Ergonomic Risk Assessment of Manual Material Handling in a Soy Products Company

Saint Louis University
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Ergonomic Risk Assessment
I. INTRODUCTION:
Often times, we tend to exert more effort to which our body capacity can withstand. This may lead
to various disorders for the extremities we expose ourselves into. One of which is called musculoskeletal
disorders or MSD. Middlesworth (n.d.) defines such as injuries and disorders that affect the human body’s
movement or musculoskeletal system (i.e. muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, discs, blood vessels, etc.).
Other common names for MSDs are “repetitive motion injury”, “repetitive stress injury”, “overuse injury” and
many more. Certain activities can cause wear and tear on your musculoskeletal system, leading to MSDs.
These include: sitting in the same position at a computer every day, engaging in repetitive motions, lifting
heavy weights, and maintaining poor posture at work (Morrison, 2018).
When a worker is exposed to MSD

risk factors, they begin to fatigue. When
fatigue outruns their body’s recovery
system, they develop a musculoskeletal
imbalance. Over time, as fatigue continues
to outrun recovery and the musculoskeletal
imbalance persists, a musculoskeletal
disorder develops (Middlesworth, n.d.).
These risk factors may be sub classified into
two: ergonomic and individual risk factors.
First up, the workplace itself may

impose some damaging risks to the workers involved especially when he or she was asked to work outside
his body’s capabilities and limitations.
Three primary risk factors related to ergonomics are as follows. First, many work tasks and cycles are
repetitive in nature. A job is considered highly repetitive if the cycle time is 30 seconds or less. Second,
many work tasks requires high force loads on the human body. Muscle effort increases in response to high
force requirements. Third, awkward postures place excessive force on joints and overload the muscles and
tendons around the effected joint. Joints of the body are most efficient when they operate closest to the
mid-range motion of the joint. Other ergonomic risk factors include: vibration, contact stress and cold
temperatures (Middlesworth, n.d.).
On the other hand, individual risk factors are as follows. First, workers who use poor work practices, body
mechanics and lifting techniques are introducing unnecessary risk factors that can contribute to MSDs.
Second, workers who smoke, drink excessively, are obese, or exhibit numerous other poor health habits
are putting themselves at risk for not only musculoskeletal disorders, but also for other chronic diseases
that will shorten their life and health span. Third, MSDs develop when fatigue outruns the workers recovery
system, causing a musculoskeletal imbalance. Fourth, workers who do not take care of their bodies are
49
putting themselves at a higher risk of developing musculoskeletal and chronic health problems
(Middlesworth, 2018).
Page
IE 423AL HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS DESIGN LABORATORY EXPERIMENT NO. 5: MANUAL MATERIAL HANDLING
Exposure to such risk factors can heighten the risk of MSD accumulation. Although, preventive
measures could have been taken to reduce these risks. One activity often associated into posing
musculoskeletal disorders is manual material handling. Manual material handling can be described as work
activities involve moving or handling loads by hand. This includes lifting and lowering, carrying and holding,
and pushing or pulling. Although, Moving very light items (less than 0.5 kg) is not generally considered
material handling unless the task frequency is high (“Manual material handling”, 2017). In order for
prevention to take place, some tips are given below taken from a document entitled “Manual Material
Handling”.
Ergonomic designs can also prevent the occurrence of MSDs. According to Middlesworth (n.d), there are
elements of a best practice MSD prevention process. First is project management. Leading organizations
manage musculoskeletal health. Musculoskeletal health is no different than other organizational initiatives.
It must be well planned and tracked to be successful. Second is ergonomics. A systematic ergonomics
improvement process improves worksite design, removing risk factors that lead to musculoskeletal injuries
and allows for improved human performance and productivity. Third is early intervention. When identified
early enough most musculoskeletal fatigue and discomfort can be addressed through first-aid measures by
an onsite injury prevention specialist. By addressing the root cause of the discomfort, we’re able to prevent
injuries and help you remain compliant. Fourth is musculoskeletal wellness. A healthier workforce means
lower injury risk, less costly injuries, and fewer days away from work. Specialists can help you motivate and
educate workplace athletes to adopt healthier lifestyle habits.
Company Profile
Lourdes Caberto de la Cruz (LCC) Health Soy Product is one of those typical business
establishment that started with a humble beginning. It was the year 1967 in Valezuela, Philippines
that all had begun as a family sole proprietorship company for it is being pass to one generation to
another.
After ten years of being in the business industry, LCC Health Soy Product company allotted
a branch in Baguio City which they claim to have been the first soy products producer in the city. A
very well mindset of Mr. Ventura aiming a place with somehow no competitors yet that could bring
the business in a claim to fame.
The said company of today is a distributor of taho, tofu, soya milk, siomai and balot to those
part time resellers here in Baguio City. They also steadily supply their soy products, taho and soy
milk in particular, to some big names here in Baguio such as Le Chef and Manong Taho.
50
Page

