Occupational Health and Safety

LECTURE 8 – Ergonomic Risk Factors

INSTRUCTOR: ASST. PROF. DR. SEVKET C. BOSTANCI

1
 TOP FIVE WORKPLACE HAZARD TYPES
Most common types of hazards at workplace;
• Chemicals
• Fires
• Repetetive motion (ergonomic hazard)
• Electricity
• Fall related injury
Ergonomic risk factors are the aspects of a job or task that impose a biomechanical
stress on the worker.

Ergonomic risk factors and MSD (musculoskeletal disorder) hazard is correlated.

2
 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS

• Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are

injuries or pain in the human
musculoskeletal system including the
joints, ligaments, muscles, nerves, tendons
and structures that support limbs, neck
and back.

3
 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS
• OSHA discusses the large body of evidence
supporting the finding that exposure to ergonomic
risk factors in the workplace can cause or
contribute to the risk of developing an MSD.

• This evidence includes thousands of

epidemiological studies, laboratory studies, and
extensive reviews of the existing scientific evidence
by NIOSH and the National Academy of Science.

4
 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS
• The list of ergonomic risk factor that are most likely to cause an MSD is;
• Awkward postures
• Forceful exertions Highest contributors to MSD.
(Single or combined exposure)
• Repetition
• Cold temperatures
• Contact stress
• Static postures
• Vibration

5
 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS
• For example, using the hand or knee as a hammer (operating a punch press or using
the knee to stretch carpet during installation) alone may expose the employee to such
a degree of physical stress that the employee has a significant risk of being harmed.

• Duration, frequency and/or magnitude of exposure affects the likelihood of MSD

occurance. Also nature of exposure is crucial in determining magnitude. Is the worker
exposed to only one risk factor (single exposure) or more than one (ocmbined
exposure)?

• The job hazard analysis and control process should include identification of all the
ergonomic risk factors that may be present in a job.

6
 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS
• OSHA prepared a very preliminary guidence in identifying several physical aspects of
jobs & workplaces and related physical activities and conditions as indicated by the
table next page.

• Yet this table is just a starting point, therefore; it should be modified and enriched by
the company itself according to the unique activities at jobsite;

7
 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS
Table 1: Ergonomic risk factors vs activities by OSHA

Physical aspects of jobs and Examples of physical work activities and

workstations conditions associated with the physical aspect
Exerting considerable physical effort to complete a motion
Doing the same motion over and over again
Performing motions constantly without short pauses or breaks in between
Maintaining same position or posture while performing tasks
Physical demands of work Sitting for a long time
Using hand as a hammer
Using hands or body as a clamp to hold object while performing tasks
Objects or people are moved significant distances
Performing tasks that involve long reaches
Working surfaces too high or too low
Vibrating working surfaces, machinery or vehicles
Layout and condition of the workplace or Workstation edges or objects press hard into muscles or tendons
workstation Horizontal reach is long
Vertical reach is below knees or above the shoulders
Floor surfaces are uneven, slippery or sloped

Using hand and power tools

Gloves bulky, too large or too small
Characteristics of the object(s) handled Objects or people moved are heavy
Object is slippery or has no handles

Environmental Conditions Cold temperatures 8

 POSTURE
• Posture is an interface between the job we are required to do and the tools we have
to complete the task.

• Individuals often do not have a natural sense of what constitutes good posture.
Good posture requires education as to how to complete these tasks using the tools
appropriately.

• The unfamiliar, which may have a much lower biomechanical loading, will often be
rejected as good posture because it feels different and there is a low
neurophysiological adaptation to this new posture.

9
 POSTURE

• People may be provided with excellent equipment but may set it up in ways
that increase their joint loading based on a mistaken view of what
constitutes good posture.

• The key point is education in a practical environment through steps indicated

below;

1. Trial of the posture

2. Familiarization to the posture
3. Adaptation period
10
 GOOD POSTURE

Good posture should involve:

• minimum joint strain or biomechanical

loading
• economy of energy – minimal muscular
loading
• avoidance of prolonged, repetitive or
awkward movements.

