4
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Evaluation of ergonomic models and methods applicable in
basic industries
Recibido (06/12/21 ) Aceptado (03/01/22)
Abstract:
There are multiple ergonomic models and methods to perform ergonomic evaluations.
However, knowing which ones to apply are the most common questions, so this research aims to
evaluate different models and methods to know the key factors for improvement in the workplace.
An extensive bibliographic review was carried out, being from the methodological point of view a
descriptive study. It was determined that the methods applied evaluate the efforts in function of the
postures that determine musculoskeletal disorders in a general way, indicating only the risk levels without
considering actions for change, and as for the models, these are focused on safety, quality and labor
productivity to increase the effectiveness of the improvements. Finally, a holistic model is presented
that synthesizes the key variables for evaluations and improvement actions in the basic industrial sector
Keywords:
Ergonomic Models, Ergonomic Methods, Basic Industries, Job Evaluation.
Evaluación de Modelos y Métodos Ergonómicos Aplicables en
Industrias Básicas
Resumen:
Para realizar las evaluaciones existen múltiples modelos y métodos ergonómicos. Sin
embargo, saber cuáles aplicar son las interrogantes más comunes, por lo cual la presente investigación
tiene como objetivo evaluar distintos modelos y métodos para conocer los factores claves de mejoras
en los puestos de trabajo. Se realizó una extensa revisión bibliográca siendo desde el punto de
vista metodológico un estudio de carácter descriptivo. Se determinó que los métodos aplicados
evalúan los esfuerzos en función de las posturas que determinan los trastornos musculo-esqueléticos
de manera general indicando solamente los niveles de riesgos sin considerar acciones de cambio y
en cuanto a los modelos, estos se enfocan hacia la seguridad, la calidad y la productividad laboral
para incrementar la efectividad de las mejoras. Finalmente, se presenta un modelo holístico que
sintetiza las variables claves para evaluaciones y acciones de mejora en el sector industrial básico.
Palabras Clave:
Modelos Ergonómicos, Métodos Ergonómicos, Industrias Básicas, Evaluación de Puestos de
Trabajo.
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
Escalante Magally
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9794-7900
mcescalante.doctorando@unexpo.edu.ve
UNEXPO-Puerto Ordaz
Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela
Guaita Wilfredo
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8181-0977
wguaita@uneg.edu.ve
Universidad Nacional Experimental de Guayana
Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela
https://doi.org/10.47460/uct.v26i112.540
5
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
I.INTRODUCTION
Ergonomics is a science that was born as a conse
-
quence of the musculoskeletal ailments or disorders
that workers manifest when performing their tasks or
activities. [1] denes ergonomics as the interaction of
a multidisciplinary team with the aim of adapting pro
-
ducts, systems and articial environments to the needs,
limitations and characteristics of their users, optimizing
efciency, safety and well-being.
In order to carry out evaluations to determine the
risks associated with the postures adopted by the wor
-
ker, researchers created ergonomic evaluation methods.
Each method was created by a multidisciplinary team
in order to incorporate variables and factors that allow
comprehensive data to be analyzed and improvement
actions to be taken.
Regarding the methods, they are classied accor
-
ding to their applicability. For example, there are those
that allow the evaluation of general working conditions,
load handling, repetitiveness, postural load, among
others. For the purposes of the research, it was determi
-
ned to evaluate those of postural load because they are
the most used according to [2]. It could be inferred that
this could be because the most common occupational
disorders are musculoskeletal disorders, which repre
-
sent the highest proportion other than cancer [3].
It is appropriate to quote [4] where they concluded
that the most reported diseases in 2004 were musculos
-
keletal diseases. It could be inferred that these gures
are increasing from previous years.
However, according to theoretical and practical eva
-
luations carried out with each of the methods, it was
detected that to evaluate postural loads it is necessary
to apply more than one method because the informa
-
tion generated is very ambiguous. This situation leads
to apply other methods in order to have more reliable
results. However, it was also determined that applying
several methods to the same task generates results that
lead to confusion regarding the actions to be considered
in relation to the level of risk obtained.
