P: ISSN No. 2394-0344 RNI No.  UPBIL/2016/67980 VOL.- VIII , ISSUE- VIII November  - 2023
E: ISSN No. 2455-0817 Remarking An Analisation

An Ergonomic Approach to Chemical and Process Industries: A Review

Paper Id :  18272   Submission Date :  14/11/2023   Acceptance Date :  19/11/2023   Publication Date :  20/11/2023
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10159514
For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8
Neha Rathore
Research Scholar
Department Of Home Science
Banasthali University
Tonk,Rajasthan, India
Namrata Arora Charpe
Associate Professor
Department Of Home Science
Banasthali University
Tonk, Rajasthan, India
Abstract

This comprehensive review synthesizes findings from diverse studies on occupational safety and health, chemical hazards, ergonomic hazards, and musculoskeletal disorders across various industries and regions. The global landscape of work-related challenges is illuminated through rigorous examinations of distinct occupational contexts, providing valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and industry practitioners. In the realm of occupational safety and health, urgent attention is drawn to the need for robust protective measures in chemical industries, especially in transitional economies. The studies reviewed reveal alarming statistics of work-related deaths and illnesses globally, emphasizing the critical importance of implementing comprehensive occupational health programs. The synthesis of these studies concludes with overarching recommendations for future research.

Keywords Ergonomics, Chemical and Process Industries, Review.
Introduction

As per the definition provided by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), ergonomics (also known as human factors) is the scientific field dedicated to comprehending the essential interactions between humans and various components within a system. It involves the application of suitable methods, theories, and data to enhance both human well-being and the overall performance of the system.[1] The core objectives of ergonomics encompass the enhancement of well-being and the optimization of overall system performance, objectives realized through deliberate ergonomic interventions. Defining intervention as a purposeful action initiated by a human agent to bring about change, these interventions operate at both microergonomic and macroergonomic levels, spanning various contexts such as organizations, industries, workplaces, and field or laboratory research studies. Within the workplace, occupational ergonomic interventions are commonly executed through strategies classified as top-down, middle-out, or bottom-up approaches.[2]

In the dynamic landscape of chemical and process industries, the amalgamation of cutting-edge technologies, intricate processes, and human interaction defines the heartbeat of these sectors. As we delve into the realms of chemical and process industries, it becomes paramount to explore the pivotal role that ergonomics plays in optimizing the efficiency, safety, and well-being of the workforce. Chemical and process industries encompass a wide array of activities, ranging from the synthesis of chemicals to refining and processing raw materials. Each step in these complex procedures involves human intervention, be it in the control rooms, laboratories, or on the plant floor. Understanding and optimizing the interaction between humans and their work environment is crucial to mitigating risks, reducing errors, and enhancing overall performance. Ergonomics, often referred to as the science of designing work environments and tasks to suit human capabilities and limitations, is an indispensable facet in these industries. The symbiotic relationship between humans and the intricate machinery and processes within chemical and process plants necessitates a holistic approach to ensure not only operational excellence but also the health and productivity of the workforce.

From the ergonomic standpoint, considerations extend beyond the physical comfort of the workforce. It involves the design of user-friendly interfaces for control systems, the implementation of proper lighting to reduce visual fatigue, and the development of workflows that minimize repetitive strain injuries. Moreover, the ergonomic approach is vital in addressing the mental and emotional well-being of employees, ensuring that the work environment fosters concentration, alertness, and resilience in the face of demanding tasks. The pursuit of excellence in chemical and process industries demands a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between human capabilities and the technological marvels that define these sectors.

Aim of study

For developing a better understating of the intricacies of ergonomic approaches towards chemical and process industries, this systematic review is conducted in the related & relevant disciplines. This review is aimed at critically analyzing the current scenario of conducted researches and to identify the lacunae for future scope of research. 

