Análisis postural del trabajador forestal en aserraderos de El Salto, Durango, México
Open accessAbstract
El trabajo en la industria del aserrío es físicamente exigente porque se realiza bajo posturas corporales poco saludables que generan lesiones musculoesqueléticas y su estudio requiere de herramientas de evaluación de riesgos para identificarlas adecuadamente. En los aserraderos de El Salto, Durango, México se desconoce el nivel de riesgo de las posturas de trabajo en las personas, por lo que el objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis postural en 15 puestos de trabajo. A partir de 7.5 h de video, que consideraron el trabajo efectivo en los puestos laborales, se obtuvieron 900 imágenes fijas a intervalos de 30 segundos para analizarlas mediante el método OWAS. Se estimó el índice global de riesgo postural y se elaboraron tablas de contingencia y pruebas de asociación entre variables categóricas de Chi-cuadrado. Los resultados mostraron una frecuencia de posturas de 48% con nivel de riesgo 2, 3 y 4, indicando realizar acciones de corrección postural para los riesgos 2 y 3 así como modificaciones inmediatas para el 4. El índice global de riesgo se estableció en 166 puntos catalogado como mínimo. Por puesto de trabajo, los topadores y volteadores son los más susceptibles de presentar lesiones musculoesqueléticas con índices globales de riesgo por encima de los 200 puntos. Por zona corporal, 43% de las posiciones de la espalda y 40% de las piernas se encuentran en un nivel de riesgo 2, considerado como poco dañino, y 100% de las posiciones de los brazos resultaron con un nivel de riesgo 1 que no requiere modificación alguna.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The adoption of ergonomic practices in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is usually reactive, limiting the scope of its benefits and perpetuating suboptimal working conditions.
“Sin embargo, la realidad en pequeñas y medianas empresas (PYMES) revela que la adopción de prácticas ergonómicas suele ser reactiva, limitando el alcance de sus beneficios y perpetuando condiciones laborales subóptimas.”
From Impact of ergonomics on work performance in the manufacturing industry: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [6]
The Introduction (page not provided) says ergonomics tends to be used reactively, after injuries occur, rather than proactively to prevent them. It discusses sawmills, not SMEs generally, and does not establish that reactive adoption limits the benefits of ergonomics or perpetuates suboptimal working conditions. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Bello, S. R., & Mijinyawa, Y. (2010). Assessment of injuries in small scale sawmill industry of south western Nigeria. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 12(1), 151-157. Recuperado de http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/1 558/1293
- Buckle, P. W., & Devereux, J. J. (2002). The nature of work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 207-217. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00014-5 · DOI
- Calvo, A. (2009). Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) risks in forestry: a case study to propose an analysis method. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 12(1), 01-09. Recuperado de http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/1 149/1188
- Chandra, A. M., Ghosh, S., Asahara, S., Barman, S., Dev, S., & Gangopadhyay, S. (2011). An ergonomic study on musculoskeletal health hazards among sawmill workers of West Bengal, India. Journal of Human Ergology, 40(1-2), 1-78. doi: 10.11183/jhe.40.1 · DOI
- Cheţa, M., Marcu, M. V., & Borz, S. A. (2018). Workload, exposure to noise, and risk of musculoskeletal disorders: A case study of motor-manual tree feeling and processing in poplar clear cuts. Forests, 9(300), 2-20. doi: 10.3390/f9060300 · DOI
- Eroglu, H., Kayacan, Y., & Yilmaz, R. (2015). Effects of work types and workload on certain anthropometric parameters in forestry workers. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 515-522. doi: 10.1080/09720073.2015.11891756 · DOI
- Gómez-Galán, M., Pérez-Alonso, J., Callejón-Ferre, A. J., & López- Martínez, J. (2017). Musculoskeletal disorders: OWAS review. Industrial Health, 55(4), 314-337. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2016- 0191 · DOI
- Hoogendoorn, W. E., Bongers, P. M., De Vet, H. C. W., Ariens, G. A. M., Van Mechelen, W., & Bouter, L. M. (2002). High physical work load and low job satisfaction increase the risk of sickness absence due to low back pain: results of a prospective cohort study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(5), 323-328. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.5.323 · DOI
- Janicak, C. A. (2007). Applied statistics in occupational safety and health (2a ed.). Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
- Jones, T., & Kumar, S. (2010). Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in four sawmill jobs. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 16(1), 105-111. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2010.11076834 · DOI
- Justavino, F. C., Ramírez, R. J., Pérez, N. M., & Borz, S. A. (2015). The use of OWAS in forest operations postural assessment: advantages and limitations. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Forestry, Wood Industry, Agricultural Food Engineering. Series II, 8(2).
