F1000ResearchF1000Research2046-1402F1000 Research LimitedLondon, UK10.12688/f1000research.122131.1Research ArticleArticlesAnalysis of the workload of Dock 16 Ilir workers sing Rapid Upper Limb Assessment, Ovako Working Analysis System, and Nordic Body Map Methods: A quantitative case study
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]
Desi KusmindariChristoforaConceptualizationMethodologyWriting – Review & Editinghttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3845-9488a1IndrianiPoppyProject Administrationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7482-42112Nu'manA HaritsMethodologyValidation3MuthmainahSalma MutiaData CurationFormal AnalysisWriting – Original Draft Preparation1ErinaIraData CurationFormal AnalysisWriting – Original Draft Preparation1
Industrial engineering, universitas Bina Darma, Palembang, 30265, Indonesia
Accounting, Universitas Bina Darma, Palembang, Indonesia
industrial engineering, universitas Islam Bandung, Bandung, Indonesiadesi_christofora@binadarma.ac.id
Industry players are encouraged to automate as a result of technological advancements. However, due to lack of finances several businesses continue to require human labor in the production process, particularly in the operation of transferring items. Transportation activities at Dock 16 Ilir in Palembang City, starts with delivering items from the shop to the ship or vice versa by utilizing human strength in less ergonomic work positions with little consideration for the weight of the load. Whencarrying goods, the body is bent, the neck is bent, and the arms are distant from the body, putting the body at a very high risk of injury. This type of working position causes muscle aches ranging from mild to severe. The personnel seen in this investigation were rice transporters and cement transporters. The aim of this study is to quantify the workload and provide a design tool to help lessen worker concerns. The Nordic Body Map, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), and Ovako Working Analysis System (OWAS)methodologies were used in this investigation. The study’s findings showed that the five cement transport workers and four rice transport workers were at risk of developing muscoskeletal illnesses, with a risk level of 3 to 4, indicating that the risk category is very high and comprehensive treatment is required as soon as feasible. According to the OWAS technique, the posture of rice transportation employees has a value of 3, indicating that they are at high danger. Meanwhile, the working posture of cement transportation has a score of 7 with a risk level of 4, indicating that the danger of MSDS is very high. The developing aids are projected to lower the danger of Muscoskeletal Disorders in a backpack-like style that can resist large loads and reduce the risk of Muscoskeletal Disorders.
Nordic body map. RULAOWASMuscoskeletaldisordersThis Study is funded by DRPM Bina Darma University for providing University Internal Research Funding No: 012/12/DRPM/Univ-BD/VII/2020This Study is funded by DRPM Bina Darma University for providing University Internal Research Funding No: 012/12/DRPM/Univ-BD/VII/2020.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Introduction
The industrial world is rapidly evolving and totally automated, making all processes more effective and efficient. However, the usage or role of people as a labor system, particularly in the industrial sector of Indonesia, cannot be avoided or even totally eliminated. One of these is the transfer of commodities at Dock Palembang city that continues to use manual transportation (manual material handling) (
Nur
et al., 2016;
Widiana
et al., 2021;
Budiman & Setyaningrum, 2006), in which human labor is used to transport commodities ranging from cloting, shelter and food to be shipped to various regions in South Sumatra. According to M. Fitri and W. Laila (
Fitri & Laila, 2017), in Indonesia, the consideration of moving materials directly via Manual Material Handling (MMH) is thought to require lower costs than machines, and MMH has been widely employed in medium to micro scale businesses until now. Meanwhile, according to C. H. D. Kusmindari
et al. (
Kusmindari
et al., 2020), the solution to maintaining a decent posture while performing MMH activities is to improve the work system in MMH activities, specifically as a concept (
Kusminadri & Tian, 2021).
Industry participants sincerely hope that production will operate smoothly and withoutany challenges, both in terms of human employees and machinery and materials, and that output targets will be met. As a result, human labor and machines can coexist effectively in the long term. However, humans have limitations, unlike machines, which will not fatigue if they are used for a lengthy period of time. As stated by M. A. Wahyudi
et al. (
Wahyudi
et al., 2015) the usage of employees must be supported by ideal work techniques and workplaces that are in agreement with body posture to accomplish work for an extended period of time without causing injury to the workers.
