1, 105111
physical ergonomics
1. INTRODUCTION
Industrial musculoskeletal injury (MSI) prevention
initiatives require risk assessment tools which
accurately identify jobs at increased risk for injury.
Accurate identification of at risk jobs requires a
model of MSI causation which considers relevant
physical exposures in an integrated framework
which assigns the correct relative role to those
exposures. Ergonomic risk assessments are based
on integrated models of MSI causation which
account for the role of physical exposures in the
precipitation of MSIs. Descriptions of several
ergonomic risk assessments have been published
and many of the methods have demonstrated
predictive validity [1, 2]. Consensus among
the authors of the risk assessments as to which
exposures should be considered and the relative
job analysis
The authors acknowledge the assistance of Edgar Vieira in the completion of data collection.
Funding for this study was provided by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.
Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to Shrawan Kumar, Physical Medicine Institute, University of North Texas
Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA. E-mail: <skumar@hsc.unt.edu>.
2. METHODS
2.2.2. Exertion
In some cases the ergonomic risk assessments
examined allow exertion to be defined either
by psychophysical or quantitative methods
(Borg Cr-10 or percentage of maximum
voluntary contraction) [14]. In this study both
psychophysical and quantitative measures of
exertion were used to calculate the ACGIH
TLV, SI, and OCRA methods to examine
agreement within and across methods. The risk
level distributions of the SI when calculated
107
Level 1
Level 2
RULA
1, 2
36
REBA
27
815
SI
03
3.17.0
>7.1
OCRA (%MVC)
<.75
>.754.0
>4.0
OCRA (Borg)
<.75
>.754.0
>4.0
Level 3
3. RESULTS
2.4. Statistical Analysis
109
RULA
REBA
RULA
100 (66)
13 (3)
REBA
100 (66)
14 (3)
SI
OCRA
(%MVC)
OCRA
(Borg)
72 (44)
99 (98)
98 (61)
98 (83)
72 (33)
99 (67)
98 (44)
98 (52)
13 (3)
14 (3)
14 (36)
14 (5)
14 (8)
14 (7)
72 (44)
72 (33)
14 (36)
72 (45)
71 (54)
72 (48)
SI
99 (98)
99 (67)
14 (5)
72 (45)
97 (61)
97 (83)
OCRA (%MVC)
98 (61)
98 (44)
14 (8)
71 (54)
97 (61)
98 (69)
OCRA (Borg)
98 (83)
98 (52)
14 (7)
72 (48)
97 (83)
98 (69)
SI
OCRA
(%MVC)
OCRA
(Borg)
4786
(2055)
97100
(93100)
93100
(2783)1
93100
(6093)1
038
(010)
4786
(2148)
97100
(14100)
93100
(2062)1
93100
(1483)1
038
(010)
038
(2153)
038
(010)
038
(014)
038
(014)
47861
(2055)1
47861
(2148)1
038
(2153)1
47861
(2059)1
47861
(2071)1
47861
(2759)1
SI
97100
(93100)
97100
(14100)
038
(010)
4786
(2059)
93100
(2783)1
93100
(6093)1
OCRA (%MVC)
93100
(2783)1
93100
(2062)1
038
(014)
4786
(2071)
93100
(2783)1
93100
(5083)1
OCRA (Borg)
93100
(6093)1
93100
(1483)1
038
(014)
4786
(2759)
93100
(6093)1
93100
(5083)1
RULA
REBA
RULA
100
(14100)
038
(010)
REBA
100
(14100)
038
(010)
4. DISCUSSION
The results of this study confirm that the risk
output of each method depends on the exposures
considered (e.g., exertion, posture, repetition) and
RULA
0 (0)
1 (1)
86 (99)
REBA
0 (0)
31(36)
56 (64)
75 (86)
9 (10)
3 (3)
24 (28)
24 (28)
39 (45)
SI
1 (1)
2 (2)
84 (97)
OCRA (%MVC)
2 (2)
33 (38)
52 (60)
OCRA (Borg)
2 (2)
12 (14)
73 (84)
Notes. RULArapid upper limb assessment [7], REBArapid entire body assessment [8], ACGIH TLV
quantitative American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold limit value for mono-task
hand work [9], %MVCpercentage of maximum voluntary contraction, BorgBorg Cr-10 scale [14], SIstrain
index [1], OCRAconcise exposure index [2, 10].
5. CONCLUSION
This study has demonstrated the limited
agreement between published ergonomic risk
assessment methods used to assess four at risk
sawmill jobs. Considerable variation in the ability
to identify at risk jobs as at risk was identified
between methods. Variation in agreement present
when the jobs were considered individually
indicates the appropriateness of the methods may
be affected by the exposure profile of the job.
REFERENCES
1. Moore JS, Garg A. Participatory ergono
mics in a red meat packing plant. Part II:
case studies. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1997;
58(7):498508.
2. Grieco A. Application of the concise
exposure index (OCRA) to tasks involving
repetitive movements of the upper limbs
in a variety of manufacturing industries:
preliminary validations. Ergonomics. 1998;
41(9):134756.
3. Lowe BD. Accuracy and validity of
observational estimates of wrist and forearm
posture. Ergonomics. 2004;47(5):52754.
4. Marshall MM, Armstrong TJ. Observational
assessment of forceful exertion and the
perceived force demands of daily activities.
J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(4):28194.
111