ABSTRACT
Successful implementation of cooling strategies obviously depends on identifying effective interventions, but in industrial settings, it is equally important to consider feasibility and economic viability. Many cooling interventions are available, but the decision processes affecting adoption by end-users are not well elucidated. We therefore arranged two series of meetings with stakeholders to identify knowledge gaps, receive feedback on proposed cooling interventions, and discuss factors affecting implementation of heat-health interventions. This included four meetings attended by employers, employees, and health and safety officers (n = 41), and three meetings attended primarily by policy makers (n = 74), with feedback obtained via qualitative and quantitative questionnaires and focus group discussions. On a 10-point scale, both employers and employees valued worker safety (9.1 ± 1.8; mean±SD) and health (8.5 ± 1.9) as more important than protecting company profits (6.3 ± 2.3). Of the respondents, 41% were unaware of any cooling strategies at their company and of those who were aware, only 30% thought the interventions were effective. Following presentation of proposed interventions, the respondents rated "facilitated hydration", "optimization of clothing/protective equipment", and "rescheduling of work tasks" as the top-three preferred solutions. The main barriers for adopting cooling interventions were cost, feasibility, employer perceptions, and legislation. In conclusion, preventing negative health and safety effects was deemed to be more important than preventing productivity loss. Regardless of work sector or occupation, both health and wealth were emphasized as important parameters and considered as somewhat interrelated. However, a large fraction of the European worker force lacks information on effective measures to mitigate occupational heat stress. List of abbreviations: OH-Stress: Occupational heat stress; WBGT: Wet Bulb Globe Temperature.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: In this study we (i) introduced time-motion analysis for assessing the impact of workplace heat on the work shift time spent doing labor (WTL) of grape-picking workers, (ii) examined whether seasonal environmental differences can influence their WTL, and (iii) investigated whether their WTL can be assessed by monitoring productivity or the vineyard manager's estimate of WTL. Methods: Seven grape-picking workers were assessed during the summer and/or autumn via video throughout four work shifts. Results: Air temperature (26.8 ± 4.8°C), wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT; 25.2 ± 4.1°C), universal thermal climate index (UTCI; 35.2 ± 6.7°C), and solar radiation (719.1 ± 187.5 W/m2) were associated with changes in mean skin temperature (1.7 ± 1.8°C) (p < 0.05). Time-motion analysis showed that 12.4% (summer 15.3% vs. autumn 10.0%; p < 0.001) of total work shift time was spent on irregular breaks (WTB). There was a 0.8%, 0.8%, 0.6%, and 2.1% increase in hourly WTB for every degree Celsius increase in temperature, WBGT, UTCI, and mean skin temperature, respectively (p < 0.01). Seasonal changes in UTCI explained 64.0% of the seasonal changes in WTL (p = 0.017). Productivity explained 36.6% of the variance in WTL (p < 0.001), while the vineyard manager's WTL estimate was too optimistic (p < 0.001) and explained only 2.8% of the variance in the true WTL (p = 0.456). Conclusion: Time-motion analysis accurately assesses WTL, evaluating every second spent by each worker during every work shift. The studied grape-picking workers experienced increased workplace heat, leading to significant labor loss. Monitoring productivity or the vineyard manager's estimate of each worker's WTL did not completely reflect the true WTL in these grape-picking workers.