Workers’ complaints of musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs) range from slight problems in the skeletal muscles to very severe case (
Gómez-Galán
et al., 2020;
Dewi, 2020;
Factsheet 4 - Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders|Safety and Health at Work EU-OSHA, n.d.). These concerns regarding MSDs must be managed to limit the risk of damage to the movement of the neck (neck), trunk (trunk), and legs (legs), and, most significantly, to preserve the workforce’s concentration at work so that workers feel comfortable. If the workforce is hurt it can effect their health in which case they maybe unable to work or the job they accomplish will be less than optimal causing not only workers but also the industry to suffer.
The first approach in this study is to identify the MSDs concerns of freight forwarders, who are rice and cement transporters, using Nordic Body Map (NBM) questionnaire data (
Purnomo
et al., 2010;
Wadhikh, 2019;
Putri
et al., 2021). Following the collection of data, the next stage is to undertake research to identify and analyze work attitudes in order to assess workload, as well as to measure oxygen consumption using the OWAS Ovako Working Analysis SystemOWAS (
وآخرون, 2004) and RULA Rapid Upper Limb Assessment RULA methods (
Purwaningsih, 2016) (
Bintang & Dewi, 2017).
According to D. P. Restuputri
et al. (
Restuputri
et al., 2017), the OWAS approach is a way for studying individuals in the process of work that is observed with a dynamic dangerous attitude. Based on the work attitudes observed, a work attitude category will be determined, with four category scales in the OWAS technique ranging from no danger to the highest risk of damage. This is to clarify which work posture resulted in the categorization of work attitudes that require improvement. The observed working posture is the movement of the body from the shoulders, back, hands, and feet. According to OWAS, it would be more appropriate to verify the management of MMH. This is due to the fact that OWAS may measure and examine directly while workers are manually handling materials (
El Ahmady
et al., 2020).
While the RULA technique contains four categories of work attitudes, it also has four categorization scales, ranging from no danger (Safe) to the highest risk of damage. It is possible to determine which work postures result in the categorization of work attitudes that require improvement by watching work postures. (
Tiogana & Hartono, 2020).
As a recommendation for workers in Dock 16 Ilir Palembang City, this study aims to analyze the shoulder, arm and leg of workers who experience MSDs using NBM, analyze the workload of transporting rice using the OWAS work posture classification, analyze the load of cement workers using RULA, and analyze the size or design of acute aids to minimize the risk of injury. The concerns that will be raised in this research, among others, are as follows: What are the work postures and workloads that cause MSDs in workers at Dock 16 Ilir Palembang city after studied by NBM? How can the workload be determined based on OWAS and RULA? How can the size or design of a vehicle be determined?
MethodsResearch sites
The research location at Dock 16 Ilir Palembang city, which operates as a place to transport goods from shop to ships. In this study four rice transport workers and five cement carrier workers at this location were observed for one month.
Data collection
1. Field study
NBM questionnaire was used to examine the workload of the four rice and five cement transporters OWAS and RULA methods were used to assess the data for risk category classification “position code” in a combination of positions (back, arms, and legs).
2. Literature study
Industrial Literature Study, which entails gathering data through the study of books that support this research.
Data processing
The data was processed by using a predetermined method, namely the NBM test, followed by RULA and OWAS. Data processing in this study comprised assessing objects before and after improving work posture with NBM, RULA, and OWAS.
The analytical technique employed compares the level of risk of injury to both rice and cement transport employees while employing traditional transportation methods to the suggested transportation methods RULA and OWAS.
