Эргономика и охрана труда в механизированном агропромышленном производстве
https://doi.org/10.20914/2310-1202-2026-2-
Abstract
Актуальность исследования обусловлена необходимостью повышения безопасности и производительности труда в условиях специфических производственных рисков мясоперерабатывающих предприятий АПК. Задачи работы включали разработку комплекса мер на основе системного применения эргономических принципов и инструментов научной организации труда. В основу работы лег анализ специфических санитарно-гигиенических и психофизиологических условий труда в типичных производственных цехах. Применялись методы эргономического проектирования рабочих мест (анализ зон досягаемости), принципы пооперационного разделения труда и работа по времени такта. Использовался инструмент бережливого производства (система «5С»). Установлено, что ключевыми вредными факторами являются действие холода (температура до +12°C) и повышенная влажность (до 75%). Для работников, занятых в положении стоя, определены оптимальные зоны моторного поля для выполнения частых операций. Разработаны практические рекомендации, включающие подбор средств индивидуальной защиты (термобелье, водоотталкивающая спецодежда), обязательное использование подножных решеток на влажных участках, а также оптимизацию продолжительности операций (не менее 30 с) для снижения монотонности труда. Комплексное применение предложенных подходов научной организации труда и эргономики создает основу для разработки стандартов рабочих мест, оптимизации численности персонала и логистики сырья. Внедрение данных мер направлено на снижение производственного травматизма и профессиональной утомляемости, что ведет к повышению общей эффективности производства и соответствует задачам федерального проекта «Производительность труда».
About the Authors
E. O. Ermolaeva
Kemerovo State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Chem.), professor, Department of Quality Management, st. Krasnaya, 6 Kemerovo, 650000 Russia
N. V. Kurbatova
Kemerovo State University
Postgraduate Student, Department of Quality Management, st. Krasnaya, 6 Kemerovo, 650000 Russia
D. S. Koroleva
Kemerovo State University
Student, Department of Quality Management, st. Krasnaya, 6 Kemerovo, 650000 Russia
Y. V. Ustinova
Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy
Cand. Sci. (Engin.), assistant professor, Department of Technology of Storage and Processing of Livestock Products, Timiryazevskaya st. 49 Moscow, 127434, Russia
References
1. Trofimova N.B., Ermolaeva E.O., Trofimov I.E. Development of a software product for automating the recording of non-conformities and violations of critical limits in production. Technique and Technology of Food Production. 2020. vol. 50. no. 1. pp. 167–175. doi: 10.21603/2074-9414-2020-1-167-175 (in Russian).
2. Ermolaeva E.O., Beznosov Yu.V., Titorenko E.Yu., Ustinova Yu.V. Typical problems of labor productivity of technological processes at meat processing enterprises. Polzunovsky Bulletin. 2025. no. 2. pp. 59–65. (in Russian).
3. Gerassis N.G.M., García J.F.M., Martín Á.M.R. Why is ergonomics important in the food industry? A systematic review. Food Control. 2022. vol. 142. article 109262. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.109262.
4. Bispo L.G.M., Amaral F.G. The impact of Industry 4.0 on occupational health and safety: a systematic literature review. Journal of Safety Research. 2024. vol. 90. pp. 254–271. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2024.04.009.
5. Kontareva V.Yu. Organization and rationalization of workplaces as a safety factor. Bulletin of Don State Agrarian University. 2020. no. 2–1 (36). pp. 98–106. (in Russian).
6. Frolov V.P. Innovative methods and forms of labor organization of enterprise employees from the standpoint of lean production: types, opportunities, risks. Bulletin of Eurasian Science. 2022. vol. 14. no. 1. (in Russian).
7. Romakhina E.V., Nimetulaeva G.Sh. State of working conditions of working personnel and labor protection in general at meat processing enterprises of the Russian Federation. Theory and Practice of Modern Science. 2017. no. 11 (29). (in Russian).
8. Nikitina M.A., Zakharov A.N. Lean production as a tool for increasing labor productivity and improving product quality. All About Meat. 2020. no. 1. pp. 25–30. doi: 10.21323/2071-2499-2020-1-25-29 (in Russian).
9. Major M.-E., Vézina N. The organizational determinants of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among seasonal workers in a meat processing facility. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024. vol. 21. no. 8. article 997. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21080997.
10. Phanprasit W., Laohaudomchok W., Konthonbut P. et al. Self-assessed threshold for cold temperatures and thermal insulation of clothing among poultry workers. Scientific Reports. 2024. vol. 14. article 20406. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71393-4.
11. Auttanate N., Chotiphan C., Maruo S.J., Näyhä S. et al. Cold-related symptoms and performance degradation among Thai poultry industry workers with reference to vulnerable groups: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2020. vol. 20. article 1357. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09272-6.
12. Sripaiboonkij P., Phanprasit W., Konthonbut P., Jaakkola J.J.K. et al. Workplace cold and perceived work ability: paradoxically greater disadvantage for more vs. less-educated poultry industry workers in Thailand. Frontiers in Public Health. 2021. vol. 9. article 762533. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.762533.
13. Brown C.K., Mitchell A.D., Vance C.J., Burton C.W. et al. Review of successful workplace interventions to mitigate work-related musculoskeletal disorders in poultry processing plant workers: current knowledge and future prospects. Safety and Health at Work. 2025. [Online first]. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2025.07.005.
14. Piwowar-Sulej K. 5S implementation, basic needs satisfaction, sustainable leadership and firm sustainable performance: empirical evidence from the oil and gas industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2024. vol. 484. article 144313. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144313.
15. Auttanate N., Phanprasit W., Maruo S.J., Chaikittiporn C. et al. Cold-related pain in the face, upper limbs, and lower body among Thai chicken industry workers: a cross-sectional study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2021. vol. 94. pp. 799–812. doi: 10.1007/s00420-020-01651-1.
16. Hignett S., McAtamney L. Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Applied Ergonomics. 2000. vol. 31. no. 2. pp. 201–205. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3.
17. Realyvásquez-Vargas A., Arredondo-Soto K.C., Blanco-Fernández J., Sandoval-Quintanilla J.D. et al. Work standardization and anthropometric workstation design as an integrated approach to sustainable workplaces in the manufacturing industry. Sustainability. 2020. vol. 12. no. 9. article 3728. doi: 10.3390/su12093728.
18. Dianat I., Molenbroek J., Castellucci H.I. A review of the methodology and applications of anthropometry in ergonomics and product design. Applied Ergonomics. 2018. vol. 69. pp. 1696–1720. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.012.
19. Hossain M.D., Aftab A., Al Imam M.H., Mahmud I. et al. Prevalence of work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) and ergonomic risk assessment among readymade garment workers of Bangladesh: a cross sectional study. PLOS ONE. 2018. vol. 13. no. 7. article e0200122. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200122.
20. Chotiphan C., Phanprasit W., Konthonbut P., Sripaiboonkij P. et al. Prevalence of cold-related symptoms among Thai chicken meat industry workers: association with workplace temperature and thermal insulation of clothing. Industrial Health. 2020. vol. 58. no. 5. pp. 460–466. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2019-0226.
21.
Review
For citations:
Ermolaeva E.O., Kurbatova N.V., Koroleva D.S., Ustinova Y.V. . Proceedings of the Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies. 2026;88(2):187-192. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20914/2310-1202-2026-2-
Views:
20
JATS XML
Email this article 
Post a Comment 
