Advertisement

Determination of Assessment Elements That Restrict REBA Implementations Within Aseptic Areas. A Study Case

  • Victor Hugo Madrid-Mendoza
  • Maria Carmen Torres-Salazar
  • Areli Rizo-Aguilar
  • Viridiana Aydeé Leon-Hernandez
  • Martha Roselia Contreras-ValenzuelaEmail author
Conference paper
  • 162 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1215)

Abstract

A method to determine drawbacks during REBA implementation inside aseptic areas was established employing opinions from twelve specialists. They assessed six aseptic areas. During the assessment, the specialists wore aseptic garments that difficult the observation of angles adopted by workers during job tasks, load demands and work cycles; information needed to achieve REBA. The method determines critical drawbacks through establish the procedure elements required to implement REBA, define ten main drawbacks, determine critical drawback items using a determination matrix, finally a procedure to implement REBA inside aseptic areas was proposed. It includes changes in the way of measure angles adopted by body segments and work task analysis.

Keywords

Human factors Risk evaluation REBA Ergonomic interventions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

To the company and its workers for their disposition, the Chemistry and Engineering College for it support and Industrial Engineering students for it enthusiastic participation.

References

  1. 1.
    Institute of Environmental Sciences: Federal Standard 209E. Airborne Particulate Classes in Cleanrooms and Clean Zones, USA (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ergonomic Plus Inc.: A step by step guide to Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA), USA (2020). http://ergo-plus.com/wp-content/uploads/REBA-A-Step-by-Step-Guide.pdf
  3. 3.
    Hignett, S., McAtamney, L.: Technical note: Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Appl. Ergon. 31, 201–205 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asensio-Cuesta, S., Bastante-Ceca, M.J., Diego-Mas, J.A. Evaluación ergonómica de puestos de trabajo, 3ª edn. Editorial Paraninfo. Madrid (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwartz, A.H., Albin, T.J., Gerberich, S.G.: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) tool. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 71, 111–116 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Contreras-Valenzuela, M.R.: Metodología para la Mejora de la Operación de Procesos Industriales basada en Seis Sigma y una Metodología Jerárquica. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, México (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Contreras-Valenzuela, M.R., Lopez-Sesenes, R., Duque-Albarez, A.E., Leon-Hernandez, V.A., Trujillo-Sandoval, B.: Redesign of washing process of cartridge case using a combination of acids, detergents and anti-tarnish compounds. Chem. Eng. Trans. 57, 1501–1506 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Standard Organization ISO: Ergonomics — Evaluation of static working postures ISO 11226:2000. International Standard, Switzerland (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Hugo Madrid-Mendoza
    • 1
  • Maria Carmen Torres-Salazar
    • 1
  • Areli Rizo-Aguilar
    • 1
  • Viridiana Aydeé Leon-Hernandez
    • 1
  • Martha Roselia Contreras-Valenzuela
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma del Estado de MorelosCuernavacaMexico

Personalised recommendations