Occupational Medicine 2004;54:297–303

doi:10.1093/occmed/kqh071

IN-DEPTH REVIEW

Ergonomics in mining
B. McPhee

Abstract Like other areas of occupational health and safety (OHS) ergonomics is evolving and
becoming more integrated into overall work management systems. As we learn more
about the complex interaction between psychosocial and physical factors in the
aetiology of work-related illness and injury the more we rely on managers to ‘get it
right’ if we are to prevent these conditions. Risks to health and safety in the mining
industry posed by longer shift lengths, higher work loads, less task variation and
decision latitude have not really been well researched. Heavy physical workloads and
stresses are still areas of concern, but are likely to be intermittent rather than
constant. Recent research confirms current thinking rather than shedding new light
on the subject. The contribution of slips, trips and falls and increasing age of miners
to manual handling injuries is still not clear. In some cases sedentary work and the
operation of machinery has completely replaced heavy physical work. The issues of
machinery design for operations and maintenance and whole-body vibration
exposures when operating machines and vehicles are becoming more critical. The
link between prolonged sitting, poor cab design and vibration with back and neck
pain is being recognized but has yet to be addressed in any systematic way by the
mining industry. On the plus side some mining companies have well-developed
participative approaches to problem solving and these need to be extended to areas
such as ergonomics.
Key words Ergonomics; manual handling; mining; risk management; vibration.
Received 13 February 2004
Revised 26 February 2004
Accepted 20 April 2004

Introduction and errors. While the prevention of mining disasters and

fatalities is still the highest priority in mining, the
Ergonomics is a science, but it is also a philosophy—a
emphasis is now changing to a broader occupational
way of thinking. It is a user-centred approach to design. It
health and safety (OHS) focus. However, there still
focuses on the design of equipment, processes and
appears to be a poor understanding about the contri-
environments so that tasks and activities required of
bution of ergonomics to mining, the range of factors that
humans are within their limitations, but also make the
it includes and how these might be addressed. The
best use of their capabilities. In the workplace, the
differences in application lie in the different systems that
application of ergonomics promotes health, efficiency
have arisen specifically for mining and that may need to
and well being in workers. Ultimately, it is an applied
be accommodated through planning and design.
science and it needs to respond to real-world needs.
There are a range of emerging issues in ergonomics in
Mining is similar to other heavy industries: the same
mining, mainly arising from changes to work practices
principles apply to machinery and tool design, control
and a drive for greater productivity. Unfortunately, some
rooms, lifting and heavy work, design to reduce the risks
of the practices appear to be at odds with the need to
and consequences from slips, trips and falls, rough rides
improve general OHS.

The OH&S Services Network, PO Box 113, Kurri Kurri NSW 2327, Australia.
Correspondence to: B. McPhee, The OH&S Services Network, PO Box 113, Changes in mining work practices
Kurri Kurri NSW 2327, Australia. Tel: +61 2 4937 5855; fax: +61 2 4937
5844; e-mail: bmcphee@jkgroup.com.au In the last 25 years the practice of mining has changed

