Ergonomics in the arctic – a study and checklist for heavy machinery in open pit mining

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Heavy mining vehicle operators at arctic mines have a high risk of discomfort, musculoskeletal disorders and occupational accidents. There is a need for tailored approaches and safety management tools that take into account the specific characteristics of arctic work environments.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a holistic evaluation tool for heavy mining vehicles and operator well-being in arctic mine environments.

METHODS: Data collection was based on design science principles and included literature review, expert observations and participatory ergonomic sessions.

RESULTS: As a result of this study, a systemic checklist was developed and tested by eight individuals in a 350-employee mining environment.

CONCLUSIONS: The checklist includes sections for evaluating vehicle specific ergonomic and safety aspects from a technological point of view and for checking if the work has been arranged so that it can be performed safely and fluently from an employee’s point of view.

Keywords

Design science occupational health and safety operator participatory ergonomics work system

1 Introduction

Mining operators who spend most of their work day in a static sitting position while operating machinery and driving vehicles are at high risk for discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders [1, 2]. The modern trend in the mining industry has been to replace humans with machines at all levels of the value chain to reduce such risks and improve overall productivity [3]. Nonetheless, tasks related to heavy mining equipment, such as drilling, loading, hauling and dumping are still performed daily by various kinds of operators [4, 5].

Despite automation and good practices and solutions, ergonomic risk factors are still prevailing in operators’ work [6 –9]. Several authors have reported ergonomic risks associated with heavy vehicles in mining environments; whole-body vibration, shocks, jarring and jolting [2 , 10–14], awkward and or static body postures and poor line-of-sight [15 –17],prolonged sitting [18], noise, dusts and exhausts [19, 20], temperature extremes [5 , 21], and psychosocial health risks; time pressure and shift work [20].

Ergonomics itself is a design-oriented and human-centred discipline that aims to improve both human performance and system functionality in work system entities [22]. A work system can be understood as an entity where the human is a worker performing a specific operational task or function within a specific environment [23, 24]. Boudreau-Trudel et al. [25] emphasize that the ergonomics and safety improvement processes in heavy mining equipment are complex in nature.

There are deficiencies in mining companies’ purchasing processes [26] and in equipment design processes [26, 27]. As an example, Boudreau-Trudel et al. [25] show that by introducing new load-haul-dump vehicles with closed cabs and air conditioning it was possible to protect operators against dust and falling rocks. Nonetheless new cabs brought about new risks, such as operators hitting their heads on the cab ceiling and their bodies colliding with different parts inside of the cab, resulting in increased injury rates.

According to Kecojevic et al. [28], a majority of the fatal accidents in the mining industry can be associated to heavy mining equipment. Drury et al. [1] categorize two types of occupational accidents related to heavy mining vehicles, those occurring during driving and non-driving tasks. Additionally, Brauer [29] emphasizes that in general there are two fundamental causes of accidents; unsafe acts and unsafe conditions. In further agreement, Laurence [30], Paul and Maiti [31] and Burgess-Limerick [32] emphasize causal interactions between different personal, and sociotechnical variables. To address this complexity, a concept of work systems [23, 24] provides a holistic framework for understanding ergonomics and safety requirements and their connections to the design and management of work.

In application, checklists can be used for preventive occupational health and safety (OHS) management purposes by identifying different deviations from the expected, curtailing possible hazards at work [33]. Checklists as basic audit tools can be used for several different purposes, including improving safety performance, and ensuring that performance and safety standards are met [34, 35].

Checklists in OHS management use are usually based on and adapted from published standards, codes and industry practices as Manuele [36] points out. Heavy mining vehicles are no exception. Various authors [22 , 38] and standards by the European Committee for Standardization [23 , 39–52] and International Organization for Standardization [53 –56] have introduced a range of checklists and criteria that can be applied for evaluating ergonomics and safety issues in heavy vehicles. Furthermore organizations such as the International Labour Organization [57] and authors such as Karasek and Theorell [58] and Lindström et al. [59] provide criteria that can be used for evaluating psychosocial and social aspects of work. In conclusion, Khan et al. [60] emphasize the need for tailored approaches and safety management tools that take into account the specific characteristics of arctic work environments. Arctic work environments increase risk for occupational diseases and accidents and provide certain ergonomics design challenges due to, for example, clothing restrictions affecting dexterity and cab mobility [61, 62].

