| Literature DB >> 29109359 |
Francesca Romana d'AMBROSIO Alfano1, Boris Igor Palella2, Giuseppe Riccio2, Massimo Bartalini3, Fabio Strambi3, Jacques Malchaire4.
Abstract
Heat stress in glass industry is mainly studied in large and highly mechanized manufacturing Units. To the contrary, few studies were carried out in small factories specialized in hand-made products. To stress the need of combined objective and medical surveys in these environments, this paper deals with a simultaneous climatic and physiological investigation of working conditions in artistic crystal glass factories in Tuscany (Italy). The microclimatic monitoring, through a continuous survey has been carried out in early spring. The main physiological parameters (metabolic rate, heart rate, tympanic temperature and water loss) were measured over the whole shifts. The results show that, despite the arduousness of the working conditions, the heat stress levels are physiologically tolerable. The predictions made using the PHS model at the Analysis level described in ISO 15265 agree closely to the observed values, validating the use of PHS model in these conditions. This model was then used to analyse what is likely to be the situation during the summer. It is concluded that the heat constraint will be very high and that some steps must be taken from the spring to monitor closely the exposed workers in the summer and take measures to prevent any heat accident.Entities:
Keywords: Ergonomics; Glass factories; Heat exposure; PHS; Physical agents risk assessment; Physiological heat stress; Sustainability; WBGT
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29109359 PMCID: PMC5889937 DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2017-0143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ind Health ISSN: 0019-8366 Impact factor: 2.179
WBGT values reported in different glass factories
| Activity | Country and season | WBGT range (°C) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forming machine | Summer (India) | 33‒39 | |
| Furnace operator | 37‒40 | ||
| Charger | 37‒39 | ||
| Glass forming machine operator | End of summer (Illinois, USA) | 22.1‒30.0 | |
| Glass forming | Season not declared (Iran) | 39 | |
| Glass picker | Beginning of fall (France) | 19.7‒32.0 | |
| Glass forming | 20.5‒28.9 | ||
| Glass cooler | 23.4‒35.2 | ||
| Glass blower | 20.9‒25.0 | ||
| Glass picker (handmade crystal Unit) | Summer (Italy: 05.00 am – 12.00 pm) | 27.5‒31.4 | |
| Glass former (handmade crystal Unit) | Summer (Italy 05.00 am – 12.00 pm) | 23.6‒27.2 | |
| Automatized glass Unit (near the pressing or the forming machine) | Spring (Italy: 02.00 pm – 10.00 pm) | 23.6‒27.2 | |
| Summer (Italy: 10.00 pm – 06.00 am and 06.00 am – 02.00 pm) | 24.9‒31.4 | ||
| Summer (Italy: 02.00 pm – 12.00 am) | 29.7‒34.8 | ||
| Automatized glass Unit (control panel) | Spring (Italy: 02.00 pm – 10.00 pm) | 23.6‒27.2 | |
| Summer (Italy: 10.00 pm – 06.00 am and 06.00 am – 02.00 pm) | 22.9‒29.4 | ||
| Spring (Italy: 02.00 pm – 10.00 pm) | 28.9‒34.1 | ||
| Not specified | April (Coimbra, Portugal) | 20.1‒35.5 | |
| July and September (Leiria, Portugal) | 26.7‒38.0 | ||
| November (Leiria, Portugal) | 30.3‒47.1 | ||
Outdoors climatic data during the study period
| Average | Extreme | |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum air temperature,°C | 3.4 | −4.0 |
| Maximum air temperature,°C | 14.6 | 21.0 |
| Relative Humidity, % | 51 | — |
Classes of risk reported in ISO 1526537)
| Class | Criteria | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Immediate constraint | Dlim<30 min |
| 2 | Constraint in the short term | Iclr<IREQmin |
| 3 | Constraint in the long term | PMV<−2 |
| 4 | Cold discomfort | −2≤PMV<−0.5 |
| 5 | Comfort | −0.5≤PMV≤+0.5 |
| 6 | Warm discomfort | +0.5<PMV≤+2 |
| 7 | Constraint in the long term* | Dlim<480 min |
| 8 | Constraint in the short term* | Dlim<120 min |
| 9 | Immediate constraint* | Dlim<30 min |
*in these situations the water loss for 8-h of continuous work and the predicted risk of increase of the internal temperature of the body according to ISO 7933 Standard are required.