[5] points out that there are innumerable methods
proposed for the recording and evaluation of postural
loads, or other factors associated with musculoskeletal
disorders, but they are applied to specic cases, which
limits a comprehensive evaluation and thus more effec
-
tive actions.
[6] state that both REBA and RULA do not consider
organizational factors, a fundamental aspect for ergo
-
nomic evaluations. In addition, they do not consider the
pace of work, the duration of recovery periods, or the
number of breaks during the workday. Therefore, it is
recommended that these methods be applied to obtain
preliminary information and then use other methodolo
-
gies to better specify the information and the action to
be taken.
Regarding OWAS [7] they state that it is one of the
most used methods because it is useful for the identi
-
cation of inadequate postures, however, it cannot be
used to determine the precision of the degrees of incli
-
nation that the body would have when performing the
tasks. They also indicate that, although it allows a com
-
bination of encodings representing posture as well as
strength, the results are very general.
Due to the above considerations, the research aims
to evaluate the ergonomic models and methods in basic
industries, with the purpose of knowing the key factors
to make decisions to improve the workstations.
For the determination of the factors, a bibliographic
review and research of works where ergonomic me
-
thods were applied were carried out. From the metho
-
dological point of view, the study is of a documentary
and descriptive nature in order to validate the applica
-
bility of the models. Thus, a comparative analysis was
carried out which generated conclusive results.
II.MATERIALS AND METHODS
In order to validate the results of the methods applied
to different tasks, several evaluations were made at the
documentary level based on the search for data, its cap
-
ture and critical analysis to interpret data from primary
and secondary sources reected in reports and infor
-
mations of the subject matter of study in the company
taken as a reference.
The sources and documents obtained were of a se
-
condary nature from the works of other authors refe
-
renced where appropriate, and in view of their research
nature, the sources came from textbooks, specialized
articles, reports and case studies.
Due to the above conditions, the research is descrip
-
tive because the characteristics were identied, which
allowed comparisons between the methods and analy
-
sis of the models, in order to determine the variables
contained in each one and to dene the advantages and
disadvantages. In this aspect [8] states that the study
of the variables independently is part of describing the
characteristics, in addition to determining the behavior
of the variables.
In addition, it is determined that the research is of
the documentary type because bibliographic sources
were used to be analyzed and evaluated in order to res
-
pond to the topic under study. [9] states that this type
of research is related to the documentary review of the
topic of interest where comparisons are made between
several writings. Thirty-ve papers were evaluated, co
-
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
6
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
rresponding to undergraduate theses, internships and
articles in indexed journals.
III.RESULTS
There are several models and methods used by spe
-
cialists in order to evaluate jobs according to the risks
that may be present in the inherent activities towards the
worker. Each one has different variables to consider in
order to obtain feasible results that contribute to impro
-
ve and minimize risks and musculoskeletal disorders.
Regarding the methods as each one has its purpo
-
se, [10] made several classications, such as: Postural
Load, Load Handling, Forces and Biomechanics, Repe
-
titiveness, Ofce Positions; Global Assessment; Ther
-
mal Environment and Utilities.
For the purposes of the research, the authors consi
-
dered evaluating those classied in the Postural Load.
Having made the above observation, the methods to be
developed are: EPR, OWAS, RULA and REBA. In this
order of ideas we have the following:
A.EPR Method (Rapid Postural Evaluation)
The productive processes of companies are carried
out by technological equipment and the intervention of
human labor. In the activities or tasks in which the wor
-
ker is involved, he/she has to adopt dynamic or static
postures in order to make the product. This condition
can eventually lead to ailments or conditions that affect
the worker's quality of life.
According to [11], the EPR is a tool that allows a
general and preliminary evaluation to determine the sta
-
tic load. It is necessary to point out that the assessment
system used is the LEST method, so the EPR proposes
a performance level between 1 and 5. It is convenient
to indicate that the EPR performs a global assessment
of the different postures adopted and the time they are
maintained. Fourteen possible generic postures are spe
-
cied.
