ORIGINAL ARTICLE ERGONOMICS RISK ASSESSMENT OF
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2021, Vol. 6 (1): 1 – 8ORIGINAL ARTICLEERGONOMICS RISK ASSESSMENT OF WORKER'S TASKS AT CPJ FARM: ANADVANCED ASSESSMENT USING REBA METHODOLOGYNajwa Nazihah Ishak1, Salwa Mahmood1, Mohd Zakwan Zulkifli21Departmentof Mechanical Engineering Technology, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Universiti Tun HusseinOnn Malaysia, Pagoh Campus, KM 1 Jalan Panchor, 84600 Pagoh, Johor2Chareon Pokphand Jaya (CPJ) Farm Kulai, Lot 188, Jalan Sg. Sayong, 81800 Kulai, Johor, Malaysia(*Corresponding author’s e-mail: msalwa@uthm.edu.my)ABSTRACTAgriculture sector is regarded as one of the essential industries worldwide and one of the unsafe sectors in developingand the developed worlds. Initial Ergonomics Risk Assessment (ERA) and Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) tools havebeen used to analyze the worker’s posture in the maintenance department at Chareon Pokphand Jaya (CPJ) Farm Kulai.However, this kind of job might contribute musculoskeletal disorder (MSDs) related injuries, as it mostly involves toughtasks. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the ergonomics risk factors of workers' and intended to analyze thecondition of the selected task in the maintenance department at CPJ Farm Kulai. This assessment focused on cuttingand welding tasks workers' posture. This project was conducted using the ERA checklist and REBA worksheet. Kinoveasoftware was also used to help observe and assess the worker's working posture. The initial ERA scores for the cuttingand welding tasks are more than the minimum requirement for advanced assessment which indicates the need forfurther investigation. An advanced ERA needs to be performed to reduce risk factors. The results of REBA show thatscore obtained were 5 for both the cutting and welding tasks. Based on these scores, the worker was at medium risk forMSDs and cumulative trauma disorder (CTDs). Finally, a new ergonomic workstation design for a worker is proposed tominimize and eliminate the risk of work-related to entire body disorder exposure.Keywords: Ergonomics, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Ergonomic Risk Factors, Ergonomics Risk Assessment, Rapid Entire BodyAssessmentINTRODUCTIONAgricultural work is one of the activities affectingworkers with potential risks (Sadeghi et al., 2014).In both the developing and the developedcountries, agriculture is considered one of thedangerous industries. Therefore, it attracts moreattention to the implementation of realisticactions in agricultural settings to help mitigatework-related injuries and diseases (Sadeghi et al.,2014). It is attracting increased attentionconcerning practical actions in agriculturalsettings to help reduce work-related accidentsand illness. In agricultural-based activities, mostfarmers are exposed to several kinds ofoccupational hazards, such as ergonomicproblems, awkward postures, handling ofmaterials, and exposure to chemical and evenbiological agents. Also, workers have a highprevalence of musculoskeletal complaints,including back injuries, shoulder pain, tendonitis,reduced muscle strength, carpal tunnel syndrome,white finger and knee joint diseases.Figure 1: The affected body part and industrieswith higher rates of MSDsSource: (Safety & Executive, 2017)CTD is a general term for disorders defined bydiscomfort, weakness, injury, or chronic pain inlimbs, muscles, and tendons. Other terminologiesused to describe these conditions include repetitivestress injuries (RTIs), repetitive strain injuries (RSIs),musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), and occupationaloveruse syndrome (Fernandez & Goodman, 2000).Musculoskeletal disorder is universal and summarizedin all industries around the world. According to theHealth and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom,Figure 1 shows that back and upper limb injuries(shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) recorded thehighest injury ratio. The primary industries areconstruction, agriculture, and human health andsocial work.Ergonomics is defined as evaluating ment, and system design to suit the workto the person. It recognizes human weaknessesand capabilities in physical, behavioral, andpsychological capabilities and optimizes workprocesses' performance and competitivenesswhile maintaining workers' safety and health(Fernandez & Goodman, 2000).This project is aims to evaluate the ergonomic riskfactors among the workers in the maintenancedepartment by conducting initial and advanced levelergonomic risk assessment including ERA and REBA.1
