Utilization and Effectiveness of Harnesses and Lifelines in Grain Entrapment Incidents: Preliminary Analysis.

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Salah F Issa, Mahmoud M Nour, William E Field
{"title":"Utilization and Effectiveness of Harnesses and Lifelines in Grain Entrapment Incidents: Preliminary Analysis.","authors":"Salah F Issa,&nbsp;Mahmoud M Nour,&nbsp;William E Field","doi":"10.13031/jash.12170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>No previous studies have been found that document the level of use or validate the effectiveness of safety harnesses and lifelines in the prevention of or extrication from grain entrapments or engulfments. This article addresses that void via analysis of the data contained in the Purdue Agricultural Confined Space Incident Database. A total of 1,147 cases involving entrapments or engulfments in grain masses were mined for terms that might indicate the use of a safety harness, lifeline, fall restraint system, rope, or outside observer. Case information ranged from brief news accounts to comprehensive investigation results. The review turned up 38 incidents (< 5%) in which these safety devices were identified as having been used by either workers or rescuers during access to a storage structure. In 26 of the 38 cases (68%) where safety devices were identified, the entrapment or engulfment resulted in a fatality. The two most common reasons cited for failure of these devices were (1) that the lifeline or rope was too long (17 incidents) and (2) that the worker had removed the harness with the attached lifeline while in the structure (6 incidents). It was also determined that these devices, if used improperly, can lead to secondary injuries of the victim. The preliminary evidence suggests that use of these devices alone does not ensure the user's safety and may even provide a false sense of security if used without proper training. It was further found that an approved body harness and safety line provided little or no protection from either entrapment or falls if used in the presence of vertically crusted grain surfaces, without proper anchors, or not in conjunction with outside observers. The presented results are important for safety professionals to consider as they endeavor to reduce the risk of grain entrapment and engulfment incidents through training, education, selection of personal protective equipment, etc., and should contribute to the development of new structural standards for grain bins. It is the intent of this article to elucidate the importance of training and proper use of these safety devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":45344,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.13031/jash.12170","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.12170","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: 4

Abstract

No previous studies have been found that document the level of use or validate the effectiveness of safety harnesses and lifelines in the prevention of or extrication from grain entrapments or engulfments. This article addresses that void via analysis of the data contained in the Purdue Agricultural Confined Space Incident Database. A total of 1,147 cases involving entrapments or engulfments in grain masses were mined for terms that might indicate the use of a safety harness, lifeline, fall restraint system, rope, or outside observer. Case information ranged from brief news accounts to comprehensive investigation results. The review turned up 38 incidents (< 5%) in which these safety devices were identified as having been used by either workers or rescuers during access to a storage structure. In 26 of the 38 cases (68%) where safety devices were identified, the entrapment or engulfment resulted in a fatality. The two most common reasons cited for failure of these devices were (1) that the lifeline or rope was too long (17 incidents) and (2) that the worker had removed the harness with the attached lifeline while in the structure (6 incidents). It was also determined that these devices, if used improperly, can lead to secondary injuries of the victim. The preliminary evidence suggests that use of these devices alone does not ensure the user's safety and may even provide a false sense of security if used without proper training. It was further found that an approved body harness and safety line provided little or no protection from either entrapment or falls if used in the presence of vertically crusted grain surfaces, without proper anchors, or not in conjunction with outside observers. The presented results are important for safety professionals to consider as they endeavor to reduce the risk of grain entrapment and engulfment incidents through training, education, selection of personal protective equipment, etc., and should contribute to the development of new structural standards for grain bins. It is the intent of this article to elucidate the importance of training and proper use of these safety devices.

粮食诱捕事故中安全带和救生索的利用与有效性:初步分析。
以前没有发现任何研究记录使用水平或验证安全安全带和救生索在防止或从谷物捕获或吞噬中解脱的有效性。本文通过分析普渡农业密闭空间事件数据库中的数据来解决这一问题。总共有1147个涉及谷物团块的陷阱或吞没的案例被挖掘出来,这些案例可能表明使用了安全带、生命线、坠落约束系统、绳索或外部观察者。案件信息从简短的新闻报道到全面的调查结果不等。审查发现了38起事故(< 5%),在这些事故中,工人或救援人员在进入存储结构时使用了这些安全装置。在确定了安全装置的38个案例中,有26个(68%)被困或吞没导致死亡。这些设备失败的两个最常见的原因是:(1)救生索或绳索太长(17起事故)和(2)工人在结构中拆除了带有救生索的线束(6起事故)。还确定,如果使用不当,这些装置可能导致受害者的二次伤害。初步证据表明,单独使用这些设备并不能确保用户的安全,如果未经适当培训使用,甚至可能产生一种虚假的安全感。进一步发现,如果在垂直结壳的谷物表面使用,没有适当的锚点,或者没有与外界观察者一起使用,经批准的身体安全带和安全线几乎没有或根本没有提供防止被困或坠落的保护。本文的研究结果对安全专业人员通过培训、教育、个人防护装备的选择等努力降低粮食被困和吞没事件的风险具有重要意义,并应有助于制定新的粮食仓结构标准。本文的目的是阐明培训和正确使用这些安全装置的重要性。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信