11
 POSTURE – SITTING POSTURE

• People are increasingly spending more and more time sitting – for work, for travel
and for relaxation.

• Sitting fundamentally changes the posture.

• It changes the natural spinal curve from a three-curve structure to a single curve,
which profoundly alters the biomechanical forces and physiological homeostasis
(=the tendency towards a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent
elements) of the spine.

12
 POSTURE – SITTING POSTURE
• Effects of sitting posture on body;
➢Circulation: reduced muscle pump effect of circulation, particularly venous return from
the lower limbs.

➢Digestion: increased abdominal pressure, can increase incidence of reflux, constipation

and carcinoma.

➢Respiration: increased thoracic cavity pressure can affect quality of breathing and
oxygenation.

➢Physical inactivity: can be regarded as a risk factor for obesity, osteoporosis and
arteriosclerosis.

13
 POSTURE – SITTING POSTURE

• It is possible to sit and fulfil good biomechanical requirements for task work and to
maintain the joints in their natural comfort zones by maintaining good posture.

14
 POSTURE – SITTING POSTURE
• Body joint’s comfort zones while sitting at work;
• spine and pelvis – 110–130 degrees
• lumbar spine – retain some natural lordosis (=inward curvature of the spine)
• thoracic spine – a slight kyphosis (=outward curvature of the spine)
• head and neck – erect and close to the centre of gravity
• visual angle – 10–30 degrees below horizontal
• shoulders – relaxed in line with the trunk
• elbows – 90–100 degrees
• wrists – straight with wrists extended up to 20 degrees and forearms supported where possible
• knees – 60–120 degrees
• feet – flat on the floor or on footrest
❖The aim is to provide good spine and pelvis posture while still being able to easily access
work tools and maintain good visual angles and distance

15
 FORCE
• The forces applied to the joint structures can be an important determinant of the risk of
injury.

• If the force exerted exceeds the tolerance of the tissues, injury results.

• The force is determined by a number of possible components including the load, the
distance, the joint position required and the activity involved.

• Repetitive forces tend to reduce the tolerance of most tissues such as tendons, muscles
and etc.

16
 FORCE LOAD
• The weight of the load is a significant
determining factor for the risk of injury.

• The size, shape and position of the load will

also determine how easy it is to lift or how
much the posture needs to be compromised
to affect the activity.

17
 FORCE - LOAD
• When attempting a musculoskeletal (MS)
load, a person generally has an expectation
of the force required and their MS system
prepares for the expected loading.

• If the load differs from expectations, for

instance, if the weight of a lift has been
underestimated or a step has not been
noticed, this dramatically increases the MS
forces generated and the risk of injury.

18
 FORCE – DISTANCE

• Lifting a heavy object close to the body can be

relatively straightforward, but place the same
load at a distance from the body and it can
become a very high-risk activity.

• It has been estimated that a load is 12 times

greater when lifted at a distance from the body
than when the load is kept close to the body and
the trunk remains upright.

19
 FORCE – DISTANCE
• For example;
Using a well-sited computer mouse with forearm support can produce a relatively low MS
load, however; placing the mouse at an awkward height or distance, without forearm
support, dramatically modifies the degree of load on the forearm, shoulder and neck.

• The load on the MS tissues includes the weight of the part of the body extended to the
object plus the magnifier of the distance involved.

20
 FORCE – CUMULATIVE EFFECT
• Armstrong et al (1987) declares that the combination of high force and high repetition
had a remarkable increase in the risk of injury.

• NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in US) also shows evidence
of increasing risk when multiple ergonomic risk factors are present. (Search for Evidence
for causal relationship between physical work factors and MSDs by NIOSH for detailed
information).

• As a result identification and reduction of risk factors may have a remarkable benefit by
reversing or reducing the increased risk value.

