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.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the primary and root causes of recorded accidents, demographics of the person involved, and solutions to prevent the recurrence of certain accidents.
METHODS: This study analyzed 185 occupational injury cases in a food and beverage manufacturing company in the Philippines from January to December 2018. A comprehensive classification system was established to examine and code each case in terms of age, gender, working shift, employee type, tenure, department, category, activity during the accident, root cause of injury, injury classification, direct cause of injury, type of injury, part of body injured, agent of injury, and location of the accident. Cramer's V analysis and Phi coefficient analyses were employed on the subject cases to determine the significant factors and the corresponding extent of significance.
RESULTS: The results showed that the majority of the occupational injuries were caused by stepping on, striking against, or stuck by objects (77 cases, 41.6%), caught in between (34 cases, 18.4%), fall (34 cases, 18.4%), and exposure or contact with extreme temperatures (24 cases, 13%). Interestingly, female workers who had accidents were more likely due to inadequate hazard information or lack of procedures whereas male workers were more likely due to failure to secure. The prevention measures such as passive safeguards and personal protective equipment, pictograms, and regular safety audits were derived from the results of these analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first comprehensive analysis of occupational injuries in the food and beverage industry in the Philippines. The findings can be applied to positively influence the effectiveness of prevention and rehabilitation programs mitigating workplace injuries and illnesses.