The Subject
Manual material handling is always hazardous, but the level of hazard depends on what is being
handled, what the task is, and what the conditions are at the workplace or work site (CCOHS, 2013). The
primary criteria for choosing the subject for this study was the nature of the work being performed as well
as the duration of doing the job done throughout the day. For this particular study, an establishment that
would have a likelihood of manual material handling hazards being present was chosen for investigation
and evaluation. The establishment chosen is a producer of soya products in Baguio City, with its employee
as the subject. From initial observations, the nature of work being done by the employee involves manual
material handling from straining soya beans to filling up the drum of soya beans with water. Physical
handling of materials is estimated to take up about 80 percent of the duration of the job being done by the
subject.
Problems Observed
During the researcher’s observations as well as their interviews, the researchers found that the
majority of the work being done during the processing of soy beans was manual (about 80%). Although this
is not necessarily a bad thing but considering that there is only one worker, it could put a strain on not only
on the worker’s body but also on his mental state. It was also observed that although light loads were
involved, frequent bending, reaching, and crouching was rampant throughout the process which could have
an impact on the physical health of the worker. These movements can be attributed to the height difference
of the equipment and tools used with respect to the height of the worker.
Objective
The researchers aim to identify particular positions and actions that are being done by the worker
which are negatively affecting him and provide possible solution to not only reduce the risk of
musculoskeletal diseases but also make his work easier and more comfortable.
Scope and Limitations
There are numerous phases in the production of soy products and vary from one another but there
are three phases in which they have in common namely, grinding, boiling, and straining. This study covers
only the first and most important phase in the production which is the grinding and cooking of soybeans.
The study will look at several aspects in this process such as how materials are handled, what equipment
are being used, and how the worker accomplishes his tasks. 51
Page
II. EQUIPMENT/ INSTRUMENTS/ MATERIALS NEEDED
In order for the researchers to gather data effectively, they will be in need of a few items to aid them
in their endeavor. The first item or equipment that the researchers will need would be a camera which will
be used to document the process of soy bean processing. The video which will be produced will serves as
a convenient basis or reference for the researchers to come back to during the analysis of their data. This
will also help reduce the need for the researchers to visit the establishment constantly.
Another material that the researchers will need to make use of would be the RULA and REBA
assessment. According to McAtamney, L., RULA is a screening tool that assesses biomechanical and
postural loading on the whole body with particular attention to the neck, trunk and upper limbs. On the other
hand, REBA is an ergonomic assessment tool that uses systematic process to evaluate the whole-body
postural MSD and risks associated with job tasks. These two assessment tools will be used by the
researchers to evaluate the posture of the worker during his workload in order to evaluate his level of
musculoskeletal disease.
III. PROCEDURES/ METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Manual materials handling (MMH) involves moving or handling materials by lifting, lowering,
pushing, pulling, carrying, holding, or any other physical force. MMH is also the most common cause of
occupational fatigue, low back pain and lower back injuries (CCOHS, 2013). Manual Material Handling
