Zare Mohsen, Malinge-Oudenot Agnes, Höglund Robert, Biau Sophie, Roquelaure Yves
Laboratory of Ergonomic and Epidemiology in Occupational Health (LEEST), University of Angers, France.
Ind Health. 2016;54(2):163-76. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2015-0055. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
The aims of this study were 1) to assess the ergonomic physical risk factors from practitioner's viewpoint in a truck assembly plant with an in-house observational method and the NIOSH lifting equation, and 2) to compare the results of both methods and their differences. The in-house ergonomic observational method for truck assembly i.e. the SCANIA Ergonomics Standard (SES) and the NIOSH lifting equation were applied to evaluate physical risk factors and lifting of loads by operators. Both risk assessment approaches revealed various levels of risk, ranging from low to high. Two workstations were identified by the SES method as high risk. The NIOSH lifting index (LI) was greater than two for four lifting tasks. The results of the SES method disagreed with the NIOSH lifting equation for lifting tasks. Moreover, meaningful variations in ergonomic risk patterns were found for various truck models at each workstation. These results provide a better understanding of the physical ergonomic exposure from practitioner's point of view in the automotive assembly plant.
1）采用内部观察法和美国国家职业安全与健康研究所（NIOSH）的提举方程，从从业者的角度评估卡车装配厂中的人体工程学物理风险因素；2）比较两种方法的结果及其差异。将用于卡车装配的内部人体工程学观察方法，即斯堪尼亚人体工程学标准（SES）和NIOSH提举方程，应用于评估物理风险因素以及操作员的负荷提举情况。两种风险评估方法均显示出从低到高的不同风险水平。SES方法将两个工作站识别为高风险。四项提举任务的NIOSH提举指数（LI）大于2。对于提举任务，SES方法的结果与NIOSH提举方程不一致。此外，在每个工作站发现不同卡车车型的人体工程学风险模式存在显著差异。这些结果从从业者的角度更好地理解了汽车装配厂中的人体工程学物理暴露情况。
