An Introductory Study on the Capacity of Exoskeletons in Reducing Musculoskeletal Disorders and Increasing Workforce Productivity in the Construction Industry

Introduction:
Construction is one of the most physically demanding sectors. Much of its work involves manual material handling, lifting and carrying, repeated trunk flexion and rotation, overhead activity, prolonged kneeling, and the use of hand-held tools. The frequency and intensity of these exposures, together with awkward postures, tool vibration, contact stress, and changing site conditions, increase the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Pain and injury in the lower back, shoulder, knee, wrist, and ankle are not merely individual health concerns; they may also lead to fatigue, reduced physical capacity, absence from work, poorer task quality, and ultimately lower workforce productivity. Wearable exoskeletons have therefore attracted attention as ergonomic assistive technologies that may reduce part of the mechanical load imposed on the body and support safer task performance.
The Purpose of the Research:
This study examines the capacity of industrial exoskeletons to reduce musculoskeletal risk factors and support workforce productivity in the construction industry. It links construction-job risk patterns and vulnerable body regions to the required form of assistance and clarifies practical considerations for implementation.
Methodology:
This article used a narrative-review approach. Persian- and English-language sources addressing construction ergonomics, work-related musculoskeletal disorders, workforce productivity, exoskeleton design and classification, and the evaluation of these devices in manual tasks were reviewed. Retrieved material was organized around risk factors and vulnerable body regions, device types and mechanisms, effects on muscle activity, fatigue, discomfort, and performance, and deployment challenges. Device-task suitability was then assessed.
Findings and Discussion:
The review indicates that occupations such as masonry, carpentry, electrical work, painting, concrete work, roofing, insulation, and plumbing differ in their tasks but are commonly exposed to combinations of lifting, bent postures, repetition, and overhead activity. In these settings, lower-back exoskeletons may be useful during repeated bending and lifting; shoulder and arm-support devices may assist overhead work and tool holding; and knee-support systems may be useful during prolonged kneeling or squatting. Active exoskeletons use a power source and actuators; passive devices store and return user-generated energy through springs or similar mechanisms; and semi-active devices adjust assistance. The reviewed evidence suggests that appropriately matched devices can reduce muscle activity and perceived fatigue or discomfort in some tasks and can improve tolerance of demanding postures. A positive device effect, however, does not mean that a device is appropriate for every occupation or worker. Device weight and bulk, restricted range of motion, interference with ladders or confined spaces, load transfer to other joints, durability, cost, and worker acceptance may limit anticipated benefits.
 
 Conclusion:
Exoskeletons are not a stand-alone solution for eliminating musculoskeletal disorders in construction and should not replace better work design, mechanization where feasible, training, rest scheduling, or conventional safety controls. They may nevertheless add value as a complementary intervention for specific tasks and occupational groups. The answer to the study question is that their ability to reduce risk and support productivity depends on a close match between the device, task, work environment, and user. This review is limited by its narrative design and by the heterogeneity of settings and outcome measures in the examined studies. Long-term field evaluations and meaningful worker involvement in device selection and assessment are therefore needed before results are generalized.