Review of Literature

Critical Discussion of Review

1. Occupational Safety and Health

The escalating concerns surrounding occupational health and safety in chemical industries, particularly in transitional economies, underscore an urgent demand for robust protective measures. Despite rapid technological advancements, the synchronization of environmental and human health safeguards often lags behind. The International Labour Organization reports a distressing annual tally of approximately 200,000 work-related deaths globally, with a substantial number of workers enduring job-related accidents and illnesses. This pressing scenario accentuates the critical necessity of implementing comprehensive occupational health programs within these industries. In a study by Marimuthu et al. (2023) focusing on the mining industry in India, factors impacting workers' health and safety were assessed using the Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) technique. Musculoskeletal disorders, stress, and dust inhalation emerged as top concerns, prompting recommendations for increased automation, IoT technologies, and predictive maintenance to address these issues. Similarly, Mutlu & Altuntas (2023) delved into the textile industry in Turkey, analyzing factors influencing the severity of occupational accidents. Their study, based on 139,092 accident records, identified critical accident predictors, offering insights for the development of effective accident prevention policies and resource-efficient decision-making strategies. Asanga (2023) explored the awareness levels of paint factory workers in Nigeria regarding workplace hazards. The study revealed a significant relationship between workers' hazard awareness and safety practices, advocating for the establishment of a comprehensive framework to enforce Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) regulations in paint factories. Ross et al. (2016) addressed the dearth of information on the impact of physical and chemical factors on functional ability and injury across various occupations. Their review emphasized the frequent exposure of workers to substances with adverse health effects, stressing the need for innovative exposure assessment techniques for developing comprehensive risk assessment models. Niskane et al. (2014) investigated the impacts of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) legislation, collaboration, and management practices on OSH in the chemical industry. The study highlighted the importance of integrating safety within the organizational context and emphasized the need for improved follow-up on the effectiveness of preventive measures. Siddiquia et al. (2014) assessed occupational health, safety, and environmental problems in chemical industries in Uttarakhand, emphasizing the need for standard checklists and safety training to anticipate and evaluate potential concerns. Pinto et al. (2011) emphasized the critical need for effective Occupational Risk Assessment (ORA) in the construction industry, particularly during the design stage. The paper highlighted the limitations of traditional methods and advocated for the use of fuzzy sets approaches to address multifaceted risks. Swaminathan (2011) underscored the importance of occupational health and safety in chemical industries, emphasizing the need for operational occupational exposure limits and the development of methods for biological monitoring of exposure. Soytas (2006) evaluated the occupational health and safety situation in various Turkish industries, revealing prevalent exposure to physical and ergonomic hazards and emphasizing the need for comprehensive measures to mitigate these risks. Yang and Wang (2004) assessed the work-ability and occupational stress in chemical industry workers, identifying risk factors and suggesting measures for protecting and promoting work ability.

2. Chemical Hazards

Several studies are conducted related to occupational health and safety in various industries, with a focus on chemical exposure and associated risks. The study by Almsatar et al., (2014) addresses a specific oil and gas field, providing a focused examination of hydrogen sulfide gas exposure. Monitoring concentrations at different locations within the plant site offers a comprehensive understanding of the issue. However, the study lacks a discussion of potential preventive measures or interventions to mitigate the identified risks. Additionally, the calculated risk (1.1 * 10-5) is presented without contextualization or comparison to accepted risk levels. This comprehensive review by Monatno et al., (2014) of work-related health inequalities in the European Union considers a wide range of chemical and biological hazards. Identification of specific occupational categories and industrial applications associated with increased exposure rates is a notable strength. However, the text could explore further the actual impact on affected workers and provide more detailed discussions on potential interventions or policy recommendations to address identified health inequalities. A qualitative study by Hambach et al., (2011) provides insights into chemical industry workers' perceptions, offering a nuanced understanding. The recognition of the reliance on informal sources for information highlights a gap that can be addressed in safety communication. Nonetheless, the small sample size (7 focus groups) may limit the generalizability of findings, and the study lacks specific recommendations for improving workers' understanding of formal sources of information. Garrigou et al., (2011) reported that a trans-disciplinary approach involving ergonomics, epidemiology, and occupational health contributes to a holistic understanding. The practical application of findings in shaping policy and control measures demonstrates real-world impact. However, there are limited details on the specific shortcomings of coveralls and their impact on workers, and the study focuses on a specific sector (agriculture), raising questions about the generalizability of findings to other industries. Hassim and Herme (2010) presented an innovative technique for recognizing inhalation exposure and chemical hazards within the chemical industry. The integration of meteorological data enhances the realism of exposure risk estimations. However, the methodology may be complex for practical implementation without specialized expertise, and there is a limited discussion on the validation or real-world application of the proposed technique in different chemical processes.

