Proposal of a Guide to Select Methods of Ergonomic Assessment in the Manufacturing Industry in México

  • López Millán Francisco Octavio
  • De la Vega Bustillos Enrique Javier
  • Arellano Tanori Oscar Vidal
  • Meza Partida Gerardo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)


This paper presents the particular situation on the manufacturing industry in Mexico, a sector of the economy that provides important figures for the economy and that generates an important number of jobs, and the relevance of ergonomics in the health care of workers, in particular the Work Muscle Skeletal Disorders (WMSD). In recent years there has been an increase in the number these cases. In addition, the new legal regulations that require companies to identify and evaluate Ergonomics Risk Factors (ERF) have taken effect and it is needed take actions to minimize the risk of exposure to a WMSD. The paper presents a review of the ERF and the WMSD described in the literature as well as the proposal of a methodological guide to select the Ergonomic Assessment Methods (EAM) with greater application for the manufacturing industry, distinguishing two main activities; repetitive work and manual handling of loads. For each of these, the EAMs with the simplest application in two levels are suggested; the recommended EAM and at a second level the alternative EAMs to complement the evaluation. The guide is presented graphically and a brief description of each method and its scientific reference is provided.


Work Muscle Skeletal Disorders Ergonomics Risk Factors Ergonomic Assessment Methods 


  1. 1.
    Instituto Nacional de Geografía, Informática y Estadística (INEGI) (2017) Estadísticas a propósito de la Industria Automotriz. Accessed 22 Oct 2017
  2. 2.
    Asociación Mexicana de la Industria Automotriz (AMIA). Accessed 26 Nov 2017
  3. 3.
    The International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) (2017). Accessed 26 Nov 2017
  4. 4.
    Promexico (2017) Diagnostico sectorial, industria electrónica. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  5. 5.
    Maestas N, Powell D, Wenger J (2017) Working conditions in the United States, Results of the 2015 American Working Conditions Survey. RAND Corporation. Accessed 08 Feb 2018
  6. 6.
    Pinila GJ, Almodovar MA, Galiana BM, Hervas RP, Zimmerman VM (2015) Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo. 2015 6ª EWCS – España. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  7. 7.
    Parent-Thirion A, Biletta I, Cabrita J, Vargas O, Vermeylen G, Wilczynska A, Wilkwns M (2017) Eurofound, sixth european working conditions survey – overview report (2017 update). Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Labor Organization, The prevention of occupational diseases. Accessed 13 Nov 2017
  9. 9.
    Health and Safety Executive, Health and safety statistics, Accessed 19 Nov 2017
  10. 10.
    Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) (2016) Memoria estadística. Accessed 05 Nov 2017
  11. 11.
    Simoneau S, ST-Vincent M, Chicoine D. Les LATR- Mieux les comprendre pour mieux les prévenir.Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail. Accessed 11 Dec 2017
  12. 12.
    The Eastman Kodak Company (2004) Ergonomic design for people at work, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bernard B (1997) Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors; a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Health Council of the Netherlands. Repetitive movements at work: Risk to health. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Publication no. 2013/05E. Health Council of the Netherlands. Accessed 11 Dec 2017
  15. 15.
    Colombini D, Occhipinti E, Alvarez-Casado E, Waters T (2013) MANUAL LIFTING: a guide to study of simple and complex lifting tasks. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick HW (2006) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marras WS, Karwowski W (2006) Fundamentals and assessment tools. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malchaire J, Cock N, Vergratch S (2011) Review of factors associated with musculoskeletal problems in epidemiologic studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 74:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stack T, Ostrom LT, Wilhelmsen CA (2016) Occupational ergonomics: a practical approach. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    David GC (2005) Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup Med 55:190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garg A, Kapellush JM. Job analysis techniques for distal upper extremity disorders. Rev Hum Factors Ergon. Accessed 14 Dec 2017
  22. 22.
    Health and Safety Executive. Assessment of repetitive tasks (ART Tool). Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  23. 23.
    McAtamney L, Corlet EN (1973) RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24(2):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hignett S, McAtamney I (2000) Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl Ergon 31:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Health and Safety Executive. Manual handling assessment charts (MAC Tool). Accessed 08 Oct 2017
  26. 26.
    Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A. NIOSH Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  27. 27.
    Liberty Mutual Tables. Manual material handling tables. Accessed 10 Dec 2017
  28. 28.
    Health and Safety Executive. Rapid assessment for pushing and pulling (RAPP Tool). Accessed 11 Dec 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TecNM/Instituto Tecnológico de HermosilloHermosilloMexico

Personalised recommendations