poses several risks to employees. Strains and sprains are commonly reported by employees who perform
manual handling tasks. Backs, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, necks: they are all body parts threatened
by manual handling tasks. The contributing factors for these risks vary, but include the weight, size, shape
and stability of the object; frequency and distance of the move; and the body mechanics and overall health
of the employee. Understanding the risk factors in a workplace from manual handling tasks is the first step
in controlling these injuries (“Manual Material Handling”, 2019). This part of the paper identifies the research
methods to be used in conducting the study. Here, it is indicated what research instruments are to be used,
how the data gathering process will take place, and how the gathered data will be processed, all in aspect
that greatly considers Manual Material Handling for the chosen establishment
52
Page
The Research Instruments
For the majority of the study, observations and interviews will mostly be utilized. These said
observations will be conducted within the establishment’s premises. A series of survey questionnaires for
initial assessment of the subject will be of use. These include the Proposed OSHA Signal Risk Factors
Form to asses risks factors that may be needed to be addressed in this study, A Symptoms Survey that
was derived from the working draft of the OSHA’s proposed Ergonomics Protection Standard to evaluate
the worker’s side when it comes to symptoms he is feeling during work, A Lifting/Manual Material Handling
Checklist to evaluate the lifting that is involved during the work period and A Checklist for Upper Extremities
Cumulative Trauma Disorders that examines the Upper Extremity symptoms experienced by the worker.
Assessment/Evaluation tools will be utilized as well in this study. These include the Rapid Upper Limb
Assessment tool as well as the Rapid Entire Body Assessment tool that will be used to evaluate the
exposure of individual workers to ergonomic risk factors associated with upper extremity MSD and to
evaluate whole body postural MSD respectively. These instruments will be used mainly for analysis that
will provide guidance for the researchers in determining the appropriate recommendation/s for the
establishment.
Data Gathering Procedure
Initially, the researchers will conduct surveys using the series of questionnaires aforementioned in
the research instruments section of this chapter. After which follow up visits will be done to confirm the
answers that was entered into each of the questionnaire by way of asking the worker as well as observing
the worker during operating hours. As for the RULA and REBA, prudent observations are necessary. The
observations will be done as the worker is performing the different tasks. As these tasks are ongoing, the
researchers will be making necessary measurements in order to assign scores to each of the positions of
the body parts in focus. After which, prior analysis will be done in order to comprehend current situation of
the worker in terms of manual material handling risks.
Evaluation Procedure for RULA and REBA.
RULA – Rapid Upper Body Assessment
RULA was developed to evaluate the exposure of individual workers to ergonomic risk factors associated
with upper extremity MSD. The RULA ergonomic assessment tool considers biomechanical and postural
load requirements of job tasks/demands on the neck, trunk and upper extremities. A single page worksheet
is used to evaluate required body posture, force, and repetition. Based on the evaluations, scores are
entered for each body region in section A for the arm and wrist, and section B for the neck and trunk. After
the data for each region is collected and scored, tables on the form are then used to compile the risk factor
variables, generating a single score that represents the level of MSD risk.
53
Page

