ergonomics aspects of personal protective equipment: its use ...

J. Human Ergol,,17: 67-79,1988

Center for Academic Publications Japan, Printed in Japan .

ERGONOMICS ASPECTS OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVEEQUIPMENT: ITS USE IN INDUSTRIALLY

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

John Damascene Anthony ABEYSEKERA and Houshang SHAHNAVAZ

Center for Ergonomics of Developing Countries (CEDC), Department of Human Work Sciences, Luled University, Sweden

Personal protective equipment (PPE) as an ultimate source of preventing occupational injury is needed extensively in both Industrialized Countries

(IC) and Industrially Developing Countries (IDC). Comfort needs not being met seems to be a major problem resulting in non-use of PPE . IDC which are mainly importing PPE from IC are confronting many ergonomics problems because the equipment designed for IC condi-tions is inappropriate for use in IDC due to significant differences in user body sizes, environment, tasks and working methods , etc. By employing the method of questionnaires, information was obtained from manufacturers in IC to ascertain the design concepts and demands placed in the production of PPE, and from health and safety authorities in IDC to learn the user characteristics and capacities in its use. The results reveal that, while the manufacturers place greatest emphasis in the pro-tection performance of the equipment, the users in IDC refuse to wear it because comfort needs are not fulfilled. The equipment , grossly unpopular among users, is not worn and thus fails to achieve its primary

purpose. The need for maximum achievable comfort in the design taking into consideration the user characteristics is emphasized.

The large scale of industrial activity in both developed and developing coun-tries brings many material benefits to society. It also produces undesirable effects such as occupational diseases and accidents.

Many methods to control these two sources of hazard are practiced today: automation, improvement and provision of safety measures in machines and work design, engineering control of the environment , the use of less harmful material, minimizing exposure periods to hazards through job rotation , etc. When all these measures have been attempted or considered , but prove insufficient or

Received for publication February 3, 1988.

67

68 J. D. A. ABEYSEKERA and H. SHAHNAVAZ

ineffective, personal protective equipment (PPE) should be recommended as a last resort. Sometimes PPE becomes the only and inevitable method of defence, e.g. for the entry of people into hazardous environments such as fire fighting, toxic chemical releases, etc.

The use of PPE is more common in some Industrialized Countries (IC). It is reported that seven out of ten Swedes put on overalls, protective smocks, or uniforms at work (Working Environment, 1982). The incidence of occupational hazards in Industrially Developing Countries (IDC) is higher than in IC. For example, the rate of fatal accidents in IDC has been reported to be approximately five times higher than in IC (Tenth World Congress, 1983). Methods of control of occupational hazards, e.g. engineering control methods or automation, are often too expensive for the poor economies of IDC. Due to the higher prevalence of occupational hazards and the fact that PPE is a cheaper method of control of these hazards, the use of PPE in IDC plays a major role and is of much concern in the control of occupational hazards. It is seen that PPE is required extensively in both IC as well as in IDC.

However, variabilities that are apparent in physical, cultural and sociological environments as well as technological and anthropological factors of people between IC and IDC prompted us to believe that transplanted PPE technology would result in failure. This is because transplanted technology which does not consider the local human operator within the system of the man-machine-environ-ment can result in unanticipated problems. It is a well known fact that there are significant differences between IC and IDC within the physical environment

(thermal) and in anthropometry (body sizes) (ABEYSEKERA, 1985). An adjustable helmet designed in Europe did not properly fit 40% of heads in a Sri Lanka (an IDC) Study (ABEYSEKERA, 1985). Safety clothing designed with insulation prop-erties for cold climates is unsuitable and extremely uncomfortable for people living in the hot and humid environment of the tropics.

A designer from an IC ideally selects his design parameters suitable for a

population he knows, in a given known environment. The articles transferred from an IC may need to be adapted, modified, or redesigned to meet the ac-

quirers' or users' needs. It is now believed that many design incompatibilities in imported products cause problems to the users in IDC.