21
 FORCE – NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION

• The NIOSH Lifting Equation is a tool used by occupational health and safety
professionals to assess the manual material handling risks associated with lifting and
lowering tasks in the workplace. (safe lifting)

• The primary product of the NIOSH lifting equation is the Recommended Weight
Limit (RWL), which defines the maximum acceptable weight (load) that nearly all
healthy employees could lift over the course of an 8 hour shift without increasing the
risk of MSD to the lower back.

• Recommended Weight Limit (RWL): Answers the question… “Is this weight too heavy
for the task?”
22
 FORCE – NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION
• Also a Lifting Index (LI) is calculated to provide a relative estimate of the level of
physical stress and MSD risk associated with the manual lifting tasks evaluated.
• Lifting Index (LI): Answers the question… “How significant is the risk?”

• LI ≤ 1.0 Nominal risk LI ≥ 1.0 High risk

(23)

• LC represents the maximum recommended load weight to be lifted under ideal

conditions (23 kg).

23
 FORCE – NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION
(23)

• HM, the Horizontal Multiplier factor:

H= Horizontal distance (cm) HM Factor
25 or less 1.00
30 0.83
40 0.63
50 0.50
60 0.42

• Vertical Multipler (VM): The vertical distance (V, in cm) of the hands from the ground
at the start of the lift. V=Starting heignt (cm) VM Factor
0 0.78
30 0.87
50 0.93
70 0.99
100 0.93
150 0.78
175 0.70
>175 0.00

24
 FORCE – NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION
(23)

• Distance Multiplier (DM): The vertical distance (D, in cm) that the load travels.
D=Lifting distance (cm) DM Factor
25 or less 1.00
40 0.93
55 0.90
100 0.87
145 0.85
175 0.85
>175 0.00

• Asymmetric Multiplier (AM): The twisting angle (A) of the body while lifting,
measured in degrees.
A= Angle (degrees) AM Factor
90 0.71
60 0.81
45 0.86
30 0.90
0 1.00

25
 FORCE – NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION
(23)

• Frequency Multiplier (FM): The frequency (F) of lifts and the duration of lifting
(in minutes or seconds) over a workshift.
FM Factor
F= Time between lifts Lifting while standing Lifting while stooping
1 hour or less over 1 hour 1 hour or less over 1 hour
5 min 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
1 min 0.94 0.75 0.94 0.75
30 sec 0.91 0.65 0.91 0.65
15 sec 0.84 0.45 0.84 0.45
10 sec 0.75 0.27 0.75 0.27
6 sec 0.45 0.13 0.45 -
5 sec 0.37 - 0.37 -

26
 FORCE – NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION
(23)

• Coupling Multiplier (CM): The quality of grasp (or coupling, C) classified as good,
fair or poor and depends on the body position (either standing or stooping).
CM Factor
C= Grasp
Standing Stooping
Good (handles) 1.00 1.00
Fair 1.00 0.95
Poor 0.90 0.90

• .

27
FORCE – NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION

28
 DURATION
• The duration of work Key determinant
Overall injury risk
The duration of an exposure

• The duration determines the cumulative biomechanical force and the

degree of fatigue experienced.

Short & intense: acute disorders

• Duration
Low & moderate intensity: chronic or degenerative disorders

29
 DURATION
• Functions of a human body follows the cycle between
work, rest and recovery.
• Sufficient recovery periods are crucial if effective
performance and efficiency is desired and injury avoided.
• Tendons and muscles in the wirsts may not be able to
recover within the cycles of 5 sec (which means 12 tasks
per min. at most).
• Fatigue can be localized to a particular muscle group,
generalized, or primarily psychological.
• New, unfamiliar tasks tend to be more fatiguing than
accustomed tasks.

30
 DURATION – ACTIVE BREAKS

• For people who have static loading or are involved in monotonous tasks, active breaks
are more beneficial than passive breaks.

• An active break will encourage circulation, oxygenation, concentration, muscle

stretching and a better balance of proprioceptive activity.

• A 5 min walk, or climbing a flight of stairs, will be more beneficial than sitting down
and having a cup of tea.