Occupational Medicine, Vol. 54 No. 5

© Society of Occupational Medicine 2004; all rights reserved 297
298 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE
significantly. Physically heavy work is now likely to be
intermittent and limited. Workers still manually install
overhead pipes, cables, ventilation and roof support
systems (in underground mines); dismantle and erect
conveyor systems; clean up; and maintain machinery.
However, many of these jobs are partially or fully
mechanized and much more time is spent operating
machinery and driving vehicles. Appropriate machinery
design is becoming more critical to successful mining, as
is the training and skills of the mineworkers.
The move in mining towards longer work hours is part
of a drive for greater worker productivity. A feature of
many mining jobs now is extended work hours, i.e. shift
lengths of 10–12 h and generally higher workloads. The
issues of stress and fatigue are receiving much attention at
present but the concerns go further than this. Longer
shifts have highlighted the need for more research and
information on the effects of daily exposures to different
hazards for 8 h for which there are many standards and
codes. While some can be adjusted mathematically, there
appears to have been little appreciation of the difficulty of
estimating the impact of physical underloading or
overloading on workers and effects such as fatigue,
monotony, errors and musculo-skeletal disorders. As well,
there appears to have been little, if any, research into the
role, design and efficacy of work breaks and their impact
on different exposures. These could be critically
important in the reduction of risks of injury and ill health
and the improvement of worker well-being.
Ergonomics recommends varied work activities to help
overcome the problems of prolonged sitting, heavy work
or intense concentration. However, in mining the trend
appears to be towards less rather than more task variety
and many jobs are now much more sedentary. Longer
hours of work and perceived increases in job demands
both on a daily and weekly basis are compounding the
negative effects of these.
Machinery and vehicle cab design
standards
Modern OHS legislation requires detailed risk assess-
ment of plant and equipment to ensure that it is designed,
manufactured, supplied, installed and used in such a way
that it poses no significant risks to the health and safety of
workers associated with it [1–3]. There is extensive
information on ergonomics design criteria in textbooks
[4–6] but, by necessity, most OHS regulations and
standards for heavy equipment define ‘design’ only in
terms of broad principles to reduce risks to health and
safety [7]. Standards that specify design parameters are
usually those that deal with basic human dimensions that
do not change significantly over time [8–12]. Even these
may become out-of-date or inconsistent with current
practice quite quickly. Therefore, risk assessments on
machinery and equipment for particular sites and types of
work constantly have to reconsider basic user perform-
ance standards and there is a sense of ‘reinventing the
wheel’.
Many large international machinery manufacturers
have developed design criteria and they guard these
closely as commercially sensitive material. The better their
designs the greater their market edge. However, this does
not provide guidance for purchasers who are often left
with a confusing array of conflicting design features when
trying to select a machine suitable for their needs and
budgets. The machine’s price, its capabilities in terms
of power, running costs, availability/costs of spares and
replacement parts and its reliability are the most
important features to most purchasers. In some cases
brand loyalty may be a factor. Rarely are comprehensive
ergonomics specifications included in the list of criteria.
To make matters worse, good design may be replaced
with poor design in subsequent models because specific
user needs have not been identified and feedback has not
be sought.
In some cases, the mining industry itself has produced
basic ergonomics dimensions and design criteria for cabs
particularly for underground mining [13,14]. There are
many design criteria that need to be specified and met
including design for safe access, operation, operator
space, seating, environmental conditions, training and
maintenance.
Whole-body vibration (WBV) exposures
in mining (rough rides)
In broad terms we know that a significant number of low
back and neck injuries in mining have been precipitated
by ‘rough rides’. In a study in open-cut and underground
mines in Australia, WBV exposures in mining personnel
were measured and analysed [15,16].
From the results there appear to be three different
scenarios where symptoms arise. The first is prolonged
sitting, the second is where injuries result from a one-off
severe jolt in an otherwise reasonable ride and the third
situation is where the onset of pain occurs after an
extended period of moderate to severe jolts and jars.
These exposures are believed to contribute to low back
and neck injury and may also be recognized by operators
as damaging. However, the question still arises: ‘how
much is too much?’. At this point it is difficult to answer
this question although rides with a vibration dose value
(VDV) of ≥ 17 are likely to cause injury if exposure is
prolonged and/or repeated. Interestingly, in this study,
there was a reasonable correlation between operators’
ratings of ride roughness and the VDV, as Figure 1
indicates [15,17].
Results also indicated that the type of vehicle, its
speed and condition (particularly its age and suspension