Another important consideration in the manufacture and sale of PPE in IC is that the designer is guided by local standards pertaining to these goods. The IC standards that are available for PPE, as can be expected, predominantly em-

phasize hazard protection performance for the wearers. Ergonomics factors (e.g. comfort, fit, etc.), are hardly mentioned in these standards. Therefore, the ergonomics needs tend to be deliberately neglected or overlooked by manufacturers when designing for either local or foreign users.

It can be anticipated that considerable inconvenience and fatigue may be caused to the wearers of PPE if the manufacturers do not consider wearability

ERGONOMICS OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 69

requirements of the users. The literature reveals that even in ICs many such

problems cause gross unpopularity and rejection of PPE by the users (SHEPHARD, 1961; STROUD and RENNIE, 1982). In IDC the problems are even more pro-nounced as the imported PPE is unlikely to fit the sizes of people, or be comfortable in hot and humid climates. Furthermore, different methods and traditions of tasks, tools and equipment may not be accommodated in the equipment design.

If PPE is presented to the worker without any regard to acceptance or wear-ability factors, it will result in its non-use. This leaves the worker exposed to hazards, and so the whole exercise of manufacturing PPE (despite a very high

protection factor), of providing and implementing a PPE programme would be a sheer waste of money, time, and effort.

Therefore, there is a great need to develop techniques for solving such pro-blems and to achieve the successful implementation of PPE programmes. This study has been aimed at investigating the wearability problems of PPE in ICs and more particularly in IDCs. The findings reported in this paper provide basic clues for resolving the wearability problems.

METHODS

To determine the state of match between the demands of the product designed by the manufacturers and the available capacities (abilities to cope up with demands of PPE such as additional work load, weight, discomfort, etc.) of the users so that effective and acceptable PPE is made and used, investigations were centered around the IC designer's model and focused on the demands placed on PPE and IDC user characteristics and their capacities in using PPE

(SHAHNAVAZ, 1985) (Fig. 1). Information from PPE manufacturers in IC was obtained by employing the

mail questionnaire method. The concepts, policies, and knowledge of the manu-facturers with respect to the design, production, sale, and use of PPE were im-

Fig. 1. The model-image. Match/mismatch relationship (after SHAHNAVAZ, 1985).


portant for the purpose of ascertaining the demands and priorities of producers of PPE. Another important aspect studied was the designer's attitude towards fulfilling the ergonomics needs in PPE and the emphasis placed by them on ad-aptation of these products to the new requirements and users in IDC.

Due to the practical difficulties of reaching the ultimate users of PPE in IDC, information with regard to the use and supply of PPE was obtained from au-thorities on safety and health in IDC. Government control organizations and other institutions dealing with safety and health in IDC were contacted through a postal questionnaire. This questionnaire covered the following areas of in-vestigation: (a) anthropometry and climatic conditions; (b) categories of workers employed, occupational hazards, and PPE users; (c) parts of the body most fre-

quently affected by hazards, and the methods of control of these hazards; (d) need, supply, and use of PPE and any problems involved in supply and use; (e) laws and standards; and (f) acceptability and causes of unpopularity of PPE.

A case study is being carried out in one IDC, viz. Sri Lanka, which has pro-vided an opportunity of interviewing users of PPE as well as field evaluation of conclusions derived from results of questionnaires.

RESULTS

Questionnaire to manufacturers of PPE in IC Out of 250 questionnaires sent to manufacturers in IC, 48 questionnaires were

completed and returned. Together with other replies received from the respond-ents the response rate was 31 %. Manufacturers who responded were from USA, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Japan, Finland, Australia, Canada, Germany, UK, and Israel. The protective equipment manufactured by the manufacturers included headgear, respirators, protective gloves, safety shoes, goggles, protective clothing, ear protectors, and face shields or visors

Design and development: To the question "What aspects of design are more preferred: protective or ergonomics aspects?" 80% of the respondents

gave preference to protective aspects and only 20 % to ergonomics aspects. In the areas of design and development, the manufacturers priorities given on a rating scale provided information as shown in the histogram in Fig. 2.