31
 CYCLIC LOADING – REPETITIVE TASKS
• Repetitive loading cycles at relatively high rates of maximum voluntary contraction or
high joint torques can lead to rapid onset of fatigue.

• Monotonous or repetitive work has to be planned carefully in order to minimize the

exposure to muscle fatigue and joint stress.

• The ratio of work to recovery has to be carefully assessed and allowances made for
individuals and changing circumstances.

32
 ENVIRONMENT - LIGHTING

• Research has shown that in many workplaces productivity can rise, and the error
rate fall, by improving the quality of lighting.

• Poor lighting can increase the rate of visual fatigue, general tension and can create
poor posture in a bid to improve vision.

• Lighting levels vs work done;

• moderately precise: packing, carpentry and engineering 200–300 lux
• fine work: general office work, reading, writing and book-keeping 500–700 lux
• precision work: technical drawing, sewing, delicate electronics 1000–2000 lux

33
ENVIRONMENT - LIGHTING

Bad vs Good lighting an environment

34
ENVIRONMENT - LIGHTING

Bad vs Good lighting for eyesight

35
 ENVIRONMENT - LIGHTING
• Over-bright lighting (over 1000 lux) can lead to visual strain caused by
reflections, high glare, contrast between light and shadow, etc.

• Guidelines for lighting;

• Lighting sources (windows and lights) should be placed parallel or overhead rather than directly
in front or behind.
• Walls should be light coloured to allow an even distribution of light.
• Sharp contrasts between dark flooring or furniture and reflective table tops should be avoided.
• No light sources should be in the visual field when working.
• Light sources should never flicker. Some people seem to be sensitive to fluorescent light flicker.
• It is better to use more lamps of low power than a few of high power.
36
 ENVIRONMENT - TEMPERATURE
• Low temperatures can be a significant problem for sedentary work, where very
little body heat is generated.

• It can lead to significantly increased levels of muscle tension.

• The recommended air temperature is 20–21°C for summer and 20–24°C for
winter.

37
 PREVENTING ERGONOMIC RISK
• Prevent MSDs by identifying and removing risk factors.
• Preventing ergonomic risk factors
• Preventing individual risk factors

Control methods for;

• Cyclic - Repetitive tasks:
• Engineering controls: Eliminating excessive force and awkward posture requirements will reduce
worker fatigue and allow high repetition tasks to be performed without a significant increase in
MSD risk for most workers.
• Work – practice controls: Providing safe & effective procedures for completing work
tasks can reduce MSD risk. In addition, workers should be trained on proper work
technique and encouraged to accept their responsibilities for MSD prevention.
38
 PREVENTING ERGONOMIC RISK (con’t)

Control methods for;

• Cyclic - Repetitive tasks:
• Job rotation: Job task enlargement is a way to reduce duration, frequency and
severity of MSD risk factors. Workers can rotate between workstations and tasks to
avoid prolonged periods of performing a single task.
• Counteractive stretch breaks: Implement rest or stretch breaks to provide an
opportunity for increased circulation needed for recovery.
• Excessive force exertion:
• Engineering controls: Using mechanical assists, counter balance systems, adjustable
height lift tables and workstations, powered equipment and ergonomic tools will
reduce work effort and muscle exertions.
39
 PREVENTING ERGONOMIC RISK (con’t)
Control methods for;
• Excessive force exertion:
• Work – practice controls: Work process improvements such as using carts and dollies to reduce
lifting and carrying demands, sliding objects instead of carrying or lifting, and eliminating any
reaching obstruction to reduce the lever arm required to lift the object.
• Proper body mechanics: Workers should be trained to use proper lifting and work techniques to
reduce force requirements.
• Awkward posture:
• Engineering controls: Eliminate or reduce awkward postures with ergonomic modifications that
seek to maintain joint range of motion to accomplish work tasks within the mid-range of motion
positions for vulnerable joints. Proper ergonomic tools should be utilized that allow workers to
maintain optimal joint positions.

