Avaliação Ergonómica das tarefas executadas no Setor da Tatuagem: podem usar-se os Métodos OWAS e REBA?

Introduction/ background/ objectives Given that the Tattoo sector is still poorly studied in the context of Occupational Health, the aim of this work was to briefly assess the sector’s Ergonomic Risk, special because in complex and/ or extensive/ time-consuming Tattoos, the professional may need to perform his work with forced/ maintained postures and repetitive movements, for prolonged periods and, in some cases, protection measures are not always properly developed. Methodology After listing the main generic tasks in the Tattoo sector, two methods for summary ergonomic analysis were applied: OWAS (Ovaco Working Analysis System) and REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment). Content Due to the OWAS method, it was found that the initial tasks (drawing the pattern on paper or looking for the pattern on the computer and transferring it to decal sheets) obtained the lowest levels of risk (that is, 1); all other tasks considered reached Action Level 2, except for the possibility of the Tattooist having to help the client in the case of syncope/ lipothymia and, in view of the posture/ load bearing, obtained a rating of 4. However, when weighted with the time that each task usually occupies in percentage, in relation to the work shift, the situation has changed, that is, that Action Level 4 disappeared because the Tattoo Artist would be able to put himself and the client, in a few seconds or, at most, a few minutes, in a less forced posture and without load support. In addition, about half of Action Levels 2 went to 1, remaining in that stages the tasks of drawing the pattern to tattoo directly on the skin, injecting pigment into the skin, cleaning the excess pigment and applying other chemical agents to the skin remaining at the first value, as well as the cleaning/ disinfection / sterilization of work surfaces and work tools (also including their accommodation). In turn, the REBA methodology gave rise to different results. None of the tasks considered had Action Level 0 and only one had the highest level, that is, 4 (helping the client in case of lipothymia/ syncope). At Action Level 2, the tasks considered were shave, disinfect/ sterilize the skin, transfer the decal sheet, put chemical agents on the skin during the tattoo and clean/ disinfect/ sterilize work surfaces. On the other hand, at Action Level 3, there remains the alternative task of drawing the pattern that will be tattooed directly on the skin, inserting the designs on the decal sheets, preparing the workbench/ work tray, injecting the pigment into the skin, cleaning the skin of the excess pigment and clean/ disinfect/ sterilize/ accommodate the work instruments. Conclusions It was noticed that the OWAS methodology was able to better value the risk, considering the time that this task occupies, when compared to the REBA technique. Overall, the different results would eventually be attenuated if these major tasks were subdivided into subtasks, considering movement by movement; however, this would greatly increase the complexity of these ergonomic assessments, even in low-diversified jobs and with relatively few major tasks. In addition, another condition may have significantly biased the results- or the investigator assess with rigor only and exactly a single moment (running the risk of biasing whether the professional has positioned himself correctly or not and not considering the risk that other postures would bring the same task, in other moments of the Tattoo and/ or even with other Tattoo Artists) or, to try to guard against such, consider the most serious possibility for each task. As the objective was to portray the Tattoo sector globally (and not one or the other studio in particular), it was decided to cover all situations and, being several possible, always considered the most serious. In addition, even though these methods allow some subjectivity to be mitigated in the risk assessment, it cannot be eliminated. In situations of doubt between two hypotheses of the scale, it will be possible for a less experienced evaluator at one time to choose one and, in another equivalent task, choose the other or until this happens by repeating the evaluation of exactly the same task, at different times. Even so, these methods and constitute a valuable aid in the Occupational Health Risk Assessment.