IJCRR - 5(1), January, 2013
Pages: 100-105
AN ERGONOMIC RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CATERING WORKERS
Author: M. Jagannath, Minal V. Shelat, D. Tamilselvi
Category: Healthcare
[Download PDF]
Abstract:
Modern technological society is evolving with highly sophisticated equipments that persist in employing manual worker like Caterers. Catering workers are under increasing pressure to provide their services efficiently to the customers. This stressful situation can be made worse by their physical discomfort caused due to the increased exposure of repeated tasks and nature of the job. The objective of this study is to assess the physical discomforts of catering workers using Psychophysiological study. Twenty six participants involved in this study. The study was based on subjective measure by means of questionnaire using Rehabilitation Bioengineering Group Pain Scale (RBGPS). Results showed that there is a significant difference (p < 0.05) in pain scores of catering workers between the upper and lower body regions. Both men and women workers have significant discomfort in the lower back regions as compared to the upper back. Findings also showed that women workers have high physical discomforts in the regions such as neck, shoulder, upper back and lower extremities when compared to men. The outcome of this study helps the management and ergonomists to improve the workplace design, consequently enhance the quality of life of catering workers.
Keywords: Manual labour, Discomfort, Musculoskeletal disorders, Psychophysiological test.
Citation:
M. Jagannath, Minal V. Shelat, D. Tamilselvi. AN ERGONOMIC RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CATERING WORKERS International Journal of Current Research and Review. 5(1), January, 100-105
References:
1. Diyar A, Ali MA, Kurt A. NEFCLASS based extraction of fuzzy rules and classification of risks of low back disorders. Expert Systems with Applications 2008; 35(4):2107-2112.
2. Changxu W, Yili L. Development and evaluation of an ergonomic software package for predicting multiple-task human performance and mental workload in humanmachine interface design and evaluation. Computers and Industrial Engineering 2009; 56(1):323-333.
3. Andersson GBJ. Epidemiologic aspects on low-back pain in industry. Spine 1981; 6(1):53–60.
4. Chaffin DB, Andersson BJG, Martin BJ. Occupational Biomechanics, 3rd Edition, New York: Wiley Interscience, 1999.
5. Wells R, Norman R, Neumann P, Andrews D, Frank J, Shannon H, Kerr M. Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: common measurement metrics for exposure assessment. Ergonomics 1997; 40(1):51–61.
6. Winkel J, Mathiassen SE. Assessment of physical workload in epidemiologic studies: concepts, issues and operational considerations. Ergonomics 1994; 37(6):979-988.
7. Choi G. A goal programming mixed-model line balancing for processing time and physical workload. Computers and Industrial Engineering 2009; 57(1):395-400.
8. Balasubramanian V, Swami Prasad G, Varadhan SKM. Quantitative evaluation of low back pain in bar benders. NICMAR Journal of Construction Management 2005; 20(4):31–36.
9. Balasubramanian V, Adalarasu K, Regulapati R. Comparing stationary standing with an intermittent walking posture during assembly operations. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 2008, 18(6): 666-677.
10. Pehkonen I, Takala EP, Ketola R, ViikariJuntura E, Leino-Arjas P, Hopsu L, Virtanen T, Haukka E, Holtari-Leino M, Nykyri E, Riihimäki H. Evaluation of a participatory ergonomic intervention process in kitchen work. Applied Ergonomics 2009; 40(1):115- 123.
11. Quiros L. BNL Ergonomics Bulletin, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, 2001, 4.
12. Bernard BP. Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors: A Critical Review of Epidemiologic Evidence for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders of the Neck, Upper Extremity, and Low Back. Department of Health and Human Services, Cincinnati, 1997.
13. Robertson MM, Huang YH, O’Neill MJ, Schleifer LM. Flexible workspace design and ergonomics training: Impacts on the psychosocial work environment, musculoskeletal health, and work effectiveness among knowledge workers. Applied Ergonomics 2008; 39(4):482-494.
|