40
 PREVENTING ERGONOMIC RISK (con’t)
Control methods for;
• Awkward posture:
• Work – practice controls: Procedures that consider and reduce awkward postures
should be implemented. In addition workers should be trained on proper work
technique and encouraged to accept their responsibility to use their body properly
and to avoid awkward postures whenever possible.
• Job rotation: Job rotation and job task enlargement is a way to reduce repeated and
sustained awkward postures that can lead to MSD.
• Counteractive stretch breaks: Implement rest or stretch breaks to provide an
opportunity to counteract any repeated or sustained awkward postures and allow for
adequate recovery time.

41
ERGONOMIC RISK MITIGATION STEPS IN GENERAL
Silverstein proposed below steps to reduce the ergonomic risks at workplace;
1.Employers must provide information to all employees and their supervisors regarding
early symptoms and risk factors so they can participate fully in the identification,
control and prevention of poorly designed jobs.

2.Employers must look at their workplaces for high-risk jobs, determine the underlying
causes, and involve employees in identifying and minimising solutions.

3.Employers and end users must provide critical feedback to designers and suppliers
whose end products contribute to MSD so future designs can be improved.

42
ERGONOMIC RISK MITIGATION STEPS IN GENERAL
4. Health care providers and their societies must work together with employees to
familiarise themselves with the disorders, the risk factors and appropriate
treatment, and how the workplace can participate in the treatment by keeping
the employee at work and reducing exposure.

5. Business, engineering, industrial design, health sciences and educational

institutions (from primary school onward) should incorporate ergonomics and
the evaluation of healthy work into curriculum and practice.

43
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd.
• The company: John Crane (Ireland) Ltd is a global leader in engineered
technology, supplying a variety of products and services to the energy and other
major process industries. The company’s Irish facility is based in Shannon, and is
in its 40th year of operation.

• The process: John Crane (Ireland) Ltd is the premier manufacturer of edge
welded metal bellows seals used in the Oil Extraction, Refining, Refrigeration,
Chemical and Process industries. The production process involves Plate Stamping,
CNC Machining, Metal Bellows Welding (micro T.I.G.) and Seal Assembly.

44
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 1: Problem Identification
• Description of task: The specific task relates to the edge-welded metal bellows
seals, which are mainly found in pumps and compressors, and prevent the
medium being driven from leaking into the outside world. The current Case Study
is focused on the loading of metal billets into the CNC machine. Previous to
ergonomic risk management, the undrilled metal billets were brought on a
workshop trolley to be loaded into CNC machine. The billet was then transferred
manually from the trolley to the stage table, to accommodate the difference in
height from trolley to table. It was then manually lifted from the table into the
CNC machine.

45
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 1: Problem Identification
• Risk reduction reason: The assessment highlighted an unacceptable risk of
back injury when lifting, reaching, loading and unloading the metal billets
which can weigh 20- 130kg.
• Evidence of risk factors: The risk factors related to:
• Force: the weight of the billets (typical weight being 20-130kg) – the billets
were in excess of the recommended safe levels for manual handling, certainly
too heavy for one person to lift manually.
• Posture: twisting, heavy lifting, extended reach because load had to be held
at a distance from the truck.

46
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 2: Problem Solving Process
• What was done?: Conventional gantry style lifting devices could not be used
because of overhead restrictions, so a floor based articulated arm was developed.
The primary concept was developed in-house by the Maintenance department in
conjunction with the machine operators and Environmental Health & Safety
(EHS). Additional refinements were subsequently added by the fabricator.

• What were the objectives?: The objective was to pick the billet from the loading
bench, place it in the centre of the CNC chuck ready for clamping, and remove
the remaining butt, once processing was completed in order to eliminate the risk
factors resulting from the manual handling of the billets.