Research : A total of 71 % of the respondents indicated that they conducted

Table 1.


Table 2. Standards.

Table 3. Preference in methods for increasing market share.

internal research in the design and sale of PPE. Areas of research and the per-centages of respondents conducting such research are indicated in Table 1. Standards : With respect to standards that are stipulated for PPE and are being followed, 90% of the respondents indicated that they follow standards. Details of standards that are being followed are shown in Table 2.

Marketing : Although 96% of the respondents indicated that they export to other countries, only 56% said that they export to IDC. It was important to know whether they were aware that large stocks of PPE reach IDC through IC contractors working in IDC or on Development Work Projects. Surprisingly, only 8 % of the respondents were aware of this method of exports. To improve the market share in PPE the manufacturers employ different methods as indicated in Table 3.

IDC users complaints: Finally, it was important to know whether manu-facturers were aware of ergonomics factors or the complaints of PPE users in IDC. Unfortunately only 20% were aware of any such complaints, probably due to the fact that such complaints only reach the local wholesaler or dealer. It was shown that only 38 % (hot conditions, 25 %; wrong sizes, 13 %) were aware of any ergonomics problem in the use of PPE in IDC. This works out to only


7.6% of the total respondents actually admitting to being aware of any ergonomics

problems in IDC. This is a remarkable finding.

Questionnaire to health and safety authorities in IDCOut of 69 questionnaires sent to health and safety authorities in thirty-five

IDC, 35 questionnaires were received completed (response rate of questionnaire= 51 %). Twenty-four countries took part in the survey by completing one or more

questionnaires, (response rate of IDC =69 %). The countries that took part in the survey were Indonesia, Kenya, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Zambia, Turkey, Thailand, Pakistan, Tanzania, Korea, Zimbabwe, Chile, Kuwait, China, Sierra Leone, Costa Rica, Republic of South Africa, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Malaysia, Columbia, Mexico, and Papua New Guinea. Out of the balance of 11 countries, the authorities in seven countries informed us by letter that due to insufficient data, they were unable to take part in the survey. Of the respondents, 86 % were from government institutions, 11 % from universities, and 3 % from

private organizations. The survey covered information concerning 314 million male workers and 148 million female workers.

The anthropometric and environmental data of IDC as revealed by the respondents were compared with relevant data from IC (ABEYSEKERA, 1985). The anthropometric data included the statures and weights of males and females. Environmental data included the air temperatures and air humidities. The dif-ferences in means were found to be highly significant for all these items (p< 0.0005).

The answers revealed that the greatest number of employees in IDC were from agriculture but that the highest number of occupational hazards and of PPE users were in the manufacturing sector.

Occupational diseases and accidents. The respondents were asked to indicate the parts of the body organs that are affected by occupational diseases and ac-cidents. The histogram in Fig. 3, derived from the respondents' answers, specifies the trend of occupational diseases and accidents. The different methods of con-trol of occupational hazards adopted in IDC and the preferences for each method as revealed by the respondents are shown in Table 4.

Need and supply of PPE: According to the respondents, 52% of the workers

Table 4. Preferences in the use of methods for controlling occupational hazards in IDC.


Table 5. Reasons given by the employers for not providing PPE to the workers (respondent percentages).

Table 6. Supply sources of PPE used in IDC.

need PPE at work, but only 27 % of those who need them are supplied with them. When questioned as to why PPE is not supplied to the workers , the answers usually given by the employers, as reported by the respondents , are shown in Table 5, together with the percentages . An important finding was that 91 % of the respondents agreed that the employers give the reason "Workers do not wear them." Table 6 gives the supply sources of PPE to IDCs according to the re-spondents. The results reveal that a significantly high percentage of PPE used in IDC are obtained from IC (x2=36.4; p<0 .001).