1.1 Objectives

Very little research exists regarding how ergonomics and safety issues are taken into account in heavy mining equipment in arctic work environments. Thus, this study addresses this gap by exploring typical risks that occur in the work environments of mining vehicle operators and includes a participatory development process. A process in which different personnel groups in an arctic open pit mine participated in development sessions where a holistic checklist for operations with heavy mining equipment in arctic environments was created.

This process has been condensed into the following two research questions (RQ):

RQ1: What kinds of risk factors are related to operating heavy mining equipment at arctic work environments from an operator’s point of view?

RQ2: What kinds of risks should be included in a checklist for heavy mining equipment in an arctic open pit mine?

2 Methodology

The theoretical framework of this study is based on the foundations of participatory ergonomics (PE) and design science. PE is one approach to ergonomics studies, and a process where all necessary stakeholders are invited to actively participate in problem solving [63]. Design science is in many ways related to ergonomics, as it is a technology-oriented discipline that seeks to improve human conditions by providing design science knowledge that can be used for different design and management purposes [64].

This study does not belong to the sphere of the medical study. Sensitive information from individuals was not gathered and the participants were volunteers. The information that was collected and later utilized in the observations and PE sessions is generic enough that persons or companies are not able to be identified. This study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of the Northern Ostrobothnia Hospital District, Finland (73/2012).

Data and interpretation in this study was subjective in nature. Following to the design science study premises this study did not focus on studying existing models, instead this study introduced new design science knowledge based on literature review, observations and PE sessions. As existing theories and literature were continuously implemented in the design process this study can be considered as being deductive in nature.

2.1 Participatory ergonomics study process and material

The subject mine was an open-pit mine in Northern Finland in the community of Sodankylä employing around 350 mine workers in total. Production at the mine site started in 2012 after the 2010 construction and start-up phases. Thus, all employees had a maximum of three years of mining work experience at that particular mine. Nonetheless, employees might have had mining work experience from other arctic mines before that.

The study process involved six types of research activities (activity I-VI, Fig. 1). The process began with an informal discussion with a mine OHS manager (activity I) in order to define the needs and possible limitations to the PE process. The discussion was followed by a short literature and standard review (activity II) that aimed to define what types of checklists exist and what criteria they contain. After the literature review the researchers performed expert observations (activity III) in the mine.

The expert observations were performed during 10 winter work (January-March, 2013) shifts for all available heavy mining vehicle types in the subject mine. The vehicles included: two types of dumpers, two types of excavators, two types of loaders, one drilling machine, and one road grader; totaling eight different vehicles. The observed vehicles were typical mining vehicles that are sold globally.

In the observations, the researchers followed the operators during their normal work shift and concentrated on gathering information on different tasks the operators were performing, and identifying safety and ergonomics related problems in their work. In addition to direct observations at the site, researchers video filmed and photographed operators at their work to be reviewed later.

Expert observations were followed by PE sessions (activity IV). In total, three sessions were arranged (see Fig. 1 for participant details). The structure of the PE sessions was similar to focus group sessions [65], as they contained a semi-structured format and were given a purpose as to what should be solved in a particular session. The PE sessions were held in meeting rooms inside the mine area. In the PE sessions, researchers acted as discussion stimulators and secretaries.

The first PE session (participants: two researchers, three OHS specialists and two operators) aimed to provide a list of different risks associated to heavy mining vehicles and operators’ work. Previously recorded video and photo material from the operators’ work was used to stimulate discussion.

The list created in the first PE session was further processed by the researchers by dividing risk factors into three categories; (1) Working outside the cab, (2) Working inside the cab, and (3) operator specific work load. This categorization was applied from the definitions for accident premises by Drury et al. [1] and Brauer [29]. In the second PE session participants (two researchers, four OHS specialists and one operator) rated risk factors inside the categories by independently selecting three important risk factors from a list. After the first two PE sessions, the researchers formed a draft version of the checklist. The draft was discussed in the third PE session (participants: two researchers, one OHS specialist, two operators). The purpose of the third PE session was to check whether there were any errors or criteria that could be misunderstood and revised/corrected before on-site testing.

The draft version was tested in the mine in November 2014 for two heavy mining vehicles (activity V) by evaluators from different personnel groups (two researchers, two OHS specialists, four operators, one maintenance worker and one supervisor; mean age 37(±6.7) years; mean working experience at the mine 1.5 (±0.5) years).