Figure 1. The relationship between operators’ ratings of ride roughness and the measured vibration dose value.
system) and the condition of roads strongly influenced
ride roughness.
Controls recommended included: regular monitoring
of vibration levels; operator training; limiting speed;
prompt communication and correction of road problems;
effective road maintenance programs; appropriate design
of vehicles including the isolation of the cab in vehicles
where vibration can be excessive; effective maintenance of
vehicles; task variation; and regular breaks out of the seat
[15,17]. There is little evidence that the mining industry
has acknowledged or addressed these issues as a whole in
order to reduce vibration exposures.
Manual handling and other heavy work
Worker capacities and age
There is strong evidence to suggest that task and
workplace design factors are the most important in
controlling the occurrence and severity of musculo-
skeletal injuries. Much less is known about the
contribution of individual and organizational factors,
although these are believed to be important [18,19]. Age
is one factor for which there appears to be conflicting
information and where a lot more research is needed.
Mines may vary considerably in the average age of their
workforce depending on where they are located and the
age of the mine. In some cases the average is 40 years and
this leads to questions regarding the impact of this on
work capacity. Physical capacity decreases with increasing
age [20–22]. This is due to decreasing physiological
capacity, often in association with the effects of
musculo-skeletal disorders such as back, shoulder and
knee injuries [23]. Likewise sensory, perceptual and
B. MCPHEE: ERGONOMICS IN MINING 299
cognitive abilities decline, although these are not as
obvious until the mid-50s [21,24]. Many mine workers
over the age of 45 years are likely to demonstrate a
decreased physical and mental capacity, especially where
new or different demands are placed on them. Despite
this, research indicates that, overall, older workers
perform as well as younger workers [25], although there
seems to be little research into the impact of the ‘healthy
worker effect’ or ‘self selection’. It is plausible to assume
that these are strong influences on mine workers’ demo-
graphics and somewhat offset the effects of aging.
An additional aspect to consider is the assessment of
risks when undertaking demanding work and the physical
and mental preparation for it. Job knowledge, skills and
better coping strategies are important in this regard in
older workers [25] and it is likely that it contributes to
more conservative and safer work practices in older
workers.
Combined effects of different exposures on the
musculo-skeletal system
The combined effects on the musculo-skeletal system of
irregular, heavy work and sedentary work such as
operating machinery appear not to have been addressed
by researchers, possibly because it is so difficult to control
and quantify these different exposures at work and to
draw conclusions on causality. However, this combin-
ation could be more damaging than constant, self-paced
physical work on its own because there is a reduced
training effect.
Another area that seems to need further research is that
of the contribution of slips, trips and falls to manual
handling injuries either as one of several initial ‘causes’
or precipitating factors or as contributing to the
300 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE
exacerbation of an injury. Part of the problem is that most
injury statistics list ‘agent of injury’ and ‘employee
activity’ separately and not in combination. However, in
reality, the dynamic nature of manual handling means
that several forces are usually at work. Uneven floors,
slippery surfaces, narrow, cramped or otherwise
inadequate access and poor lighting are often found
together with manual handling tasks in mining. Attention
to all these areas may be required.
Load factors in manual handling in mining
Weight of objects is a big issue in mining, especially in the
coal industry in Australia where aluminium is not
permitted to be used underground. Therefore, it is
impractical in some situations to consider reducing the
weight of certain items. As a result, other approaches to
reducing load have had to be examined and this has been
useful in understanding and controlling manual handling
hazards and risks overall. The load experienced by an
individual is influenced not just by the nature of the
object to be lifted but also by design, organizational and
personal factors.
Load should not be confused with weight. Load is
force. The weight of an item may be considerable, but
with appropriate lifting aids the force required to move or
hold it might be minimal.
Principal physical factors that have been recognized for
some time are:
· distance of load from the body (moment), including
Figure 2. Height ranges for lifting actions—after Pheasant and Stubbs
[27].
handling above shoulder height [23,26,27] (see Figure
2);
· range through which weight is lifted [23];
· origin and destination of lifts [23];
· postures assumed in order to lift (bent, and bent and
twisted postures are the ones to which most risk is
attached) [23,28];
· speed of movement [29].
Moment, bent and twisted postures and speed of
movement appear to be the physical factors that create
the greatest risks for injury.
For repetitive lifting, added factors are:
· frequency of lifts [30];
· cumulative loading
duration of lift [19];
· (leading to fatigue) [26].
Identifying high risk manual handling tasks
Determining and matching job demands with the range
of capacities of employees is particularly important in
manual handling, but is also very difficult. Where job
demands exceed the individual’s capacity to meet them,
errors, fatigue, stress and injuries may result. In the short
term, individual workers may cope with demands that
exceed their capabilities in one or more of the following
ways:
· practices;
short cuts in work procedures leading to unsafe
· with
consistently working at a higher pace than is healthy,
an increased risk of chronic or accumulated
fatigue and injury especially as they age;
· self-selection out of the job by those who are unable to
meet work demands imposed.
Therefore, it is important to establish which tasks have
the highest risks for injury or accidents for the majority of
workers. This is where participatory approaches to risk
assessment and management can be most useful.
Physical and psychosocial factors in
work-related disorders
Physical disorders may not arise purely from physical
stresses. Psychosocial factors can contribute to the
development of symptoms in some individuals at
particular times [18,27,31,32]. The interrelationship
between job and personal factors in the development of
disorders in the workplace is complex. In order to
understand these issues, managers have to examine work
and its organization more broadly and understand how
various factors may interact. In some ways it is easier now
as there is considerable crossover between management
and ergonomics theories and practice. In ergonomics it
has been variously referred to as organizational design

