Ergonomics Intervention Study of the RULA/REBA Method in Chemical Industries for MSDs’ Risk Assessment
Abstract
Workers in chemical industries, especially those who operate suspending agent workstations, face a risk of potentially developing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This is because their work is often performed at high altitude or in dusty areas, and it frequently requires an awkward body posture because physical space may be
limited. In order to reduce the risk of MSDs, researchers performed an ergonomic assessment using the RULA/REBA method directly at a workstation in a suspending agent area. Simulations were run using CATIA software to evaluate the designs of a conveyor, a jack-adjustable table, and the overall work method. This statistical study proved that work systems can be improved through the addition of specific tools, and that a worker’s posture can be improved through the application of ergonomic principles. Software simulation provided a comprehensive solution for work-system development.
Keywords: ergonomic intervention, works posture, assessment, MSDs, RULA, REBA
References
[1] Bernard, B. (ed.). (1997). Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors, 97–141. Cincinnati, OH: DHHS (NIOSH) Publication.
[2] Polajnar, A., Leber, M., and Vujica Herzog, N. (2010). Muscular-skeletal diseases require scientifically designed sewing workstations. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 31–40.
[3] David, G. (2005). Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine vol. 55, pp. 190–199.
[4] Genaldy, A. M., Al-Shedi, A. A., and Karwowski, W. (1994). Postural stress analysis in industry. Applied Ergonomics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 77–87.
[5] McAtamney, L. and Corlett, E. N. (1993). RULA: A survey method for investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 91–99.
[6] Occhipinti, E. and Colombini, D. (2016). A toolkit for the analysis of biomechanical overload and prevention of WMSDs: Criteria, procedures and tool selection in a step-by-step approach. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 52, pp. 18– 28.
[7] Hignett, S. and McAtamney, L. (2000). Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Applied Ergonomics, vol. 31, pp. 201–205.
[8] Savino, M., Battini, D., and Riccio, C. (2017). Visual management and artificial intelligence integrated in a new fuzzy-based full body postural assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 111, pp. 596–608.
[9] Sahu, S., Moitra, S., Maity, S., et al. (2015). A comparative ergonomics postural assessment of potters and sculptors in the unorganized sector in West Bengal, India. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 455– 462.
[10] Dianat, I., Bazazan, A., Souraki Azad, M. A., et al. (2017). Work-related physical, psychosocial and individual factors associated with musculoskeletal symptoms among surgeons: Implications for ergonomic interventions. Applied Ergonomics, vol. 67, pp. 115–124.
[11] Chang, Y. J., Nguyen, T. D., Finkbeiner, M., et al. (2016). Adapting ergonomic assessments to Social Life Cycle Assessment. Procedia CIRP, vol. 40, pp. 91–96.
[12] Alkan, B., Vera, D., Ahmad, M., et al. (2016). A lightweight approach for human factor assessment in virtual assembly designs: An evaluation model for postural risk and metabolic workload. Procedia CIRP, vol. 44, pp. 26–30.
[13] Kurniawidjaja, L. M. (2007). Basic philosophy and concepts of occupational health and its progress in practice. KESMAS, Journal National of Public Health, vol. 1, no. 6.
[14] Widanarko, B., Legg, S., Stevenson, M., et al. (2011). Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in relation to gender, age, and occupational/industrial group. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 41, pp. 561–572.
[15] Kaewboonchoo, O., Isahak, M., Susilowati, I., et al. (2016). Work ability and its related factors among workers in small and medium enterprises: Comparison among four ASEAN countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, pp. 1–12.