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2020, Vol. 5 (1): 52 – 59The ERA conducted were based on ERA guidelines2017 released by DOSH (DOSH, 2017). An ERA is away of maintaining workers' health and safety,enhancing their effectiveness and productivity.There have been many activities among workersthat might contribute to workers' injury andillness, especially involving tough tasks such ascutting and welding. The workers might beexposed to WMSDs and Repetitive Strain Injury(RSI). This project is expected to improve theproper working posture based on initial andadvanced ergonomics risk assessment, which usesREBA methodology. In addition, this project alsoproposed an initial design of ergonomics table forimproving worker’s posture during working. Thephysical risk factors include posture, speed, loadlifting, vibration, physical stress, and length. ERAmethod evaluated five regions of the centralbody; shoulders, wrists, back, neck, and legs.Therefore, any risk assessment must applydirectly to people who are undertaking oraffected by the task being considered.activities, static postures, and prolonged sitting. Thelower back job associated MSDs include issues withthe spinal disk, muscle and soft tissue injuries(Salvendy & Carayon, 1997).Working on the knees which cause contact stress isalso a frequent cause of musculoskeletal injuries. Thisissue could become more severe if the kneelingposture is maintained for extended periods (Monk etal., 2018). Bending forward at the waist andmaintaining the bending over position causes asignificant strain on the lower back, compressing thespine. If it happened for a long time, it could damagethe shock absorbing pads and disks located betweenthe vertebrae (Sanmugum et al., 2020).Ergonomic Risk FactorsErgonomic risk factors are components of a job orwork that put the worker under biomechanical stress.Synergistic aspects of MSD threats are ergonomic riskfactors. The Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) explains the significant body ofevidence supporting the finding that exposure toergonomic risk factors in the workplace can cause orlead to the risk of developing an MSD (Aptel et al.,2002).LITERATURE REVIEWHuman factors ergonomics is a research disciplineconcerned with understanding the relationshipbetween people and other elements of a systemand profession that applies theory, concepts,information, and methods to improve human wellbeing and system efficiency (InternationalErgonomics Association, 2015).During their job farmers undergo vibration, forcefulexertions, and awkward postures that may lead tolower back disorders. Lower back conditions affectfarmers' ability to work and prevention steps andsolutions are required for the farmers to adopt tominimize lower back pain. National Institute forSafety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Academyof Science have reviewed existing scientific evidencethat includes thousands of epidemiological studies. Itindicates that an MSD is most likely to affect or leadto ergonomic risk factors (I think this statement iswrong – Ergonomics risk factors lead to MSD and nothe other way around – please verify). Seven physicalrisk factors in the ERA assessment including repetitionmotion, awkward posture, vibration, forcefulexertions, static posture, contact stress, andenvironmental risk factor.WMSDs are injuries or disorder of muscles, nerves,tendons, joints, cartilage and spinal cord that arerelated to exposure to risk factors on the task atthe workplace (Wang et al., 2017; Mahmood etal., 2020). Work-related lower back disorders dueto manual lifting tasks have long been recognizedas one of the primary occupational disablinginjuries that affect the quality of life. With theadvancement in the field of WMSDs, a range ofphysical, individual, and psychosocial risk factorsare now