Results and discussion
The study was carried out on the rice transportation to ships, where workers continue to use MMH, as well as on the cement transportation section of company. During the initial observation stage, researchers discovered that the method of transporting rice and cement posed a high dangerto the physical well-being of the workers. Following this observation stage, the researcher conducted interviews with numerous workers and received data indicating that workers move 100 kg bags of rice and cement 3 times a day with an average weight of 1-3 tons. it causes workers to experience musculoskeletal disorders
The results of the NBM Questionnaire are as follows:
The NBM is an auxiliary questionnaire that defines body parts from head to toe, which specifically was used in this study for workers who transport grains and cement. The NBM questionnaire is important for gathering feedback from workers who transport rice and cement during the MMH process. There are 28 sections in this questionnaire, ranging from 0-27, with a rating score of 1–3. Several complaints were reported at work in the NBM questionnaire findings for workers delivering rice and cement.
Table 1 shows the results of the NBM questionnaire on workers delivering rice and cement.
Figure 1 shows the flowhart research diagram conducted by researcher.
Rice transport workers NBM questionnaire recapitulation.
No
Parts of body
Workers
No
Parts of body
Workers
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
0
Neck
3
3
3
3
14
Left Wrist
3
2
2
3
1
Neck Down
3
3
3
3
15
Right Wrist
3
2
2
3
2
Left Shoulder
3
3
3
3
16
Left Hand
3
3
3
3
3
Right Shoulder
3
3
3
3
17
Right Hand
3
3
3
3
4
Left Upper Arm
3
2
2
3
18
Left Thigh
3
3
3
3
5
Back
2
2
2
3
19
Right Thigh
3
3
3
3
6
Below Waist
2
3
3
3
20
Left Knee
3
3
3
3
7
Waist
2
2
2
3
21
Right Knee
3
3
3
3
8
Below Waist
2
3
3
3
22
Left Calf
3
3
3
3
9
Butt
2
2
2
3
23
Right Calf
3
3
3
3
10
Left Elbow
3
2
1
3
24
Left Ankle
3
3
3
3
11
Right Elbow
3
2
2
3
25
Right Ankle
3
3
3
3
12
Left Forearm
3
2
2
3
26
Left Foot
3
3
3
3
13
Right Forearm
3
2
2
3
27
Right Foot
3
3
3
3
TOTAL
81
73
71
83
Source: Data Collection.
Research flow chart.
According to
Table 1, the four rice transporters are at risk of MSDs because they have a total score of individual complaints in the range of 63–84, indicating that the risk level is at 3, which is a very high-risk category, and comprehensive treatment is required as soon as feasible.
Table 2 shows workers in the cement transport industry.
NBM questionnaire recapitulation cement transport workers.
No
Parts of body
Workers
No
Parts of body
Workers
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
Neck
3
3
3
3
3
14
Left Wrist
1
1
1
1
1
1
Neck Down
3
3
3
3
3
15
Right Wrist
1
1
1
1
1
2
Left Shoulder
3
3
3
3
3
16
Left Hand
2
1
1
1
2
3
Right Shoulder
3
3
3
3
3
17
Right Hand
2
1
1
1
2
4
Left Upper Arm
3
3
3
3
3
18
Left Thigh
3
3
3
3
3
5
Back
3
3
3
3
3
19
Right Thigh
3
3
3
3
3
6
Below Waist
3
3
3
3
3
20
Left Knee
3
3
3
3
3
7
Waist
3
3
3
3
3
21
Right Knee
3
3
3
3
3
8
Below Waist
2
2
2
2
2
22
Left Calf
3
3
3
3
3
9
Butt
2
2
2
2
2
23
Right Calf
3
3
3
3
3
10
Left Elbow
2
2
1
2
2
24
Left Ankle
3
3
3
3
3
11
Right Elbow
2
2
1
2
2
25
Right Ankle
3
3
3
3
3
12
Left Forearm
2
1
1
2
2
26
Left Foot
3
3
3
3
3
13
Right Forearm
1
1
1
1
1
27
Right Foot
3
3
3
3
3
TOTAL
71
68
66
69
71
Source: Data Collection.
According to
Table 2, the five cement transport employees are at risk of MSDs since they have a total score of individual complaints in the range of 63–84, indicating that the risk level is at 3, which is a very high-risk category, and thorough action is required as soon as feasible.