Laws and standards. A total of 97 % of the respondents said that the oc-cupational health and safety laws in their countries specified the provision of PPE and 86 % said that there are also provisions in the law regarding how they are used. The importance of standards in PPE design was rated by the respon-dents on a 6 point-scale from "not at all important" to "very important ." The results revealed that 74 % considered standards important . To the question about whether laws or regulations specify any standards for PPE, 57% of the respondents have answered in the affirmative and 43 % said that there are no laws to specify standards in their countries. The negative answers may indicate the lack of standards for PPE in many IDC.

Acceptability of PPE. Regarding acceptability of PPE , questions were framed in order to obtain the opinion --as hypothesized by the respondents-of PPE users as well as the personal opinion of the respondents. The respondents were also asked to suggest any remedies to solve problems of unpopularity of PPE.

A significantly high percentage, 73 %, said that PPE was "Unpopular" among workers, 15% answered "Popular" and 12% said "Don't know" , (x2=38.2;


Table 7. Respondent ratings for suggestions for overcoming problems of unpopularity of PPE.

Table 8. Problems of supply and use of imported PPE (percentage responses).

p<0.001). Respondents estimated that, of the workers who are provided with PPE, actually 29 % use it. The result closely corresponds with estimates of usage rates (between 26 % and 34%) of safety helmets in the construction industry as shown by HICKLING (1984). Their suggestions, with ratings, to overcome prob-lems of unpopularity are shown in Table 7. "Hazard awareness" and "Im-

prove comfort" have been highly rated as very important by the respondents. According to the respondents, the users' reasons for rejecting the wear of PPE are shown in Fig. 4. Discomfort seems to be the main cause (86 %) for the unpopularity. Hotness, obstruction of work, and fitting problems can be at-tributed as specific reasons for the discomfort and unpopularity.

Supply and use of imported PPE. Finally, with regard to the problems of supply and use of imported PPE, the respondent reactions are shown in Table 8. Financial constraints appear to be the main cause in the problems of supply. In the use of imported PPE in IDC, the wrong fit seemed to be an even greater

problem area than hotness and heaviness.

DISCUSSION

The results of the questionnaires to PPE manufacturers in IC and health

and safety organizations in IDC revealed some basic information to work on,

regarding the improvement of ergonomics aspects of PPE and its successful use

in IDC.


The manufacturers are obviously interested in producing articles that could find bigger markets, whether in the country of manufacture or abroad , and to make bigger profits on their products. In the use of PPE , the protection factor should of course be considered essential and towards this end the manufacturers develop their products. The human-factor aspects of design are not emphasized . Accordingly, the results of the questionnaire revealed only a marginal importance

(20%) for human-factor aspects in the design, even in the countries of manufac-ture. The chances or the need for IC manufacturers to consider these aspects that are different in IDC therefore seem extremely remote. A closer examination of the answers of manufacturers who indicated a preference for human-factor aspects , revealed that they, in fact, make PPE that is generally uncomfortable in current designs, e.g. ear muffs or respirators, etc. Unless and until the comfort aspects are improved, they cannot sell their products .

The results also show that whether it is in design and development or research carried out by the manufacturers, the concept has been always a trend towards the development of protection aspects (Fig. 2 and Table 1). The neglect of com-fort aspects when considering protective aspects can result in PPE either not worn at all or worn during only part of the period of exposure to hazards .

To motivate the manufacturers to change these concepts , it will be necessary to convince them of the market possibilities for the products after such changes are made. The present attitudes of manufacturers about improving markets are biased towards quality or performance improvement (68 %, Table 3) of their

products, a principle usually adopted in competition. A closer scrutiny of the answers by the manufacturers shows that the quality improvement does not cover the wearability aspects of PPE.

With regard to the markets in IDC, though 56% of respondents indicated

Fig. 2. Histogram of preferences (percentages) in design and development.

Fig. 3. Prevalence of occupational dis-

eases and accidents.