Figure 3. Karasek model—adapted from Karasek and Theorell [33].
and management (ODAM), systems ergonomics and
now macro-ergonomics.
One illustration of this is the proposed link between
stress, ill health and work. Known sometimes as the
Karasek model, it argues that job demands need to be
balanced with a degree of job control (decision latitude)
by the worker. Those employees who have high demands
placed on them but who have little say in how and when
the work will be completed are the most likely to be at risk
of developing psychological or physical disorders [33].
Figure 3 illustrates this.
A modifying influence in this theory can be social
support at work. It is argued that support, or the lack of it,
can either reduce or magnify the effects of problems at
work. Conversely, those who have high demands and a
high degree of control over how they meet those demands
contribute to what Senge calls the ‘learning organisation’
[34]. There are a number of issues that flow from this
view, most notably how ergonomics fits with OHS and the
cause–effect relationship in occupational disorders.
Risk management and participatory
methods in ergonomics problem solving
The application of the risk management approach for all
types of risks is becoming increasingly important to
reduce the probability that corporate objectives will be
jeopardized by unforeseen events. The focus is one of
positive and directed due diligence rather than negative
compliance and for many mining companies this is a
significant change in direction. Risk management
techniques, commonly used in business and safety
management systems, can be adapted easily to ergo-
nomics. They have the added advantage that systems
safety personnel understand the process and can
integrate it into a company’s OHS program.
Participative techniques have been used successfully by
designers and in safety management systems for many
B. MCPHEE: ERGONOMICS IN MINING 301
years [24]. They now are proving to be an interesting and
productive method for systematically identifying work-
place ergonomics problems and developing solutions. The
concept of ‘participatory ergonomics’ has been promoted
for ~20 years [35] and refers to the cooperative
interchange between expert and non-expert to find
satisfactory solutions to a range of problems especially
where there needs to be trade-offs and compromises. It
arose from the need to involve workers, who did not have
an expert working knowledge of ergonomics, in the
process of change and occurred simultaneously in Asia,
Europe and North America. It has proven useful in
helping organizations find real ergonomics solutions in
the workplace and is another application of macro-
ergonomics.
Participatory ergonomics takes many forms. One that
the author has found useful in mining is the participative
risk assessment workshop. This forum allows a focus
group to devote uninterrupted time to a problem using a
systematic approach with a view to solving it. In particular
it allows ergonomics issues to be aired with respect to the
wider work system and therefore provides a perspective
that may not be possible when an ergonomist works
as conventional consultant. It also gives the company
a documented starting point for change [36]. This
approach has the added advantage that systems safety
personnel understand the process and it can be integrated
into a company’s safety program.
Risk assessments can be carried out on tasks, locations,
roles or processes but using job steps, tasks or activities is
the most common approach. They involve as many key
stakeholders as is feasible because a crucial factor in their
effectiveness is the availability of relevant knowledge and
expertise of a cross-section of people who are familiar
with a particular work situation. Outcomes are critically
dependent on the team being representative and pro-