The RULA was designed for easy use without need for an advanced degree in ergonomics or expensive
equipment. Using the RULA worksheet, the evaluator will assign a score for each of the following body
regions: upper arm, lower arm, wrist, neck, trunk, and legs. After the data for each region is collected and
scored, tables on the form are then used to compile the risk factor variables, generating a single score that
represents the level of MSD risk as outlined below:
The RULA worksheet is divided into two body segment sections on the labeled A and B. Section A (left
side) covers the arm and wrist. Section B (right side) covers the neck, trunk and legs. This segmenting of
the worksheet ensures that any awkward or constrained postures of the neck, trunk or legs which might
influence the postures of the arms and wrist are included in the assessment.
The evaluator scores Group A (Arm & Wrist) postures first, then score Group B (Neck, Trunk & Legs)
postures for left and right. For each region, there is a posture scoring scale and additional adjustments
outlined on the worksheet which need to be considered and accounted for in the score. After which, the
evaluator then makes necessary
additions according to other
observations as required by the
worksheet and gets a single score
afterwards that is then categorized
through the range of scores specified
and the level of MSD risk associated
with the score. These additions would
be based on criteria that is indicated
in the worksheet itself.
REBA – Rapid Entire Body Assessment

This ergonomic assessment tool uses a systematic process to evaluate whole body postural MSD and risks
associated with job tasks. A single page worksheet is used to evaluate required or selected body posture,
forceful exertions, type of movement or action, repetition, and coupling.
The REBA was designed for easy use without need for an advanced degree in ergonomics or expensive
equipment. You only need the worksheet and a pen. On second thought, you probably should finish reading
and studying this guide, and I suppose a clipboard would help as well. Using the REBA worksheet, the
evaluator will assign a score for each of the following body regions: wrists, forearms, elbows, shoulders,
54
neck, trunk, back, legs and knees. After the data for each region is collected and scored, tables on the form
Page

are then used to compile the risk factor variables, generating a single score that represents the level of
MSD risk:
The REBA worksheet is divided into two body segment sections on the labeled A and B. Section A (left
side) covers the neck, trunk, and leg. Section B (right side) covers the arm and wrist. This segmenting of
the worksheet ensures that any awkward or constrained postures of the neck, trunk or legs which might
influence the postures of the arms and wrist are included in the assessment.
The evaluator scores Group A (Trunk, Neck and Legs) postures first, then score Group B (Upper Arms,
Lower Arms, and Wrists) postures for left and right. For each region, there is a posture scoring scale and
additional adjustments which need to be considered and accounted for in the score. After which, the
evaluator then makes necessary additions according to other observations as required by the worksheet
and gets a single score afterwards that is then categorized through the range of scores specified and the
level of MSD risk associated with the score. These additions would be based on criteria that is indicated in
the worksheet itself.
IV. DATA AND RESULTS ANALYSIS
Since the family has been in this business since 1967, the researchers assumed that most of their
processes have been refined and improved on throughout their years of working. To verify this, the
researchers made use of a man and machine chart to analyze what and how work is being done by the
worker during the process of grinding soy beans. This phase of production was chosen since it is the one
that least involves waiting and also would require the most intensive material handling.
Through the analysis of the man and machine chart it was discovered that, most of the idle time
in the current method involve waiting for more soybean paste to be produced. For the majority, the operator
55
would either tend to vat temperature by crouching down and adding coconut husks to the fire, adding
soybeans to the grinder, transferring soybean paste to the vat and mixing them in with the water, as well
Page
as cleaning his workplace in between. Although they have been doing this for the longest time, some bad

habits have been observed in their current process. Referring to the Ergonomic Hit List provided by
Humantech, the following were observed during the workers process:
Shoulder Too High or Too Low
During the researcher’s observations, the first thing that they noticed
was that some of the major tasks involve either bending down or
reaching up. Due to the limited space of the facility containers are
short relative to the worker. When trying to scoop soybean’s as well
as soy bean paste, bending become more and more prevalent as the
soy beans get more and more harder to reach. Keep in mind that the
processing of soybeans alone takes about 4 hours (for 30 kg of soy
beans) and that 30% of that time is used in transferring soy bean and
or soy bean paste. Although the load is not heavy and the position is
not sustained for a long time, the motion performed is repetitive thus
putting more strain to the back as well as the shoulders.
Hungry Head
Another unavoidable constant in their process is the crouching

and the tilting of the head down when maintaining the fire used for
heating the vat. Since 80% of their work is done manually, maintaining
the fire would require the worker to get coconut shells and throw it into
the fire place. Take note that the fire place is relatively deep
(horizontally) and would require a significant amount of force to throw
the coconut shells into the fire place. When the worker is not satisfied
with the distribution of the coconut shells inside the fire place, he uses
a short stick to poke and push the coconut shells further. This action
would require the worker to bend down even more in order to effectively
distribute the coconut shells. Again, this does not seem much of an
issue since the load (coconut shells) are light but like the soy beans, the
work is repetitive. It was observed that in about a span of 30 minutes,
the worker does these 7 times where the duration varies depending on
how hot the fire needs to be.
After the observations of the process and identifying which parts

needed more attention, the researchers used RULA and REBA to assess how
much these postures or positions really affected the workers body.
The researchers chose the most frequent position assumed by the

worker for assessment which is his position assumed when scooping soybeans.
The researchers also chose this position since bending and reaching down is
prevalent. Coconut
56
Page