3. Ergonomic Hazards

The studies offer valuable insights into various aspects of ergonomics across diverse industries. Eugenia et al., (2023) studied ergonomic hazards in clothing laboratories. The study is commendable for its extensive participant pool and practical recommendations. The emphasis on proper tools, training, and safety standards underscores a holistic approach to mitigating ergonomic risks in educational settings. The critical review of ergonomics studies, conducted by Ramaganesh et al., (2021) particularly in industrial sectors, provides a comprehensive overview. The focus on safety strategies and comfort zones highlights the importance of mitigating human factors, and the call for future research directions adds scholarly depth to the discourse. Zare et al., (2018) conducted a study with the application of virtual reality to enhance physical ergonomics in a control room showcases innovation. By involving stakeholders and incorporating HFE evaluation, the study presents a practical approach to improving work environments in the chemical industry. Zare et al., (2016) evaluated ergonomic risks in a truck assembly plant reveals the importance of using multiple assessment methods. The identification of inconsistencies emphasizes the need for a comprehensive understanding of ergonomic exposure, ensuring a more effective risk management strategy. Ajith et al., (2013) conducted a review of hazards in firework industries, including a field visit to a fireworks manufacturing unit in Tamilnadu. Using direct observation, the study identified hazards involved in the manufacturing process, emphasizing the high frequency of accidents reported annually during fireworks production. The research aimed to enhance understanding and awareness of hazards within this industry. Bhattacharya et al., (2011) conducted a pilot study to identify ergonomic risk factors related to cumulative trauma disorders in carpentry tasks. The study, involving 21 union carpenters across 17 construction sites, utilized a specialized checklist for ergonomic walkthrough surveys. Findings highlighted the most affected body regions during different carpentry tasks and emphasized the varying stress levels associated with each task, providing valuable insights for improving workplace ergonomics.

4. Musculoskeletal disorders

Kee's study on work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) in Korea from 1996 to 2020 provides a comprehensive overview of the incidence and characteristics of WMSDs. The use of official yearbooks and personal data collection adds credibility to the findings. The emphasis on low back pain as the leading cause highlights a specific area for targeted interventions in workplace health and safety. Das et al., (2023) evaluated risk factors contributing to WMSDs among cotton garment industry workers sheds light on the specific challenges faced by this occupational group. The use of postural analysis tools like RULA & REBA adds a quantitative dimension to the study, revealing insights into the ergonomic aspects of garment production. The identification of awkward postures and prolonged standing as major contributors aligns with common issues in manufacturing settings. Babatunde et al., (2023) investigated into musculoskeletal disorders among sugar factory workers and underscored the prevalence of WMSDs in industrial settings. The use of a structured questionnaire adds rigor to the data collection process. The conclusion about constant exposure to ergonomic hazards highlights the need for preventive measures in sugar factories to reduce the occurrence of WMSDs. Odebiyi and Okafor (2022) discussed on the modification of WMSD development and prognosis through multiple risk factors provides a valuable insight into the holistic approach required for effective prevention. The emphasis on adherence to ergonomic principles and the three-tier hierarchy of controls offers practical guidance for workplaces to mitigate WMSD risks. Hokmabadi et al., (2018)evaluated risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among construction workers using the Key Indicator Method (KIM) and provided a detailed insight into the physical postures of workers. The acknowledgment of the need for preventive measures aligns with the broader context of occupational health and safety in the construction industry. Deros et al., (2016) studied back pain among Malaysian oil palm industry workers and highlighted the importance of ergonomic design in manual handling activities. The use of the Nordic questionnaire and Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) adds a multifaceted approach to assessing musculoskeletal risks. The findings emphasize the necessity for immediate ergonomic interventions in high-risk tasks. Jahangiri et al., (2015) conducted an investigation into the prevalence of WMSDs and subsequent ergonomic interventions among lead mine workers demonstrates the effectiveness of targeted measures. The use of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire and Quick Exposure Check (QEC) adds a practical dimension to the assessment. The study's focus on significant reductions in WMSDs after interventions underscores the positive impact of ergonomic measures.  Chatterjee et al., (2015) conducted a study on carpenters provides valuable insights into the relationship between work experience, workload, and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The use of multiple assessment methods, including OWAS, RULA & REBA, offers a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to MSDs among carpenters. The conclusion about varying prevalence with changing work experience adds nuance to the discussion on occupational health.Myung and Junior (2015) undertook an evaluation of ergonomic conditions in a Brazilian chemical industry, specifically focusing on back pain complaints, contributes to the understanding of task-specific challenges. The use of medical reports for data collection adds a practical dimension to the study. The identification of tasks with higher incidences of back pain provides actionable insights for targeted ergonomic interventions.

