Journal of Occupational

 
Table 1: Example of the FMEA worksheet

 
Table 2: Severity Index (S)

The severity of the risk is the result of the failure state. The probability of the occurrence is associated with the chance or probability of the failure state. It is also unlikely to detect the failure state due to the difficulty in identifying it (21). Calculation results for each factor have been shown in the following tables. The risks are rated according to the factors of severity, occurrence, and detection.
The factor of severity of the risks is obtained using Table 2.
In addition, the probability of the occurrence factor is obtained using Table 3.
 
Table 3:Occurrence Index (O)

 
Table 4: Detection Index (D)

Table 5: Demographic information of the individuals

 
Table 6: Safety of the units according to RPNs

Discussion
The units with the highest average RPN value were light machineries valued 42.91, asphalt rollers valued 41.3, asphalting valued 41.23, finishers valued 40.75, flaggers valued 40.55, as well as graders and dirt rollers valued 40.27 each. The units with the lowest average RPN were laboratory units valued 0, the water supply plant valued 25.93, safety guards valued 29.56, the kitchen valued 30.06, and finally the store unit valued 30.44 (Table 5). In addition, 37.03% of the units had low risks, and 62.97% of them had moderate risks. There were also no high-risk unit at the site (Fig. 1).
In the case study of Lotfolahzadeh et al (2017) titled "Risk Assessment and Determination of Insurance Rate by the FMEA Method- a Case Study in a Cement Factory" conducted in a cement factory in Tehran, the risk level of the project included low= RPN< 100, medium= 100<RPN< 126, and high= RPN> 126. Major activities with the RPN of over 126 were 68 risks, 51 risks were moderate with the RPN between 100 to 126, and 63 risks were lower than RPN= 100 (24). In the present study, units with an RPN of over 70 were considered to be of high risks, units with an RPN between 35 and 70 were considered to be of moderate risks, and those with an RPN lower than 35 were considered to be of low risks. Likewise, lightweight machines, asphalt rollers, as well as asphalt cutters and finishers were considered to be of high risks. In a study by Ghaljahi et al (2017) titled "Identification and Assessment of Risks in a Flour Factory using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and Job Safety Analysis in the Golestan Province", the risk level of the project was determined to be low= RPN< 85, medium= 85<RPN< 95, and high= RPN> 96. In this regard, 45.54%, 36.36%, 9.09%, and 0.09% of the identified risks were within the unacceptable, unfavorable, acceptable, and inconsiderable risk levels, respectively. In addition, the risk assessment of the factory environment and the flour grinder machine (Waltz) through the FMEA revealed the risk level of less than 85, which was within the acceptable limit (25). In the present study, the greatest number of the risks was related to light machineries. In addition, units with an RPN of over 70 were of high risks, those with an RPN of between 35 and 70 were considered to be of moderate risks, and the ones with an RPN of lower than 35 were regarded to be of low risks. In addition, most of the units (62.97%) had medium risks, and 37.03% of them had low risks.
Sadat Hosseini et al (2012) conducted a study titled "Occupational Health & Safety Management in the Oil Rack Construction Phase and Providing Improvement Management Solutions in the Rashadat Oil Field Construction". The risks with an RPN of 1 to 90 were considered low, the risks with an RPN of 91 to 200 were considered medium, and those with an RPN of over 200 were considered high. In this study, 62.7% of the activities were of low risks, 31.6% of them had moderate risks, and the rest had the high risk of 5.7% (26). In the current study, most of the units (62.97%) had medium risks, and 37.03% of them had low risks. In addition, units with an RPN of over 70 were considered to be of high risks, those with an RPN of between 35 and 70 were considered to be of moderate risks, and units with an RPN of 35 were considered to be of low risks. In 2012, Ebrahimzadeh et al studied the milling, welding, transport, and moving of the objects in Shiraz refinery. In a study titled "Assessing the Potential Dangers of Shiraz Refinery by FMEA and its Consequences", RPNs with a value of 48 were considered to be of low risks for welding, and activities such as scraping metal surfaces and cylinders with an RPN of 210 were considered to be of high risks. They also concluded that activities with lower RPNswere more damaging (27). In the present study, units with an RPN of over 70 were considered to be of high risks, those with an RPN between 35 and 70 were considered to be of moderate risks, and those with an RPN of less than 35 were considered to be of low risks. The activities of lightweight machineries with an RPN of 42.19 and asphalt rollers with an RPN of 41.3 were considered to be of high risks, and the activities of the laboratory and the water supply plant with an RPN between 0 and 25.93 were considered to be of low risks.
In a study titled "An Evaluation of FMEA Risk Factors at a School’s Equipment Production Plant", Myrhammed et al investigated 12 workstations with 55 employees at a School’s Equipment Manufacturing Plant. In 2016, having identified 51 risk factors in their study, they found out that 25.4% of the risk factors were within an acceptable range, 54.9% of them were within an unacceptable range, and 19.6% of them were under emergency conditions. The most demanding task was to work on guillotines (a kind of machine for cutting the things), as well as cutting, bending, and drilling machines (28). In the present study, 37.03% of the units had low risks, and 62.97% of them had moderate risks, yet there was no high-risk unit identified at the site. In 2016, a study was carried out in the Parsian Gas Refining Company, titled "the Application of the FMEA Model to Assessing the Environmental and Safety Hazards of Gas Condensate Storage Tanks" by Wazdani et al. They identified the dangers using the Delphi method and then evaluated and prioritized them by AHP and FMEA methods. According to their results, possible fire caused by terrorist and deliberate factors had the highest environmental risks with an RPN of 1.824, and the inhalation of vapors had the highest safety risks with an RPN of 3.384, during repairs (29). In the current study, lightweight machines with an RPN of 42.19 and asphalt rollers with an RPN of 41.3 had the highest risks, respectively. In contrast, the activities of the laboratory and the water supply plant had the lowest risks with the RPNs of 0 and 25.93, respectively.
Different types of software have been used to draw color maps in various occupational health courses, among which one can mention the study of Shoja et al (2018) to demonstrate UV-A radiation using the Surfer V.13 in the workplace environment of a steel company. They showed that the highest levels of ultraviolet radiation were related to the welding unit (0.32 mw/cm2). The comparison of the values obtained from ultraviolet ray measurements with the standards showed that all measured values were within the standard range (30). In the present study, the number of safe units was low, and most points on the map were green, yet only few points were yellow because the software considered the space between the units safe. In another study conducted in a shoe factory by Zare et al, they evaluated the individual and environmental sound pressure levels and presented the results using the Surfer software. In addition, the results of measuring environmental sound pressure levels showed that 32.3% of the measurement stations was located in the danger zone with the sound pressure levels having been greater than 85 dBA(31). In the present study, 37.03% of the units had low risks, 62.97% of them had moderate risks, but there was no high-risk unit identified at the site. Nevertheless, most of the points on the map are green, and only few of them are yellow because the software considers the space between the units to be safe as well.
One of the strengths of this research was the use of ArcGIS and the drawing of safety color and contour maps for the first time. The research limitations also include the timeliness of risk assessments and the lack of collaboration by some individuals.
 
