Comparison of Ergonomic Risk Assessment Output in Four Sawmill Jobs
Comparison of Ergonomic Risk Assessment Output in Four Sawmill Jobs
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10803548.2010.11076834
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Kumar, Shrawan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jones, Troy;Kumar, Shrawan
本研究的目的是检验基于定量暴露措施计算的5种人体工程学风险评估方法之间的一致性，并检验这些方法对4种高危工作进行正确分类的能力。采用表面肌电图和电测量法记录了87名锯木厂工人从事4种重复性工作的5种人体工程学风险评估工具（快速上肢评估[RULA]）的暴露情况。快速人体评估[REBA]，美国政府工业卫生学家阈值限值，，单任务手工工作[ACGIH T:V]，应变[SI]。和简明暴露指数[OCRA])计算风险二分类为无风险和有风险导致方法之间的高度一致性，当3个风险级别被认为是中等且因工作而异时，方法之间的完全一致性百分比。检查的方法。单任务手工作业和博格量表的定量ACGIH-TLV评分最差（错误分类率分别为486和28%）。
The objectives of this study were to examine the agreement between 5 ergonomic rick assessment methods calculated on the basis of quantitative exposure measures and to examine the ability of the methods to correctly classify 4 at risk jobs Surface electromyography mid electrogomometry were toed to record the exposures of 87 sawmill workers performing 4 repetitive jobs Five ergonomic risk assessment tools (rapid upper limb assessment [RULA]. rapid enure body assessment [REBA], American conference of governmental industrial hygienist's threshold limit value for,, mono-task hand work [ACGIH T:V], strain [SI]. and concise exposure index [OCRA]) were calculated Dichotomization of risk to no risk and at risk resulted in high agreement between methods Percentage of perfect agreement between methods when 3 levels of risk were considered was moderate and varied by job. Of the methods examined. the RULA and SI were best (correct classification rates of 99 and 97% respectively) The quantitative ACGIH-TLV for mono-task hand work and Borg scale were worst (misclassification rates 486 and 28% respectively)