Clothing insulation values of the garments worn by workers of the two investigated manufacturing units according to ISO 992052)
| Manufacturing unit 1 | Manufacturing unit 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Worker 1: Press machine | Worker 2: glass picker | Workers 3 and 4: press machine | |||||
| Garment | Iclu (clo) | Garment | Iclu (clo) | Garment | Iclu (clo) | ||
| underpants | 0.03 | underpants short leg | 0.03 | underpants short leg | 0.03 | ||
| t-shirt | 0.08 | t-shirt | 0.08 | ||||
| heavy socks | 0.06 | socks | 0.03 | socks | 0.03 | ||
| long sleeves, shirt collar | 0.26 | undershirt | 0.25 | undershirt | 0.25 | ||
| coverall | 0.52 | Work pants | 0.24 | Work pants | 0.24 | ||
| shoes | 0.05 | shoes | 0.05 | shoes | 0.05 | ||
Fig. 1. Time course changes in climatic parameters (air temperature, mean radiant temperature, air velocity and partial vapour pressure) during the work shift in Unit 1 and in Unit 2.
Values of microclimatic parameters reported in different glass factories
| Unit and/or activity | ta (°C) | tr (°C) | tg (°C) | pa (kPa) | va (m s−1) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glass picker | 22.5 | 65 | — | 0.9 | 0.9 | ||
| Glass moulder | 23 | 69.5 | — | 1.1 | 2 | ||
| Glass forming (summer) | 38.9 | 104.5 | — | 1.8 | 1.1 | ||
| Glass forming (winter) | 26.7 | 86.7 | — | 0.7 | 0.6 | ||
| Glass forming (summer) | 24.2 | — | 34.8 | 1.4 | |||
| Glass bangle Unit | 38.2 | — | 46.2 | 3.3 | — | ||
| Pressing and forming Units | 46.1 | — | 31.8 | 3.7 | 1.0 | ||
| Bottle Units near furnace | 46 | — | 48 | 5.0 | — | ||
| Unit 1 (A) | at 5.00 am | 11.5 | 21.6 | 16.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | In this paper |
| at 9.00 am | 25.1 | 26.0 | 25.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | ||
| at 12.00 am | 25.1 | 31.0 | 28.3 | 0.7 | 0.2 | ||
| Unit 1 (B) | at 5.00 am | 11.7 | 28.4 | 19.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | |
| at 9.00 am | 22.9 | 43.3 | 33.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 | ||
| at 12.00 am | 22.9 | 38.4 | 31.4 | 0.7 | 0.2 | ||
| Unit 2 (A) | at 6.00 am | 15.6 | 35.5 | 26.4 | 0.8 | 0.2 | |
| at 9.00 am | 20.8 | 35.5 | 27.9 | 1.1 | 0.3 | ||
| at 12.00 am | 20.8 | 43.1 | 33.3 | 0.9 | 0.2 | ||
Results from physiological measurement for the 4 workers
| Quantity | Units | Measured value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Worker | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Activity | press machine | glass picker | press machine | press machine | |
| Age | yr | 40 | 39 | 27 | 47 |
| Height | cm | 172 | 170 | 180 | 181 |
| Weight | kg | 79.4 | 81.4 | 85.2 | 91.8 |
| Metabolic rate (percentage of the MWC) | |||||
| Minimum | W m−2 (%) | 67.3 (11.1%) | 84.8 (13.7%) | 56.5 (8.2%) | 56.1 (8.8%) |
| Average | 83.7 (13.8%) | 114.2 (18.4%) | 73.6 (10.7%) | 70.3 (11.0%) | |
| Maximum | 90.3 (14.9%) | 132.5 (21.4%) | 78.1 (11.3%) | 78.6 (12.4%) | |
| Heart rate | |||||
| HR0 | bpm | 61 | 85 | 64 | 50 |
| Maximum | 117 | 129 | 118 | 126 | |
| HRm | 81 | 109 | 86 | 68 | |
| ΔHRT | 19 | 18 | 5 | 3 | |
| HRL | 159 | 159 | 167 | 154 | |
| HRL,sustained | 140 | 141 | 153 | 133 | |
| Tympanic temperature | |||||
| Start | °C | 36 | 36.7 | 36.7 | 36.8 |
| Middle | 37.2 | 37.9 | 37 | 37.2 | |
| End | 36.6 | 37.4 | 37.2 | 37.2 | |
| Water loss | kg | 1.1 | 2.1 | 0.74 | 0.95 |
| Maximum admissible water loss | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.6 | |
Fig. 2. Time variation of the PMV values during the work shift for the minimum (MIN), average (AVG) and maximum (MAX) metabolic rate values for the 4 workers in the 3 Units.