Five of the evaluators (three operators, OHS specialist, supervisor; 2 women, 3 men) evaluated a dumper (year 2012 model) and three evaluators (operator, OHS specialist, maintenance supervisor; 1 woman, 2 men) evaluated a road grader (year 2012 model).

Before the testing phase researchers introduced the checklist in Finnish to the participants in a meeting room at the mine area. The evaluators were all familiar with the vehicle evaluated. The evaluations for these vehicles were conducted in the courtyard of the mining machine workshop during a break from the evaluators’ regular maintenance activities. Testing for section 1 was performed independently by each evaluator. In section 2 evaluators interviewed one selected operator for both vehicles.

During the evaluation, evaluators used an English version of the checklist to accommodate for future international use, but translated questions audibly to Finnish operators when appropriate. Evaluators were instructed to perform testing individually. Nonetheless some discussion was allowed to ease possible language problems and interpretation issues. Information from the completed checklists and the testing phase observations were used by the researchers to finalize the checklist (activity VI).

3 Results

3.1 Safety and ergonomics risk factors on heavy mining vehicles at arctic work environments

Different risk factors were gathered through literature review, expert observations, and PE session 1. An overview of the risk factors is listed in Table 1. The risk factors in Table 1 are presented in the order of most to least important as ranked by the participants in PE session 2.

3.2 Safety and ergonomics checklist

After the first two PE sessions, researchers structured a first version of the checklist. The checklist consisted of sections (1 and 2) and their subsections, and detailed criteria; (1) vehicle specific ergonomics and safety requirements in technological point of view and (2) ergonomics and safety issues from an operator’s point of view (Fig. 2).

Section 1 is divided into two subsections; 1.1 Work outside the cab and 1.2 Work inside the cab. Work outside the cab includes detailed vehicle specific criteria for the tasks operators are performing outside the cab (i.e. daily routine checks before operations, refueling the vehicle and access to the cab). Work inside the cab consists of criteria on the size and design of the cab and physical work environmental factors that are prevailing in the cab. The criteria that are evaluated are presented at Table 2. In addition to the criteria I) model and mine specific ID number, II) short description of work, III) descriptions of accidents at work or vehicle collisions related to this vehicle model at the mine and IV) descriptions of improvements made after the possible accidents at work or vehicle collisions are completed in the checklist. Section 2 is based on different work load factors; physical, psychosocial and social that the operators face during their work (Table 2). In addition to these questions, the following are also completed: I) name and occupation, II) size (height and weight), III) age and experience and IV) main tasks of the operator observed and interviewed.

Completion of the checklist is performed by OHS personnel together with a foreman and an operator. Sections 1 and 2 can be completed separately. Both sections require assessment of whether a checklist item is “in order” or “not in order.” In case of “not in order”, specific notes and improvement proposals are completed separately.

3.3 Testing the checklist

Eight evaluators tested the checklist at mining environment. The evaluation findings concerning development needs for two types of vehicles are presented in Table 3.

4 Discussion

This study provides a checklist tool for evaluating safety and ergonomics in heavy mining equipment in arctic work environments. The checklist is freely available and can be accessed through the MineHealth project [66] web page. From a holistic human perspective, all the critical elements (i.e. tools and technologies and tasks, work environments and organizational issues, of operators’ general work system) are evaluated within the checklist. Human performance and work load issues are evaluated in section 2, and work environment issues in section 1 by including all relevant work environment areas and work tasks performed in the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, technology and tools used are evaluated in section 1. Organizational issues such as guidance and training, arrangements in different work environments, and communication between different stakeholders are evaluated through the whole checklist in both sections.

The checklist covers physical ergonomics and design issues. Physical ergonomics and anthropometric accommodation has remained a challenge to designers and must thus be emphasized. As pointed out by Laporte et al. [67] there might be challenges with very short and very tall people to work inside the cabs. This issue may also be of increasing importance for the design of mining vehicles in Nordic countries, where more and more women are employed as operators. Noteworthy for arctic environments is that thick winter clothes might interfere with operators’ ability to move and work easily in limited cab spaces. Additionally, changing environmental conditions, such as continuously moving between a warm cab and cold outdoors environment, require continuous human thermoregulatory adjustments and may cause more stress for the operator.