Calculation of working posture of rice transport workers using OWAS
Rice receipt process
Based on
Figures 2 to
4 which show the posture of workers when transporting rice, the results of the OWAS calculation can be seen in
Table 3.
Rice receipt process.
Table 3 shows the results of the classification using the OWAS method:
Worker posture risk categories when receiving rice.
Sikap
Keterangan
Kode OWAS
Back
Bending, with the body in flexion, may be considered for inclusion if the angle is more than 20°
2
Arm
The worker's arms are above shoulder height
3
Leg
One leg is straight and the other leg is bent with the weight balanced between the two legs
3
Load Weight
>20 kg (±80 kg s/d 100 kg)
3
Source: Data Collection.
Rice transfer process
Rice transfer process.
Table 4 shows the OWAS risk assessment for rice transfer workers.
Activity level score.
Activity
OWAS
Description
Rice Transfer
4
The risk level is a 4. A position with a very high risk category, a position having a particularly negative impact on the MSD system. As soon as feasible, corrective action is essential.
Source: Data Collection.
Rice laying
Rice laying process.
Table 5 shows the OWAS risk level for rice laying workers.
Score for activity level.
Activity
OWAS
Description
Rice Laying
4
The risk level is a 4. A position with a very high risk category, a position having a particularly negative impact on the MSD system. As soon as feasible, corrective action is essential.
Source: Data Collection.
Table 6 summarizes the results of data processing from day one onwards:
Summary of OWAS calculation results for rice transport workers.
Worker
Activity
Risk level per day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Average
1
Rice Reception
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
3
Rice Transfer
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
Rice Laying
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
2
Rice Reception
4
3
3
3
3
3
18
3
Rice Transfer
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
Rice Laying
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
3
Rice Reception
3
4
4
3
4
3
21
3,5
Rice Transfer
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
Rice Laying
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
4
Rice Reception
4
3
3
4
3
4
21
3,5
Rice Transfer
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
Rice Laying
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
4
Source: Data Collection.
As a result of calculating the work posture of rice transportation workers using the OWAS approach, an average degree of risk of 3–4 was determined.
Calculation of working posture of cement transport workers using RULA
Cement receiving position
At this point, the labor operator collects cement from other workers seated on the cart/push wheel in charge of distributing cement.
Posture of laborin receiving cement postur.
Source: personal documentation.
Group A:
depicts a worker's posture while transporting something.
The load lifted by the worker is greater than 10 kg. The RULA score is +3, whereas the change score is 0 because the load does not encounter an unexpected increase in load. The posture of cement lifting workers is shown in
Figures 5 to
7.
As a result, the Group A score is shown in
Table 7 below:
Score of Group A.
Score of Group A
This table depicts the upper arm, lower arm, wrist, and wrist twist positions. The blue color describes the upper arm (upper arm) at position 3, the green color describes the lower arm (lower arm) at position 2, the yellow color describes the wrist at position 2, and the orange color describes the wrist rotation at position 0, and the muscle use score is 0 and the force or load score is 0. We look at the column where the four things intersect to ascertain the value of this A score.
There is a score of 4 after looking for a value for group A. Then, by combining the muscle use score and the force/load score, a final score search is performed to determine whether the operator’s posture contains a level of hazard or not. It can be made using the following formula:
ScoreA+muscleusescoreandforce/load scoregroupA=ScoreA4+0+3=7
Therefore, Score A is 7.
Group B posture.
Group B:
Muscle Use Score
Workers who undertake permanent labor in less than 10 minutes have an RULA score of 0, with the additional score of +1 since the posture is static and repeated.
Force/Load Score
If the load lifted by the workforce is greater than 50 kg – 100 kg, the RULA score is 3, while the change score is 0, because the load does not encounter a sudden increase in load.
Score of Group B
The B score table depicts the neck, trunk, and legs positions is shown in
Table 8. The blue color represents the neck at position 3, the green represents the trunk at position 3, and the yellow represents the leg at position 1. The value of this B score is calculated by where the three variables intersect.
Score of Group B.
