An effective safety management requires attention to human factors as well as system components which make risky or safe situations at technical components. This study evaluates and analyze ergonomic behaviors in order to select the best work shift group in an Iranian process industry, in 2010.The methodology was based on the Ergonomic Behavior Sampling (EBS), and TOPSIS method. After specifying the unergonomic behaviors and with reference to the results of a pilot study, a sample of 1755 was determined, with a sampling accuracy of 5% and confidence level of 95%. However, in order to gain more confidence, 2631 observations were collected. The results indicate that 43.6% of workers' behaviors were unergonomic. The most frequent unergonomic behavior was amusing of legs while load lifting with 83.01% of total unergonomic behaviors observations. Using TOPSIS method, the most effective shift group and the least attractive alternatives for intervention were selected in this company. Findings declare high number of unergonomic behaviors. Catastrophic consequences of accidents in petrochemical industry necessitate attention to workers' ergonomic behaviors in the workplace and promotion of them.

Received: June 2015, Accepted: August 2015 Background: In the refractory brick manufacturing industry, because of the high risks associated with the level of dust in the factory environment and thermal stress, a precise identification of industrial hazards is required as a part of safety analysis. The aim of this study was to introduce a preventive approach to risk identification and assessment in the refractory brick production line. Materials and Methods: In this paper, methods such as observation of factory operations, process analysis through the factory diagrams, and interviews with employees were used. In addition, the risk levels of the factory were investigated using the risk matrix. Results:The results of the study showed 97 deviations from the main process with various causes and consequences. None of the deviations were in the unacceptable category with 3.09% falling in the undesirable category, 3.09% in the acceptable but in need of revision category, and 92.78% in the acceptable category. Conclusions:The results showed that 40.2% of the risks were caused by human errors. The installation of a secondary control valve in the transfer route of the glue vapors to the workplace, an alternative pressure control system, a secondary ventilation system, several fans near the furnace (redundancy), and a real-time phenol monitor are recommended. Moreover, regular analysis of safety, health, and environmental risks are some of the recommendations proposed to reduce the identified risk level.

Background: Excessive vibration is one of the harmful agents in the work environment, and many drivers are inevitably exposed to that during driving. Objectives: Using ISO 2631-1&5 standards in the present study, the evaluation of the whole-body vibration (WBV) exposure was carried among Tehran metro drivers. Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 23 trains were investigated and the level of exposure to vibration during daily working shift and vibration indicators were evaluated. According to ISO 2631-1, the following 5 factors were measured: the rate of frequency-weight acceleration r.m.s for each axis, the combination of axes, crest factor, peak acceleration, vibration dose value (VDV), and recent equivalent static compressive stress (Sed) and risk (R) factors -estimation criteria for damage to lumbar spine. Results:The results indicated that based on the basic method, the levels of drivers exposure to the vibration are less than the lower limit set by health guidance caution zone (HGCZ), and according to the VDV methods, 4 cases were found to be above the upper limit, 8 cases were within the HGCZ, and the rest were less than the mentioned limit. Moreover, according to the Sed method, 4 drivers had exposures below the lower limit, 7 had exposures within the range of HGCZ, and 12 of the mover the limit. On the other hand, on the basis of R factor, the levels of exposure of the 3 drivers were within the range of HGCZ, while the rest of them experienced the levels lower than that. Conclusions:The results showed that there are several differences among the calculated criteria confirming that some of these indicators may not show a safe limit.