Ergonomic and Safety Impacts of Wearable Technology in Laboratories

The laboratory environment presents unique and compounded challenges related to ergonomics and safety. Technicians and scientists are exposed to repetitive strain injuries from pipetting and microscopy, physical fatigue from handling heavy equipment, and significant chemical, biological, and physical hazards. The emergence of wearable technology offers a paradigm shift in how these challenges are managed. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ergonomic and safety impacts of wearable devices, such as smart glasses and exoskeletons, within the laboratory setting. It explores how smart glasses enhance safety awareness by providing hands-free access to Safety Data Sheets (SDS), enabling remote expert guidance, and improving procedural accuracy, thereby reducing human error. Concurrently, the paper examines the role of exoskeletons in mitigating ergonomic risks by providing physical support during tasks like lifting heavy containers or maintaining static postures, potentially reducing the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Case study evidence indicates a 15% time saving per test and reduced documentation errors with smart glasses, as well as decreased shoulder muscle activity with upper‑body exoskeletons. However, the integration of these technologies is not without drawbacks. This analysis also addresses critical challenges, including initial cost, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, potential for new forms of distraction, the ergonomic design of the wearables themselves, and the need for robust training protocols. The paper concludes that while wearable technology holds immense promise for creating safer and more ergonomically sound laboratories, its successful implementation requires a careful, risk‑assessed approach that balances technological benefits with pragmatic considerations of cost, usability, and human factors.