Conclusion
In this study, using the FMEA methodology and after determining the scope of the risks, 37.03% of the units showed to have low risks, and 62.97% of them had moderate risks, but there was no high-risk unit identified at the site. Nevertheless, lightweight machines, asphalt rollers, asphalt cutters, and finishers were of the highest risks. It is expected that upon the application of corrective suggestions, the risk of units will be minimized and stay low.
 
Acknowledgement
This article is derived from a research project with code number 97000438 sponsored by the Student Research Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. We hereby extend our gratitude to the Research Committee, as well as the authorities, and the directors of Kerman University of Medical Sciences for their cooperation and support. We also appreciate the management of the highway construction site and its dedicated staff for their collaboration and daylong efforts.
 
Conflict of interest: None declared.
 
References

1. Fontaneda I, Camino López MA, Gonzalez Alcántara OJ, Ritzel DO. Gender differences in lost work days due to occupational accidents. Saf Sci 2019; 114:23-9.

2. Pietilä J, Räsänen T, Reiman A, Ratilainen H, Helander E. Characteristics and determinants of recurrent occupational accidents. Saf Sci 2018; 108:269-77.

3. Sanmiquel L, Bascompta M, Rossell JM, Anticoi HF, Guash E. Analysis of occupational accidents in underground and surface mining in Spain using data-mining techniques. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(3):462.

4. Sarkar S, Vinay S, Raj R, Maiti J, Mitra P. Application of optimized machine learning techniques for prediction of occupational accidents. Comput Oper Res 2019; 106:210-24.

5. Ghamari F, Mohammadfam I, Mohammadbeigi A, Ebrahimi H, Khodayari M. Determination of effective risk factors in incidence of occupational accidents in one of the large metal industries, Arak (2005-2007). Iran Occupational Health Journal 2013; 9(4):89-96.

6. Alli BO. Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization; 2008.

7. Komaki J, Barwick KD, Scott LR. A behavioral approach to occupational safety: pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. J Appl Psychol 1978; 63(4):434-45.

8. Mohammadfam I, Fatemi F. Evaluation of the relationship between unsafe acts and occupational accidents in a vehicle manufacturing. Iran Occupational Health Journal 2008; 5(3 and 4):44-50.

9. Mehdad A, Rahimi R, Atashpour SH. Comparison of occupational stress and occupational accidents frequency among off shore and onshore oil industry employees. Journal of Social Psychology 2011; 6(19):53-63.