viding a balanced view at a level of expertise appropriate
to the nature of the subject under review. The ergonomist
as the facilitator is independent within the team but can
also provide background information on ergonomics.
This is different to most facilitators’ functions. In some
cases, specific expertise may be required to advise and/or
supplement the core team.
In addition this process can be used for training,
disseminating information and successfully achieving
change in complex areas such as ergonomics. It can also
provide the opportunity for full and constructive
consultation with all stakeholders, something that is
difficult and time-consuming to achieve with other
processes.
Conclusions
5,0,0,0,0Mining work practices are changing and
therefore the hazard exposures for mine workers are
302 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE
changing. Longer shift lengths and fatigue, mental
overload and underload, intermittent heavy physical
work, reduced task variation, sedentary work in fixed
postures and whole-body vibration all have risks for
health and safety. The increasing age of some of the
workforce is also of concern. However, there appears to
be little recognition of these as potential causes of health
problems in the mining industry. It is likely that some of
these at least will lead to greater stress and morbidity in
mineworkers if they are not balanced by well-informed
decisions by managers.
Nevertheless, the development of participative
approaches to problem solving in some parts of the
mining industry is encouraging.
References
1. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission
(NOHSC—Worksafe Australia). National Standard for
Plant. Canberra: NOHSC, 1994.
2. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission
(NOHSC—Worksafe Australia). Plant Design. Making It
Safe. A Guide to Risk Management for Designers,
Manufacturers, Importers, Suppliers and Installers of Plant.
Canberra: NOHSC, 1995.
3. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission
(NOHSC—Worksafe Australia). Plant in the Workplace.
Making It Safe. Canberra: NOHSC, 1995.
4. Woodson W, Tillman B, Tillman P. Human Factors Design
Handbook: Information Guidelines for the Design of Systems,
Facilities, Equipment and Products for Human Use. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1991.
5. Clark TS, Corlett EN. The Ergonomics of Workspaces and
Machines: A Design Manual. London: Taylor & Francis,
1984.
6. Sanders MS, McCormick EJ. Human Factors in Engineering
and Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
7. WorkCover NSW. NSW Occupational Health and Safety
Regulation 2001 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act
2000. Sydney: WorkCover, 2001.
8. Australian Standard AS 2953.1-1988. Earth-moving
machinery—Human Dimensions. Part 1: Minimum Access.
Sydney: Standards Australia, 1988.
9. Australian Standard AS 2953.2-1988. Earth-moving
Machinery—Physical Dimensions of Operators and Minimum
Operator Space Envelope. Part 2: Minimum Access. Sydney:
Standards Australia, 1988.
10. Australian Standard AS 2956.5-1988. Earth-moving
Machinery—Instrumentation and Operator’s Controls. Part 5:
Zones of Comfort and Reach for Controls. Sydney: Standards
Australia, 1988.
11. Australian Standard AS 2956.6-1988. Earth-moving
Machinery—Instrumentation and Operator’s Controls. Part 6:
Crawler Tractors and Crawler Loaders—Operator’s Controls.
Sydney: Standards Australia, 1988.
12. Australian Standard AS 3868-1991. Earth-moving
Machinery—Design Guide for Access Systems. Sydney:
Standards Australia, 1991.
13. Department of Mineral Resources NSW. Guidelines for Free
Steered Vehicles MDG No.1, July 1995. Sydney: Department
of Mineral Resources, 1995.
14. McPhee B. Ergonomics for the Control of Sprains and Strains
in Mining. Sydney: Worksafe Australia and the Joint Coal
Board, 1993.
