The Influence of Physiological Breaks and Work Organization on Musculoskeletal Pain Index of Slaughterhouse Workers

  • Roberta Schwonke Martins
  • Fernando Gonçalves AmaralEmail author
  • Marcelo Pereira da Silva
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 820)


Beef cattle and the meat processing chain are of great economic importance in Brazil, since they are responsible for creating thousands of jobs. Nevertheless, the issue of health and safety of the sector’s workers is a major problem given the high number of accidents at work and workers in sick leave, as a consequence of working at low temperatures, doing repetitive tasks, and carrying weights. In light of that, this article aims at identifying the association between musculoskeletal pains and discomforts and the implementation of a system of break periods and task rotations in the slaughter sector of a cattle slaughterhouse. The method employed consisted of direct observation, interviews with workers, and the application of ergonomic analysis methods. Results show that the lack of guidance in the implementation of task rotation still generates complaints, discomforts, and sick leaves. Finally, we developed a functional task rotation plan grounded on the analysis of work stations’ risks.


Slaughterhouse workers Physiological breaks OCRA Musculoskeletal pains and discomfort 


  1. 1.
    Arvidsson I, Balogh I, Hansson GA, Ohlsson K, Åkesson I, Nordander C (2012) Rationalization in meat cutting e Consequences on physical workload. Appl Ergon 43:1026e1032Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BRASIL (2013) Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego - MTE. NR 36 - SEGURANÇA E SAÚDE NO TRABALHO EM EMPRESAS DE ABATE E PROCESSAMENTO DE FRANGOS E DERIVADOS. Disponível em. Acesso em: Abril 2017
  3. 3.
    Buzanello MR, Moro ARP (2012) Association between repetitive work and occupational cold exposure. Work 41:5791–5793Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen H, Sgaard K, Pilegaard M, Olsen HB (2000) The importance of the work/rest pattern as a risk factor in repetitive monotonous work. Int J Ind Ergon 25:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colombini D (1998) An observational method for classifying exposure to repetitive movements of the upper limbs. Ergonomics 41:1261–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colombini D (2014) Método OCRA para análise e prevenção do risco por movimentos repetitivos: manual para a avaliação e a gestão do risco. Edição do autor, Curitiba, PRGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corlett EN, Manenica J (1980) The effects and measurement of working postures. Appl Ergon 11(1):7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gandon LFM, Ferraz RRN, Pavan LMB, Zaions APDRE (2017) Reduction of accidents at work and absenteism with ergonomic improvements in a South Brazilian fridge company. Revista Eletrônica Gestão & Saúde. Rev. Gestão & Saúde (Brasília), January 2017, vol 08, no 01, pp 92–113. ISSN 1982-4785Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iida I (2016) Ergonomia: projeto e produção, 3ª edn. Editora Blucher, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaka B, Idowu OA, Fawole HO, Adeniyi AF, Ogwumike OO, Toryila MT (2016) An analysis of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among Butchers in Kano Metropolis, Nigeria. Saf Health Work 7:218e224Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kasaeinasab A, Jahangiri M, Karimi A, Tabatabaei HR, Safari S (2017) Respiratory disorders among workers in slaughterhouses. Saf Health Work 8:84e88Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leider PC, Boschman JS, Frings-Dresen MH, Van der Molen HF (2015) Effects of job rotation on musculoskeletal complaints and related work exposures: a systematic literature review. Ergonomics 58:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Occhipinti E (1998) OCRA: a concise index for the assessment of exposure to repetitive movements of the upper limbs. Ergonomics 41:1290–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinetti ACH, Buczek MR (2015) Ergonomic work analysis in a Brazilian poultry slaughterhouse cutting room. In: Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, 9–14 August 2015Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramos E, Reis DC, Tirloni AS, Moro ARP (2015) Thermographic analysis of the hands of poultry slaughterhouse workers exposed to artificially cold environment. Proc Manuf 3:4252–4259Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reis DC, Ramos E, Moro ARP, Reis P (2016) Upper limbs exposure to biomechanical overload: occupational risk assessment in a poultry slaughterhouse. In: Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 489Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soares ACC (2004) Estudo Retrospectivo de Queixas Músculos-esqueléticas em Trabalhadores de Frigorífico. 2004. 75f. Dissertação (mestrado em Engenharia de produção) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, Universidade de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis. Disponível em. Acesso em abril 2017
  18. 18.
    Takeda F (2010) Configuração Ergonômica do Trabalho em Produção Contínua: o Caso de Ambiente de Cortes em Abatedouro de Frangos. [Dissertação Mestrado], Programa de Pós-Graduação em Tecnologia, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná. Ponta GrossaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tirloni AA, Reis DC, Ramos E, Moro ARP (2018) Evaluation of bodily discomfort of employees in a slaughterhouse. In: Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 602Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vilanova MAS, Dengo CS, Fumagalli, LAW (2016). Absenteeism in Company of Poultry Slaughterhouse area with Emphasis on Ergonomics. Rev Ciênc Juríd Empres, Londrina, vol 17, no 2, pp 142–150Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vogel K, Karltun J, Eklund J, Engkvist IL (2013) Improving meat cutters’ work: changes and effects following na intervention. Appl Ergon 44:996e1003Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations