8th International Multidisciplinary Symposium [616712]

8th International Multidisciplinary Symposium
„Challenges and opportu nities for sustainable development through quality and
innovation in engineering and research management ”

UNIVERSITARIA
SIMPRO 2018

Advances in Occupational E rgonomics and Risk M anagement
Sabina Irimiea*, Adrian_Lucian Palb
aUniversity of Petrosani, Universitatii street, No. 20, Petrosani, 332006, Hunedoara
bUniversity of Petrosani, Universitatii street, No. 20, Petrosani, 332006, Hun edoara

Abstract
Quality of life in the workplace implies the well -being of employees . Lately, the expression "happy employees" has
become more and more common and it is a concern of the inseparable relationship between employers and employees .
This paper aims to present a new model of ergonomic risk assessment in the field of automotive industry, field with a
significant weight in Romania . The challenges of such an industrial branch in terms of designing the workspace or
setting it up are significant , because in many companies at national level there are no specialists to assess the worker
and the place where he performs the work task , based on the concept of security process and rules , and the ergonomic
aspects of the workplace.
The goal of this paper is to sensitize specialists who, in the future, using the results of an assessment of the ergonomic
risks on which is subjected the worker from the assembly line/ rubber processing machine operator in the automotive
industry, can be identified the level of ris k associated with aspects of this industrial area and measures to improve the
workplace can be proposed to increase productivity and eliminate or minimize present risks .

Keywords: occupational e rgonomics , ergonomics risk, r isk management
1. Introduction
Wellbeing at work, which is one of the world's main concern in terms of both occupational safety and health and
ergonomics , and has consequences both at the organizational, individual and ultimate levels of society . This aspect was
also highlighted by the 7th International Ergonomics Conference ERGONOMICS 2018 from Zadar, Croatia, which
took place in June 13 -16, 2018 under the title “Emphasis on Wellbeing”.
Many specialists (Felce and Perry, 1995; Danna and Griffin, 1999; Diener, 2000; Waddell and Burton, 2006 ) defined
well-being as the subjective state of being healthy, happy, contented, comfortable and satisfied with one‟s quality of
life. It includes physical, material, social, emotional („happiness‟), and development & activity dimensions.
Recent global app roaches reflect these concerns by focusing on integrating occupational safety and health and
ergonomics into applications and models for improving the quality of work, designing or creating a healthy workplace
and eliminating or minimizing the risks associ ated with exposures to the poor working environment, the non -economic
working conditions and the psychosocial, psychosomatic, cognitive environment, etc., concerns that once neglected
inevitably lead not only to deficiencies in the production rhythm but al so to the occurrence of musculoskeletal
disturbances or disorders. All this results in economic and social losses .
In Romania there is no national legislative basis for the development of workplace wellbeing activities or a model
established among communit ies in the field of public health, safety and health at work. The concept is known only by
occupational health and safety and human resources specialists. There are different work patterns applied differently in
some companies (health education – collectiv e sessions, health education – individual counseling, fitness center, etc.).
Also, the profession of ergonomist appeared only in 2017. (Irimie et al. , 2017 ; Boatca et al., 2018 )
Experts Anttonen and Räsänen (2008), Hämäläinen (2007) k nowing that one of th e common goals ergonomics and
safety and health is well -being, have analyzed at European level if the legislation mentions this concept and if it is
implemented. The results of the study are presented in Table 1 .

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4072 3718829
E-mail address: sabina.irimie@gmail.com

Contemporary approaches in quality assurance, management and marketing

Table 1. Legislation and implementation of W-BW strategy and models in partner countries
Country Concept mentioned in
legislation? Idea implemented on
country level Implemented on
enterprise level
Belgium yes yes yes
Finland yes yes yes
Germany yes yes yes
Ireland no yes yes
Italy no no yes
Romania no no yes
Source: Anttonen & Räsänen, (Eds.), 2008, p.14.

The main ergonomically specific risks, the working situations from the assembly lines characteristic of the
automotive industry and a new assessment method are presented below .
2. Ergonomi c risk assessment
“In line with the EU Strategic Framework on Safety and Health at Work 2014 -2020, one of EU ‑OSHA‟s priorities is
to support the prevention of work -related diseases. The aim is not only to improve the lives of individual workers, but
also to minimize the costs of work -related illnesses and deaths.
The number of workplace accidents has decreased b y 25% over the last 10 years. However, work -related diseases
still account for an estimated 2.4 million deaths worldwide each year, 200,000 of which are in Europe. ”( EU-OSHA ,
2018 ) According to the observational epidemiological study program worldwide Glob al Burden of Disease Study
(GBD) 2010, work -related musculoskeletal disorders are the second major cause of global disability and have risen by
45% worldwide, being considered the main cause of pain and long -term disability in the world , (Byl et al., 2016) . Since
then, in all reports of the EU -OSH, musculoskeletal disorders are still the first and the automotive industry has many
jobs with such risks . (EU-OSHA , 2010)
In Middlesworth's view, risk factors are grouped into two categories, ergonomic risk factor s and workplace specific
risk factors. Extensive exposure to ergonomic and individual risk factors leads to musculoskeletal disturbances or
disorders. (Figure 1) We can also mention ergonomic risk factors lack of education in this field, which also determi nes
the manifestation of individual risk factors.

Fig. 1. Risk factors that lead over time to musculoskeletal disorders
Source : Middlesworth, M. (http://ergo -plus.com/musculoskeletal -disorders -msd/)

In the specialty literature it is recommended that the risk management process be integrated and adapted to the
culture, practice and organizational activity . (Figure 2)
Figur e 2 exposes from the perspective of risk management, the logic schema of the risk management process, and
figure 3 presents the logical schema of the risk management process from an ergonomic perspective .
In terms of risk assessment, this is defined as "activity identifying risk factors for injury and/or occupational disease
and quantifying the level of risk of a workplace/worksta tion.” (Mohanu, 2015)
In order to identify the ergonomic risks on which rubber processing machine operator in the automotive industry is
subjected, an ergonomic risk assessment model was used, proposed by the University of Washington Ergonomics
Laboratory, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences of the School of Public Health .
There are two approaches to initiating an ergonomic risk assessment: proactive and reactive . In order to implement
an ergonomic risk assessment, there is a need f or coordination and teamwork, aspects that ensure that the evaluation
process is carried out in a systematic manner . (Department of occupational safety and health ministry of human
resources Malaysia , 2017)
ERGONOMIC
RISK FACTORS

INDIVIDUAL
RISK FACTORS – Force
– Repetition
– Posture

– Poor work practices
– Poor fitness
– Poor health habits Musculo -skeletal
disorders Over time, exposure to risk factors leads to MSD

SIMPRO 2016: Sustainable Development through Quality and Innovation in Engineering and Research
3

Fig. 2. Risk management process
Source: Moraru, 2017 , p. 10

Fig. 3. Ergonomic risk management process
Source: Scott, P., Kogi, K., McPhee, B., 2010, p. 37

Person responsible for leading the evaluation team must be a trained person, a person in charge of the overal l
evaluation management . In order to prepare an ergonomic risk assessment, consideration should be given to team
training, tools, materials and facilities, communication and coordination . Communication and consultation Monitoring and review Risk a pprecia tion Establish context
Risk management Risk identif ication
Risk analysis
Risk assessment CONSULTATION WITH
WORKERS &
SUPERVISORS TRAINING IN ERGONOMICS &
RISK MANAGEMENT HAZARD
elimination or risk minimisation
minimisation
CHANGE
in process, task
or workplace
Hazard identification
Risk a ssessment
Risk Control
MONITORING AND REVIEW OF
CONTROLS PROCESS, TASK
AND/OR WORKPLACE
WORKPLACE

FEEDBACK
LOOPS

Contemporary approaches in quality assurance, management and marketing

Initial ergonomic risk assessment sheet (table 2) is a dated and a ssumed document developed at the ergonomic risk
assessment initiation stage addressing the aforementioned issues as well as risk factors reported through the proactive
approach inspection .
Table 2. Initial ergonomic risk assessment sheet
Task : Tire manufac ture Task description : The rubber once manufactured reaches the “ Building /
Confections” location, where it is processed using machines in different sizes,
depending on the manufacturing process stage. The tire maker, in the first stage of the
manufacturi ng process, uses a three -layer folding machine (tire strap) on the inner
skeleton of the tire. The worker must always ensure that the machine is operating at
normal operating conditions, take measurements to ensure that there are no deviations
from dimensi ons or gaps, ensure that the machine is continuously fed with rollers
containing thin rubber strips, textile strips and metal strips. The task is completed
when the tire, at this stage, is sent on the line to the next worker. The worker performs
the work l oad alternating between the orthostatic position and the sitting position. In
order to carry out the work load the worker uses his hands in most cases. Location : Building/Confections

Assessment team :

(Names of all participants )

Date : 15.01.2018
Risk factor Action items : Assigned to Revised
– The back is twisted and bent
sometimes ;
– Working with the hands at a
lower angle than 90o;
– Almost continuous movement
of the arm ;
– Working with the wrist bent;
– Working with the head bent ;
– Working bank not adapt ed to
the anthropometric dimension
of the worker ;
– The seat cannot be adjusted to
the anthropometric dimension
of the worker . – Observer‟s assessment sheet ;
– Worker‟s assessment sheet;
– Exposure scores sheet ;
– Risk assessment matrix ;
– Guide for handling the weigh ts;
– Guide for recommended weight limit for lifting
and lowering for repetitive operations ;
– Charts and interpreting tables .
(Names and attributions of
all participants )

16.01.2018 Back :
Shoulder/Arm :

Wrist/Hand :

Neck:

Stable
base /Driving :
Vibration :
Work pace:

Environment:

Reviewed by :
(Location Manager )
16.01.2018 Approved by:
(OSH Manager )
16.01.2018
Source: adapted from http://depts.washington.edu/wineryhs/Resources.html

As can be seen in the initial e rgonomic risk assessment sheet, the first instruments of action used are the evaluation
and the exposure scores sheets. Two of them are used for the evaluation, one for the observer's assessment, and the
second for the worker‟s assessment.
The observer's a ssessment sheet is structured into five sections for each section, selecting only one of the associated
situations, situations that concern aspects related to the following body areas of the worker: back, shoulder/arm,
wrist/hand and neck .
The worker‟s as sessment sheet is structured on eight sections, just like the observer's assessment sheet, selecting only
one of the associated situations . In this cas e, it should be noted that the “ environment ” that is spoken in Section Q, in
fact, means the stressors sp ecific to the organizational environment (temperature, lighting, noise, etc.).
The scores obtained through the assessment made using the evaluation sheets and the exposure score sheets should
be used for :
– Determination of the comparative exposure level s for each body area ;
– Identification of the areas where the exposures are highest and concentration of interventions on such areas .
Assessment of the observer and worker, respectively the calculation of the exposure scores, for the situation of the
opera tor in the rubber processing is presented below .
After the exposure scores have been calculated, the next step in the ergonomic risk assessment is the identification of
the ergonomic risk level for each section using the risk assessment matrix (Table 3) .
Following the interpretation of the scores obtained in table 3, for the first four sections, a low risk level was obtained
for the “back” and “wrist/hand”, and for the “shoulder/arm” and “neck” the risk level is moderate. In order to better
observe the clas sification of the scores obtained in the risk levels, the following four graphs were made for the first four
sections (Figure 4).

SIMPRO 2016: Sustainable Development through Quality and Innovation in Engineering and Research
5
Table 3. Risk assessment matrix
Risk assessment Low Moderat e High Very high
Evaluation scores
Back 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-56
Shoulder/Arm 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-56
Wrist/Hand 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-56
Neck 2-6 7-10 11-14 15-18
Stable base /Driving 1 4 9 –
Vibration 1 4 9 –
Work pace 1 4 9 –
Environment 1 4 9 16
Source: adapted from http://depts.washington.edu/wineryhs/Resources.html

Fig. 4. Level of exposure scores for back, shoulder /arm, wrist/hand and neck

In the case of the last four sections, the lev el of risk obtained is low for “driving” and “vibrations”, and for “work
pace” and “environment ” the risk level is moderate. As for the first four sections, a graph was created for the last four
(Figure 5) to observe the scores obtained in the risk range.

Fig. 5. Level of exposure scores for driv ing, vibration, working pace and environment

It can be seen from the interpretation of the scores obtained for each section, that the maximum ergonomic level at
which the rubber processing machine operator is subjected on which this assessment was made is a moderate one.
It should be kept in mind that the moderate risk level with respect to the body parts of the worker is present at the
shoulder/arm and neck, which confirms what was noted in the initial assessment sheet as a risk factor observed in the
inspection carried out in order to initiate the assessment .
The “ wrist/hand” section should not be neglected, even if the risk level is low in this case, the value of the scores
obtained for this section is at the upper limit of the value range for this ergon omic risk level .

Contemporary approaches in quality assurance, management and marketing

Compared to the “ shoulder/arm” , “neck” and “ wrist/hand” body parts, which could have been identified as
ergonomic risk factors following the inspection to initiate the assessment, there are also issues that could not be
identified as a re sult of this inspection. The “work pace” and “medium” sections with moderate risk levels can not be
assessed in the initial phase by inspection, but only identified and interpreted by evaluating and calculating the scores
obtained
Conclusion s
The conclusio n is obvious, the need to increase the quality of wellbeing at work . Therefore, there are at least two
major national challenges in this area . One of the challenges, since in most enterprises there are no ergonomic, health
and safety professionals to carry out an assessment of the ergonomic risks associated with the workplace with a view to
proposing and subsequently implementing the improvements for a job reduce or eliminate the risks associated with the
industrial fields in which they operate, or instruct workers on exposure to such risks .
The second challenge is to improve legislation with ergonomics and well -being stipulations in organizing workplaces
and companies, in general, to achieve the goal of "happy employees" .
References
Anttonen, H., Räsänen, T., (Eds.) , Well-being at Work – New Innovations and Good Practices , Finnish Institute of
Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland , (2008).
Byl, N. N., Barbe, M. F., Dolan, C. B., Glass, G., Repetitive Stress Pathology : Soft Tissue, Chapter 27 In: D. J. Mage e,
J. E. Zachazewski , W.S. Quillen , R. C. Manske , Pathology and Intervention in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
(Second Edition), Elsevier Inc., pp. 938 -1004, ( 2016 ).
Boatca , M. E., Irimie , S., Draghici , A., Ergonomics and occupational health and safety for wellbeing , 7th International
Ergonomics Conference ERGONOMICS 2018 , pp. 73-80, Zadar, Croatia, (2018 ).
Danna, K., Griffin, R.W. , Health and well -being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature , Journal of
Management, 25, pp. 357-384, (1999).
Department of occupational safety and health ministry of h uman resources Malaysia, Online from
http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/en/factory -machinery/guidelines/ergonomic/2621 -01-guidelines -on-
ergonomics -risk-assessment -at-workplace -2017/file , pp. 10-11, (2017)
Diener, E. , Subjective well -being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a nat ional index , American Psychologist ,
55, pp. 34-43, (2000).
EU-OSHA – European Agency for Safety and Health and Work, OSH in figures: Work -related musculoskeletal
disorders in the EU – Facts and figures , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg , (2010 ).
EU-OSHA – European Agency for Safety and Health and Work, Work -related diseases, Online from
https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/work -related -diseases , 20 01 (2018 ).
Felce , D., Perry, J., Quality of Life: Its Definition and Measurement, Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16, pp.
51–74, (1995).
Hämäläinen, R -M., Workplace Health Promotion in Europe – the role of national health policies and strategies . Finnish
Institute of Occ upational Health, Helsinki. (2007).
Irimie, S., Manolescu, A., Lupu, C. , New perspectives of the relationship between occupational safety and health and
ergonomy. Proceedings of the 8th edition International Symposium Occupational Health and Safety – SESAM
2017, vol 1, pp. 268 -277, Bucharest, Romania, (2017).
Middlesworth, M., The Definition and Causes of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) , Online from http://ergo –
plus.com/musculoskeletal -disorders -msd/
Mohanu, F., How the risk assessment activity is carried out , Online from
http://legislatiamuncii.manager.ro/a/18401/cum -se-desfasoara -activitatea -de-evaluare -a riscurilor.html , April 24,
(2015 ).
Moraru, R., Managementul riscurilor , suport de curs, Uni versitatea din Petroșani, (2017).
Waddell, G., Burton, K. , Is work good for your health and well -being? The Stationery Office Publishing, London, UK.
(2006).