15. McPhee B, Foster G, Long A. Exposure to Whole-body
Vibration for Drivers and Passengers in Mining Vehicles. Part 1.
Report of Findings at Four Open-cut Mines and a Coal Loader.
Sydney: Joint Coal Board Health & Safety Trust, 2000.
16. McPhee B, Foster G, Long A. Exposure to Whole-body
Vibration for Drivers and Passengers in Mining Vehicles. Part 2.
Report of Findings at Four Underground Mines. Sydney: Joint
Coal Board Health and Safety Trust, 2001.
17. McPhee B, Foster G, Long A. Bad Vibrations. A Handbook
on Whole-body Vibration Exposure in Mining. Sydney: Joint
Coal Board Health and Safety Trust, 2001.
18. Marras WS. The future of research in understanding and
controlling work-related low back disorders. Ergonomics
2004;in press.
19. Straker L. A Critical Appraisal of Manual Handling Risk
Assessment Literature. Louisville KY: The International
Ergonomics Association Press, 1997.
20. Rodahl K. The Physiology of Work. London: Taylor &
Francis, 1989.
21. Ilmarinen, J. Promotion of work ability during aging. In:
Kumashiro M, ed. Aging and Work. London: Taylor &
Francis, 2003; 21–35.
22. Nygård C-H, Suurnäkki T, Peltomaa T, Ilmarinen J.
Objectively assessed job demands among elderly
employees in 1981 and 1993. In: Kumashiro M, ed. The
Paths to Productive Aging. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995;
325–330.
23. Snook S. Back risk factors: an overview. In: Violante F,
Armstrong T, Kilbom A, ed. Occupational Ergonomics.Work
Related Musculoskeletal Disorders of the Upper Limb and Back.
London: Taylor & Francis, 2000; 129–148.
24. Langford J, McDonagh D (eds). Focus Groups. Supporting
Effective Product Development. London: Taylor & Francis,
2003.
25. Griffiths, A. The role of the psychosocial environment in
promoting the health and performance of older workers.
In: Kumashiro M, ed. Aging and Work. London: Taylor &
Francis, 2003; 111–118.
26. Chaffin D. Biomechanical models in high exertion manual
jobs. In: Violante F, Armstrong T, Kilbom A, ed.
Occupational Ergonomics. Work Related Musculoskeletal
Disorders of the Upper Limb and Back. London: Taylor &
Francis, 2000; 157–177.
27. Pheasant S. Ergonomics, Work and Health. London:
MacMillan, 1991.
28. Andersson GBJ. The epidemiology of spinal disorders. In:
JW Frymoyer, ed. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott-Raven, 1997.
29. Marras WS, Mirka GA. Trunk strength as a function of
trunk asymmetry and trunk velocity during concentric and
eccentric exertions. In: Mital A, ed. Advances in Industrial
Ergonomics and Safety 1. Cincinnati, OH: Taylor & Francis,
1989; 159–166.
30. Victorian WorkCover Authority. Code of Practice for Manual
Handling. Melbourne: Workcover, 2000.

31. Snook S. Psychophysical studies of materials handling:
NIOSH lifting equation. In: Violante F, Armstrong T,
Kilbom A, ed. Occupational Ergonomics. Work Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders of the Upper Limb and Back.
London: Taylor & Francis, 2000; 149–156.
32. Theorell T. Psychosocial factors at work in relation to
musculoskeletal conditions—implications for job design
and rehabilitation. In: Violante F, Armstrong T, Kilbom A,
ed. Occupational Ergonomics. Work Related Musculoskeletal
Disorders of the Upper Limb and Back. London: Taylor &
Francis, 2000; 29–50.
B. MCPHEE: ERGONOMICS IN MINING 303
33. Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy Work—Stress, Productivity
and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic
Books, 1990.
34. Senge PM. The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization. Sydney: Random House, 1992.
35. Noro K, Imada A. Participatory Ergonomics. London: Taylor
& Francis, 1991.
36. McPhee B. Identifying and managing ergonomics risks in
the workplace—getting the balance right. In: Proceedings of
the Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia,
November 2003; Brisbane, Australia.