As pointed out by both Zink and Fischer [68] and Haslam and Waterson [69], different ergonomics aspects can be associated with the concept of sustainability from a human factors perspective. Broadening the scope from traditional ergonomics aspects and discussing the checklist issues under the topic of sustainability allow broader views and enables more efficient discussions with relevant stakeholders. Core understanding of ergonomics and complex work systems includes understanding the involvement of society, shareholders, employees, and customers as Dul et al. [70] point out. Nonetheless, stakeholders in general are not aware of the economic benefits of ergonomics and thus do not exhibit strong demand for ergonomics [70]. A review on equipment innovations in mining by Trudel et al. [27] emphasizes similarly the need for systemic thinking andstakeholder involvement. Other elements of sustainability, such as environmental and economic aspects, and their correspondence to ergonomics, require broader discussion in the context of this checklist.

As the size of the equipment and requirements for productivity increase, so do the requirements for operators and site-based maintenance. According to a study by Horberry et al. [71] new trends towards automation in general have a good impact on preventing occupational injuries and illnesses and on improving sustainability. Nonetheless, some new threats may occur. A major concern, emphasized by Horberry et al. [71] is that the operator may lose situation awareness as the automation results in more passive operation. The proposed checklist tackles that by including criteria about meta-cognitive and social work load factors in Section 2, where operator specific safety and ergonomics aspects are evaluated.

The checklist considers sustainability issues mainly from the operators’ point of view, and as by-products of their work performance. Social issues are discussed by extending questions related to physical work load factors to recovery issues at free time, and social work load factors to family life issues such as whether the operator feels there is enough free time between shifts and pressure from the employer for overtime work.

Environmental aspects in ergonomics are usually discussed from the human point of view; how different environmental elements and climatic factors, such as noise, vibration and lighting affect the human and human performance [72]. The checklist covers previous issues but also includes other points of views, such as environmental aspects, which are taken into account by including psychosocial criteria on guidance provided by the mining company on safe driving habits and on the feelings of time pressure. Such issues can be associated directly to economic aspects when mindfulness of environmental driving is considered. Thus, this checklist provides a practical tool for bringing sustainability issues to the operator level by addressing how and which type of measures can be improved.

4.1 Reliability and validity issues

The results of the study have been in the critical hands of the substance experts in the mine in every PE session round. As an indication of content comprehensiveness, only a few minor suggestions to improve the checklist were gained in the third and thus last PE session. This ongoing process has provided a quality control for the study. Hevner et al. [73] have emphasized that the subject of the design science process is ready when it answers the demands that are givento it.

The results of this study can be discussed under the theme of validation as some low-level comparison can be made from the Activity V testing phase results. As Sinclair [35] emphasized that when high correlations between observers exist, it indicates that some degree of validity exists. The testing situation included some restraints that should be taken into account when discussing validity issues. Mainly these faults derive from the setting of the testing situation where English version was tested. An English version was used since the mine is owned by a multinational organization and the mine representatives wanted the checklist to be available across sites. The checklist was later translated into Finnish and provided to the mine as a draft version. Since evaluators were not native English speaking people, some common discussion was allowed for interpretation purposes. It is possible that this had some effect on the results. However the researchers were present throughout the testing and discussion phases and could act as translators in response to misunderstanding. Additionally, no significant notes were made by the researchers as to possible biases or misinterpretation.

The data obtained from this study are limited, consisting of personnel from a single Finnish mine. Furthermore the mine is young and at the beginning of its life cycle, thus the employees’ working at that particular mine have relatively little experience. Nonetheless several employees have worked at other mines in northern Finland before joining the company.

Because of rather limited data, this study can be considered as a case study. From the point of view of an epidemiological study the material is inadequate for generalizing conclusions. Nonetheless, the criteria in the checklist are rather general in nature. Thus it is likely to be suitable for evaluating heavy vehicles operating in arctic work environments at other mine sites. From the point of view of the checklist reliability it is essential to note that the checklist development process included various steps where different personnel groups participated and provided knowledge from different points of view. That minimizes the possibility for possible biases in the checklist. It should be noted that the material of this study does not provide an opportunity for estimating the effects of the utilization of the checklist. This study only provides brief feedback about the findings that the evaluators made on the subject vehicles. The list was delivered to OHS management of the mine for furtheractions.