included in the evaluation. Physical riskfactors are based on exposure to physicaldemands while performing tasks; these includeawkward posture, forceful exertion, repetitivemovement, contact stress, vibration, and taskduration (Aptel et al., 2002). Figure 2 shows anexample of MSDs.The primary causes of injury to workers conductinghot work in the metal steel-related industry areprolonged static postures associated with neckflexion, operating on knees or in positions thatproduce awkward postures of the spine for extendedperiods, and hand grips. Additional risk factorsinclude the constant bending, stooping, squatting,and crouching of hot work like welding, grinding andother. Working on the knees which causes contactstress, is also a frequent cause of musculoskeletalinjuries. This issue could become more severe if thekneeling posture maintained for extended periods(Sanmugum et al., 2020).Figure 2: Example of MSDsSource: (Rasya et al., 2019)Lower-back work-related MSDs affect lumbarspine bones, joints, ligaments, and tendonsarising from physical work, manual handlingincluding lifting, twisting, bending vehicle drivingRapid Entire Body AssessmentREBA has been specifically developed and designed toexamine unpredictable working positions in thehealthcare and other services sectors (Hignett &McAtamney, 2000). The assessment of the risk factorsfor exposure is based on a body position diagram, and2
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2020, Vol. 5 (1): 52 – 59three scoring tables. Posture and forceful exertionrisk factors are covered in this procedure. TheREBA development involved three stages; thedocumentation of the working posture, thedevelopment of the scoring system, and thedevelopment of the scale of action steps, whichestablished the level of risk and further actions tobe taken. With muscle action, the external loadsapplied to the body and the form of grip, the REBAtechnique is applied to classify the entire body'spostural disorders (Cremasco et al., 2019). Figure3 shows the REBA assessment worksheet.Figure 4: Flow chart of research methodologyInitial Ergonomic Risk Assessment MethodologyDOSH introduced the guideline on ergonomic riskassessment at the workplace and provided an ERAworksheet. Initial ERA is the latest checklist draftedunder the guidelines of workplace Ergonomic RiskAssessment by the DOSH. Initial ERA based on thetypes of ergonomic risk factors identified areawkward posture, static sustained work posture,forceful exertion, repetitive motion, hands-arm whole-body vibration, and finally an environmentalfactor (Kong et al., 2015).Figure 3: REBA assessment worksheet (Hignett &McAtamney, 2000)METHODOLOGYAn observational method is often used to analyzethe ergonomics of the workplace's workingposture to determine the MSD and CTD riskfactors. For this study, the initial ERA and REBAwere chosen to analyze the worker's workingposture. The initial ERA and REBA analyses wereconducted using worksheets. The number ofsamples taken is one. The direct observationalmethod is selected for obtaining the best postureof a worker.Rapid Entire Body Assessment MethodologyThe REBA is an ergonomic body posture assessmentmethod that evaluates the whole body to determineany risk factors concerning the work posture. TheREBA analysis worksheet evaluates the work posture,especially body posture, movement, force exerted,and work repetition (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000).The assessment worksheet is divided into twosections: section A includes the neck, trunk, and legs,and section B includes the arms and wrists. The REBAworksheet was used to analyze the working posturerisk factors with regard to movement, exertion force,repetitive work, and work posture. The steps used toanalyze the working posture using the REBAworksheet are shown in Figure 3.An ergonomic risk assessment involves a processfrom planning, assessing to controlling (DOSH,2017). This study deals with planning andassessing only. The method used in thisassessment follows Guidelines on Ergonomics RiskAssessment at workplace 2017 by the DOSH.Figure 4 shows the methodology flowchart for thisproject.Three tables determine the REBA score: Table A,Table B, and Table C as shown in Figure3. The scorecollected in group A will be in Table A and group B inTable B. The muscle use score and force score areadded for both scores A and B. The value of scores Aand B that have been calculated will be used to findthe score in Table C. Figure 5 shows REBA scoringstep.3
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2020, Vol. 5 (1): 52 – 59Static andsustainedwork posture htingTemperature100No 122Yes 111200200YesNoNo120000NoNoVentilationNoiseFigure 5: REBA scoring stepThe REBA data analysis consists of makingdecisions while determining the work postureproblem risks. Table 5 shows the REBA scoringdecisions. A score of one represents a negligiblerisk. Scores of 2 to 3 and 4 to 7 show low andmedium risks, respectively, which require furtherinvestigation and possible changes. A score of 8 to10 represents a high risk, with an investigationand the implementation of a solution required.Finally, a score of 11 or more indicates very highrisk, with the implementation of a solution orrecommendation being compulsory. Table 1 showsthe REBA final score decision.The table of results obtained during the initialergonomic assessment, which showed theassessment details and the list of ergonomic riskfactors identified through the assessment. Based onthe analysis, the final ERA score for the cutting andwelding working posture more than the minimumrequirement for advanced ERA. Both processes fellinto the medium-risk category for work postureproblems, such as MSDs and CTDs. Those risk factorswith a score more than the minimum requirementwill proceed for advanced ergonomic riskassessment to further evaluate the identifiedergonomic risk factor.Table 1: REBA final score decisionCutting Task REBA AnalysisSection A consists of an analysis of the positions ofthe neck, trunk, and leg. Figure 6 shows the REBAanalysis based on the angles obtained from the bodypostures of the neck, trunk, and leg. Table 3 showsthe REBA worksheet analysis based on the dataprovided in Figure 6.Score12-34-78 – 1011 Risk of Work Posture ProblemNegligible riskLow risk, changes may be neededMediumrisk,needfurtherinvestigation and change soonHigh risk, need further investigationand implementation soonVery high risk, implementation soonDATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTInitial Ergonomic Risk Assessment AnalysisInitial Ergonomic Assessment was carried out atthe maintenance department involving theworker and assess the ergonomic riskassessment using guidelines at workplacereleased by DOSH Malaysia in year 2017. Aworker carried out his daily task, such ascutting, grinding, and welding in themaintenance department. However, thisproject selects cutting, and welding processwith direct observation of the workers, andrecord the findings based on the checklist.Table 2 shows the score of initial ERA analysis.Score 2AnalysisNeck PositionTable 2: The score of initial ERA analysis 3Trunk Position 2Leg Position 0Force / entforadvancedassessment 6Result of Initial ERACuttingTaskWeldingTask66Figure 6: Neck, trunk and leg analysis for REBATable 3: REBA assessment score for the neck,trunk and leg analysisNeedAdvancedERA(Yes/No)Yes4DescriptionsThe flexion angle ofthe neck is 44 .The flexion angle ofthe trunk is 35 .The leg's flexion angleis bent for 18 due towork in a squat andkneeling position.The load is lower than2 kg.
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2020, Vol. 5 (1): 52 – 59For section B, the REBA worksheet analysisfocuses on the body postures of the upper arms,lower arms, and wrists. Figure 7 shows theanalysis method with regard to the worker'sbody posture including the upper arms, lowerarms and wrists by determining the angle ofeach body posture. Table 4 shows the REBAworksheet analysis based on the data obtainedin Figure 7.Table 5: REBA assessment score for the neck,trunk and leg analysisScore 2AnalysisNeck Position 3TrunkPositionLeg Position 2 0Table 4: REBA assessment score for the upperarm, lower arm, and wrist position analysis 1 1 0 1AnalysisUpper ArmPositionLower The load is lowerthan 2 kg.For section B, the REBA worksheet analysis focuseson the body postures of the upper arms, lower arms,and wrists. Figure 7 shows the analysis method withregard to the worker's body posture including theupper