Fig. 4. Reasons of unpopularity of PPE in IDC (Reasons given by the workers as hypothe-sized by the respondents) (respondent percentages).

exports to IDC, only 8 % were aware that large stocks of PPE are taken by IC contractors to IDC on development work projects. The results of the ques-tionnaire to health and safety authorities in IDC also show that 58 % of PPE used in IDC is imported from IC (Table 6)

An important finding is that only a small percentage of the manufacturers

(20 %), were aware of problems of PPE users in IDC, and only 7.6 % of total re-spondents were aware of ergonomics problems in IDC. This may be due to several intermediaries between the manufacturer and the user and therefore the user complaints seldom reach the manufacturer. From the user's point of view in IDC, unpopularity of PPE is evident in most answers provided by IDC re-spondents. Significantly, a high percentage (73 %) declared that PPE was un-

popular. All PPE used in IDC-whether imported from IC or other IDC, or locally manufactured-seems to be unpopular. The respondents in IDC also sug-

gest that by improving comfort and making the workers aware of hazards, the problems of unpopularity would be overcome (Table 7).

The workers refusal to wear PPE, a popular reason given (91 %, Table 5) by the employers for not providing PPE, is another indication of unpopularity in the use of PPE. Discomfort (86%, Fig. 4), the main cause of unpopularity of or the refusal to wear PPE, is mainly attributable to hotness (74% and 27 %), lack of fit (63 % and 77 %), and obstacles to work (74%) according to workers impres-sions (Fig. 4) and that of the respondents (Table 8), respectively.

The comparison of the basic anthropometric data and environmental data between IDC and IC reveals highly significant differences between sizes of people and climates. Complaints of lack of fit and the hotness of PPE made in IC when used in IDC can therefore be expected. Complaints of hotness, lack of fit, and obstacles to work were also reported in a survey in Britain (HtcKLING, 1984). But the problems can be more pronounced in IDC. Apart from the fitting and hotness there can be other causes for discomfort e.g. fatigue or extra energy cost due to factors such as weight and heat built up in the body as revealed in several


studies (HETTINGER and EIssING, 1983; Erdosi SANDOR, 1970; KAMIN and SCALONE, 1974; CHATTERJEE, 1969).

In order to persuade manufacturers to meet comfort needs in PPE, a course of action that can help is the development of standards for comfort needs, e.g. ventilation, low weight, sizes that fit, etc. Although 90% of the manufacturer respondents seem to follow standards stipulated for protective gear, the area of standards are mainly with respect to protection and performance. The ergonomic standards (if any) that are followed pertain to sizes, as revealed by the manufac-turers (Table 2).

While the manufacturers think that lowering the cost of PPE is of very low

priority both in design and development (19 %, Fig. 2) and in increasing the market share (25 %, Table 3), from the user's point of view, low cost is of highest priority, (93 %, Table 8).

As comfort in a PPE can be improved only to a certain limit without affect-ing the protection efficiency and also at minimum cost to the user, a compromise has to be reached in the manufacture and use of PPE. At the optimum level of comfort and protection there could still be a degree of discomfort in PPE. This level of discomfort has to be accepted by the user. Compulsory periods of wear, training, education, acclimatization, and supervision may be remedies to accept the unavoidable discomfort in PPE.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study was to achieve a matching situation between the manu-facturer and the user to effect safe and efficient use of PPE in IC and more par-ticularly in IDC. From the results of the studies conducted so far, the following course of action can be proposed. (These proposals are being evaluated prac-tically through the Sri Lanka case study that is being carried out at present . The results of this evaluation will be reported in due course).

Changes in the designer's model (In line with the user needs) a. Although PPE is extensively needed in IDC, its use is extremely unpopular.

b. Therefore, meeting ergonomic needs in PPE is essential but has to be done with the least effects on protective performance. The ergonomic require-ments of PPE have to be considered in conjunction with the minimum effects on the final price of the product

c. The ergonomic aspects according to the degree of importance for IDC users are: (1) proper fit or sizing with instructions in fitting and reduction in obstruction to work; (2) reduction of hotness and improving ventilation; (3) reduction of weight; (4) non-obstruction of use of senses; (5) ease of mobility; and (6) aesthetics and style.

d. In designing PPE for export, the other important aspects which the


designer should consider are : differences in working methods, materials, language, culture, and customs; users' lack of awareness of hazards; the types of PPE available, and maintenance; and need for spares.

e. Protective wear for lungs, hands, feet, legs, ears, and head are of particular significance in IDC.

f. Redesigning, adapting, modifying, and providing adjustability in PPE must be done according to the needs of different populations and groups of

people. g. Unavailability of standards in ergonomics aspects should not deter these

aspects of design changes. h. Research is urgent for improving ergonomics of PPE and optimum

benefits on cost. i. With the extensive need for PPE in IDC, the above changes are likely to

immensely increase the market potential of these products.