When a value of 4 is found after searching for a value for group B, a final score search is performed to determine whether the workers’ body posture is in a level of risk or not, by combining the muscle usage score with the force/load score, following the formula:
ScoreB+muscleusescoredanforce/load scoregroupB=ScoreB4+0+3=7
Score of Group C
The
Table 9 C score is the result of adding the A and B scores. The overall score of A is 4, and the total score of B is 7. As a result, the score of Table A and the score of Table B decide the column and value in group C.
Score of Group C.
Table A of the RULA score table above displays the position of the upper arm, lower arm, wrist, and wrist twist, all of which receive a score of 4, in addition to the score for muscle use (1), and the load score (3), the total score A would be 8. Table B displays a score of 4 for the position of the neck, trunk, and legs, with a score of 1 for muscle use, a score of 3 for load, and a total scoreof 8 for A. The total RULA score is 7 based on the table C score, which is a composite of the outcomes of the A and B scores.
An RULA score of 7 was obtained with a high danger level and an action level of 4 after performing the calculations using the RULA worksheet. This signifies that immediate action is required.
Table 10 shows the outcomes of data processing for the five cement transport personnel from day one onwards.
Recapitulation of RULA action level values.
Worker
RULA score
Risk level
Action level
Action
1
7
High
4
Action now
2
7
High
4
Action now
3
7
High
4
Action now
4
7
High
4
Action now
5
8
High
4
Action now
Source: Data Collection.
According to Table 18, the average level of action experienced by the workforce is 4, indicating a high level of harm, therefore, a need for immediate action. The results of the RULA method assessment of cement transportation activities revealed that the level of risk from posture and workload in the activities performed could result in the risk of MSD injury.
Transportation tool design
Based on the results of the body posture calculations by utilizing the OWAS and RULA methods in Tables 14 and 18, it is advised that transportation aid be expected to lessen the load on workers as well as the risk of MSDs for workers. The recommended assistive equipment is a traditional transportation aid made of wood and equipped with a load-bearing rope. The conveyance tool’s design is shown in
Figures 8 and
9.
Transport equipment.
Source: Data Collection.
Simulation of workers using transport tool.
Source: Data Collection.
Workers can use this transport during rice transportation duties. It is believed that workers who utilize this tool will have a safe body posture based on OWAS and RULA estimates. However, there are various constraints that have an impact on the work of rice transport personnel. The following are the constraints:
The center of gravity and stability of the human body
The weight of the load carried by the rice transport employees, which ranges between 80 and 100 kg, prevents the body posture from remaining straight. Because of the weight of the loadcarried, the body posture will bend forward to prepare for absorption (
Yadi, 2012).
Regulation of the minister of manpower, transmigration and cooperatives No. PER.01/Men/1978
According to the Regulation of the Minister of Manpower, Transmigration, and Cooperatives No. PER.01/Men/1978 concerning Occupational Health and Safety in the Field of Aviation and Wood Transport (
Per.01/Men/1978, 1978), there is a legal lifting limits for workers to create a safe and healthy working environment, namely the lifting load is determined based on the calculations of 5/7 body weight. The weight of the load hoisted by the rice transport workers exceeds the predetermined limit, indicating that the impact is clearly hazardous to the workers’ health and safety. (Per.01/Men/1978, 1978).
Mayor’s regulation No. 7 Tahun 2009 of Palembang city
A review of the mayor’s regulations controlling environmental management in the vicinity of Dock 16 Ilir Palembang City, particularly Palembang City Mayor Regulation Number 7 of 2009 about the Establishment of the River Port Service Technical Implementation Unit (UPTD). Based on these regulations, it has been explained in Chapter III that the Position of the main duties and functions is contained in Article 4 that the Sungai Port UPTD has the task of carrying out some of the Transportation Service’s tasks, particularly in managing, regulating, maintaining, providing services, supervising and collecting user fees for services, and river port utilization. As a result, it is envisaged that this policy will facilitate loading and unloading activities, as well as the improvement and growth of river ports (
Walikota, 2009).
