以WISHA篩選工具為標準，探討RULA與KIM LHC、KIM MHO檢核表之評估特性

Investigation of RULA, KIM LHC and KIM MHO Checklists’ Assessment Characteristics Against WISHA Screening Tool

王信夫

指導教授 ： 游志雲

國立清華大學/工學院/工業工程與工程管理學系碩士在職專班/碩士(2011年)

摘要

本研究的目的是以WISHA篩選工具（WISHA Screening tool）為標準來檢驗RULA與KIM檢核表的評估特性。WISHA篩選工具是美國華盛頓州根據眾多肌肉骨骼危害的流行病學調查報告彙整的肌肉骨骼危害標準。RULA、KIM LHC 、和KIM MHO 是晚近提出的檢核表，受到極大的關注，可能會成為未來的主流。RULA是針對上肢手部的工作而設計的檢核表；KIM LHC是評估全身性的工作（抬舉、握持、和運送）的檢核表，KIM MHO也是針對手部作業的檢核表（manual hand operation）。
本研究是以RULA、KIM LHC、和KIM MHO三項檢核表來評估機車烙碼作業的正確程度與適用性。機車烙碼作業是一項包含多樣工作姿勢變化的工作，然其主要作業內容卻是手指重複靜態按壓的工作，這是一項結合全身性與手部操作的工作，難以用既有的MSD、OWAS等來評估，因此嘗試以RULA、KIM LHC、和KIM MHO等三項檢核表來評估，這些評估結果再與WISHA篩選工具比較，我們的前提認為WISHA是肌肉骨骼危害標準，因此這三項檢核表的評估結果與WISHA的吻合程度就是正確程度與其適用性的標準。
機車烙碼作業在WISHA篩選工具中危害程度歸類為警告區域（caution zone），危害因子為高手部施力與時間。三種檢核表RULA、KIM LHC、與KIM MHO評估危害等級都是第二級，與WISHA的警告區域吻合，所以認定為這三項檢核表的評估結果正確。接著以三項檢核表所指摘的危害因子與WISHA的吻合程度來檢驗其適用性。RULA的危害因子只有姿勢； KIM LHC的危害因子是時間（重複性）；而KIM MHO的危害因子是時間與施力。是故，在WISHA準則基礎下RULA並不適用，因案例姿勢並不構成危害的要素；KIM LHC指出工作時間為危害因子，但力量並不是，因此也不完全適用；然者KIM MHO的危害因子工作時間與施力完全與WISHA準則一致，最為適用。
為進一步探討這三項檢核表的正確程度與其適用性，將機車烙碼作業的作業內容變更：在增加施力與工作時間情況下，再次進行評估。在增加施力下，荷重由0.3kg提高為3.3kg，的結果顯示，WISHA評估維持警告區域（caution zone），與RULA、KIM LHC分別評估為第3級與第2級，符合警告區域，應屬正確；然而KIM MHO為第4級，等於WISHA的危害區域，應屬不正確的評估。在增加工作時間情況下，工作量由90台增加成150台的結果顯示，WISHA變為危險區域（hazardous zone），然而RULA、KIM LHC、與KIM MHO的評估結果卻仍為等級2~3，此評估結果與WISHA則有顯著差異，評估並不正確。
綜合以上探討，就機車烙碼作業而言，RULA、KIM LHC、與KIM MHO的評估結果均無法完全與WISHA標準吻合，然而其中以KIM MHO最貼近，而RULA的差異略大。顯示KIM MHO是一個相當合宜的檢核表，已經相當程度的吻合流行病學的調查，適合手部作業的危害評估，將來可能會廣為採用。

關鍵字

肌肉骨骼危害評估檢核表 ； 肌肉骨骼危害 ； 肌肉骨骼危害標準

並列摘要

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and applicability of RULA, KIM LHC, and KIM MHO checklists against WISHA screening tool. WISHA screening tool is proposed by Washington state as an musculoskeletal hazard standard based on many epidemiological surveys. RULA、KIM LHC、and KIM MHO are newly proposed MSD assessment checklist, are considered to be very promising to become competitive tool for MSD assessment in the future. RULA is designed mainly for hand operation works; KIM LHC is used for whole body typed of work, such as lifting, holding and carrying; KIM MHO is also used for manual hand operations.
This study used RULA、KIM LHC、and KIM MHO checklists to assessment the MSD hazard of a vehicle identification number engraving operation (VIN engraving). VIN engraving operation consists of many postures variation during task performance, its chief task is to repetitively apply his finger pressure on a machine against engraving site, it is a combination of whole body and manual hand operation tasks, there will be big discrepancy by assessing this operation with traditional MSD or OWAS checklist and the like. This study attempts assess this VIN engraving operation by using RULA、KIM LHC、and KIM MHO checklists, and to compare these results against WISHA screening tool, to evaluate their accuracy and applicability.
This VIN engraving operation is classified as caution zone in WISHA screening tool, and risk factors are over-exertion and time (repetitiveness). The results of these three checklists are all fell in 2nd risk rating, all comparable with the WISHA caution zone. Are considered to be accurate. Then the risk factors identified by each checklist are also compared with the WISHA risk factors to evaluate their applicability. For RULA, the risk factor is posture, which is quite different from of the WISHA; for KIM LHC is time (repetitiveness), is not completely match to the WISHA; but, for KIM MHO are over-exertion and time (repetitiveness), which is completely agreed with the WISHA, perfect applicable.
To go a step further, the task content of this VIN engraving operation is varied by altering its force exertion from 0.3kg to 3.3 kg and production volume is increased from 90 to 150 cars. For altering force exertion, and the results of RULA and KIM LHC are 3rd and 2nd risk rating which are comparable with WISHA’s caution zone, and considerd as accurate; mais of KIM MHO is 4th risk rating, which is considered as hazardous zone in WISHA, and is inaccurate. For increasing production volume, all RULA, KIM LHC, and KIM MHO still pertained to 2nd and 3rd risk rating, which are quite differ from the hazardous zone as classified by WISHA.
Based on the above investigation, for this VIN engraving operation, none of RULA、KIM LHC、or KIM MHO results are completely agreed with the WISHA classification, however, KIM MHO seems to be the best, and RULA the least. It indicates that KIM MHO seems to be a promising checklist for operation combining with whole body task and manual hand operation, such as this VIN engraving operation.

並列關鍵字

Assessment checklist for MSD ； WMSD ； standard for MSD hazards

參考文獻

[43] 李正隆，人因工程常用的評估技術即案例探討，人因工程危害預防技術研討會，經濟部工業局主辦，中華民國工業安全衛生協會執行

[34] 陳俐安, 高市公車司機肌肉骨骼危害暴露研究, 2003, 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所

[35] 人因工程肌肉骨骼傷害預防指引, 2001.12.02, 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所

[36] 葉文裕、林彥輝, 工作現楊人因工程檢核表適用性之研究, 1997, 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所

[37] 施啟明、王子康, 運輸業累積性肌肉骨骼傷害調查分析—新竹地區, 1998, 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所