WBGT values for each hour of exposure and limit values corresponding to the maximum metabolic rate for acclimatised and unacclimatised subjects21, 22)
| Time from the beginning of the work shift (h) | WBGT (°C) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit 1 | Unit 2 | ||||
| 1(A) | 2(B) | 3(A) | 4(A) | ||
| 1 | 10.5 | 12.1 | 17.3 | 17.2 | |
| 2 | 11.5 | 13.7 | 17.5 | 17.4 | |
| 3 | 12.8 | 16.3 | 18.1 | 17.6 | |
| 4 | 14.5 | 19.2 | 19.8 | 19.0 | |
| 5 | 16.4 | 20.8 | 20.9 | 20.5 | |
| 6 | 17.8 | 20.7 | 22.0 | 21.2 | |
| 7 | 18.5 | 19.9 | — | — | |
| Limit value | 27.2 | 24.7 | 27.2 | 27.2 | |
| Limit value (acclimatised) | 31.0 | 29.0 | 31.3 | 31.0 | |
| Limit value (not acclimatised) | 28.3 | 26.0 | 28.8 | 28.6 | |
Fig. 3. Rectal temperatures and water losses predicted according to ISO 7933 Standard33) for the 4 workers at minimum (continuous lines), average (dotted lines) and maximum (dashed lines) metabolic rate and comparison with observed values (○). No difference where predicted for acclimatised and unacclimatised subjects.
Comparison between total water losses (in kilograms) measured and those predicted by the PHS model32) for the minimum (MIN), average (AVG) and maximum (MAX) metabolic rate values of the 4 subjects investigated
| Unit 1 | Unit 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1(A) | 2(B) | 3 | 4 | |||
| PHS | MIN | 0.40 | 0.99 | 0.47 | 0.48 | |
| AVG | 0.65 | 1.54 | 0.70 | 0.75 | ||
| MAX | 0.77 | 1.90 | 0.84 | 0.80 | ||
| Observed | 1.10 | 2.10 | 0.74 | 0.95 | ||
Outdoor air temperature and water partial pressure measured by the Regional Agency for the Environmental Protection of Toscana on the 15 July 2016
| Time | Air temperature (°C) | Water vapor partial pressure (Pa) |
|---|---|---|
| 05:00 am | 19.3 | 2,127 |
| 06:00 am | 23.0 | 2,106 |
| 07:00 am | 26.2 | 2,193 |
| 08:00 am | 29.0 | 2,342 |
| 09:00 am | 31.2 | 2,453 |
| 10:00 am | 32.9 | 2,525 |
| 11:00 am | 33.6 | 2,558 |
| 12:00 pm | 34.0 | 2,531 |
Fig. 4. Predicted mean internal surface temperature as a function of the time for the two manufacturing Units.
Fig. 5. PMV, WBGT and rectal temperatures and water losses predicted for all the workers at minimum (continuous lines), average (dotted lines) and maximum (dashed lines) metabolic rate for the summer scenario by means of the PHS model (unacclimatized workers).