METHOD: Two lifting loads were considered in this study: 1 kg and 5 kg. Each subject adjusted his frequency of lifting using a psychophysical approach. The subjects were instructed to perform combined MMH task as fast as they could over a period of 45 minutes without exhausting themselves or becoming overheated. The physiological response energy expenditure was recorded during the experimental sessions. The ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) for four body parts (forearms, upper arm, lower back and entire body) were recorded after the subjects had completed the instructed task.
RESULTS: The mean frequencies of the MMH task had been 6.8 and 5.5 cycles/minute for lifting load of 1 and 5 kg, respectively, while the mean energy expenditure values were 4.16 and 5.62 kcal/min for 1 and 5 kg load, respectively. These displayed a significant difference in the Maximum Acceptable Frequency of Lift (MAFL) between the two loads, energy expenditure and RPE (p < 0.05) whereby the subjects appeared to work harder physiologically for heavier load.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that it is significant to assess physiological response and RPE in determining the maximum acceptable lifting frequency at varied levels of load weight. The findings retrieved in this study can aid in designing tasks that do not exceed the capacity of workers in order to minimise the risk of WRMSDs.
METHOD: In this study, participating industrial practitioners rated the compliance status of each indicator using a numbering system adapted from the traffic light system, based on the actual performance of 10 oil platforms in Malaysia. Safety scores of the platforms were calculated based on the ratings and compared with the actual lagging performance of the platforms. Safety scores of two platforms were compared with the facility status reports' findings of the respective platforms.
RESULTS: The platforms studied generally had good performance. Total recordable incident rates of the platforms were found to show significant negative correlations with management and work engagement on safety, compliance score for number of incident and near misses, personal safety, and management of change. Lost time injury rates, however, correlated negatively with hazard identification and risk assessment. The safety scores generally agreed with findings of the facility status reports with substandard process containment found as a contributor of hydrocarbon leaks.
CONCLUSIONS: This study proves the criterion validity of the safety performance evaluation framework and demonstrates its usability for benchmarking and continuous improvement of safety practices on the Malaysian offshore oil and gas platforms.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: This study reveals the applicability of the framework and the potential of extending safety reporting beyond the few conventional lagging safety performance indicators used. The study also highlights the synergy between correlating safety factors to streamline safety management on offshore platforms.