- Karhu, O., Kansi, P., & Kuorinka, I. (1977). Correcting working postures in industry: a practical method for analysis. Applied Ergonomics, 8(4), 199-201. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(77)90164-8 · DOI
- Lee, T. H., & Han, C. S. (2013). Analysis of working postures at a construction site using the OWAS method. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 19(2), 245-250. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2013.11076983. · DOI
- Liu, J., Martínez, L., Wang, H., Rodríguez, R. M., & Novozhilov, V. (2010). Computing with words in risk assessment. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 3(4), 396-419. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2013.11076983 · DOI
- Özkaya, K., Polat, O., & Kalinkara, V. (2018). Physical workload assessment of furniture industry workers by using OWAS method. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 11,11-19. doi: 10.2174/1875934301811010011 · DOI
- Padula, R. S., & Coury, H. J. C. G. (2003). Sagittal trunk movements during load carrying activities: a pilot study. International Journal of Industrial Eergonomics, 32(3), 181-188. doi: 10.1016/S0169- 8141(03)00062-3 · DOI
- Pascual, S. A., & Naqvi, S. (2008). An investigation of ergonomics analysis tools used in industry in the identification of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 14(2), 237-245. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2008.11076755 · DOI
- Quemelo, P. R. V., Gasparato, F. D. S., & Vieira, E. R. (2015). Prevalence, risks and severity of musculoskeletal disorder symptoms among administrative employees of a Brazilian company. Work, 52(3), 533-540. doi: 10.3233/WOR-152131 · DOI
- Qutubuddin, S. M., Hebbal, S. S., & Kumar, A. C. S. (2013). An ergonomic study of work-related musculoskeletal disorder risks in Indian sawmills. Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 7(5), 7- 13. doi: 10.9790/1684-0750713 · DOI
- Roman-Liu, D. (2014). Comparison of concepts in easy-to-use methods for MSD risk assessment. Applied Ergonomics, 45(3), 420-427. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.010 Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social [STyPS]. (2014). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-006-STPS-2014, Manejo y almacenamiento de materiales-Condiciones de seguridad y salud en el trabajo. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Recuperado de http://www.stps.gob.mx/bp/secciones/dgsst/normatividad/no rmas/Nom-006.pdf · DOI
- Sharpe, D. (2015). Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what?. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(8), 1-10. Recuperado de https://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=20&n=8
- Spinelli, R., Aminti, G., Magagnotti, N., & De Francesco, F. (2018). Postural risk assessment of small-scale debarkers for wooden postproduction. Forests, 9(111), 2-12 doi: 10.3390/f9030111 · DOI
- Takala, E. P., Pehkonen, I., Forsman, M., Hansson, G. Å., Mathiassen, S. E., Neumann, W. P., ..., & Winkel, J. (2010). Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(1), 3-24. doi:10.5271/sjweh.2876 · DOI
- Unver-Okan, S., Acar, H. H., & Kaya, A. (2017). Determination of work postures with different ergonomic risk assessment methods in forest nurseries. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26(12), 7362-7371.
- Vieira, E. R., & Kumar, S. (2004). Working postures: a literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 14(2), 143-159. doi: 10.1023/B:JOOR.0000018330.46029. · DOI
- Zanuttini, R., Cielo, P., & Poncino, D. (2005). Il metodo OWAS. Prime applicazioni nella valutazione del rischio di patologie muscolo- scheletriche nel settore forestale in Italia. Forest@-Journal of Silviculture and Forest Ecology, 2(2), 242. doi: 10.3832/efor0294- 0020242 recibido el 2 de septiembre de 2018 Aceptado el 30 de marzo de 2019 Publicado el 13 de diciembre de 2019 Este documento se debe citar como: Aragón-Vásquez, A. Y., Silva-Lugo, E. D., Nájera-Luna, J. A., Méndez-González, J., Hernández, F. J., & de la Cruz-Carrera, R. (2019). Análisis postural del trabajador forestal en aserraderos de El Salto, Durango, México. Madera y Bosques, 25(3), e2531904. doi: 10.21829/myb.2019.2531904 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Impact of ergonomics on work performance in the manufacturing industry: A systematic review
Campos-Naval, J. E., Castañeda-López, V. A., & Aparicio-Ballena, J. A. (2025) · Proceedings of the 23rd LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology (LACCEI): "Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, and Sustainable Technologies in service of society" · doi:10.18687/laccei2025.1.1.802
- Authors
- Aragón-Vásquez, A. Y., Silva-Lugo, E. D., Nájera-Luna, J. A., Méndez-González, J., Hernández, F. J., & De la Cruz-Carrera, R.
- Affiliations
- Tecnológico Nacional de México (MX)
- Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro (MX)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Madera y Bosques
- Publisher
- Instituto de Ecologia, A.C.
- Published
- 2019-12-13
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1405-0471 (ISSN-L)
- 2448-7597
- OpenAlex
- W2996748738
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- es
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Madera y Bosques (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) (submittedVersion)
- Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety Management
- Keywords
- postural risk assessment, OWAS method, musculoskeletal disorders, sawmills, work posture, occupational health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