Conclusions and suggestion
According to the results of the NBM questionnaire calculation, the four rice transporters are at risk of MSDs because they have a total score of individual complaints in the range of 71–83, indicating that the risk level is at a score of 3, which is in a very high-risk category, and comprehensive action is required as soon as possible. The five cement transport employees were also at danger of MSDs since they had a total score of individual complaints in the range of 63–84, indicating that the risk level was at a score of 3, as such complete action is required as soon as feasible.
Based on the results of the workers’ posture and workload calculation on the activities of receiving rice, transporting rice, and laying rice from day 1 to day 6, an OWAS score of 3-4 is obtained, which is included in the high to very high risk category, so that the results of the assessment of rice transportation activities using OWAS are obtained. MSDs may be injured as a result of this action. While calculating work posture and workload on 5 cement transportation workers using RULA, it was discovered that workers 1 to 5 received an RULA score of 7, which is included in the action level 4 with high risk level, thus action is required as soon as feasible. The assessment of cement transportation activities using RULA also revealed that the level of risk from posture and workload in the activities performed could result in MSD injury. The transport tools’ design is projected to lower the risk of MSDs but not totally remove it because there are numerous restrictions that effect the results of the rice transport workers.
Data availabilityUnderlying data
Figshare: Data Base NBM, RULA, OWAS.
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19545670.v1.
This project contains the following underlying data:
Data 1 eng.docx. (NBM data dan OWAS.)
Data 2 eng.docx. (NBM data and RULA.)
Data are available under the terms of the
Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Author contributions
Christofora Desi Kusmindari: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Data Curation, and Writing – Review & Editing
Poppy Indriani: Project Aministration
Haritz Nu’man:Methodology, Validation
Salma Mutiamuthmainah: Data Curation,, Formal Analysis, and Writing – Original Draft Preparation
Ira Erina: Data Curation, i, Formal Analysis, and Writing – Original Draft Preparation
Acknowledgments
Thanks for Iqbal Ramdhani, English Department, Universitas Bina Darma
ReferencesBintangANDewiSK:
Analisa Postur Kerja Menggunakan Metode OWAS dan RULA.Jurnal Teknik Industri.2017;18(1):43.
10.22219/jtiumm.vol18.no1.43-54BudimanESetyaningrumR:
Perbandingan Metode-metode Biomekanika untuk Menganalisis Postur pada Aktivitas Manual Material Handling (MMH).2006;46–52.DewiNF:
Identifikasi Risiko Ergonomi dengan Metode Nordic Body Map Terhadap Perawat Poli RS X.Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Terapan.2020;2(2):125–134.
10.7454/jsht.v2i2.90El AhmadyRFMartiniSKusnayatA:
Penerapan Metode Ergonomic Function Deployment Dalam Perancangan Alat Bantu Untuk Menurunkan Balok Kayu.Jisi: Jurnal Integrasi Sistem Industri.2020;7(1):21–30.Factsheet 4 - Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders|Safety and health at work EU-OSHA:n.d.Retrieved March 26, 2022.
Reference SourceFitriMLailaW:
KAJIAN PERBAIKAN POSTUR KERJA DENGAN METODE OWAS (OVAKO WORKING POSTURE ANALYSIS SYSTEM) (Studi Kasus di Pabrik Roti Cimpago Putih).Jurnal Sains Dan Teknologi: Jurnal Keilmuan Dan Aplikasi Teknologi Industri.2017;17(2):138.
10.36275/stsp.v17i2.73Gómez-GalánMCallejón-FerreÁJPérez-AlonsoJ:
Musculoskeletal risks: RULA bibliometric review.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2020;17(12).
3256056610.3390/ijerph17124354KusminadriCHDTianM:
Perancangan Sistem Kerja Bagian Pengelasan dengan Metode Rapid Entire Body Assesment. November.2021;185–191.KusmindariCHDMelitaDPutraFR:
Evaluasi Postur Kerja pada Proses Pengangkatan Semen dengan Menggunakan Metode Ovako Working Analysis System (OWAS) (Studi Kasus PT. Semen Baturaja Palembang) Bina Darma Conference on Engineering Science 2.Bina Darma Conference on Engineering Science.2020;2(1):231–237.NurRFLestariERMustanirohSA:
Analisis Postur Kerja pada Stasiun Pemanenan Tebu dengan Metode OWAS dan REBA, Studi Kasus di PG Kebon Agung, Malang.Teknologi Dan Manajemen Agroindustri.2016;5(1):39–45.
