Open AccessMagnitude and Risk Factors of Injuries in a Glass Bottle Manufacturing Plant
Author(s) -
Bazroy Joy,
Roy Gautam,
Sahai Ajit,
Soudarssanane M. B.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of occupational health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 59
ISSN - 1348-9585
DOI - 10.1539/joh.45.53
Subject(s) - medicine , occupational safety and health , injury prevention , incidence (geometry) , risk factor , poison control , bottle , falling (accident) , environmental health , engineering , physics , pathology , optics , mechanical engineering
Magnitude and Risk Factors of Injuries in a Glass Bottle Manufacturing Plant: Joy Bazroy et al. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, India —A study was conducted in a glass bottle manufacturing plant in Pondicherry, India, to assess the magnitude and identify the risk factors of work‐related injuries between January and December 1998. Three hundred and seventyseven injuries were reported among 341 permanent workers followed up for one year (incidence=1,105.5/ 1,000 workers/yr). A higher load of injuries was noted in the first half of the night shifts and the second half of the other three shifts. Injuries were higher in the second half of the week and during the first half of the year. Hands and wrists were the most common sites of injury (40.6%), whereas the eye, foot, ankles and other body parts had 30%, 14.6%, 10.6% and 4.2% of injuries respectively. The commonest type of injury was cuts and lacerations (50.1%); injuries to the eye (due to foreign bodies, chemicals and welding sparks) accounted for 30%, sprains 8% and burns 7.1% of the injuries. A cohort of 75 workers chosen from the 341 permanent workers were followed up for the one year for identification of risk factors. Significant risk factors were age (less than 30 yr) and experience (less than 2 yr). Technical factors responsible for injury were a hazardous worksite in 37 (38.5%) cases, inadequate protection with safety wear in 32 (33%) cases and proximity to machines in 14 (14.6%) cases. Human factors identified were non‐use of protective wear in 43 (45%), overconfidence in 18 (18.7%) and timing error while working with machines in 11 (11.4%) episodes.