Depending on the result obtained and because it is
preliminary diagnostic information, it is advisable to
carry out a more in-depth study using one of the postu
-
ral loading methods such as OWAS, REBA, RULA, in
that order of application.
B.OWAS Method (Ovako Working Posture
Analysis System)
OWAS was created in 1977 by a multidisciplinary
team in order to promote postural evaluations due to the
fact that workers were suffering from ailments and thus
had little effectiveness in performing their tasks. [12]
indicates that this method is based on observation with
the purpose of dening the posture and classifying it.
The code is established according to classication and
an assessment of the risk level is obtained in order to
specify corrective actions to improve the workplace. It
is a method that has generated important contributions,
as well as other methods.
With reference to the methods already mentioned,
[13] points out that the most commonly applied me
-
thods to evaluate the physical postural load are OWAS,
RULA and REBA.
C.RULA Method (Rapid Upper Limb Assess
-
ment)
RULA is a method developed by McAtamney and
Corlett for use in assessments involving the human
body, specically the upper limbs.
To apply it, the division of the body must be consi
-
dered, i.e., right and left side separately. Based on the
posture, a score is established which leads to a total va
-
lue according to the crossing of the variables. Thus de
-
termining the level of risk and the action considered in
order to take the necessary steps for improvement in or
-
der to minimize the possible musculoskeletal disorder.
It should be added that [14] indicated that RULA
does not provide detailed information, such as nger
position. They state that it is advisable to collect infor
-
mation in a general way and then use other more com
-
prehensive ergonomic assessment tools.
D.REBA Method (Rapid Entire Body Assess
-
ment)
This method is based on the RULA parameters in
order to incorporate variables that allow more viable re
-
sults towards postural load evaluations.
The purpose of the method is to determine the levels
of risks associated with the task performed by the wor
-
ker, which is why individual postures are considered for
its application. It should be noted that the correct postu
-
re is the Neutral position, so those that are outside this
condition are considered, in addition to the duration or
frequency. For this purpose, the method allows a com
-
prehensive evaluation of the positions adopted by the
upper body members (arm, forearm, wrist), trunk, neck
and legs. In addition to this, it considers other variables
such as the force performed at the moment of manipula
-
ting a load, as well as the type of grip performed.
[15] states that this method is the most widespread
in practice because it is especially sensitive to tasks that
involve unexpected changes in posture. Likewise [16]
point out that there are many studies that support the
REBA as one of the most widely used tools in postural
load analysis.
In short, it can be said that the method generates im
-
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
7
Tolentino S. y Caraballo S. Simulación numérica del ujo de aire.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 21, Nº 82 Marzo 2017 (pp. 4-15)
ISSN 2542-3401
7
7
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
portant contributions in the evaluations, however, it is
necessary to contrast it in order to detect its advanta
-
ges and disadvantages, for example, one of the ways to
evaluate is to observe the posture and see the angle of
inclination that it has in the joint of the evaluated part.
Regardless of the angle, the method tells you to consi
-
der a xed score.
The aforementioned methods allow a broader pers
-
pective of risk situations with a view to an integral or
holistic model in ergonomic matters.
E. Ergonomic Management Models
[17] He proposed a model of occupational health
and safety with integrated management for the sustai
-
nability of organizations with the purpose of promoting
healthy lifestyles among workers, as well as improving
working conditions and care of the environment with
quality and productivity. Figure 1 shows the model and
it can be seen that one of the factors considered was
ergonomics.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Fig. 1. SSeTGIS model. Components by levels of action and process.
Source: Anaya Velasco, A. (2017, p. 103).
For the development of the model, the author consi
-
dered as important components health, hygiene condi
-
tions at work, safety conditions at work, environmental
care, as well as quality and productivity as integral ma
-
nagement. It should be noted that among her conclu
-
sions she states that her model differs from others be
-
cause it focuses on taking health and safety at work as a
perspective centered on people as the rst beneciaries
and participants in the work culture it promotes.