As pointed out by Manuele [36] the quality of different checklists depends on the experience of those who have develop them. Furthermore, Albin [74] reminds us that much of the reliability of the results gained through checklists relied on the observer’s competency and performance at the time evaluation was made. As the checklist gives only a picture of the current situation, complemented with accident and collision data for selected vehicles, additional measures are needed. Such measures might include direct measurements of physical environment factors such as noise, vibration, temperature, as well as design and accessibility issues. In general, questions in section 1 are rather objective in nature, although they might need some clarification with regards to different safety and ergonomics standards. Thus references to standards are given within the checklist. Work load factors are based on operator interviews and are thus more subjective, and require some interpretation and verbal clarification.

5 Conclusions

This study identified ergonomics and accident risk factors that can be associated to heavy mining vehicle operators’ work in arctic work environments. The risk factors were utilized in a participatory ergonomics process where a holistic ergonomics and safety checklist was created. The checklist enables systemic evaluation of 1) vehicle related ergonomic and safety requirements and 2) operator specific work load factors. The checklist is a constructive tool for OHS management. Additionally the criteria can be applied to work system design processes for heavy mining vehicles in arctic work environments.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This work has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union (Kolarctic ENPI CBC Project 02/2011/043/KO303 – MineHealth). The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

References

Drury

, Porter

, Dempsey

. Patterns in mining haul truck accidents. Hum Fac Erg Soc P 2011;56(1):2011–5.

McPhee

. Ergonomics in mining. Occup Med-C 2004;54(5):297–303.

Sanda

M-A

, Johansson

, Abrahamsson

. Using systemic structural activity approach in identifying strategies enhancing human performance in mining production drilling activity. Theor Issues Ergond 2014;15(3):262–82.

Chi

, Caldas

. Image-based safety assessment: Automated spatial safety risk identification of earthmoving and surface mining activities. J Constr Eng M 2012;138(3):341–51.

Waters

, Genaidy

, Barriera Viruet

, Makola

. The impact of operating heavy equipment vehicles on lower back disorders. Ergonomics 2008;51(5):602–36.

Badri

, Nadeau

, Gbodossou

. Integration of OHS into risk management in an open-pit mining project in Quebec (Canada). Minerals 2011;1(1):3–29.

Howard

, Sesek

, Bloswick

. Typical whole body vibration exposure magnitudes encountered in the open pit mining industry. Work 2009;34(3):297–303.

Lynas

, Horberry

. Human factor issues with automated mining equipment. Toergj 2011;4:74–80.

Sun

, Nieto

, Li

, Kecojevic

. An integrated information technology assisted driving system to improve mine trucks-related safety. Saf Sci 2010;48(10):1490–7.

10.

Bernardo

, Matos

, Santos Baptista

. Patterns of Whole-Body Vibrations in open pit mining. In: Arezes

, Baptista

, Barroso

, Carneiro

, Cordeiro

, Costa

, Melo

, Miguel

, Perestrelo

, editors. Occupational Safety and Hygiene II London: Taylor & Francis; 2014. pp. 471–6.

11.

Kumar

. Vibration in operating heavy haul truck in overburden mining. Appl Ergon 2004;35(6):509–20.

12.

Mayton

, Amirouche

, Jobes

. Comparison of seat designs for underground mine haulage vehicles using the absorbed power and ISO 2631-1(1985)-based ACGIH threshold limit methods. Int J Heavy Veh Syst 2005;12(3):225–38.

13.

Smets

MPH

, Eger

, Grenier

. Whole-body vibration experienced by haulage truck operators in surface mining operations: A comparison of various analysis methods utilized in the prediction of health risks. Appl Ergon 2010;41(6):763–70.

14.

Wolfgang

, Burgess-Limerick

. Whole-body vibration exposure of haul truck drivers at a surface coal mine. Appl Ergon 2014;45(6):1700–4.

15.

Eger

, Godwin

, Henry

, Grenier

, Callaghan

, Demerchan

. Why vehicle design matters: Exploring the link between line-of-sight driving posture and risk factors for injury. Work 2010;35(1):27–37.

16.

Skandfer

, Talykova

, Brenn

, Nilsson

, Vaktskjold

. Low back pain among mineworkers in relation to driving cold environment and ergonomics. Ergonomics 2014;57(10):1541–8.

17.

Zimmerman

, Cook

, Rosecrance

. Operating engineers: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the trade. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1997;12(10):670–80.

18.

