China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Complying with Machine Guarding
Published in Frank R. Spellman, Surviving an OSHA Audit, 2020
The basic purpose of machine guarding is to prevent contact of the human body with dangerous parts of machines. Moving machine parts have the potential for causing severe workplace injuries, such as crushed fingers or hands, amputations, burns, blindness, to name but a few. Machine guards are essential for protection of workers from these needless and preventable injuries. Any machine part, function, or process which may cause injury must be safeguarded. When the operation of a machine or accidental contact with it can injure the operator or others in the vicinity, the hazards must be either eliminated or controlled (OSHA, 2003). Our experience has clearly (and much too frequently) demonstrated that when arms, fingers, hair, or any body part enters or contacts moving machinery, the results can be not only gory, bloody, and disastrous, but also sometimes fatal.
Machine Guarding
Published in Frank R. Spellman, Kathern Welsh, Safe Work Practices for Wastewater Treatment Plants, 2018
Frank R. Spellman, Kathern Welsh
The basic purpose of machine guarding is to prevent contact of the human body with dangerous parts of machines. Moving machine parts have the potential for causing severe workplace injuries, such as crushed fingers or hands, amputations, burns, and blindness, just to name a few. Machine guards are essential for protecting workers from these needless and preventable injuries. Any machine part, function, or process that may cause injury must be safeguarded. When the operation of a machine or accidental contact with it can injure the operator or others in the vicinity, the hazards must be either eliminated or controlled (OSHA, 2003). Our experience has clearly (and much too frequently) demonstrated that when an arm, finger, hair, or any body part enters into or makes contact with moving machinery, the results can be not only gory, bloody, and disastrous but also sometimes fatal.
Annotated Dictionary of Construction Safety and Health
Published in Charles D. Reese, James V. Edison, Annotated Dictionary of Construction Safety and Health, 2018
Charles D. Reese, James V. Edison
One or more methods of machine guarding must be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, in going nip points, rotating parts, flying chips, and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are: barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc. Point of operation is the area on a machine where work is actually performed upon the material being processed. The point of operation of machines where operation exposes a worker to injury, is to be guarded. The guarding is to be in conformity with any appropriate standards therefore, or in the absence of applicable specific standards, is so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle.
A model to predict and optimize machine guarding operator compliance activities in a bottling process plant: a developing country experience
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2020
Chukwunedum Uzor, Sunday Ayoola Oke
The international recognition of machine guarding programmes has expanded over the years since the emergence of the OSHA [27] to countries such as the UK and Germany, e.g., Standard No. DIN 31 001:1976 [2,7]. Even in the USA, the NMGP and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [17,21] have taken up additional responsibility for machine guarding policy development. Research on machine guarding was not well pronounced since the emergence of the OSHA [27] and could be classified as scant, with possibly the earliest research by Booth and Thompson [2]. As no other study was found in an Internet search of work from the major journal publishers ScienceDirect, Inderscience, Wiley or Taylor & Francis, Booth and Thompson's study was perhaps the most significant contribution on machine guarding for the 1980–1989 period of analysis. However, Booth and Thompson’s [2] study must have largely contributed to the discussions that emerged in the 1990–1999 period of analysis. Research published during this 1990–1999 decade by Martin [20], Jiang et al. [23] and Vaillancourt and Snook [24] may be noted. From 1995, a new wave of research on machine guarding was experienced, particularly in the 2000–2009 period with prominent studies by Parker et al. [3], Berke [14], Munshi et al. [18], Gańczak [19], Mewes and Trapp [22], Backström and Döös [26] and Cordier [13]. Further work on machine guarding research has been carried out from 2010 to date, involving interesting studies by Parker et al. [4,5], Soranno [11], Rubinger and Hamilton [12], Peabody [15], Mewes et al. [16], Reyes et al. [17], Ruff et al. [21] and Yamin et al. [25]. It is interesting to note that many of these studies have provided foundational knowledge on the aspects in which vigorous quantitative contributions to the machine guarding literature are lacking. The issue of prediction is completely missing in the literature on machine guarding. The situation where optimization is pursued is also totally absent from the machine guarding literature. With such a rich history of development over the decades and the paucity of rigorous academic studies of quantitative orientation, the time is now ripe to conduct quantitative predictive and optimization studies when considering the machine guarding operator compliance problem.