On the other hand, it is mentioned [18] who develo
-
ped the ergonomics maturity model for companies with
the purpose of evaluating the capabilities they possess,
and based on the results, they are able to draw strategies
aimed at introducing, applying and developing ergono
-
mics in companies, integrating it into the processes and
contributing to the fulllment of the organization's ob
-
jectives.
The aforementioned authors considered several le
-
vels where a set of characteristics related to the recog
-
nition of ergonomics were proposed for each level, thus
generating the model represented in Figure
8
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
Fig. 2. Ergonomics Maturity Model for Enterprises.
Source: Rodríguez Ruíz, Pérez Mergarejo, & Montero Mártinez, (2012, p. 24).
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Level 1 refers to the lack of knowledge of ergono
-
mics and the benets it generates for the development
of production processes, as well as improvements in the
worker's quality of life.
Levels 2 and 3 emphasize the benets and applica
-
tion of ergonomics in order to minimize possible ill
-
nesses, as well as worker safety. Towards level 3, small
projects are developed, guided by the ergonomist and
the engineer.
Level 4 focuses on training and qualication of wor
-
kers, but mainly to senior management with the purpose
of assuming commitments and recognizing ergonomics
as a means that contributes to the achievement of objec
-
tives. And nally, level 5 promotes the successful inte
-
gration of ergonomics as part of management strategies.
At this level, the employee plays a very important role
because his or her opinions are the basis for the imple
-
mentation of improvements. Likewise, there are already
indicators to monitor and make adjustments according
to the deviations that may occur.
Now, for the evaluation of the model they conside
-
red a company where the maximum level reached was
Level 2, however, of the elements evaluated, two of
them were positioned in level 1; then, they concluded
that their classication is located in the lower level 1
(N-1 Ignorance). The information obtained from the
model allows the companies to see how they are doing
and thus carry out improvement actions towards the im
-
plementation of ergonomic programs.
[19] They designed a strategic model for the imple
-
mentation of ergonomics in operations management.
Based on it, they stated that the implementation will
allow organizations to apply ergonomics knowledge to
production operations, in relation to technologies, work
organization and human resources.
9
Tolentino S. y Caraballo S. Simulación numérica del ujo de aire.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 21, Nº 82 Marzo 2017 (pp. 4-15)
ISSN 2542-3401
9
9
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
Fig.3 Model "Ergonomics Implementation in operations management.
Source: [19]
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Figure 3 shows that the application of the model
leads companies to achieve Social and Sustainable De
-
velopment as a result.
The authors state that the application of ergonomics
should be carried out in terms of operation and ergono
-
mics management. That is why in level 3 they present
the integration of both. They state that the results will be
more effective because the quality standards will also
be taken into account.
In addition to the above, they considered at level 4
aspects such as worker participation, management su
-
pport, exibility, availability of information and stake
-
holder participation. Indicating that the lack of any of
them would signicantly decrease the effectiveness of
ergonomic solutions.
In addition to the above, the aspects at level 6 were
considered because they are the ones that will allow to
control the deviations in the process. Because at this
level it will be possible to identify problems and thus
analyze them in order to carry out corrective actions
aligned with management strategies.
However, they also considered the client as a fun
-
damental element, since he is the main consumer and
therefore the one that allows feedback towards manage
-
ment improvements.
Finally, they express that the elements indicated by
levels add up to a whole and inuence each other, ge
-
nerating results towards a social responsibility that is
the basis for the sustainable development of the orga
-
nization.
On the other hand, in [20] they express that the ISO
45001 (safety management system standard) provides
a new model that can be used as an effective system to
manage ergonomics.
ISO 45001 is an international safety management
system standard that was published on March 15, 2018.
Its content is aligned to the Deming Cycle.
The model for managing ergonomics, based on ISO
45001 states that all levels of the company, must be
engaged and empowered in the ergonomics processes.