Kuijt-Evers

LFM

, Krause

, Vink

. Aspects to improve cabin comfort of wheel loaders and excavators according to operators. Appl Ergon 2003;34(3):265–71.

19.

Donoghue

. Occupational health hazards in mining: An overview. Occup Med-C 2004;54(5):283–9.

20.

Kittusamy

, Buchholz

. Whole-body vibration and postural stress among operators of construction equipment. J Saf Res 2004;35(3):255–61.

21.

Hassi

, Gardner

, Hendricks

, Bell

. Occupational injuries in the mining industry and their association with statewide cold ambient temperatures in the USA. Am J Ind Med 2000;38(1):49–58.

22.

Karwowski

. The Discipline of Ergonomics and Human Factors. In: Salvendy

, editor, Handbook of Human Factors & Ergonomics New York: John Wiles; 2006. pp. 3–31.

23.

European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 6285:2004: Ergonomic principles in the design of work systems. European Committee for Standardization European Committee for Standardization; 2004.

24.

Smith

, Carayon-Sainfort

. A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. Int J Ind Ergonom 1989;4(1):67–9.

25.

Boudreau-Trudel

, Nadeau

, Zaras

, Deschamps

. Introduction of innovative equipment in mining: Impact of occupational health and safety. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology 2014;4:49–58.

26.

Horberry

. Better integration of human factors considerations within safety in design. Theor Issues Ergon 2014;15(3):293–304.

27.

Trudel

, Nadeau

, Zaras

, Deschamps

. Managing equipment innovations in mining: A review. Work 2015;51(4):731–46.

28.

Kecojevic

, Komljenovic

, Groves

, Radomsky

. An analysis of equipment-related fatal accidents in US mining operations: 1995-2005. Saf Sci 2007;45(8):864–74.

29.

Brauer

. Safety and Health for Engineers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.

30.

Laurence

. Safety rules and regulations on mine sites – The problem and a solution. J Safety Res 2005;36(1):39–50.

31.

Paul

, Maiti

. The synergic role of sociotechnical and personal characteristics on work injuries in mines. Ergonomics 2008;51(5):737–67.

32.

Burgess-Limerick

. Injuries associated with underground coal mining equipment. Toergj 2011;4(Suppl (2-M2)):62–73.

33.

Kogi

. Basic ergonomics checklists. In: Karwowski

, editor, International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors London: Taylor & Francis; 2001. pp. 1747–1750.

34.

Hales

, Provonost

. The checklist - a tool for error management and performance improvement. J Crit Care 2006;21(3):231–5.

35.

Sinclair

. Subjective assessment. In: Wilson

, Corlett

, editors. Evaluation of human work. A practical ergonomics methodology London: Taylor & Francis; 1991. pp. 58–88.

36.

Manuele

. Prevention through design: Addressing occupational risks in the design & redesign processes. Prof Saf 2008;53(10):28–40.

37.

Almqvist

, Gellerstedt

, Tobish

. Ergonomic checklist for Forest Machines. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2006.

38.

Kittusamy

. A checklist for evaluating cab design of construction equipment. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2003;18(10):721–3.

39.

European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 10075-2:1996: Ergonomic principles related to mental workload - Part 2: Design principles. European Committee for Standardization; 1996.

40.

European Committee for Standardization. EN 547-2:1996+A1:2008: Safety of machinery - Human body measurements - Part 2: Principles for determining the dimensions required for access openings. European Committee for Standardization 1996.

41.

European Committee for Standardization. EN 894-1:1997+A1:2008: Safety of machinery - Ergonomics requirements for the design of displays and control actuators - Part 1: General principles for human interactions with displays and control actuators. European Committee for Standardization 1997.

42.

European Committee for Standardization. EN 894-2:1997+A1:2008: Safety of machinery - Ergonomics requirements for the design of displays and control actuators - Part 2: Displays. European Committee for Standardization 1997.

43.

European Committee for Standardization. EN 1837:1999+A1:2009: Safety of machinery Integral lighting of machines. European Committee for Standardization 1999.

44.

European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 14122-1:2001: Safety ofmachinery - Permanentmeans of access to machinery - Part 1:Choice of fixedmeans of access between two levels. European Committee for Standardization 2001.

45.

European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 14122- 674 2:2001: Safety ofmachinery - Permanentmeans of access to machinery Part 2: Working platforms and walkways. European Committee for Standardization 2001.

46.