Changes in the user's model (In line with manufacturer demands) a. Workers must be given sufficient education in aspects of occupational

hazards, in how work-related accidents and diseases affect them, in control meth-ods, uses, and types of PPE and the degree of protection given by the PPE.

b. The protection expected must still be assured in PPE imported from IC c. Ergonomics standards in PPE should be developed and enforced in IDC.

The PPE users' and trade unions' knowledge about these standards must be instrumental in achieving this.

d. Changes in policies of buying PPE is essential. Only products that are ergonomically suitable and acceptable to the users must be imported while protec-tion efficiency is still assumed. Buyers must have direct communication with manufacturers so that the respective needs of each country can be met.

e. Training the workers in the fitting, use, maintenance and servicing of PPE is also very important.

f. Effective and strict supervision in PPE use or compulsory use during the training period (between 1 and 5 months) can help accustom workers to the use of PPE. It is presumed that this compulsory training period will acclimatize the worker to the unavoidable discomfort inherent in any work wear and that the worker will thus satisfactorily adapt to the use of appropriately designed PPE.

REFERENCES

ABEYSEKERA, J. D. A. (1985) A comparative study of body size variability between people in industrialized countries and industrially developing countries : its impact on the use of im-

ported goods. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Ergonomics in Developing Countries, Jakarta, Indonesia, 18-21 November, OSH Series 58, ILO, Geneva, 1987.

CHATTERJEE, S. K. (1969) Heart rate response to wearing industrial protective face mask under variable work conditions. Ind. Med., 38: 386-395.

Erdosi SANDOR (1970) Ergonomia, 3/1, 42.45. The Burdening Effect of Heat Load on the Fre-


quency of the Workers Wearing a Helmet (Fejvedo Sisaboan Vegzett Homunka Terhelo Hatosa A Szivfrekvencia Tukreben) (In Hungarian) .

HETTINGER, Th. and EIssING, G. (1983) Stress and strain by wearing protective clothing . Pro-ceedings International Conference on Protective Clothing Systems , Stockholm, Sweden, 1983, pp. 161-166.

HICKLING, E. M. (1984) An investigation on construction sites of factors affecting the accepta-bility and wear of safety helmets. A report to the Health & Safety Executive , Institute for Consumer Ergonomics, Loughborough University, Leicestershire , UK.

KAMIN, J. I. and SCALONE, A. A. (1974) NIOSH safety research in protective helmets . Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 35: 489-502.

SHAHNAVAZ, H. (1985) Ergonomics and Industrially Developing Countries , TULSA 1985: 05, Lulea University, Sweden.

SHEPHARD, R. J. (1961) Ergonomics of the respirator in design and use of respirators . Pro-ceedings of a joint meeting of the Ergonomics Research Society and the British Occupa-tional Hygiene Society, Porton, July 1961 (London Penguin) .

STROUD, P. G. and RENNIE, A. N. (1982) Comfort and acceptability of safety helmets . A preliminary investigation, Institute for Consumer Ergonomics, University of Technology, Loughborough, Leicestershire, Report prepared for the Health and Safety Executive , Shef-field, U. K.

Tenth World Congress on Prevention of Occupational Accidents and Diseases (1983) Ottawa , Canada, IDRC Reports, October, 1983.

Working Environment (1982) (Arbestsmiljo International) , Published by the Swedish Work Environment Association, Sweden.

ergonomics aspects of personal protective equipment: its use ...

Documents

Transcript of ergonomics aspects of personal protective equipment: its use ...