Each responsibility must be well dened and with it
also their ergonomics education and training.
In addition to the above, it indicates that effective
risk reduction controls must be applied, both in the wor
-
kstations and in the task performed by the worker. And
with this, the necessary resources should be established,
as well as the review of ergonomic operations.
IV.DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Each method has important contributions towards
the evaluation of risks associated with postural load,
so it is necessary to contribute with other variables and
factors that strengthen the postural load evaluations. Ta
-
ble 1 below presents the details of the methods showing
the advantages and disadvantages of each one, as well
as their objectives.
10
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
Table 1. Characteristics of the methods.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
11
Tolentino S. y Caraballo S. Simulación numérica del ujo de aire.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 21, Nº 82 Marzo 2017 (pp. 4-15)
ISSN 2542-3401
11
11
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Thirty-ve papers from different universities and
journals were evaluated, where it was found that 75%
recommend applying the methods because they provide
general information on the conditions in which the jobs
are located. However, 47% recommend that the results
should be deepened because the evaluator could have
errors in the actions to be considered due to the evalua
-
tion criteria of each method. For example, the REBA
method has a score ranging from 1 to 15, while RULA
presents 7 as the highest value.
[21] point out the difference in the previous section
in terms of score levels, but state that the RULA in most
cases has greater severity. Although they nally conclu
-
de that both methods give similar results. Table 2 shows
some activities and the results of the methods applied in
ergonomic evaluations.
12
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
Table 2. Results of the REBA and RULA methods in ergonomic evaluations.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
R
E
B
A
R
U
L
A
PlumbingScore:7
Risk Level: Medium
Action:Actionis
necessary.
Score:4
RiskLevel:Low
Action:Changesinthetask
mayberequired;further
studyisdesirable.
Maintenanceofgreenareas
Score: 10
RiskLevel:High
Action:Actionisneededas
soonaspossible
Score:7
Risk
Level: High
Action:Urgentchangesinthe
taskarerequired.
BuildingmaintenanceScore:9
RiskLevel:High
Action:Actionisneededas
soonaspossible
Score:7
Risk
Level: High
Action:Urgentchangesinthe
taskarerequired.
Tankerposition
Score:6Score:6
RiskLevel:Medium
Action: Action
isnecessary.
RiskLevel:High
Action: Redesign
ofthe
task is
required.
MotorgraderstandScore:4
Risk Level: Medium
Action:Actionis
necessary.
Score:4
RiskLevel:Low
Action:Changesinthetask
may
berequired;further
study
isdesirable.
OilandfilterchangeScore:5
Risk Level: Medium
Action:Actionis
necessary.
Score:7
Risk
Level: High
Action:Urgentchangesinthe
taskarerequired.
Air
conditioning
belt
replaceme
nt.
Score:4
Risk Level: Medium
Action:Actionis
necessary.
Score:4
RiskLevel:Low
Action:Changesinthetask
mayberequired;furtherstudy
isdesirable.
13
Tolentino S. y Caraballo S. Simulación numérica del ujo de aire.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 21, Nº 82 Marzo 2017 (pp. 4-15)
ISSN 2542-3401
13
13
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Each method has an action level, it means, both pre
-
sent a score that must be contrasted with the informa
-
tion collected in the ergonomic evaluations of postural
loads. Depending on the score, the level of risk is con
-
sidered, as well as the action to be taken to minimize or
eliminate the condition affecting the worker.
It can be seen in the table above that some activi
-
ties have different levels of performance, for example,
when changing the air conditioning belt, REBA indica
-
tes that action is necessary, while RULA suggests that
the study should be carried out in depth. Results such as
those shown in table 2 are the ones that generate confu
-
sion when applying the methods.
However, with respect to the application of the
OWAS method in conjunction with some of the two
previous methods, the same drawbacks arise in terms of
risk levels and actions. Table III shows the evaluation
of some activities and their results according to the me
-
thod considered.
