Physical risks of work-related musculoskeletal complaints among quarry workers in East of Iran

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103107Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We investigated the working postures and prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints among quarry workers.

  • Work-related musculoskeletal complaints were high in quarry workers.

  • Workers training courses and ergonomic interventions can minimize the risk of musculoskeletal disorders.

Abstract

Quarry workers are at high risk of developing musculoskeletal complaints. The aim of this study was to evaluate the working postures and prevalence of musculoskeletal problems among quarry workers. In this cross-sectional study 78 male quarry workers were assessed using the method of Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA), and musculoskeletal complaints data were obtained by the Standardized Nordic Musculoskeletal questionnaire (NMQs). Results of the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems in body parts of stonemasonry workers was higher found than in the stonecutting workers. The highest prevalence rate of musculoskeletal problems in both stonemasonry and stonecutting workers was 65.7% and 54.8% respectively related to waist. The stonemasons with 62% had high level of risk and stone cutting workers with 47.6% had moderate risk level. Significant correlation was found among age, work experience, BMI, and prevalence of musculoskeletal problems. There was also a significant relationship between the wrist and lower back pain with the risk level of REBA score. The study results showed that musculoskeletal problems of workers had high prevalence and accordingly most of the work conditions and postures needed to be improved, so prioritizing the necessity of corrective actions and intervention are to be gained.

Introduction

The increasing demand for technical services in recent decades has led to an increase in the number of workers in this profession (Li et al., 2019). Workers who are working in such jobs encounter various harmful agents, in addition to early occurrence of fatigue and deterioration of health (Thepaksorn and Pongpanich, 2014), and from an economic aspect, they cause waste of time and increased costs (Tayyari and Smith, 1997), also they can be the cause of work-related musculoskeletal problems (Hellig et al., 2019). The labor force in small industries has increased in recent years, especially in Iran as a developing country, which accounts for 89.2% of the industries, amounting to 45.4% labor force (Boschman et al., 2015). It can lead to health issues for individuals operating them (Nowrouzi-Kia et al., 2018).

Inappropriate ergonomic work conditions are one of the most important factors in onset of musculoskeletal problems in stone cutting and stonemasonry workers. These problems may occur in long-term exposure to the causative factors (considered as Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTD)) and within a long process or suddenly due to big blow to a part of the musculoskeletal system (Ijaz et al., 2020; Maul et al., 2003; Singh et al., 2018). Studies have shown that pain and discomfort in various parts of the musculoskeletal system are major problems in the workplace, and musculoskeletal disorders are the cause of more than half of absenteeism at the workplace (Ahmad and Alvi, 2017; Boschman, van der Molen, Sluiter and Frings-Dresen, 2012; Haeffner et al., 2018). National institute for occupational safety and health (NIOSH) has classified diseases and complaints related to work, in which musculoskeletal problems are in second place after occupational respiratory diseases (Bernal et al., 2015).

In stone cutting and stonemasonry workshops, health and safety issues are paid little attentions due to various reasons such as large numbers with low income and low levels of education and skills among workers. On the other hand, few studies have been done on musculoskeletal problems in small industries (Boschman et al., 2015). This study was aimed to evaluate ergonomic conditions of stone cutting and stonemasonry workers and also to assess the relationship between the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems and work conditions.

Section snippets

Study design and participants

This cross-sectional and descriptive-analytical study was carried out in August, September and October of 2018 on male workers in the stone cutting and the stonemasonry workshops. The total number of participants regarding the inclusion criteria, was 78. The study population included stonemasons and workers of stone cutting workshops. Inclusion criteria for this study were at least one-year work experience, no history of surgery and accident-related musculoskeletal problems and no history of

Mean and standard deviation of demographic variable

A total 78 male workers participated in the study including the stonemasons (n = 36) and workers of stone cutting (n = 45) who completed the Nordic questionnaire, and three of them were omitted from the study due to inclusion criteria. The demographic information is presented in Table 1. The study participants had mean age of 36.27 ± 8.3 years, mean height of 1.27 ± 0.73 m, mean weight of 72.9 ± 12.2 kg, mean body mass index (BMI) of 24.5 ± 3.9 and mean job experience of 7.06 ± 4.4 years. The

Discussion

According to the results of the present study, the risk level of REBA score in stonemasons was low for 8.3% of cases, moderate for 25% of case, high for 61% of cases and very high for 5.6% of participants. The risk level of REBA score in stone cutting workers was low for 26.2% of cases, moderate for 48% of case, high for 19% of cases and very high for 7% of cases. The present study demonstrated that none of the participants had negligible risk and all of them had a need for ergonomic measures.

Conclusion

In general, the results of this study indicate that the stonemasons are exposed to higher risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders compared with stone cutting workers and the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems is higher in the stonemasons. Some suggestions to improve improper postures are avoiding rotating and bending at the same time and shifting the body position on the feet. The incidence risk of damages can be reduced by modifying workstations due to human capabilities and

Author statement

We are Dr. Behzad Fouladi-Dehaghi and Mr. Gholamheidar Teimori-Boghsani MSc., We were exported in safety and health in workplace, occupational ergonomics, noise control, heat stress and environmental exposure, and safety risk assessment.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this article.

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences (No; IR.THUMS.REC.1394.31). The authors hereby wish to thank all participants who so willingly cooperated in this study.

References (25)

  • J.H. Andersen et al.

    Risk factors for more severe regional musculoskeletal symptoms: a two‐year prospective study of a general working population

    Arthritis Rheum.

    (2007)
  • J.S. Boschman et al.

    Musculoskeletal disorders among construction workers: a one-year follow-up study

    BMC Muscoskel. Disord.

    (2012)
  • Cited by (2)

    • REBA assessment of patient transfer work using sliding board and Motorized Patient Transfer Device

      2022, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) is an ergonomic tool that has been used to evaluate work posture during nursing activities (Abdollahzade et al., 2016; Carneiro et al., 2015; Davison et al., 2021; Dias and Nunes, 2012; Iridiastadi et al., 2020). Most of the studies identified the postural angles by using video recordings (Davison et al., 2021; Ijaz et al., 2020), direct observation (Asadi et al., 2019; Fouladi-Dehaghi et al., 2021), goniometer (Pillastrini et al., 2007), and two-dimensional (2D) motion analysis software, such as Delmia (Singh and Singh, 2014) and Kenova (Gallo and Mazzetto, 2013; Micheletti Cremasco et al., 2019). However, these methods encountered difficulties in determining certain body positions and caused angle data deviation (Davison et al., 2021; Iridiastadi et al., 2020).

    View full text