製造業工作環境之溫度、噪音、照明及振動暴露與勞工疲勞感受之探討

The association of workplace temperature, noise, illumination, vibration and perception of fatigue among manufacturing industry workers

呂葦儒(Wei-Ru Lyu)

指導教授 ： 李素幸

共同指導教授 ： 莊侑哲

長榮大學/健康科學學院/職業安全與衛生學系(所)/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6833/CJCU.2011.00144

摘要

中文摘要
在台灣經濟高度的發展下，投入勞動職場人力已逐漸增多，但是隨之而來的災害事故亦日趨嚴重，尤其是長期在職場工作的勞工，容易受到職場中普遍存在之物理性危害。若長時間暴露於物理性危害環境，可能導致身體與心理之健康問題，其中較容易被工作者所感受到的就是疲勞。因此，本研究將針對常見物理性危害因子(噪音、低溫與高溫環境、振動、照明等)與疲勞進行探討。
本研究採橫斷式研究，以問卷調查製造業勞工的物理性危害暴露現況以及探討勞工的物理性危害與疲勞之間的相關性。研究對象為製造業勞工，問卷回收共8226份。研究工具為結構式問卷，內容分三部分：個人基本資料、社會性因子評估、物理性因子評估。資料收集建檔後，利用SPSS 16.0 for Windows及EXCEL 統計軟體來進行分析，並以卡方分析及邏輯迴歸來了解五項物理性危害(噪音、低溫與高溫環境、振動、照明)與疲勞之間的關係。
在本研究結果顯示，物理性危害之盛行率分別為高溫(42.2%)、低溫(4.8%)、噪音(27.5%)、局部振動(4.4%)、全身振動(14.7%)以及照明(24.4%)；有疲勞者則有59.8%。在溫度方面，覺得工作環境過熱或過冷的勞工，其有疲勞者之比例較大，AOR (adjusted odds ratio) 值分別為1.82 (95%CI=1.62-2.06)及1.95 (95%CI=1.03-3.69)。若工作場所周遭聲音過大，導致勞工必須大聲說話，則勞工感到疲勞的比例較高，AOR值為2.06 (95%CI=1.73-2.45)。振動方面，不論是局部振動或是全身振動，勞工會感到不舒適者，其感到疲勞的比例較多，局部振動之AOR值為5.09 (95%CI= 2.01-12.90)；全身振動則為2.50 (95%CI=1.81-3.46)。而在工作時覺得周圍環境亮度不足或過強，則感到有疲勞產生的比例也會增加，AOR值為2.73 (95%CI= 2.05-3.64)。
過去文獻顯示物理性危害對勞工生理健康問題會造成不利之影響，而本研究也發現工作環境中若有物理性危害呈現，則勞工的疲勞程度也會提高。

關鍵字

物理性危害 ； 疲勞 ； 高溫 ； 噪音 ； 振動 ； 照明

並列摘要

Abstract
Workers in the manufacturing industry usually expose to various physical hazards environment at the working place. Many studies noted that the poor working conditions may lead to the workers suffering from physical and mental fatigue. Thus, this present study investigates the relations between the physical hazards (noise, hot, cold, vibration and illumination) and fatigue.

The overall research adopted the Cross-sectional study method. A structured questionnaire was distributed to the subjects for data collection purposes and 8,226 of them were returned. The subjects of this study were workers in the manufacturing industry. The questionnaire was used to gather information about the subjects’ personal data, self-evaluation of social factors and self-evaluation of physical factors. SPSS 16.0 and Excel were used for data processing, and Chi-square test and logistic regression were used to investigate the relations between the five physical hazards and fatigue.

The results show that the prevalence rate were hot-42.2%, cold-4.8%, noise-27.5%, vibration of hand-4.4%, vibration of whole body-14.7, and illunation-24.4%. 59.8% of the subjects responded to the questionnaire that they were easily fatigued in their working environment. Compared to those who felt workplace temperature as comfortable, those who felt cold or hot in the workplace were having higher fatigue rate, and the odds ratio is 1.82 (95%CI=1.62-2.06) and 1.95 (95%CI=1.03-3.69), respectively. Those who work in the environment that needed to speak loudly were having higher fatigue rate than those who needed not to; odds ratio is 2.06 (95%CI=1.73-2.45). Those who suffered from vibration of hand or the vibration of whole body had higher fatigue rate than those who did not; odds ratio is 5.09 (95%CI= 2.01-12.90) and 2.50 (95%CI=1.81-3.46), respectively. Those who worked with their eyes staring at an object for a long time were having higher fatigue rate that those who did not, and the odds ratio is 2.73 (95%CI= 2.05-3.64).

Besides previous literature that physical hazards may cause physiological health problems, this study also finds that physical hazards to be associated with workers’ perception fatigue.

並列關鍵字

physical hazards ； fatigue ； noise ； vibration ； illumination

參考文獻

陳尹柔(2004)。公車司機職業暴露與健康狀況調查研究。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣大學公共衛生學院環境衛生研究所，台北市。

衛生署國民健康局(2007)。特別危害健康作業健康檢查指引。台北：行政院衛生署國民健康局。

曾傳銘(2004)。職業壓力之危害與預防。工業安全衛生月刊，178，36-48。

沈德盛(1993)。化危、苦、髒、臭為快適的工作環境。工業安全衛生，(46)，

施嫈瑜、李明濱、李世代、郭聖達（2004）。壓力與健康：生理病理反應。北市醫學雜誌，1（1），17-24。