Table 3. Results of the OWAS, RULA and REBA methods in ergonomic evaluations. REBA methods in er
-
gonomic evaluations.
ActivityOWASRULA
Butt
welding
Score:
4
Risk
Level:
VeryHigh
Action:
Correctiveactionis
required
immediately.
Score:
6
Risk
Level:High
Action:
Redesignofthetask
required
ActivityOWASREBA
Oven
CrustBreaking
Score:
2
Risk
Level:Medium
Action:
Correctiveactionsare
required
inthe
near
future.
Score:
2
Risk
Level:Low
Action:
Actionmaybe
required
Positioning
Lid,tocovercells
Score:
3
Risk
Level:High
Action:
Correctiveaction
required
assoonaspossible
Score:
3
Risk
Level:Low
Action:
Actionmaybe
required
Like the previous methods, OWAS also presents
risk levels in order to indicate the required action. This
method differs from the others because its technique is
based on coding the posture, allowing the assessor to
determine the risk category.
Table 3 shows different levels of risk for the same
task, which could be said to be a consequence of the
technique or procedures that each method has. Howe
-
ver, such a situation could inuence the decisions and
improvement actions in the tasks or activities.
[22] also states that the OWAS method is excellent
for postural load assessment. However, it has limita
-
tions, it does not allow discerning between different de
-
grees of exion or extension when evaluating posture.
In addition to considering as the only risk factor the fact
of working with the arms above shoulder level, there
are other relevant factors. He concludes that the OWAS
method should be applied as a rst evaluation, which
should be complemented with another method.
It should be noted that the methods do not indicate in
depth the action to be taken, so it will be the evaluator in
conjunction with a multidisciplinary team who will de
-
cide the changes to be made to improve the conditions
of the worker. However, it is important to continue with
studies and research that generate methods that inclu
-
de variables that allow the collection of more in-dep
-
th information, as well as recommend, broader actions
towards the effectiveness of the processes.
As for the models in general, some of them allow
companies to be evaluated in a comprehensive manner
in order to determine their management capabilities, so
that improvement actions can be taken towards the im
-
14
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
plementation of ergonomic programs, as in the case of
this study.
The purpose of the models is to integrate each de
-
partment of the company because they consider that
the commitment must be promoted from the top ma
-
nagement in order to assume the cultural changes of
the worker. In addition, they promote an integral stra
-
tegic management where health, environment, hygiene
at work, quality, productivity, but above all, worker's
commitment, are considered as fundamental pillars. Fi
-
nally, it becomes evident the importance of creating a
model that considers the interrelation of the strengths of
the methods already created with the purpose of having
an advance of results in the evaluations of the postural
loads.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Fig.4: Ergonomic management evaluation model for manufacturing processes
Source: Authors
V.CONCLUSIONS
1.The study reects, after a comparative analysis,
some methodologies that evaluate the efforts according
to the determining postures in musculoskeletal disor
-
ders, based on general evaluations that only indicate
risk levels without considering actions for change, whi
-
le other methodologies focus on safety at work, quality
and business productivity.
2.In particular, the Rapid Postural Evaluation (RPE)
methodology allows for a general and preliminary eva
-
luation in order to determine the static load. In this sen
-
se, the RPE performs a global assessment of the diffe
-
rent postures adopted and maintained over time and the
result obtained is preliminary information that recom
-
mends a more in-depth study using one of the postural
load methods.
3.The Ovako Working Posture Analysis System
(OWAS) methodology starts with observation in order
to dene the posture and classify it. It establishes a code
according to classication and facilitates an assessment
of the level of risk, and thus the corrective actions to
improve the work posture are specied.
4.The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) me
-
thod evaluates actions that involve the human body,
specically the upper limbs. It is applied considering
the division of the body into right side and left side se
-
parately. Based on the posture, a score is established
which leads to a total value, according to the crossing of
the variables, thus determining the level of risk and the
action considered for the management of improvement
in minimizing possible musculoskeletal disorders.