arm, lower arm and wrist by determining theangle of each body posture. Table 6 shows the REBAworksheet analysis based on the data obtained inFigure 9.Figure 7: Upper arm, lower arm and wristanalysis for REBAScore 3Force/LoadScoreDescriptionThe flexion angle ofthe neck is 65 .The flexion angle ofthe trunk is 40 .The flexion angle ofleg is bent for 23 due to work in asquat and kneelingposition.DescriptionThe flexion angle ofupper Arm is 68 ̊The flexion angle oflower upper Arm is71 ̊The flexion angle ofwrist is 12 ̊Well-fitting handleandmid-rangepower grip1 or more body partsare held for longerthan1minute(static)Figure 9: Upper arm, lower arm, and wrist analysisfor REBATable 6: REBA assessment score for the upperarm, lower arm, and wrist position analysisWelding Task REBA AnalysisSection A consists of an analysis of the positionsof the neck, trunk, and leg. Figure 8 shows theREBA analysis based on the angles obtained fromthe body postures of the neck, trunk, and leg.Table 5 shows the REBA worksheet analysisbased on the data provided in Figure 8.Score 1 1 2 0 1AnalysisUpper ArmPositionLower DescriptionThe flexion angle ofupper Arm is 13 ̊The flexion angle oflower upper Arm is 65 ̊The flexion angle of wristis 27 ̊Well-fitting handle andmid-range power grip1 or more body parts areheld for longer than 1minute (static)REBA Analysis ResultTable 7 shows the REBA analysis for both taskscutting and welding process. In the REBA analysis,the work posture was divided into two differentsections: section A for the arm and wrist analysisand section B for the neck, trunk and leg analysis.Based on the analysis, the final REBA score for thecutting and welding working posture was 5. Bothprocesses fell into the medium-risk category forFigure 8: Neck, trunk, and leg analysis forREBA5
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2020, Vol. 5 (1): 52 – 59work posture problems, such as MSDs and CTDs.Further investigation and advanced ERA arerequired to determine the actual work postureproblems.Compared to previous research, REBAassessment of the welding task found that aworker with score 8 was categorized as highrisk. During the welding process workers do nothave a seat that supports the weight, so theworkers have to squat and the leg of theworkers bend too long (Ariyanti et al., 2019).Figure 10: Analysis of the REBA scoreTable 7: REBA assessment analysisProposed Design of an Ergonomic workstation for aworkerAn ergonomic workstation is needed for a workerbased on the initial ERA and REBA score for thecutting and welding process. Figure 11 shows thecutting and welding process ergonomic workstationdesign. The proposal is to make the workstationdesign ergonomic, thus eliminating or decreasingthe risk of ergonomic injury using appropriateanthropometric measurements standard. The tableheight should be between 650 mm and 950 mm fromthe ground, and the table height is designed to beadjusted based on the worker's preference(Mantzari et al., 2019). The table is designed with afootrest to support the legs while standing toreduce fatigue when standing for a long time.Figure 11 shows the proposed ergonomicworkstation design.ScoringREBA AnalysisCuttingWeldingTaskTaskA. Neck, truck and leg analysisLocate neckpositionLocate trunkpositionLocate legpositionPosture scoreAForce/loadscoreScore AB. Arm and wristLocate upperarm positionLocate lowerarm positionLocate wristpositionPosture scoreBCoupling scoreScore BTable C scoreActivity scoreFinal Score22332355005analysis5311112320341502415The graph in Figure 10 shows the score analysisfor each part of the REBA assessmentworksheet. The neck, trunk, lower arm, force orload and activity scores were the same for boththe task of cutting and welding processes.However, the differences between the scores ofthe two processes were in terms of the upperarm position. The upper arm position score forthe cutting process was slightly higher than thatfor the welding process. Therefore, one canconclude that the cutting process affects theupper arm position more than the weldingprocess.Figure 11: Proposed Ergonomic workstationdesign.In addition, worker handling heavy work which iscutting and welding task so the suitable height fortable of workstation is around 100 mm to 200 mmbelow the elbow height as shown in Figure 12. Theimproper design of a standing workstation wouldmake the task more difficult and uncomfortable forthe workers, which will affect the quality of work.6
