• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.88-95
• /
• 2009

There are many assessment techniques used for occupational risk factors of MSDs in the workplaces. However, because all ergonomic assesment techniques or tools are based on theoretical background derived from workphysiology, biomechanics, psychophysics, industrial hygiene, work system, and etc, it is impossible to compare the assessment techniques. This study was conducted to compare the excess rates of risk factors among ergonomic assessment techniques and to make alternative methods. Site-visits to 6 automobile products and parts company provided data for process repeated work where the produced data was examined for evaluating the relationship between workplace lay-out and work posture by using ergonomic assessment techniques. We evaluated 157 jobs for simple repeated work and 37 jobs for manual materials handling (MMH). In simple repeated work, the exceeded rates of AC were 36.3% in OWAS method and 93.0% in RULA method. The exceeded rate for RULA method was significantly higher than those for OWAS method (p<0.05). In MMH, the exceeded rates of AC were 80.0% in NLE method and 76.5% in WAC method. Statistically significant differences were not identified in the exceeded rates for NLE and MAC methods (p<0.05). The analyzed results among ergonomic assessment techniques (OWAS, RULA, NLE/WAC) were applied to the same work places performing simple repeated work and manual materials handling simultaneously. The applied results showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05) among ergonomic assessment techniques (OWAS, RULA, NLE/WAC). Exceeded rates of four ergonomic assessment techniques in decreasing order was "RULA>NLE>WAC>OWAS". The RULA method was the strongest assessment technique for automobile products and parts company. We discovered that the results could easily be overestimated or underestimated when the ergonomic assessment techniques were not applied correctly during the evaluation process. Therefore, we recommend using at least 2 methods when evaluating and analysing the results.

• Korean Management Science Review
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.61-77
• /
• 1995

The Ergonomic Workload Stress Index (EWSI) was developed to predict the existence and level of the ergonomic workload stress in the workplace. To determine the validity of model, the values of the EWSI and two other similar techniques, Job Severity Index (JSI) and Physical Work Stress Index (PWSI) were evaluated in two actual industrial environments. The results from the validation study provide further substantial evidence that two techniques, JSI and PWSI, which have similar objective considerations, are significantly associated with the value of the EWSI among the employees participating in the experimentation.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.25-34
• /
• 2002

The prevention of accidents or diseases is one of the most profitable activities in any business. The useful tools to diagnose existing safety problems and to systematically guide the improvement of those deficiencies have been developed in the world. In the recent, however, the importance of the interface between workers and workplaces has been increasingly recognized. In order to audit the correlations of job environments and workers we developed the rating system called "Ergonomic Workplace Assessment Index" for ergonomic condition in this study. The auditors will measure the degree of compliance of the criteria using judgement techniques, checks and interviews with EWAI(Ergonomic Workplace Assessment Index) which involves 5 categories and total 50 elements. elements.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Safety
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.131-140
• /
• 2012

Though there might exist not a few differences between cyclic works and atypical works, many researchers have applied the same assessment techniques that used for repetitive works, which may result introduce bias in their conclusions. This research aimed to verify whether there exist non-negligible work characteristics and/or dissimilarity among works with different work nature and whether one of the most prevalent assessment techniques for assessing ergonomic hazards of musculoskeletal disorders, REBA, can be applied to atypical works. For a general hospital, an automobile repair shop, and two auto-part assembly plants which manufactures quite different parts, a questionnaire survey and field investigation and ergonomic assessment were carried out and analyzed statistically with reference to the 3rd Quantification technique. The results showed that there exist remarkable difference between physical factors in cyclic works and atypical non-cyclic works. As for repetitive work, body posture was significant factors affecting on musculoskeletal disorders while atypical works seemed to have none which implied that the necessity of taking psychosocial factors into account for assessment of hazards. Complain rate in repetitive works was highest shoulder, back, and neck or wrist in sequence. However, there existed no consistent trend in complain rate in atypical works. And, though weight of manufacturing objects was a common factor that can partly explain musculoskeletal complain, time duration was significant in atypical work whereas repeatability and body posture were significant in repetitive works. As being the results, to summarize, it could be said that application of conventional ergonomic assessment techniques regardless of repetitiveness would be fruitless, and that the necessity of a unique methodology focused on atypical non-cyclic works should not be neglected.

• Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.279-291
• /
• 2015

Objective: The purpose of the study is to evaluate appropriate weight for aged farmers in manually handling livestock feed in bags using ergonomic methods. Background: In the livestock industry in South Korea, despite the trend of aging of labor manpower, heavy items are still manually handled in many farms. In particular, among stockbreeding works, the handling of feed in bags weighing 25~30kg is reported as a cause of frequent injuries and musculoskeletal system diseases. However, studies on the standard for recommended weight allowed considering the physical characteristics of aged farmers older than 60 years with greatly decreased physical strength and muscle strength are insufficient. Method: To evaluate appropriate weight for handling of heavy livestock feed in bags, physical techniques for measuring recognized levels of physical work loads, the NLE (NIOSH lifting equation) a method that is an observation type technique, and an ergonomic modeling technique to predict compressive force imposed on L5/S1 were used. Subjects who participated in the experiment were organized into two groups of males/females with mean age exceeding 60 years, and lifting tasks were evaluated for nine weight levels. Results: Based on the results of psychophysical measurement, females showed a tendency of more drastic increases compared to males when weight was over 19kg. The results of estimation of regression models for the weight, 18.0 kg ($r^2=0.97$) and 15.3kg ($r^2=0.97$) were evaluated as stable load for males and females, respectively. In addition, both the observation type evaluation and ergonomic model evaluation showed stable loads in a range of 15~18kg. Conclusion: Given the results of the study, the weight of the feed in bags currently distributed to farms can become a cause of not only overexertion but also farm work related disasters such as musculoskeletal disorders and safety accidents. Providing livestock feed in bags weighing not more than 19kg for aged farmers is judged desirable, and managerial improvement for this matter is considered necessary. Application: The results of the present study can be utilized as useful data for institutional improvement of the weight of livestock feed in bags.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.482-492
• /
• 2015

Objectives: Exposure Assessment for workplace hazards where the exposure level is below occupational exposure limits(OELs) has been performed without considering either the degrees of risk or exposure levels and has failed to lead to intervention in many cases. The objective of this study was to suggest and test an application framework for risk assessment methodology under the current exposure assessment system in Korea. Materials: First, we investigated the exposure assessment systems in Korea and other countries. To adopt some risk assessment techniques, we also analyzed risk assessment systems and compared them to exposure assessment systems. A few suggestions were made. We held a public hearing during an industrial hygiene conference and took surveys using a questionnaire. Results: The first suggestion was to implement the risk assessment and exposure assessment through a "one-stop" system. In that case, one expected question would be who has been doing the jobs so far. In most cases, industrial hygiene consulting services or laboratories have been performing exposure assessment for business owners. Business owners are required to perform risk assessment. As two different groups of people will be required to implement two things in a one-stop system, they need to share information. As an information vehicle to share information, commonly filed survey checklists were suggested. The second suggestion was to categorize exposure level into four groups instead of the current binary divisions based on OELs. In the risk assessment system, exposure level is divided into four groups utilizing the cut-points of 10%, 50%, and 100% of OELs. The same schema can be adopted in the exposure assessment system and different levels of requirements can be assigned for each group. The third suggestion was regarding the regulation system. To provide the suggestions some thrust toward being implemented in the field, changes should be made in the legal system. Two different types of new exposure assessment result reporting forms were suggested. Some investigations such as an ergonomic survey are officially accepted as risk assessment under the current legal system. A few items were suggested to be included in the exposure assessment result reporting to be accepted as risk assessment. A pilot study in two small factories was performed and pointed out the strengths and weakness of our suggestions. Conclusions: Discussions and studies on the improvement of the exposure assessment system have been held for decades and no tangible changes have yet been made. We hope this result can help realize healthy lives for workers in Korea.