Per.01/men/1978.(1978). 1–10.PurnomoAJUmamUKEl AhmadyRF:
Desain Troli Ergonomis sebagai Alat Angkut Gas LPG.IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.2010;16(1):131–140.
10.1088/1757-899X/277/1/012021PurwaningsihDPR:
ERGONOMIC ASSESSMENT DI PT PERKEBUNAN TAMBI MENGGUNAKAN TOOLS OWAS, RULA, DAN REBA (Studi Kasus di unit perkebunan Tanjungsari) Dyah Priamsari *, Ratna Purwaningsih ** Program Studi Teknik Industri, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Diponegoro Dyah.priam.2016;1–8.PutriNTAmrinaEFatriasD:
Ergonomic Evaluation on Chicken Feeder Tool at Egg-Laying Chicken Farm SME.Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri.2021;20(1):52–60.
10.25077/josi.v20.n1.p52-60.2021RestuputriDPPrimadiESLukmanM:
Analisa Postur Kerja terhadap Aktivitas Manual Material Handling Menggunakan Metode OWAS.Seminar Nasional Teknologi Dan Rekayasa (SENTRA).2017;1–8.TioganaVHartonoN:
Analisis Postur Kerja dengan Menggunakan REBA dan RULA di PT X.Journal of Integrated System.2020;3(1):9–25.
10.28932/jis.v3i1.2463WadhikhMK:
ANALISA POSTUR KERJA OPERATOR REWORK DENGAN PENDEKATAN METODE OWAS DAN RULA DI PT. JEBE KOKO INDONESIA.2019.WahyudiMADaniaWAPSilalahiRLR:
Work Posture Analysis of Manual Material Handling Using OWAS Method.Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia.2015;3:195–199.
10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.01.038WalikotaP:
PERATURAN DAERAH KOTA PALEMBANG NOMOR 07 TAHUN 2009 TENTANG KAWASAN TANPA ROKOK DENGAN RAHMAT TUHAN YANG MAHA ESA WALIKOTA PALEMBANG.2009; (Issue57).WidianaDRRamanaIAHandokoL:
Penilaian Postur Kerja Menggunakan Rapid Entire Body Assessment dan Perancangan Fasilitas Kerja pada Stasiun Kerja Press di Perusahaan Coco fiber.Jurnal IPTEK.2021;25(1):59–68.
10.31284/j.iptek.2021.v25i1.1157YadiS:
Titik Berat Dan Stabilitas (Center of Gravity and Stability).2012.وآخرون, م. ص. ا:
No Titleمقدمة في الأعمال في عصر التكنولوجيا2004;303.10.5256/f1000research.134077.r242180Reviewer response for version 1GorcePhilippe1Refereehttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4992-8443
International Institute for Biomechanics and Occupational Ergonomics,, Universite de Toulon, Toulon, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
The aim of this study is to quantify the workload and provide a design tool to help lessen worker concerns. The Nordic Body Map, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), and Ovako Working Analysis System (OWAS) methodologies were used in this investigation. The study's findings showed that the five cement transport workers and four rice transport workers were at risk of developing musculoskeletal illnesses, with a risk level of 3 to 4, indicating that the risk category is very high and comprehensive treatment is required as soon as feasible.
The theme of the proposed article is interesting, but the article needs to be rewritten with a clear objective and hypothesis. The references to international works are insufficient and should be improved in the "introduction" and "discussion" sections. The method should be detailed, and the choices argued. The results should be presented synthetically, with relevant numerical values, so that the reader can assess the contribution and interest of the proposed work. The discussion should be rewritten, and a limitation section added. Here are a few remarks and recommendations to improve the article:
The objective of the article is difficult to identify: is it the use of the OWAS and RULA assessment tools? Is it the evaluation of MSD risks with and without the "backpack"? etc. The authors must propose a clear objective with a hypothesis.