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2020, Vol. 5 (1): 52 – 59REFERENCESRasya A.E., M, A., Elsayed, S. E., & Reem SS.Dawood. (2019). Work related musculoskeletaldisorders among Egyptain physical therapists andyears of experience. International Journal ofPhysical Therapy and Science, 89–91.Aptel, M., Aublet-Cuvelier, A., & Cnockaert, J. C.(2002). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders ofthe upper limb. In Joint Bone 5Figure 12: The suitable height for workstation(Canadian Centre for Occupational Health andSafety, 2014)Ariyanti, S., Widodo, L., Zulkarnain, M., & Timotius,K. (2019). Design Workstation of Pipe Welding 2441/sinergi.2019.2.003The guideline for standing workstation height byErgonomic System Associates, workstationheights should be 10 to 20 cm and above theelbow height for precision work. For light workis recommended about 5 – 10 cm higher than theelbow height. For heavy work, the workstationheight should be 10 to 20 cm below the , 2009).Canadian centre for occupational health and safety.(2014). Work-related Musculoskeletal letal Disorders (WMSDs) - Risk /risk.htmlCONCLUSIONCremasco, M. M., Giustetto, A., Caffaro, F.,Colantoni, A., Cavallo, E., & Grigolato, S. (2019).Risk assessment for musculoskeletal disorders inforestry: A comparison between RULA and REBA inthe manual feeding of a wood-chipper.International Journal of Environmental erph16050793In conclusion, the cutting and welding taskshave been analyzed using initial ERA and REBAmethod. The worker's work posture wasexamined by using initial ERA and REBA methodsanalysis. From the final results, both tasks showthat the working postures of the workerspossibly lead to injuries such as WMSDs and RSI.The cutting and welding tasks analysis wasconducted using the initial ERA worksheet, andthe final score of awkward posture for thesetasks is 6, and the static and sustained workposture score is 1. Plus, a total score ofrepetitive motion and vibration risk factors is 2,which needs further investigation, and anadvanced ERA needs to be performed to reducethe risk factors. However, the REBA score was 5for both the cutting and welding tasks. Itconsiders as a medium risk where furtherinvestigation is needed, and changes to be madesoon. The improper working posture will lead toinjuries like WMSDs and RSI. The result of theinitial ERA and REBA analysis shows that bothtasks are categorized in medium risk level andneed to be investigated. Thus, it can beconcluded that the cutting and welding tasksworker is exposed to the risk of the workposture problem.Department of Occupational Safety and Health,Ministry of Human Resource, M. (2017). Guidelineson Ergonomics Risk Assessment at sment-at-workplace2017/fileErgonomic Systems Associates Incorporated. (2009).Guidelines for the Design of Standing gosystems.ca/Fernandez, J. E., & Goodman, M. (2000). ManagingErgonomics in the Workplace. Exponent HealthGroup, 229–235.Hignett, S., & McAtamney, L. (2000). Rapid EntireBody Assessment (REBA). Applied 0039-3AcknowledgementsInternational Ergonomics Association. rg.uk/Public/Resources/What is Ergonomics .aspxAuthors would like to thank Ministry of HigherEducation Malaysia (MoHE), Universiti Tun HusseinOnn Malaysia (UTHM) for the research funding No.K263 and Chareon Pokphand Jaya (CPJ) Farm Kulaifor their research support and opportunities.Kong, Y. K., Lee, S. J., Lee, K. S., Kim, G. R., &Kim, D. M. (2015). Development of an ergonomicschecklist for investigation of work-related wholebody disorders in farming. Journal of Agricultural7
Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal 2020, Vol. 5 (1): 52 – 59https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.21.10647Mahmood, S., Aziz, S. A. H. S. A., Zulkifli, M. Z.,& Marsi, N. (2020). Rula and reba analysis onwork postures: A case study at poultry feedmanufacturingindustry.JournalofComputational and Theoretical Mantzari, E., Galloway, C., Wijndaele, K.,Brage, S., Griffin, S. J., Marteau, T. M.,Chambers, A. J., Robertson, M. M., Baker, N. A.,& The State of Queensland. (2019). Ergonomicguide to computer-based workstations Table ofcontents. Applied Ergonomics, 78(June .012Monk, B. Y. A., Kester, J., Risk, M., & January,C. (2018). Welding ergonomics Workerprotection also delivers productivity gains. 1–10.Sadeghi, H., Karuppiah, K., Bahri, S., & Dalal,K. (2014). Ergonomics in agriculture: AnApproach in Prevention of Work-relatedMusculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs). Journal ofAgriculture and Environmental Sciences, 3(2),33–51.Safety, H. and, & Executive. (2017). Workrelated Musculoskeletal Disorders (WRMSDs)Statistics in Great Britain 2017. Health cs/overall/hssh1617.pdfSalvendy, G., & Carayon, P. (1997). Datacollection and evaluation of outcome measures.In Handbook of human factors and ergonomics.Sanmugum, S., Karuppiah, K., & Sivasankar.(2020). Ergonomic risk assessment on selectedhot-work workers at company XXX. L.20/NO.SPECIAL1/ART.688Wang, J., Cui, Y., He, L., Xu, X., Yuan, Z., Jin,X.,&Li,Z.(2017).Work-relatedmusculoskeletal disorders and risk factorsamong Chinese medical staff of obstetrics andgynecology.InternationalJournalofEnvironmental Research and Public Health.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph140605628
advanced ergonomics risk assessment, which uses REBA methodology. In addition, this project also proposed an initial design of ergonomics table for improving worker’s posture during working. The physical risk factors include posture, speed, load lifting, vibration, physical stress, and length. ERA method evaluated five regions of the central
Ergonomics Risk Factor Ergonomic risk factors are characteristics of a job that facilitate ergonomics stress on the body. Risk factors occur at different jobs and tasks. The greater exposed to these risk factors the greater probability of ergonomics. According to [1], ergonomics risk factors can be divided into seven categories as follows:
Ergonomics 25: 315-322 Das, B. 1987. An ergonomics approach to the design of a manufacturing work system' Int J Industrial Ergonomics 1: 231-240 Das, B. and Grady, R. M. 1983. Industrial workplace layout design: An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics 26: 433-447 Eastman Kodak Company. 1983. Ergonomics Design for People at .
IIE - Fellow 1990 , Ergonomics Division Award, 1986 HFES - IE Technical Group Award, 1993 Texts Industrial Ergonomics: A Practitioner's Guide The Practice and Management of Industrial Ergonomics Industrial Ergonomics: Case Studies Ergonomics Design Guidelines Applied Ergonomics - Case Studies Volumes 1, 2 & 3 .
ergonomics, engineering project, control centre, case studies 1. Marketing ergonomics 1.1. Ergonomics Ergonomics (or human factors) is described as fitting tasks, workplaces and interfaces, to the capacities, needs and limitations of human beings. The aim of ergonomics is to optimise safety, health, comfort and efficiency for the
YAMAHA N MAX 125 euro 5 2021- 5519121 280.80 RPM limiter : 1000 RPM CDI version MAPS Exhaust Cylinder Ø Kit CC Head Camshaft Filter Original Malossi Curve 0 Original Original Original Original Original 10.000 11.000 Curve 1 Original 3117968 63 183 Original Original Original Malossi Curve 2 Original Original Original Original Original
Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Article VIII Article IX Article X Article XI Article XII Article XIII Article XIV Article I: Declaration of Rights Election Ballot # Author Bill/Act # Amendment Sec. Votes for % For Votes Against %
Industrial Ergonomics Workers Compensation Fund 2 Ergonomics The Science of Fitting the Task to the Worker The goal of an effective Ergonomics Program is to reduce the risk of employee injury and discomfort through better matching of the work station to the employee. 3 Industrial Ergonomics Maintain or improve productivity Maintain or improve .
Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping business, economy, and society by transforming experiences and relationships among st stakeholders and citizens. The roots of AI may lie in ancient cultures of Greek (e.g., the mythological robot Talos), Chinese (e.g., Yueying Huang’ dogs) and other mythologies (Nahodil & Vitku, 2013), where automatons were believed to be imbued with real minds .