Methodology

Guided by the research question, a set of search terms corresponding to the identified themes were amalgamated for exploration across various databases. The search encompassed platforms such as PubMed, Web of Science, ResearchGate and Scopus. The scrutiny of each database spanned the period from January 1, 1980, to June 1, 2023. The search terms were classified into four overarching categories: ergonomics, chemical industry, occupational safety, occupational health, chemical risks and musculoskeletal disorders.

Conclusion

In summary, while each study contributes valuable insights into occupational health and safety, there are common areas for improvement. These include a more explicit discussion of preventive measures, wider applicability of findings, and specific recommendations for addressing identified issues. Additionally, a more standardized approach to risk communication and contextualization of calculated risks would enhance the overall impact of these studies. The studies reviewed highlight the multifaceted challenges and nuances associated with occupational safety and health, chemical hazards, ergonomic hazards, and musculoskeletal disorders across various industries and geographical contexts. Occupational safety and health remain pressing global concerns, with the need for comprehensive programs and interventions to mitigate the risks faced by workers. Chemical hazards pose specific challenges, requiring a balance between technological advancements and proactive measures to protect workers from exposure. Ergonomic hazards, spanning various industries, demand tailored approaches to ensure the well-being of workers, and musculoskeletal disorders necessitate targeted interventions to address the prevalent risks.

Future studies should adopt interdisciplinary approaches, integrating insights from fields such as medicine, engineering, and social sciences. This collaborative effort can contribute to holistic solutions for occupational health and safety. Conducting longitudinal studies would provide a deeper understanding of the long-term impacts of occupational hazards and interventions, enabling the development of more effective preventive measures. Given the global nature of occupational safety challenges, future research should encourage collaboration between nations, industries, and research institutions to share best practices and collectively address common issues. Incorporating emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and wearable devices can enhance the monitoring and management of occupational hazards, contributing to more proactive and data-driven solutions. Researchers should actively engage in policy advocacy to influence the development and implementation of occupational health and safety regulations. Evidence-based recommendations can contribute to more effective and adaptable policies. Many studies focus on large industries; future research should give due attention to the unique challenges faced by SMEs, developing tailored solutions for these often-overlooked sectors. Studies should explore strategies for empowering workers to actively participate in ensuring their own safety and health. This includes education, training, and the promotion of a safety-conscious culture within workplaces. Future research should delve into the psychosocial aspects of occupational health, considering factors such as job stress, mental well-being, and worker satisfaction, to develop comprehensive workplace interventions.