The sample studied was very small (five cement transporters and four rice transporters), which severely limits the scope of the work presented and therefore the generalizability of the results proposed.
No information on posture characterization. How are joint angles defined? What measurement systems are used? What method is used?
How do the authors go from an activity, i.e. a movement, to a few postures? detailed and developed.
There is little or no information on the Nordic Body Map questionnaire. Why did you choose OWAS and RULA to assess MSD risk? Justify this choice in relation to other existing tools.
The authors try to propose a solution to reduce the risk of RSI. Why not compare subjects with and without backpack use? Such a comparison would have increased the scientific interest of the article.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
No
Reviewer Expertise:
Musculoskeletal disorders, WRMSD, Biomechanics, Ergonomics, Musculoskeletal Modeling MSD risk Work, Occupational Health and Disease, Industrial Ergonomics, Safety, Disability, Rehabilitation, Sport Biomechanics Surgery, Occupational Health, Meta-Analysis, Meta-Regression, Gait Analysis, Posture and Balance, Computational Biomechanics 3D Modeling, Motion Capture, Motion Analysis,
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.
10.5256/f1000research.134077.r242161Reviewer response for version 1XieZiyang12Referee
North Carolina State University, Raleigh,, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Xi'an Jiaotong University (Ringgold ID: 12480), Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
The article utilizes a mixed-methods approach, including RULA and OWAS, to assess the risk level of workers under high workloads. Overall, the research is meaningful and may greatly impact workplace safety. However, there are also some points need to be addressed:
Formatting and Readability: The manuscript should undergo thorough proofreading to correct formatting inconsistencies, including indents and missing spaces, to enhance readability.
Claims Moderation: The claim that "The industrial world is rapidly evolving and totally automated" may be too absolute. A more nuanced term like "increasingly automated" would be more accurate and reflective of the current industrial landscape.
Language Specificity: Terms like "operate smoothly" are too vague. Please describe with more specific words.
Clarity in Data Presentation: The significance of numeric values in Table 1 needs clarification. The caption should explicitly state the scale used and its relevance to fatiguelessness.
Sample Size Justification: The article's sample size appears limited. A justification for this choice and the potential inclusion of a standard 7-level questionnaire for enhanced data reliability and analysis should be considered.
Literature Review Expansion: A broader literature review would better situate the study within the existing body of research, particularly focusing on recent studies that contextualize the investigation's relevance.
Methodological Detail Enhancement: Detailed descriptions of the methodologies used, including data collection and analysis methods, are necessary for reproducibility and critical assessment by peers.
Statistical Analysis Depth: The manuscript would benefit from a deeper explanation of the statistical analysis, including the rationale for method selection and the significance of findings.
Discussion of Limitations: A thorough discussion on the study's limitations and their potential impact on the findings would provide a balanced and comprehensive view of the research.
Directions for Future Research: The conclusion should offer clear directions for future research, identifying gaps in the current study and suggesting how the research could be extended or refined.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
Ergonomics
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
10.5256/f1000research.134077.r156606Reviewer response for version 1JainRahul1Refereehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4355-7744
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Teaching Department, Rajasthan Technical University Kota, Kota, Rajasthan, India
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Thanks for giving me opportunity of reading this article. I have few suggestions for improvement as given below:
1. Generally, your introduction section needs to be substantially revised, as you failed to establish the fundamental rationale of your study. You should describe clearly what previous studies found (specifically manual working scenario), what limitations they had, then you can identify the research gap. Why were you interested in investigating it?
2. How was the questionnaire developed? Neither justification of various items nor any supporting literature is provided. Like from where is the questionnaire developed?
3. Some of the tables are not present in the article such as Tables 14-18.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
Ergonomics, Manufacturing system design, Product development, Industrial design, Posture biomechanics
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
DesiChristofora
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
232023
Reviewer says: Some of the tables are not present in the article such as Tables 14-18.
Answer: this table just for references for other researcher but if is necessary I will present it.