European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 14122-3:2001: Safety of machinery Permanent means of access to machinery. Part 3: Stairs, stepladders and guard-rails. European Committee for Standardization 2001.

47.

European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 14122-4:2001: Safety of machinery Permanent means of access to machinery. Part 4: Fixed ladders. European Committee for Standardization 2001.

48.

European Committee for Standardization. EN 614-1:2006: Safety of machinery Ergonomics design principles. Part 1: Terminology and general principles. European Committee for Standardization 2006.

49.

European Committee for Standardization. EN 614-2:2006: Safety of machinery. Ergonomics design principles. Part 2: Interactions between the design of machinery and work tasks. European Committee for Standardization 2006.

50.

European Committee for Standardization. EN 12464-2:2007: Light and lighting. Lighting of work places. Part 2: Outdoor work places. European Committee for Standardization 2007.

51.

European Committee for Standardization. CEN/TR 614-3:2010: Safety of machinery. Part 3: Ergonomic principles for the design of mobile machinery. European Committee for Standardization 2010.

52.

European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 2867:2011: Earth-moving machinery - Access systems. European Committee for Standardization 2011.

53.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 20646-1:2004: Ergonomic procedures for the improvement of local muscular workloads - Part 1: Guidelines for reducing local muscular workloads. Geneva: ISO 2004.

54.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 13732-3:2005: Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Methods for the assessment of human responses to contact with surfaces - Part 3: Cold surfaces. Geneva: ISO 2005.

55.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 13732-1:2006: Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Methods for the assessment of human responses to contact with surfaces - Part 1: Hot surfaces. Geneva: ISO 2006.

56.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15743:2008: Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Cold workplaces - Risk assessment and management. Geneva: ISO 2008.

57.

International Labour Organization. Ergonomic checkpoints. Practical and easy-to-implement solutions for improving safety, health and working conditions. Geneva: ILO 2006.

58.

Karasek

, Theorell

. Healthy work. Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books 1990.

59.

Lindström

, Elo

A-L

, Hopsu

, Kandolin

, Ketola

, Lehtelä

, Leppänen

, Mukala

, Rasa

P-L

, Sallinen

. Työkuormituksen arviointimenetelmä. Jyväskylä: Gummerus 2005.

60.

Khan

, Ahmed

, Yang

, Hashemi

, Caines

, Rathnayaka

, Oldford

. Safety Challenges in Harsh Environments: Lessons Learned. Process Saf Prog 2014. doi: 10 1002/prs 11704

61.

Anttonen

, Pekkarinen

, Niskanen

. Safety at work in cold environments and prevention of cold stress Ind Health 2009;47(3):254–61.

62.

Mäkinen

, Hassi

. Health problems in cold work. Ind Health 2009;47(3):207–20.

63.

Kuorinka

. Tools and means of implementing participatory ergonomics. Int J Ind Ergonom 1997;19(4):267–70.

64.

Van Aken

. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J Manage Stud 2004;41(2):219–46.

65.

Langford

, McDonagh

. Focus Groups – Supporting Effective Product Development. London: Taylor & Francis; 2003.

66.

MineHealth project [homepage on the Internet]. Mining vehicle safety and ergonomics checklist in arctic environments – for OSH personnel; 2015 [cited 2015 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.minehealth.fi/index.php/vibration-exercise

67.

Laporte

, Gilbert

, Fortin

, Latendresse

, Darby

. Design of driver work stations: Some methodological problems. Int J Heavy Veh Syst 1997;4(2-4):317–22.

68.

Zink

, Fischer

. Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics 2013;56(3):348–56.

69.

Haslam

, Waterson

. Ergonomics and Sustainability. Ergonomics 2013;56(3):343–7.

70.

Dul

, Bruder

, Buckle

, Carayon

, Falzon

, Marras

, Wilson

, van der Doelen

. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 2012;55(4):377–95.

71.

Horberry

, Burgess-Limerick

, Steiner

. Human Factors for the Design, Operation and Maintenance of Mining Equipment. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press; 2011.

72.

Parsons

. Environmental ergonomics: A review of principles, methods and models. Ergonomics 2000;31(6):581–94.

73.

Hevner

, March

, Park

, Ram

. Design science in information systems research. Mis Quart 2004;28(1):75–105.

74.

Albin

. Measuring the validity and reliability of ergonomic checklists. Work 2012;43(3):381–5.