5.As for the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
method, it determines the levels of risks associated with
the task performed by the worker, which is why it con
-
siders individual postures for its application. The me
-
thod allows a comprehensive evaluation of the positions
adopted by the upper body members (arm, forearm,
wrist), trunk, neck and legs, and the strength of the wor
-
ker when handling a load, as well as the type of grip.
6.The comparative evaluation of ergonomic study
methodologies, revealed a gap that is lled by integra
-
15
Tolentino S. y Caraballo S. Simulación numérica del ujo de aire.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 21, Nº 82 Marzo 2017 (pp. 4-15)
ISSN 2542-3401
15
15
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
ting into one model the multiple methodologies that
contemplate the key variables in the ergonomic mana
-
gement of the basic industrial sector.
7.In its rst phase, the model allows a recognition of
ergonomics in the company with the EPR methodology.
In a subsequent step, it proposes to carry out the ergo
-
nomic intervention combining the OWAS, RULA and
REBA methods that give the framework of integrality.
Finally programs are applied to consolidate the ergono
-
mic culture.
REFERENCES
[1]Asociación Española de Ergonomía, “¿Qué es la
ergonomía?” http://ergonomos.es/ergonomia.php#:~:
-
text=Según la Asociación Española de,la ecacia%2C
seguridad y bienestar.
[2]J. A. Diego Mas, “Evaluación Postural Mediante el
Método REBA,” Ergonautas, Universidad Politécnica
de Valencia, 2015. http://www.ergonautas.upv.es/meto
-
dos/reba/reba-ayuda.php.
[3]Organización Mundial de la Salud, “Trastornos mus
-
culoesqueléticos,” 2021. https://www.who.int/es/news-
room/fact-sheets/detail/musculoskeletal-conditions.
[4]M. García Gómez and R. Castañeda López, “EN
-
FERMEDADES PROFESIONALES DECLARADAS
EN HOMBRES Y MUJERES EN ESPAÑA EN 2004,”
Salud Pública, vol. 4, pp. 361–375, 2006, [Online].
Available: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/gl/biblioPublic/
publicaciones/recursos_propios/resp/revista_cdrom/
vol80/vol80_4/RS804C_361.pdf.
[5]Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Tra
-
bajo (INSHT), Posturas de trabajo. Madrid.
[6]CENEA, “MÉTODO EVALUACIÓN ERGONÓ
-
MICA RULA: ¿CONOCES LOS RIESGOS DE UNA
INCORRECTA APLICACIÓN?,” Centro de Ergono
-
mía Aplicada. https://www.cenea.eu/metodo-evalua
-
cion-ergonomica-rula-conoces-los-riesgos-de-una-in-
correcta-aplicacion/.
[7]Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Tra
-
bajo, “NTP 452 : Evaluación de las condiciones de tra
-
bajo
: carga postural,” Cent. Nac. Condiciones Trab.,
1995, [Online]. Available: https://saludlaboralydiscapa
-
cidad.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NTP-452-Eva-
luación-de-las-condiciones-de-trabajo-Carga-postural.
pdf.
[8]F. G. Arias, El Proyecto de Investigación. Introduc
-
ción a la metodología cientíca, 6a. Caracas. Venezue
-
la: Episteme, 2012.
[9]R. Pino Gotuzzo, Metodología de la Investigación.
Elaboración de diseños para contrastar hipótesis. Perú:
San Marcos, 2018.
[10]Ergonautas, “Métodos de evaluación de la ergono
-
mía de puestos de trabajo,” Ergonautas, Universidad
Politécnica de Valencia. https://www.ergonautas.upv.
es/metodos-evaluacion-ergonomica.html.
[11]M. C. Barba Morán, El dictamen pericial en ergo
-
nomía y psicosociología aplicada. Madrid: Tébar, 2007.
[12]M. G. Obregón Sánchez, Fundamentos de Ergono
-
mía, Primera. México: Patria, 2016.