The score obtained from both RULA and REBA was 7 which requires the researchers to investigate
and implement changes to the position observed. As mentioned before, the relatively short equipment used
lead to repeated bending and reaching down. Referring to the symptom survey answered by the worker,
his shoulder pain could be attributed to him reaching and lifting soy beans with one hand. A possible solution
could be finding a way to lift the containers or items higher off the ground to reduce this posture.
The second posture that was assessed using RULA was the
position assumed when maintaining the flame of the vat for reasons
mentioned previously. The researchers got a RULA score of 7 which
again, requires the researchers to investigate and implement changes
to the position observed. Since the location of the heating element is
very low the posture assumed is almost unavoidable and the forceful
throwing of the coconut shells could also be a cause of the worker’s
shoulder pain due to the force and awkward nature of the position. A
possible solution that is currently being explored by the company is the
possibility of implementing a gas heating element or a fully automated
processing unit in order to elevate not only this particular process but
also most of the work being done by them.
57
Page
V. CONCLUSION
As mentioned from the earlier section of this paper, during the observations as well as the
interviews, it was found out that the majority of the work being done during the processing of soy beans
was manual for 80 percent of the overall procedure. It was therefore concluded that it could put a strain on
not only on the worker’s body but also on his mental state. It was also observed that although light loads
were involved, frequent bending, reaching, and crouching was rampant throughout the process which could
have an impact on the physical health of the worker. These movements can be attributed to the height
difference of the equipment and tools used with respect to the height of the worker.
To address the problem, the research team identified particular positions and actions that are being
done by the worker which are negatively affecting him and provided possible solutions to not only reduce
the risk of musculoskeletal diseases but also make his work easier and more comfortable. Mainly, the most
identified position that was frequently made during the main process was to bend in order to scoop, strain
and transfer soya beans from the container to the grinder. A significant amount of pressure is put into the
lower back when bending down. Not only that, but the shoulder position during the execution of this
movement is irregular and would therefore put pressure and strain onto the shoulders. It also cannot go
unnoticed that the worker twists his body in lowering or lifting movements which could possibly cause
complications in his lower back. Through the use of evaluation tools such as the RULA and REBA, the
research team evaluated the aforementioned positions to rate the possible cause of risk and recommend
different interventions to reduce then risk of musculoskeletal related problems. These recommendations
came in the form of introducing a machine for automation, a tool or equipment for elimination of movements
that are harmful to the body and a manual procedure that was based on lifting rules or principles.
The machine was introduced as an intervention from the automation perspective because of almost
all of the harmful bodily movements being eliminated. This is made possible since the machine has the
ability to carry out the whole operation by itself. The only movement that is retained from the initial procedure
was the loading of the soya beans onto the machine which is only required in the start of the operation.
The adjustable pallet stand is an option to take if the establishment is reluctant to purchase the new
equipment since their original machines and equipment are fixed onto the facility. The adjustable pallet
stand allows the worker to scoop, strain and transfer soya beans onto the grinder with the lowering and
lifting movement being eliminated. This is made possible because of the adjustable height of the pallet
stand. It serves a vertically adjustable platform from which the soya drum can be placed for it to be lifted
and lowered as the operation is done, thus, eliminating the bending movement when lowering and lifting.
Lastly, when the unavailability of an adjustable pallet stand is highly likely due to rarity of the product
in the city of Baguio, the researchers have recommended a set of standard procedure for the straining and
scooping action to reduce the hazardous effects of lifting and lowering movement throughout the operation.
This entails a comprehensive, step-by-step procedure that incorporates lifting rules and principles to ensure
that the worker is as safe as he can be when executing the straining and scooping of the soya beans.
58
Page
VI. RECOMMENDATION
A. Automation
The first recommendation entails the use of the twin grinder, okara separator, and cooking machine
model F1602TA which does all the work from grinding to the cooking of soybeans. The only work to be
done by the worker is the preparation of the machine and the loading of soybeans. This model will be able
to process 60 kg of soybeans in about an hour. Pricing for this machine may need some quotations from
the manufacturers through direct communication on the establishment’s part.
Other features include:
 Double Grinding & Separating design increase 10% production capacity.

