Identification of Advantages and Limitations of Current Risk Assessment and Hazard Analysis Methods when Applied on Autonomous Agricultural Machineries.

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Guy R Aby, Salah F Issa, John F Reid, Cheryl Beseler, John M Shutske
{"title":"Identification of Advantages and Limitations of Current Risk Assessment and Hazard Analysis Methods when Applied on Autonomous Agricultural Machineries.","authors":"Guy R Aby, Salah F Issa, John F Reid, Cheryl Beseler, John M Shutske","doi":"10.13031/jash.15873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Highlights: </strong>The three main types of risk assessment and hazard analysis techniques applied on autonomous agricultural machines are: (1) Informal Group Analysis; (2) Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA); and (3) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Replicability is the main advantage of FMEA and HARA, while cost effectiveness is the main advantage of Informal Group Analysis. Subjectivity and the requirement for prior knowledge (data) are the main weaknesses of FMEA, HARA, and Informal Group Analysis when applied to novel and revolutionary autonomous agricultural machines.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>In the last ten years, the development of automated agricultural machinery has seen noteworthy advancements. Nevertheless, the successful commercialization of these technologies depends critically on their ability to operate safely. This study evaluated the advantages and limitations of current risk assessment and hazard analysis methods currently used to ensure the safety of autonomous agricultural machines. An online survey containing 18 questions was distributed to 711 participants identified as potential individuals who are currently working or have worked on autonomous agricultural machines to determine the type and frequency of risk assessment and hazard analysis methods applied on autonomous agricultural machines, examine the advantages and limitations of each method, and investigate the perceived effectiveness of each method. Frequency analysis was used to determine the most and least utilized risk assessment and hazard analysis methods. The advantages and limitations of each risk assessment and hazard analysis approach were compared. Descriptive statistics (counts, means, medians, percent) and frequency analysis of the variables were used. The three main types of risk assessment and hazard analysis techniques applied to autonomous agricultural machines. The methods are (a) Informal Group Analysis (e.g., Brainstorming), (b) Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA), and (c) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Replicability is perceived as the main advantage of FMEA and HARA, while cost-effectiveness is the main advantage of Informal Group Analysis. The need to have pre-existing data of the autonomous agricultural machine at hand to be able to perform risk assessment and subjectivity are the main limitations of FMEA, HARA, and Informal Group Analysis dealing with novel and revolutionary autonomous agricultural machines. Industry experts do not believe that the risk assessment and hazard analysis procedures now used are reliable and efficient enough to guarantee the safety of autonomous agricultural tractors. This study reveals important information about the current state of risk assessment and hazard analysis methods in the context of autonomous agricultural machinery. This knowledge can inform future research, policy development, and industry practices to ensure the safety of autonomous agricultural machines.</p>","PeriodicalId":45344,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","volume":"30 2","pages":"35-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.15873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Highlights: The three main types of risk assessment and hazard analysis techniques applied on autonomous agricultural machines are: (1) Informal Group Analysis; (2) Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA); and (3) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Replicability is the main advantage of FMEA and HARA, while cost effectiveness is the main advantage of Informal Group Analysis. Subjectivity and the requirement for prior knowledge (data) are the main weaknesses of FMEA, HARA, and Informal Group Analysis when applied to novel and revolutionary autonomous agricultural machines.

Abstract: In the last ten years, the development of automated agricultural machinery has seen noteworthy advancements. Nevertheless, the successful commercialization of these technologies depends critically on their ability to operate safely. This study evaluated the advantages and limitations of current risk assessment and hazard analysis methods currently used to ensure the safety of autonomous agricultural machines. An online survey containing 18 questions was distributed to 711 participants identified as potential individuals who are currently working or have worked on autonomous agricultural machines to determine the type and frequency of risk assessment and hazard analysis methods applied on autonomous agricultural machines, examine the advantages and limitations of each method, and investigate the perceived effectiveness of each method. Frequency analysis was used to determine the most and least utilized risk assessment and hazard analysis methods. The advantages and limitations of each risk assessment and hazard analysis approach were compared. Descriptive statistics (counts, means, medians, percent) and frequency analysis of the variables were used. The three main types of risk assessment and hazard analysis techniques applied to autonomous agricultural machines. The methods are (a) Informal Group Analysis (e.g., Brainstorming), (b) Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA), and (c) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Replicability is perceived as the main advantage of FMEA and HARA, while cost-effectiveness is the main advantage of Informal Group Analysis. The need to have pre-existing data of the autonomous agricultural machine at hand to be able to perform risk assessment and subjectivity are the main limitations of FMEA, HARA, and Informal Group Analysis dealing with novel and revolutionary autonomous agricultural machines. Industry experts do not believe that the risk assessment and hazard analysis procedures now used are reliable and efficient enough to guarantee the safety of autonomous agricultural tractors. This study reveals important information about the current state of risk assessment and hazard analysis methods in the context of autonomous agricultural machinery. This knowledge can inform future research, policy development, and industry practices to ensure the safety of autonomous agricultural machines.

当前风险评估与危害分析方法在自主农业机械上应用的优势与局限性
重点:应用于自主农业机械的风险评估和危害分析技术主要有三种类型:(1)非正式群体分析;(2)危害分析与风险评估(HARA);(3)失效模式与影响分析(FMEA)。可复制性是FMEA和HARA的主要优势,而成本效益是非正式群体分析的主要优势。主观性和对先验知识(数据)的要求是FMEA、HARA和非正式群体分析在应用于新型和革命性的自主农业机械时的主要弱点。摘要:近十年来,自动化农业机械的发展取得了显著的进步。然而,这些技术的成功商业化关键取决于它们安全运行的能力。本研究评估了目前用于确保自主农业机械安全的风险评估和危害分析方法的优点和局限性。一项包含18个问题的在线调查向711名被确定为目前或曾经从事自主农业机械工作的潜在个人的参与者分发,以确定应用于自主农业机械的风险评估和危害分析方法的类型和频率,检查每种方法的优点和局限性,并调查每种方法的感知有效性。使用频率分析确定使用最多和最少的风险评估和危害分析方法。比较了各种风险评价和危害分析方法的优缺点。采用描述性统计(计数、平均值、中位数、百分比)和变量频率分析。三种主要类型的风险评估和危害分析技术应用于自主农业机械。方法是(a)非正式小组分析(例如,头脑风暴),(b)危害分析和风险评估(HARA),以及(c)失效模式和影响分析(FMEA)。可复制性被认为是FMEA和HARA的主要优势,而成本效益是非正式群体分析的主要优势。需要拥有现有的自主农业机械数据,以便能够进行风险评估和主观性,这是FMEA、HARA和非正式群体分析处理新型和革命性自主农业机械的主要限制。业内专家认为,目前使用的风险评估和危害分析程序不够可靠和有效,无法保证自动农用拖拉机的安全。本研究揭示了自主农业机械环境下风险评估和危害分析方法的现状。这些知识可以为未来的研究、政策制定和行业实践提供信息,以确保自主农业机械的安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信