Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to comparatively examine the personnel working in the clothing sector by examining them in three different methods in order to determine the working postures, identification of the stress factors of musculoskeletal system and the exposures depending on the working postures. Methods used in the study, REBA (Hignett and McAtamney, 2000), Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS) (Karhu et al., 1977) and PLIBEL (Kemmlert, 1995) are the scientific observation-based methods. Within the scope of this study, the working stations and the working postures of the operators who work in the clothing sector were examined and their movements that could cause harm to the body were examined and in conclusion some suggestions were suggested to prevent these movements.
Design/methodology/approach
Due to the standard unit of times in clothing sector are short and the work done is very repetitive, 30 min recording was thought as enough for each operator examined. These recorded videos were then divided into 30 s photographs to obtain the poses of the operators’ working postures. In the scope of the research, first, the PLIBEL observation form was filled as the PLIBEL method is more general one. According to the working postures, the body regions which are damaged or can be damaged were identified and the PLIBEL form was filled in the consideration of the risk factors in the form (Malchaire 2011). In addition, the photographs were also analyzed with REBA and OWAS methods for having more quantitative and detailed results.
Findings
The working postures of the operators who work in the cutting, sewing, ironing, quality control and packaging departments of six clothing companies were examined in the scope of this research with PLIBEL, REBA and OWAS methods in terms of ergonomy. The results belonging to each department were given separately. REBA and OWAS methods have been applied in order to investigate the working postures in more detail due to the lack of providing numerical data of the PLIBEL method. The reliability of the study has been approved with obtaining the similar results from the REBA and OWAS methods. According to Table VIII, both of the methods show that all the departments in question need ergonomic arrangements. It was analyzed that the cutting department is in the first place which needs ergonomic arrangement immediately (REBA %90.58, OWAS %87.69).
Practical implications
This study is composed of 65 operators who have experience between 5 and 22 years and in the age range of 22–43 working in the cutting, sewing, ironing, quality control and packaging departments in eight different clothing companies. These 65 operators were recorded by video camera during their work. The recording time were selected randomly. The movements of operators during their own work have been taken into consideration.
Originality/value
This paper indicates the usability of the PLIBEL, OWAS and REBA methods in clothing sector. Using these methods in clothing sectors states the value and the originality of this paper.
[1]
Katarzyna Grzybowska.
An OWAS-based analysis of storekeeper workloads
,
2010
.
[2]
Ana Lucia Berretta Hurtado,et al.
Ergonomic Analysis of a Clothing Design Station
,
2015
.
[3]
Sue Hignett,et al.
Rapid Entire Body Assessment
,
2004
.
[4]
Christopher M. Schlick,et al.
Effect of sampling interval on the reliability of ergonomic analysis using the Ovako working posture analysing system (OWAS)
,
2017
.
[5]
T. Fulder.
Ergonomically designed workstation based on simulation of worker's movements
,
2005
.
[6]
Jan Dul,et al.
Sewing machine operation: workstation adjustment, working posture, and workers’ perceptions
,
2002
.
[7]
Michael J. Kelly,et al.
Ergonomic Challenges in Conventional and Advanced Apparel Manufacturing.
,
1992
.
[8]
S Hignett,et al.
Rapid entire body assessment (REBA).
,
2000,
Applied ergonomics.
[9]
M Nurminen,et al.
Sewing-machine operators' work and musculo-skeletal complaints.
,
1982,
Ergonomics.
[10]
O Karhu,et al.
Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis.
,
1977,
Applied ergonomics.
[11]
L McAtamney,et al.
RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders.
,
1993,
Applied ergonomics.
[12]
Olcay Polat,et al.
A GOAL PROGRAMMING MODEL FOR ASSEMBLY LINE BALANCING PROBLEM TYPE 2 UNDER WORKLOAD CONSTRAINT
,
2015
.
[13]
E Occhipinti,et al.
[Musculoskeletal disorders of upper extremities caused by biomechanical overload: methods and criteria for the description of occupational exposure].
,
1996,
La Medicina del lavoro.
[14]
Karel Brookhuis,et al.
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods
,
2009
.
[15]
Nilüfer Öztürk,et al.
Investigation of musculoskeletal symptoms and ergonomic risk factors among female sewing machine operators in Turkey
,
2011
.
[16]
K. Kemmlert,et al.
A method assigned for the identification of ergonomic hazards - PLIBEL.
,
1995,
Applied ergonomics.
[17]
Alexander Mertens,et al.
Ergonomic analysis of working postures using OWAS in semi-trailer assembly, applying an individual sampling strategy
,
2017,
International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics : JOSE.
[18]
Peter Simonsson,et al.
Ergonomic exposures from the usage of conventional and self compacting concrete
,
2009
.
[19]
Fabrizio Mazzetto,et al.
Ergonomic analysis for the assessment of the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorder in forestry operations
,
2013
.
[20]
Veikko Louhevaara,et al.
Is the physical work load equal for ageing and young blue-collar workers?
,
1999
.
[21]
I de Bruijn,et al.
A simple method to evaluate the reliability of OWAS observations.
,
1998,
Applied ergonomics.
[22]
Joost Platje.
Ocena oferty przewozów regionalnych PKP według studentów
,
2005
.