 Elimination device of soy milk foam with patent design, make tofu do not need to add de-foamer.
 Soy milk concentration adjustable could improve the product's quality control.
 HMI, mechanical press-key, settable program parameter are easy to operator.
 Highly efficient grinding and separating make low moisture of okara, moving okara easily and cost
down.
 Compare with cooked soy milk system which cook first then separate. This saves more of power
being consumed and has less cost.
 Functional machine with small size, high production, easy to operator, install and clean.
 According to CE standard.
 Automatic operator.
 Automatic temperature control, time control, mixer and soy milk delivery
 Eliminates soy milk foam without the need of de-foamer
With the minimum demand being 30 kg of

soybeans, the machine will be able to accomplish all
the tasks in about 30 minutes. When comparing the
alternative with the current method, in the span of
time it takes for the twin grinder, okara separator,
and cooking machine to fully process the soybeans
(grinding to next step in processing the soy milk or
turn his cooking and separating), the currently
owned grinder is just about to finish grinding the
soybeans. This is a very big step up from the 4 to 5
hours it takes to fully process the soybeans in the
current state. The excess time the operator now has
can be use in preparing for the attention to their
other businesses.
This machine eliminates various manual actions

59
carried out such as the loading of soya bean paste from one machine to another for a specific operation as
well as other material transferring operations that involve the worker transferring the materials from one
Page

machine to another during the whole operation of producing soya products. As mentioned earlier, the only
work to be done by the worker is the preparation of the machine and the loading of soybeans.
The downside of this is that the machine is potentially a big investment due to the automation that
has been put into the machine. Although the price is to be verified by their agent, transporting the machine
from Taiwan into the Philippines alone would add to the actual price (shipping fee and other related
expenses). Hence, for the next recommendation, the researchers propose to incorporate a manually
operated equipment that may eliminate the need for the worker to bend down when performing tasks.
An option for that can be undertaken with incorporating an adjustable pallet stand. This stand would
be used to lift the soya bean drum to working height. It has a capacity of 5000 lbs. Thick plywood or steel
plates can serve as the platforms simply by placing on top of the pallet stand on which the base of the drum
can stand on. Adjustable Height Pallet Stand is designed to manually adjust to three different ergonomic
working heights. Unit includes a three-position manual adjusting bar with spring assist to help raise and
lower the deck. The Pallet Stand must be empty when adjusting the height. Unit is welded steel construction
and painted blue. The optional bolt on manual carousel, suffix CA, is 40″ in diameter by 2″ tall and rotates
360°. The caster feature, suffix CK, consists of 6″ x 2″ glass-filled (2) rigid and (2) swivel casters with brake.
From searchers made, the price ranges from 31,983.26 Php to 40,057.21 Php depending on the condition.
Grinder
Adjustable Height Pallet

Stand
From adding an Adjustable Height Pallet to carry the drum to a height that is comfortable to the
worker and allows him not to bend down to strain soya beans, the vertical distance is minimized as the
worker takes the strainer to the grinder. If the drum is elevated, that would mean that there would be no
need for the worker to get to a posture compromising posture in crouch position. This also allows the
worker to mainly move in a horizontal motion when carrying the strainer to the grinder and getting the
soya beans over to the grinder’s feed.
To set this up, the worker will be preparing the pallet stand to a place close to the grinder. This
would allow minimal distance travelled during the straining and loading process. The worker then places
the drum on top of it. If the drum’s circumference is small than that of the pallet stand’s base, then the
worker shall place a platform on top of it first before placing the drum on the pallet stand. The drum is
then filled with soya beans and water for the straining process to be done. After the filling up of the drum,
60
the pallet stand is then adjusted by the worker for him to determine the height most suitable for him.
Page
B. Manual Procedures
As per observation, most of the manual operations that are carried out by the worker involves him
bending down with an arching back and going back up to raise the strained soya beans up into the grinder.
This compromises the worker’s postures and pose a very high risk of injuries throughout the body especially
the low back. Because of this, the researchers suggest a series of steps to be undertaken when doing such
movements in order to minimize the risks associated with those movements.
Standard Operating Procedures for bending down in straining soya beans:
1. Stand as close to the soya bean drum as possible.
2. Position the body in such a way that the soya bean drum is directly in
front of the worker. This is to avoid twisting as the movement is executed.
3. Move the feet shoulder width apart for a wide base support. Refer to
Figure 1.
4. Bend the knees and waist when going down to a lower position to
strain soya beans. Make sure to keep the trunk up so that the back is
straight. Refer to figure 2.
5. Avoid twisting as the downward movement is performed when

lowering the body. Refer to figure 6.
6. When scooping up the soya beans, make sure to use both hands Fig 1. Starting Position
throughout the movement. If not possible due to handle length being too
short, make sure to alternate the use of each arm when carrying the
strainer full of soya beans. Refer to figure 3.
7. After scooping up soya beans and straining them, lift with the legs
whilst gradually straightening the knees and hips into a standing position.
Refer to figure 4 and 5.
8. Avoid twisting while performing the upward movement when standing

up. Refer to figure 7.
61
Fig 2. Going Down to Scoop

Page
Fig 3. Scooping Soya Beans Fig 4. Going up after scooping Fig 5. Initial Position (After scooping)
Fig 6. Twisting (Going down) Fig 7. Twisting (Going Up)