References

1. Karwowski W. International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. Florida (FL): CRC Press; 2006.
2. Salvendy G. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. New Jersey (NJ): Wiley; 2012.
3. Marimuthu, M., et al. "Assessment of Workers' Health and Safety in the Mining Industry Using SWARA Technique." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 20, no. 5, 2023, p. 2678.
4. Mutlu, B., & Altuntas, C. "Analyzing the Severity of Occupational Accidents in the Textile Industry: A Data Mining Approach." Safety Science, vol. 142, 2023, p. 105468.
5. Asanga, N. F. "Assessment of Hazard Awareness and Safety Practices among Paint Factory Workers in Nigeria." Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 318, 2023, p. 128430.
6. Ross, D. S., et al. "Occupational Exposure to Substances with Adverse Health Effects: A Review of Evidence." International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, vol. 219, no. 4-5, 2016, pp. 317-331.
7.  Niskane, E., et al. "Impacts of Occupational Safety and Health Legislation, Collaboration, and Management Practices on OSH in the Chemical Industry." Safety Science, vol. 65, 2014, pp. 10-19.
8.  Siddiquia, T., et al. "Assessment of Occupational Health, Safety, and Environmental Problems in Chemical Industries in Uttarakhand, India." International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, 2014, pp. 80-86.
9. Pinto, A., et al. "Fuzzy Sets Approach to Occupational Risk Assessment in Construction Industry." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 137, no. 3, 2011, pp. 246-258.
10. Swaminathan, R. "Occupational Health and Safety in Chemical Industries: A Review." Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, vol. 70, no. 2, 2011, pp. 97-104.
11. Soytas, U. "Occupational Health and Safety Situation in Various Turkish Industries." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 36, no. 9, 2006, pp. 787-798.
12. Yang, H., & Wang, X. "Work-Ability and Occupational Stress in Chemical Industry Workers: Risk Factors and Coping Strategies." International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 77, no. 5, 2004, pp. 355-362.
13. Chemical Hazards:
14. Almsatar, H. A., et al. "Monitoring Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Exposure in an Oil and Gas Field: A Case Study." Journal of Environmental Monitoring, vol. 16, no. 5, 2014, pp. 2459-2466.
15. Monatno, E., et al. "Work-Related Health Inequalities in the European Union: A Comprehensive Review." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 11, no. 11, 2014, pp. 11324-11342.
16. Hambach, R., et al. "Chemical Industry Workers' Perception of Chemical Risks: A Qualitative Study." Safety Science, vol. 49, no. 10, 2011, pp. 1409-1416.
17. Garrigou, A., et al. "A Trans-Disciplinary Approach for Integrating Ergonomics and Chemical Risk Control: A Case Study in Agriculture." Safety Science, vol. 49, no. 9, 2011, pp. 1242-1248.
18. Hassim, M., & Herme, M. "Recognition of Inhalation Exposure and Chemical Hazards in the Chemical Industry." Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 23, no. 6, 2010, pp. 865-872.
19. Ergonomic Hazards:
20.  Eugenia, I., et al. "Ergonomic Hazards in Clothing Laboratories: A Study in Tertiary Institutions." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 79, 2023, p. 103163.
21. Ramaganesh, R., et al. "A Critical Review of Ergonomic Studies in Various Industrial Sectors." Work, vol. 68, no. 3, 2021, pp. 807-818.
22. Zare, M., et al. "Application of Virtual Reality to Improve Physical Ergonomics in a Control Room of a Chemical Industry." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 68, 2018, pp. 99-107.
23. Zare, M., et al. "Evaluation of Ergonomic Physical Risk Factors in a Truck Assembly Plant." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 53, 2016, pp. 203-209.
24.  Ajith, V., et al. "Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment in Firework Industries: A Case Study in Tamilnadu, India." Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 26, no. 6, 2013, pp. 1565-1571.
25. Bhattacharya, A., et al. "Ergonomic Risk Factors for Cumulative Trauma Disorders in Carpentry Tasks: A Pilot Study." Applied Ergonomics, vol. 42, no. 3, 2011, pp. 461-468.
26. Mageid, E., et al. "Improving the Garment Industry in Egypt: A Field Study of the Sewing Stage." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 41, no. 5, 2011, pp. 453-460.
27. Musculoskeletal Disorders:
28. Kee, D. "Characteristics of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Korea: A Study from 1996 to 2020." Safety and Health at Work, vol. 14, no. 3, 2023, pp. 282-288.
29.   Das, A., et al. "Prevalent Risk Factors Contributing to Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Cotton Garment Industry Workers." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 8, 2021, p. 4333.
30. Babatunde, S., et al. "Musculoskeletal Disorders and Associated Risk Factors Among Sugar Factory Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study." Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, vol. 18, 2023, p. 23.
31. Odebiyi, D., & Okafor, I. "Risk Factors Modification in the Development and Prognosis of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders." Journal of Ergonomics, vol. 12, no. 3, 2022, p. 382.
32.  Hokmabadi, R., et al. "Evaluation of Key Risk Factors for Musculoskeletal Disorders in Construction Workers: A Case Study in Iran." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 144, no. 11, 2018, p. 04018113.
33. Deros, B., et al. "Prevalence of Back Pain and Its Associated Risk Factors Among Workers in the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry." Industrial Health, vol. 54, no. 6, 2016, pp. 543-550.
34. Jahangiri, M., et al. "Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Role of Ergonomic Factors in a Lead Mine." Work, vol. 52, no. 3, 2015, pp. 677-683.
35. Chatterjee, M., et al. "Workload, Body Discomforts, and Ergonomic Risks Among Indian Carpentry Workers: An Ergonomic Intervention Study." Journal of Health Research and Reviews, vol. 2, no. 1, 2015, pp. 17-22.
36. Myung, R., & Junior, R. J. "Ergonomic Conditions and Complaints of Back Pain Among Workers in a Brazilian Chemical Industry." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 45, no. 6, 2015, pp. 806-811.