In this essay, the main focus is on the evaluation of physical hazards as well as the risk assessment techniques for physical hazards. Evaluating physical hazards calls for specific methods that considerably differ from the approaches for evaluating biological and chemical hazards.
Notably, most of the methods of evaluating physical hazards make use of direct-reading devices. One of the common physical hazards is noise exposure as it cuts across different industries. In its evaluation, specific devices include sound level meters (SLMs) and noise dosimeters. While using SLMs, it is worth noting that most of them lack data-logging operations, hence present short-term assessment of noise levels. As a result, SLMs apply effectively towards identifying areas that require the use of noise dosimeters. Noise dosimeters assess an employee’s time-weighted average (TWA) noise exposure which allows for comparison to occupational exposure limits (OELs) in determining whether or not to implement control methods.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another physical hazard that requires evaluation is radiation, especially since employees do not directly detect it. Therefore, in evaluating radiation exposure, the devices/instruments align with the type of radiation in question. For ionizing radiation, the Geiger-Mueller detector is used in detecting surface contamination but falls short in evaluating exposure among workers. As such, personal exposure monitoring is vital in workplaces with obvious radiation sources such as nuclear power plants. The dosimetry badge approach applies with the Thermo luminescent dosimeters (TLDs) being the commonly used dosimeters. The TLDs badges have to be worn by the worker while at their place of work and later sent for laboratory analysis (Wakeford, 2009). Most programs for radiation protection normally monitor worker exposures and withdraw employees from zones whose exposure surpasses the OSHA parameters for a definite time period. As regards non-ionizing radiation, handheld direct-reading meters assess the strength of the radiation. In some cases, radiation exposures evaluations consist of assessing the occurred damage such as damage to the eyes as a result of exposure to laser beams.
Heat stress is another physical hazard that impact the human body. Evaluating this hazard involves measuring core body temperature using various instruments. However, the outcomes normally depict a significant variation depending on where the reading is obtained as well as the instrument used. Measuring worker heart rate and core body temperature depict the effect of heat stress on the worker. Currently, measuring heat stress is done using the WBGT meter which registers three readings: the dry bulb temperature, the wet bulb temperature, and the black globe temperature. Small handheld meters that incorporate the three measures feature prominently in measuring heat stress (Nagano et al., 2010). By using these meters, it becomes possible to calculate the worker’s WBGT values which are shown on the meter.
Further, evaluating physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal hazards remains pertinent in all workplaces. As a matter of fact, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) remain as one of the highly reported outcome of physical exposure. Unfortunately, most of the risks related to MSDs receive due attention after workers have already suffered injuries. As such, the most preferable way is to pinpoint particular tasks that present high risks for MSDs before the occurrence of injuries and to ensure the implementation of controls to decrease the hazards. The process of determining MSDs risks prior to harm calls for an understanding of ways of evaluating physical hazards that pose an injury risk. The standard method for an assessment of hazards for MSDs consist of observation of work tasks by an experienced ergonomics professional (David, 2005). The observation is aimed at identifying tasks with heavy lifting, twisting, static postures, repetitive motion, as well as bending and awkward positions for various body parts.
The nature of assessing ergonomic hazards normally requires an individual with expert training and experience in the field. In most cases, companies will employ an individual possessing national qualifications in ergonomics to execute risk evaluations. One of the methods is Pen-paper based observational methods. An example is the Posturegram that categorizes body postures and records each using a time sampler and evaluates the risk on the entire body due to posture in executing static tasks. Other methods similar to Posturegram include OWAS, Posture Targetting, RULA, HAMA, PLIBEL, and REBA (David, 2005). Another method incorporates videotaping and computer-aided observation. It records work postures and undertakings either on-site through a computer, or using a videotape for later analysis via a computer. Two options apply for the observations, namely simulated and time sampling. Examples include ARBAN, VIRA, ROTA, TRAC, HARBO, and PEO (Li & Buckle, 1999).
Thirdly, the observer may use direct methods. These methods describe body postures, either manually using hand-held instruments or continuously with electric devices. They assess postural strain as well as localized muscle fatigue from various tasks. Currently, a number of meters have been developed and can be used in augmenting ergonomic assessments. The most frequently used meters include accelerometers and dynamometers (Li & Buckle, 1999). At times, these kinds of meters come in handy in the evaluation of force levels that are necessary for the execution of a specific task or in determining vibration effects. Nevertheless, these meters cannot substitute a wide-ranging assessment though observations by a certified ergonomics expert.
In conclusion, physical hazards pose significant threats to workers in different facilities depending on the task involved. As a result, various methods of evaluating the risks present in a workplace exist towards identifying such hazards. Although most of the approaches used in evaluating physical hazards use direct-reading instruments, other methods apply for physical hazards that may not be easily measured through such devices. In particular, observation methods apply in determining ergonomic hazards and require expert personnel in effectively determining such hazards.
References
David, G. C. (2005). Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational medicine , 55(3), 190-199.
Li, G., & Buckle, P. (1999). Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics , 42(5), 674-695.
Nagano, C., Tsutsui, T., Monji, K., Sogabe, Y., Idota, N., & Horie, S. (2010). Technique for continuously monitoring core body temperatures to prevent heat stress disorders in workers engaged in physical labor. Journal of occupational health , 52(3), 167-175.
Wakeford, R. (2009). Radiation in the workplace—a review of studies of the risks of occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. Journal of Radiological Protection , 29(2A), A61.