62
Page
VII. REFERENCES: APA
 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health. (2019, March 11). (none). Retrieved from
https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/mmh/mmhintro.html
 Humantech. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://quizlet.com/119569707/humantech-flash-cards/
 Manual Material Handling. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://safemt.com/safety-issues/lifting/manual-
material-handling/
 McAtamney, L., & Corlette, N. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.rula.co.uk/brief.html
 Middlesworth, M., & Middlesworth, M. M. (2018, July 23). A Step-by-Step Guide to the REBA
Assessment Tool. Retrieved from https://ergo-plus.com/reba-assessment-tool-guide/
 Middlesworth, M., Middlesworth, M. M., Matt, & Prevention School. (2015, May 15). The Definition
and Causes of Musculoskeletal Disorders. Retrieved from https://ergo-plus.com/musculoskeletal-
disorders-msd/
 Middlesworth, M., Middlesworth, M. M., Matt, & Prevention School. (2017, February 03).
Musculoskeletal Disorder Prevention Best Practices for Proactive OHS Pros. Retrieved from
https://ergo-plus.com/musculoskeletal-disorder-prevention-best-practices-proactive-ohs-pros/
 Morrison, W. (2018, March 21). Musculoskeletal Disorders. Retrieved from
https://www.healthline.com/health/musculoskeletal-disorders
 The Ergonomics Hit List in Spanish. (2013, September 18). Retrieved from
https://www.humantech.com/the-ergonomics-hit-list-in-spanish/
 Corporation, R. O. (n.d.). Twin Grinding & Okara Separating Machine. Retrieved from
https://www.yslfood.com/en/product/twin_grinding_separating_machine.html
63
Page
Appendix A
64
Page
Appendix B
65
Page
Appendix C
66
Page

Ergonomic Risk Assessment of Manual Material Handling in a Soy Products Company

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ergonomic Risk Assessment of Manual Material Handling in a Soy Products Company

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Louis University

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

When a worker is exposed to MSD

First up, the workplace itself may

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Scope and Limitations

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

II. EQUIPMENT/ INSTRUMENTS/ MATERIALS NEEDED

III. PROCEDURES/ METHODOLOGY

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

The Research Instruments

Data Gathering Procedure

Evaluation Procedure for RULA and REBA.

RULA – Rapid Upper Body Assessment

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

REBA – Rapid Entire Body Assessment

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

IV. DATA AND RESULTS ANALYSIS

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Shoulder Too High or Too Low

Another unavoidable constant in their process is the crouching

After the observations of the process and identifying which parts

The researchers chose the most frequent position assumed by the

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Other features include:

 Double Grinding & Separating design increase 10% production capacity.

With the minimum demand being 30 kg of

This machine eliminates various manual actions

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Adjustable Height Pallet

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Standard Operating Procedures for bending down in straining soya beans:

1. Stand as close to the soya bean drum as possible.

5. Avoid twisting as the downward movement is performed when

8. Avoid twisting while performing the upward movement when standing

Fig 2. Going Down to Scoop

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Fig 6. Twisting (Going down) Fig 7. Twisting (Going Up)

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

VII. REFERENCES: APA

 Humantech. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://quizlet.com/119569707/humantech-flash-cards/

 Manual Material Handling. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://safemt.com/safety-issues/lifting/manual-

 McAtamney, L., & Corlette, N. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.rula.co.uk/brief.html

Assessment Tool. Retrieved from https://ergo-plus.com/reba-assessment-tool-guide/

and Causes of Musculoskeletal Disorders. Retrieved from https://ergo-plus.com/musculoskeletal-

 Morrison, W. (2018, March 21). Musculoskeletal Disorders. Retrieved from

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

Ergonomic Risk Assessment

You might also like