虞少博, 贾宁, 徐酩, 高玥, 于政民, 赵亮亮, 刘啸文, 孙倩楠, 张恒东, 王忠旭. OWAS和RULA两种姿势负荷评估方法在钢铁行业的应用与比较[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2023, 41(2): 166-171. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2023.02.009
引用本文: 虞少博, 贾宁, 徐酩, 高玥, 于政民, 赵亮亮, 刘啸文, 孙倩楠, 张恒东, 王忠旭. OWAS和RULA两种姿势负荷评估方法在钢铁行业的应用与比较[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2023, 41(2): 166-171. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2023.02.009
shu
YU Shaobo, JIA Ning, XU Ming, GAO Yue, YU Zhengmin, ZHAO Liangliang, LIU Xiaowen, SUN Qiannan, ZHANG Hengdong, WANG Zhongxu. Comparison and application of OWAS and RULA in postural load assessment among workers in an iron and steel industry[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2023, 41(2): 166-171. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2023.02.009
Citation: YU Shaobo, JIA Ning, XU Ming, GAO Yue, YU Zhengmin, ZHAO Liangliang, LIU Xiaowen, SUN Qiannan, ZHANG Hengdong, WANG Zhongxu. Comparison and application of OWAS and RULA in postural load assessment among workers in an iron and steel industry[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2023, 41(2): 166-171. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2023.02.009
shu

OWAS和RULA两种姿势负荷评估方法在钢铁行业的应用与比较

Comparison and application of OWAS and RULA in postural load assessment among workers in an iron and steel industry

    摘要
  • 摘要:
      目的  比较工作姿势分析系统（Ovako working posture analysing system，OWAS）和快速上肢评估（rapid upper limb assessment，RULA）两种作业姿势负荷评估方法在钢铁行业中的应用，探讨钢铁行业工人的工效学负荷情况，为制定钢铁行业工效学干预措施提供依据。
      方法  选择某钢铁企业35个重点作业活动进行现场调查和视频拍摄。使用OWAS和RULA两种方法对视频中的作业姿势进行风险评估，并分析、比较评估结果。
      结果  OWAS方法评估的低风险作业活动有4个（占11.4%），中等风险作业活动20个（占57.1%），高风险作业活动9个（占25.7%），极高风险作业活动2个（占5.7%）。RULA方法评估的低风险作业活动有4个（占11.4%），中等风险作业活动17个（占48.6%），高风险作业活动10个（占28.6%），极高风险作业活动4个（占11.4%）。两种方法风险等级结果相同的作业活动占85.7%（30/35），评估结果不同的5个作业活动中，OWAS所得风险等级均低于RULA。两种评估方法具有较强的一致性（Kappa值=0.773，P < 0.05），均得出炼铁、炼钢和特钢事业部的风险等级较高（P < 0.05）。
      结论  两种风险评估方法在钢铁行业具有较高的一致性。相比于OWAS，RULA对于上肢和颈背部高生物力学负荷的作业姿势较为敏感，能够更好地反映钢铁行业作业活动的风险水平。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To compare the application of two job posture load assessment methods, the Ovako working posture analysis system (OWAS) and the rapid entire body assessment (RULA), in the iron and steel industry and to understand the ergonomic load of workers, providing the basis for ergonomic intervention measures.
      Methods  Totally 35 main work activities in an iron and steel industry were investigated, and video capture of each activity was carried out. OWAS and RULA were used to assess the postural overloads, and the results derived from the two methods were compared.
      Results  The assessment with the OWAS method showed there were 4 low (11.4%), 20 medium (57.1%), 9 high (25.7%), and 2 extremely high risk activities (5.7%). The assessment with the RULA method evaluated showed there were 4 low (11.4%), 17 medium (48.6%), 10 high (28.6%), and 4 extremely high risk activities (11.4%); 30 work activities were assessed at the same level of risk by these two methods with a consistency rate of 85.7%, and for the remaining 5 activities, OWAS assessed a lower risk level than RULA. The Kappa statistic showed that the two methods had strong consistency (Kappa value = 0.773, P < 0.05). The results showed that the risk grade of iron-making, steel-making, and special steel divisions was higher (P < 0.05).
      Conclusions  These two methods of risk assessment were highly consistent in the iron and steel industries. Compared with OWAS, RULA was more sensitive to the working posture with high biomechanical load on upper limbs and neck-back and could better reflect the risk level of working activities in the iron and steel industries.

     

    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(17)
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)

/

返回文章
返回