Brick,Stone,and Concrete Masons

FROM November 1, 1990 to October 31, 1997, 106 construction workers who identified themselves as masons were treated for work-related injuries at the George Washington University Emergency Department. From the workers’ job titles, it was not always clear what material they worked with – brick, st one, or concrete. For this analysis, all of the masons were grouped together. Even so, the reader is reminded that the group of injured masons is still relatively small and it is difficult to draw firm conclusions.

Demographic Characteristics: All but one of the injured masons were male and the age distribution was similar to that of the other trades, with an average age of 36.

Injury Circumstances, Diagnoses, and Injury Locations (charts 9-A through 9-E): Most of the overexertion injuries were caused by lifting or carrying heavy objects, including bags of concrete and blocks of stone or brick that reportedly weighed as much as 400 pounds. Almost half of the over-exertion injuries resulted in back strains. Sometimes the workers reported a sharp pain immediately, other times they reported the pain after a day of lifting, and other times they reported the pain days later.

Of the eleven masons who fell, seven fell from scaffolds at heights that ranged from four feet to seven stories. Two masons were struck by falling scaffolds.

A few masons were exposed to toxic materials: two suffered concrete burns to their legs; three were poisoned with carbon monoxide – two while cutting stone with power saws in a confined space, and one who sandblasted with a hood whose intake valve was near an electric generator exhaust; one worker inhaled fiberglass; the last suffered a skin rash after handling epoxy.

Hospital Admissions: Two masons were hospitalized for their injuries: one worker who fell seven stories from a scaffold, was hospitalized with spinal fractures, a closed-head injury, and many cuts, scrapes, and bruises; the other was the carbon-monoxide poisoned sandblaster mentioned above.

Recommendations: It is challenging to consider how to lighten the load of inherently heavy work. The first line of intervention should be to shift at least some of the burden to lifting aids such as hoists or cranes. For example, load-leveling devices can be used to keep a stack of bricks at working height, which would reduce the frequency and degree of bending. A hoist might assist in transporting heavy pieces of stone. Scissor lifts or adjustable scaffolds could also be used to keep the workers themselves at comfortable working heights.

If mechanical lifting aids are not available, the buddy system should be used whenever possible. A “healthy back” class might r aise awareness. In addition, the weight of each object could be reduced. For example, concrete should be made available in smaller bags, and lightweight concrete block could be substituted.

Finally, the scaffold injuries suggest the need for comprehensive scaffold safety programs that include the installation of adequate guardrails and the use of fall protection. The carbon monoxide poisonings (although few) act as a reminder of the importance of proper safety procedures.

Chart 9-A
Chart 9-B

106 injured brick, stone, & concrete masons
Detailed causes of injury

Chart 9-C
Chart 9-D
Chart 9-E

Diagnoses by body part
106 injured brick,stone,&concrete masons treated for 117 diagnoses

For example:
* Percentage of masons with one or more strains, sprains, or feeling of pain. Percents add to more than 100 because some injured workers had more than one diagnosis.
** Number of masons with one or more strains, sprains, or feeling of pain.

Back to table of contents