[13]I. Sánchez Barragán, “Prevencionar.com,” Eva
-
luación de la Carga Física Postural: ¿OWAS, RULA o
REBA?, 2017. https://prevencionar.com/2017/11/30/
evaluacion-la-carga-sica-postural-owas-rula-reba.
[14]N. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, and
H. Hendrick, Handbook of Human Factors and Ergono
-
mics Methods © 2005. United States of America: CRC
PRESS, 2005.
[15]M. Escalante and M. (+) Núñez Bottini, “Evalua
-
ción ergonómica en la producción. Caso de estudio:
Sector Aluminio, Estado Bolívar. Venezuela,” Ing. Ind.
Actual. y Nuevas Tendencias, vol. VI, No 21, no. 2610–
7813, pp. 73–90, 2018, [Online]. Available: http://ser
-
vicio.bc.uc.edu.ve/ingenieria/revista/Inge-Industrial/
index.htm.
[16]S. Asensio Cuesta, J. Bastante Ceca, and J. A. Die
-
go Más, Evaluación Ergonómica de Puestos de Trabajo.
Madrid: Paraninfo, 2012.
[17]A. Anaya-velasco, “Modelo de Salud y Seguridad
en el Trabajo con Gestión Integral para la Sustenta
-
bilidad de las organizaciones ( SSeTGIS ),” Cienc.
Trab., vol. 59, pp. 95–104, 2017, [Online]. Available:
https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/cyt/v19n59/0718-2449-
cyt-19-59-00095.pdf.
[18]Y. Rodríguez Ruíz, E. Pérez Mergarejo, and R.
Montero Martínez, “Modelo de Madurez de Ergonomía
para Empresas ( MMEE ),” El Hombre y la Máquina,
vol. 40, 2012, [Online]. Available: https://www.redalyc.
org/pdf/478/47826850003.pdf.
[19]H. Kalkis and Z. Roja, “Strategic Model for Ergo
-
nomics Implementation in Operations Management,”
J. Ergon., vol. 6, no. 4, 2016, doi: 10.4172/2165-
7556.1000173.
[20]W. Rostykus and R. Barker, “ISO 45001: un mo
-
delo para la gestión de la ergonomía en el lugar de tra
-
bajo,” EHSToday, 2018. https://www.ehstoday.com/
health/article/21919619/iso-45001-a-model-for-mana-
ging-workplace-ergonomics.
[21]M. García-garcía, A. Sánchez-lite, A. M. Camacho,
and R. Domingo, “Análisis de métodos de valoración
postural en las herramientas de simulación virtual para
la ingeniería de fabricación.,” DYNA, vol. 80, pp. 5–15,
2013, [Online]. Available: https://www.redalyc.org/arti
-
culo.oa?id=49628728001.
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
16
ISSN 2542-3401/ 1316-4821
Escalante et al., Evaluation of Ergonomic Models and Methods Applicable
[22]Secretaría de Salud Laboral de CCOO de Madrid,
métodos de evaluación ergonómica. Madrid, 2016.
CURRICULUM SUMMARY
UNIVERSIDAD, CIENCIA y TECNOLOGÍA Vol. 26, Nº 112 Marzo 2022 (pp. 04-16)
ISSN-e: 2542-3401, ISSN-p: 1316-4821
Escalante,MagallyMagisterinManagement,mention
operationsandproduction.IndustrialEngineer.Professorof
theMaster'sdegreeprogramoftheFacultyofMechanical
Engineering,UniversidaddelCallao.Lime.Academic
experienceinpublicuniversities,greaterthan15years.
CurrentlydoingdoctoralstudiesinEngineeringSciences.
Guaita,Wilfredo,DoctorinBusinessAdministrationandMaster
inProductionAdministration.ProfessorattheNational
Experimental
UniversityofGuayana.ResearcherPromotion
ProgramlevelI.Consultantengineerintrainingof
entrepreneurs,recruitmentandselectionofpersonnel,process
simulation,optimizationmethods,decisionmaking,production
planningandcontrolsystems,supplychainsandqualitycontrol.