47
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 2: Problem Solving Process
• Risk assessment tools: The Risk Assessment Tool used was the Health & Safety
Authority five step Manual Handling Risk Assessment Process. The company used
video to inform group discussion particularly around Step 2. The team collectively
viewed the process to understand what was going on and where the solution might
lie.
• Problem solving activities:
• Observation of the process and discussion of difficulties and risks with the operators
• A measurement of physical properties involved, (weight, height, reach distance).

48
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 2: Problem Solving Process
• Problem solving activities:
• A video capture of coping behaviours and analysis of the issues. To do this piece of work, two
different operators completed the task while the EHS&E Manager walked around them recording the
available space, posture and handling activities at critical stages. He used a hand-held Panasonic
Lumix DMC-TZ7 camera shooting 1280 X 720 images at 30 fps.
• A provisional scope-out of possible solutions was conducted.
• A discussion of the proposal was held with operators and the proposal was finally revised.
• Engineering dimensions, drawings and cost discussions with the fabricator took place.
• Finally, the quotation was approved and we finalised and installed the custom billet loader.

49
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 3: Outcome
• Agreed changes recommended: A custom engineered billet loader was fixed to
the floor at each CNC machine centre, and all operators were trained to use it.
The units were added to the preventive maintenance system for periodic integrity
check.

• The main interventions: The Purchasing Department arranged for the material
vendor to supply any billets over 6 inches in diameter with a 1 inch hole drilled
into the centre. This is to facilitate pick-up by the prong on the billet loader.

50
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 3: Outcome

• Cost of intervention: Each billet loader cost €600 to manufacture, (fitting was
done by in-house maintenance personnel). A scissors table costing €200 was also
installed at each machine to facilitate loading different diameter bars to the fixed
height loader. The total once-off cost was €800 per machine. A recurring cost of
€6 per billet must also be absorbed into the direct cost of material.

51
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 4: Results
• Results: A custom engineered billet loader was fixed to the floor at each CNC
machine centre, and all operators were trained to use it. Since the intervention, the
risk of injury to operators while loading and unloading metal billets has been
significantly reduced. Also, the risk of injury to operators from pulling the previously
used cart-mounted jacking apparatus is completely eliminated. Finally, the risk of
injury to service engineers who occasionally change chucks is also greatly reduced.

• Recap on results: Health benefits (e.g. risk factors like force, repetition, posture
eliminated or reduced).
• The risk of injury to service engineers who occasionally change chucks is also greatly reduced.

52
 CASE STUDY – John Crane (Ireland) Ltd. (con’t)
Stage 4: Results
• Recap on results: Health benefits (e.g. risk factors like force, repetition, posture
eliminated or reduced).
• The risk of injury to operators while loading and unloading metal billets has been significantly reduced
as the operators no longer manually lift the billets at any stage of the process.
• The risk of injury to operators from pulling the previously used cart-mounted jacking apparatus is
completely eliminated.

• THE TEAM INVOLVED: Arrival at a working solution required input from the
Engineering, Purchasing, EHS and Maintenance Departments as well as the operators
themselves and the external fabricator. The team involved are Darrin Gardiner,
Seamus O’Sullivan and Eddie Mulvihill.

53
 References
• Eastman Kodak Company. (1983) Ergonomic Design for People at Work. Vol. 2. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
• Friend, M.A. and Kohn, J.P. (2007) Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health. 4th ed., Government
Institutes. The Scarecrow Press, USA.
• Iowa State University (2020) Risk Factors [online].
https://www.ehs.iastate.edu/services/occupational/ergonomics/risk-factors
• Kroemer, K. H., Kroemer, H. J., and Kroemer-Elbert, K. E. (1990) Engineering Physiology: Bases of Human
Factors/Ergonomics, 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Ministry of Human Resources in Malaysia (2020) [online]. Malaysia: National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health, http://www.niosh.com.my/.
• Reese, C.D. (2016) Occupational Health and Safety Management – A Practical Approach. 3rd ed. Taylor and
Francis Group. CRC Press, USA.
• Reese, C.D. (2017) Occupational Safety and Health – Fundamental Principles and Philosophies. Taylor and
Francis Group. CRC Press, USA.
54