [Google Scholar]

11. Baszczyński K., Jachowicz M. The effect of the use of full body harnesses on
their protective properties. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2009;4:435–446.
doi: 10.1080/10803548.2009.11076823. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Noel G.M., Ardouin G., Archer P., Amphoux M., Sevin A. Some aspects of fall
protection equipment employed in construction and public works industries. In:
Sulowski A.C., editor. Fundamentals of Fall Protection. International Society for
Fall Protection; Toronto, ON, Canada: 1991. pp. 1–32. [Google Scholar]

13. Sulowski A.C. Residual risk in fall arresting systems. Fall arresting systems–
selection of equipment. In: Sulowski A.C., editor. Fundamentals of Fall
Protection. International Society for Fall Protection; Toronto, ON, Canada: 1991.
pp. 321–344. [Google Scholar]

14. Toledo Y., Ugarte J.D. Death from orthostatic shock caused by hanging on a
rope; Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Mountain Rescue
Doctors; Innsbruck, Austria. 18 November 1972. [Google Scholar]
15. Scharfetter F. Pressure paralysis of the brachial nerves due to hanging on the
rope; Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Mountain Rescue
Doctors; Innsbruck, Austria. 18 November 1972. [Google Scholar]

16. Flora G., Hölzl H.R. Fatal and non-fatal accidents involving falls into the rope;
Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Mountain Rescue Doctors;
Innsbruck, Austria. 18 November 1972. [Google Scholar]

17. Patscheider H. Pathologico-anatomical examination results in the case of

death caused by hanging on the rope; Proceedings of the Second International
Conference of Mountain Rescue Doctors; Innsbruck, Austria. 18 November
1972. [Google Scholar]

18. Stulinger W., Dittrich P., Flora G., Margreiter R. Circulatory and renal function
changes in test subjects suspended from the upper half of the body; Proceedings
of the Second International Conference of Mountain Rescue Doctors; Innsbruck,
Austria. 18 November 1972. [Google Scholar]

19. Fodisch J. Morphological findings in the case of death after hanging on a rope
for four hours; Proceedings of theSecond International Conference of Mountain
Rescue Doctors; Innsbruck, Austria. 18 November 1972. [Google Scholar]

20. Seddon P. Harness Suspension: Review and Evaluation of Existing

Information. Health and Safety Executive (HSE); Marsden Huddersfield, UK: 2002.
[(accessed on 4 November 2022)]. Contract Research Report 451/2002.
Available
online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02451.pdf [Google
Scholar]

21. Madsen P., Svendsen L.B., Jørgensen L.G., Matzen S., Jansen E., Secher N.H.
Tolerance to head-up tilt and suspension with elevated legs. Aviat. Space Environ.
Med. 1998;69:781–784. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Bernard W., Haselbach H., Scharfetter H., Aigner A., Michaeler R. Radiological,
blood chemistry and lung function findings in the hanging test; Proceedings of
the Second International Conference of Mountain Rescue Doctors; Innsbruck,
Austria. 18 November 1972. [Google Scholar]
23. Amphoux M. Hanging after a fall: An extremely urgent rescue; Proceedings of
the International Fall Protection Symposium and Exhibition; Wuppertal,
Germany. 15–18 September 1998. [Google Scholar]

24. Sheehan A. Suspension trauma. Techn. Rescue. 2000;27:16–19. [Google

Scholar]

25. Damisch C., Schauer N. Wie sicher sind Anseilgurte? [How safe are
harnesses?] Der Bergsteiger. Jul, 1985. pp. 6F–9F.

26. Dawes R. Suspension trauma—A medical perspective. Techn.

Rsq. 2000;27:20. [Google Scholar]

27. Lieblich M., Rensing W. Rettung von Abgestürzten und Erste Hilfe nach
Hängen im Gurt [Rescuing people who have fallen and first aid following
suspension in a safety harness] ASvorORT. 1997;1:12. [Google Scholar]

28. Viano D.C., Parenteau C.S., Burnett R. Influence of standing or seated pelvis on
dummy responses in rear impacts. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012;45:423–431.
doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.08.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Hu J., Klinich K.D., Reed M.P., Kokkolaras M., Rupp J.D. Development and
validation of a modified Hybrid-III six-year-old dummy model for simulating
submarining in motor-vehicle crashes. Med. Eng. Phys. 2012;34:541–551.
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.08.013. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Bartsch A., Benzel E., Miele V., Morr D., Prakash V. Hybrid III
anthropomorphic test device (ATD) response to head impacts and potential
implications for athletic headgear testing. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012;48:285–291.
doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.01.032. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Petrone N., Panizzolo F., Marcolin G. Behaviour of an instrumented

anthropomorphic dummy during full scale drop tests. Procedia
Eng. 2011;13:304–309. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.05.089. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

32. Baszczyński K. The application of a Hybrid III anthropomorphic dummy in

testing personal fall arrest equipment. Meas. Autom. Monit. 2016;62:429–
433. [Google Scholar]
33. Humanetics Crash Test Dummies. [(accessed on 4 November 2022)].
Available online: http://www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies

34. Humanetics Hybrid III 50M Pedestrian. [(accessed on 4 November 2022)].

Available online: http://www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-
dummies/pedestrian/hybrid-iii-50m

35. Tekscan Pressure Mapping, Force Measurement & Tactile Sensors [Internet]
[(accessed on 4 November 2022)]. Available
online: https://www.tekscan.com/products-solutions/pressure-mapping-
technology

36. Baszczyński K. Effect of safety harness design on the pressures exerted on the
user’s body in the state of its suspension. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022;28:1894–
1903. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.2024707. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

37. Kloß G., Ottersbach H.J. Aufbau von Versuchseinrichtungen für Fallversuche mit
einem Gliederdummy [Test Stand for Fall Arrest Tests with an Anthropomorphic
Dummy] Fachausschuß Persönliche Schutzausrüstung; Dortmund, Germany:
1993. Abschlußbericht Nr. 8907112.2 zum Projekt nr. 6042. [Google Scholar]

38. FujiFilm Measuring Pressure, Heat or UV Light Easily with Each Film.
[(accessed on 4 November 2022)]. Available
online: https://www.tekscan.com/sites/default/files/resources/Measurement%
20Film%20Catalog%20Brochure.pdf

39. Kloß G. Biomechanical stress created by personal protective equipment

against fall from height; Proceedings of the International Fall Protection
Symposium & Exhibition; Wuppertal, Germany. 15–18 September 1998. [Google
Scholar]

40. Baszczyński K. Influence of weather conditions on the performance of energy

absorbers and guided type fall arresters on a flexible anchorage line during fall
arresting. Saf. Sci. 2004;42:519–536.
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2003.08.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Carrión E.Á., Saez P.I., Pomares J.C., Gonzalez A. Average Force of Deployment
and Maximum Arrest Force of Energy Absorbers Lanyards. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health. 2020;17:7647. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17207647. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Carrión E.Á., Ferrer B., Monge J.F., Saez P.I., Pomares J.C., González A.
Minimum Clearance Distance in Fall Arrest Systems with Energy Absorber
Lanyards. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:5823.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115823. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are
provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)