¹University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
²Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
³Regionshospitalet i Viborg, Viborg, Denmark

Text

Introduction: Work in slaughterhouses is physically demanding and associated with a high risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). The work tasks often involve awkward postures resulting in higher postural load in addition to the force demands of the task itself. Currently, ergonomic risk assessments of workstations have relied on observational pen-and-paper (PP) methods offering momentary snapshots with high risk of observer bias. Recent advances in wearable technology based on Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) like the Xsens Awinda system, offer a possibility for full-body motion capture throughout the workday and provide a more accurate and objective alternative. The output can be fed back to the slaughterhouse workers and employees after data conversion into a risk assessment based on the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) classifications. The study aims to compare ergonomic risk assessments derived from PP observations with those generated by the Xsens IMU system, and to explore the system’s usability from the perspective of both workers and workplace stakeholders.

Methods: Ten experienced slaughterhouse workers (9 male, 1 female), aged 27–59 years with 4–18 years of seniority, participated in the study. These workers performed diverse job functions, including deboning, meat cutting, packaging, and loading. The workers wore the Xsens Awinda IMU suit for half a workday. In parallel, observations using the traditional PP approaches were performed. Two focus group interviews are planned: one has been conducted with the workers, who wore Xsens Awinda suits to assess perceived comfort and usability. The second will be conducted with the managers and occupational health specialists to evaluate the system’s practical applicability.

Results: Data collection was conducted in January 2025. More than 50 different work tasks were observed and IMU data were collected, some repeatedly and by multiple workers. Currently, a matrix method overview is being developed to present risk assessment for all tasks for each worker. A comparative statistical analysis will be conducted to determine the level of agreement and potential discrepancies between the two methods. These results as well as the qualitative data regarding usability will be ready for presentation at the PREMUS 2025 conference.

Discussion: Significant differences between PP and IMU-based assessments are expected to offer a valuable upgrade in ergonomic risk evaluation for the work environment professionals at the slaughterhouse. The continuous, objective data collection may support more accurate risk assessment and, ultimately, propose more effective rotation and workstation design to reduce WMSDs.

Conclusion: IMU technologies may offer significant advancement in ergonomic assessment in the slaughterhouse industry. However, successful implementation does not only depend on data accuracy but also on system usability and acceptance among both workers and decision-makers.