10. Isla Dı́az R, Dı́az Cabrera D. Safety climate and attitude as evaluation measures of organizational safety. Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29(5):643-50.

11. Nori I, Meftahi H, Jamshidi S. A survey of the effects of working conditions, job relations and attitude towards safety on job accidents and unsafe work behaviors. Journal of Industrial Management 2011; 6(15):53-67.

12. Ostadi Moghadam H, Yekta AA, Heravian Shandiz J, Fahoul MJ, Afsharnia M. Prevalence and etiology of occupational eye accidents in Mashad industrial’s workshop. Journal of Rehabilitation 2004; 5(4):53-7.

13. Mortazavi B, Mahdavi S, Asilian H, Arghami S, Gholamnia R. Identification and assessment of human errors in SRP unit of control room of Tehran Oil Refinery using HEIST technique (2007). Journal of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences 2008; 12(3):e79969.

14. Al-Abdallat EM, Oqailan AM, Al Ali R, Hudaib AA, Salameh GA. Occupational fatalities in Jordan. J Forensic Leg Med 2015; 29:25-9.

15. Anyim FC, Ufodiama NM, Ekwoaba JO. Effective Health and Safety Management Programme: A Lubricant for Improving Working Conditions and Performance. Nigerian Journal of Management Studies 2013; 11(1/2):105-21.

16. Nivolianitou Z. Risk analysis and risk management: a European insight. Law, Probab Risk 2002; 1(2):161-74.

17. Puente J, Pino R, Priore P, de la Fuente D. A decision support system for applying failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2002; 19(2):137-50.

18. Stamatis DH. Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. 1st ed. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States:  American Society for Quality (ASQ) Press; 2003.

19. Rhee SJ, Ishii K. Using cost based FMEA to enhance reliability and serviceability. Advanced Engineering Informatics 2003; 17(3-4):179-88.

20. Pickard K, Muller P, Bertsche B. Multiple failure mode and effects analysis-an approach to risk assessment of multiple failures with FMEA. Paper presented at: Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium; 2005 Jan 24-27; Alexandria, VA, USA, USA.

21. Xiao N, Huang H-Z, Li Y, He L, Jin T. Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Eng Fail Anal 2011; 18(4):1162-70.

22. Chang AY, Parrales ME, Jimenez J, Sobieszczyk ME, Hammer SM, Copenhaver DJ, et al. Combining Google Earth and GIS mapping technologies in a dengue surveillance system for developing countries. Int J Health Geogr 2009; 8(1):49.

23. Mohammadfam I, Movafagh M, Soltanian A, Salavati M, Bashirian S. Assessment of human errors in the intensive cardiac care unit nursing profession using the SPAR-H. Tibbi-i-Kar 2015; 7(1):10-22.

24. Lotfolahzadeh A, Miri Lavasani M, Dehghani A. Risk Assessment and Determination of Insurance Rate by FMEA Method-Case Study in a Cement Factory. Occupational and Environmental Health 2017; 2(4):311-22

25. Ghaljahi  M, Namrudi  Sh. Identification and assessment of hazard risks in a flour mill by the JSA and FMEA methodology. Journal of Health Research in Community 2017; 3(3):82-9

26. Hosseini H, Dana T, Arjmandi R, Shirianpour I. Safety and Occupational Health Risk Management in construction phase of oil field and presenting Management strategies improve (Case study construction phase of platform’s Reheat oil field). Human & Environment 2012; 10(22):39-67.

27. Ebrahimzadeh M, Halvani GH, Mortazavi M, Soltani R. Assessment of Potential Hazards by Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA) Method in Shiraz Oil Refinery. Tibbi-i-Kar 2011; 3(2):16-23.

28. Mirmohammadi T, Naseripouya Z, Hosseinalipour Z. Risk factors assessment in educational equipment manufacturers company using FMEA. Journal of Health Research in Community 2016; 2(2):9-18.

29. Vazdani S, Sabzghabaei GhR, Dashti S, Cheraghi M, Alizadeh R, Hemmati A. Application of FMEA model for environmental, safety and health risks assessment of gas condensates storage tanks of parsian gas refining company in 2016. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences 2018; 17(4):345-58.

30. Shoja E, Ebrahimian H, Gharaee M, Mehri M, Elahi H, Mollaei R. Assessment and Mapping of Ultraviolet Radiation (UV-A) in a Workplace Environment of a Steel Industry. Journal of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences 2018; 9(3):330-5.

31. Zare S, Hasheminejad N, Elahi Shirvan H, Hasanvand D, Hemmatjo R, Ahmadi S. Assessing Individual and Environmental Sound Pressure Level and Sound Mapping in Iranian Safety Shoes Factory. Romanian Journal of Acoustics and Vibration  2018; 15(1):20-5.