Wearable Technology, Laboratory Safety, Ergonomics

1. Alabdulkarim, S., & Nussbaum, M. A. (2023). Influences of different exoskeleton design features on task performance and subjective responses. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 103892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103892 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. ASTM International (2025). F3474‑25 — Standard Practice for Establishing Exoskeleton Functional Ergonomic Criteria. ASTM International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. ASTM International (2025). Standard Practice for Assessment Method for Exoskeletons in Logistics. ASTM International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. ASTM International (2025). Standard Practice for Assessment Method for Exoskeletons in Tool Handling. ASTM International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Baldassarre, A., Lulli, L. G., Cavallo, F., Fiorini, L., Mariniello, A., Mucci, N., & Arcangeli, G. (2022). Industrial exoskeletons from bench to field: Human‑machine interface and user experience in occupational settings and tasks. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1039680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1039680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Billinghurst, M., & Starner, T. (1999). Wearable devices: New ways to manage information. Computer, 32(1), 57–64. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bini, S. A., et al. (2024). Preliminary investigation of a wearable device for evaluating muscular effort and fatigue at workplace. Journal of Occupational Health, 66(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Björksten, M. G., Almby, B., & Jansson, E. S. (1994). Hand and shoulder ailments among laboratory technicians using modern plunger‑operated pipettes. Applied Ergonomics, 25(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(94)90068-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Blair, B. D. (2016). Potential for personal digital assistants and smart glasses in the laboratory. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 23(3), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.08.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Boulos, M. N. K., & Yang, S. P. (2013). Exergaming, wearables, and more: The new frontiers of serious games for health. Games for Health Journal, 2(6), 311–313. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2013.0073 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Chen, H., et al. (2023). Augmenting auditory attention to reduce cognitive load in dual tasks. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544549.3585562 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cho, Y., & Kim, J. (2025). Research protocol for estimation of recovery‑stress states of workers at manufacturing site using wearables. Sensors, 25(2), 450. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chuah, S. H.‑W. (2025). Can human values influence metaverse technology? The case of augmented reality smart glasses adoption. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. David, G. (2005). Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work‑related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine, 55(3), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqi082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. de Looze, M. P., Bosch, T., Krause, F., Stadler, K. S., & O'Sullivan, L. W. (2016). Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics, 59(5), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1081988 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. de Vries, A., et al. (2023). Biomechanical changes, acceptance, and usability of a passive shoulder exoskeleton in manual material handling: A field study. Applied Ergonomics, 113, 104104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Furr, A. K. (Ed.). (2000). CRC handbook of laboratory safety (5th ed.). CRC Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Grazioso, S., et al. (2024). A multi‑facet approach to functional and ergonomic assessment of passive exoskeletons. Wearable Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1017/wtc.2024.5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Gurevich, P., Lanir, J., & Cohen, B. (2015). The use of wearable technology for remote assistance in the laboratory. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2353–2356). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702452 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hartmann, U., et al. (2024). Effects of smart glasses on the visual acuity and eye strain of employees in logistics and picking: A six‑month observational study. Sensors, 24(20), 6515. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24206515 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hincapié, M., Caponio, A., Rios, H., & Mendívil, E. G. (2021). Augmented reality in laboratory environments: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 170, 104225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104225 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hwang, S., & Kim, J. (2023). Head‑up displays in industrial settings: Cognitive load and divided attention trade‑offs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kim, S., Nussbaum, M. A., & Gabbard, J. L. (2019). Influences of augmented reality head‑worn display type and user interface design on performance and usability in simulated warehouse order picking. Applied Ergonomics, 74, 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kim, W., & Nussbaum, M. A. (2022). The impact of wearable device characteristics on operator performance and perceived discomfort during manual material handling tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 89, 103294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Koutromanos, G., & Kazakou, G. (2023). Augmented reality smart glasses use and acceptance: A literature review. Computers & Education: X Reality, 2, 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2023.100028 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kranz, M., et al. (2023). Long‑term effects and user acceptance of back‑support exoskeletons in the workplace. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 77, 685–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-023-00381-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Krüger, M., Dittrich, F., & Sinn‑Behrendt, A. (2022). Challenges in the implementation of industrial augmented reality. Procedia CIRP, 106, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.156 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Kuber, P. M., Abdollahi, M., Alemi, M. M., & Rashedi, E. (2022). A systematic review on evaluation strategies for field assessment of upper‑body industrial exoskeletons: Current practices and future trends. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 50(10), 1203–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-022-03035-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Kuber, P. M., & Rashedi, E. (2023). Standardized evaluation protocols for industrial exoskeletons: Current gaps and future directions. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 51(3), 512–528. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Lackner, K. M., & Mezhuyev, V. (2025). Head‑mounted tablets on the shop floor — An augmented reality acceptance model: A pilot study. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877024500640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Liang, Z., et al. (2024). A multimodal physical fatigue assessment method using biomarker and accelerometer‑embedded wearable wristband. Wearable Technologies, 5, e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/wtc.2024.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Makhataeva, Z., & Varol, H. A. (2020). Augmented reality for robotics: A review. Robotics, 9(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9020021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Marchand, C., De Graaf, J. B., & Jarrassé, N. (2021). Measuring mental workload in assistive wearable devices: A review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 18, 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00953-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Michael, K., & Michael, M. G. (2013). The social and behavioural implications of wearable computing. Computer, 46(10), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Moyon, A., et al. (2023). Comfort vs. performance trade‑off in occupational exoskeletons: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4213. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2015). Hierarchy of controls. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Nicolás, J., Beltrán, J. A., & García, A. C. (2021). Wearable technology in the industrial workplace: A systematic review of its applications and challenges. Safety Science, 139, 105246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Papetti, A., Ciccarelli, M., Manni, A., Caroppo, A., & Rescio, G. (2025). Investigating the use of electrooculography sensors to detect stress during working activities. Sensors, 25(10), 3015. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25103015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Petersen, R., et al. (2022). Cognitive load by context‑sensitive information provision using binocular smart glasses in an industrial setting. In International Conference on Human‑Computer Interaction (pp. 123–140). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Schmalz, T., et al. (2023). Usability and acceptance of passive upper‑body exoskeletons in industrial work. Ergonomics, 66(8), 1123–1138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Simpson, L., Mahajan, A., & Wang, Y. (2021). A review of wearable sensing systems for monitoring ergonomic risk factors in the workplace. IEEE Sensors Journal, 21(11), 12589–12602. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2021.3069979 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Steinhilber, B., Schmidt, S., & Karwowski, W. (2022). Exoworkathlon: A prospective study approach for the evaluation of industrial exoskeletons. Wearable Technologies, 3, e22. https://doi.org/10.1017/wtc.2022.17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Taborri, J., et al. (2023). Wearable sensors for healthcare of industrial workers: A scoping review. Sensors, 23(5), 2456. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Theurel, J., & Desbrosses, K. (2019). Occupational exoskeletons: Overview of their benefits and limitations in preventing work‑related musculoskeletal disorders. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 7(3‑4), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725838.2019.1638331 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Village, J., & Trask, C. (2007). Ergonomic analysis of postural strain in professional microscopists. Applied Ergonomics, 38(5), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.06.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Woods, V., & Buckle, P. (2006). Musculoskeletal ill health amongst cleaners and recommendations for work organisational change. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2005.08.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Zahabi, M., & Kaber, D. B. (2023). Effects of augmented reality head‑up displays on drivers' hazard detection performance. Human Factors. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Challenges of Strategic Communications for National Security
• Development of Road Network GIS for Urban Safety and Security in Awka, Anambra State
• Underlying Causes of Political Violence that Affects Tourism Security in Mombasa and Nairobi Counties, Kenya 1992-2024: Exploring Relationships and Consequences.
• Influence of Team Factors on Performance of Women Enterprise Fund Loan Groups in South Imenti Constituency, Kenya
• The Effect of Drug-Related Crime on Community Cohesion in Kibra Sub-County, Nairobi County