This paper reports the assessment of safety practices and injuries in a timber company in Ghana. A cross-sectional survey design was used for the study. Data were collected from 300 respondents at a sawmill in Ghana using a 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for the data analyses. The result indicates that the mean rating of the respondents on their use of personal protective equipment ranged from 1.09 to 2.51. This implies that the workers of the sawmill rarely or never wear: gloves, overall, goggles, face shield, nose and mouth mask, earplugs or helmet during wood processing. Additionally, the mean ratings of the respondents regarding safety practices, machine and maintenance ranged from 2.42 to 4.03 with three out of the eight items having mean ratings higher than the theoretical mean of 3.0. The ratings of the respondents of the saw doctoring department on their practice of safety on machine and maintenance were significantly higher than those of the other departments. The result of the study further suggests that the workers of this sawmill do rarely report of: skin irritation/dermatitis, eye irritation, lack of appetite, arm/leg amputation, neck pains, hearing loss and poor eye sight problems. However, they usually report of headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, small cuts, back pains, and hip and leg pains. The outcome of this study therefore suggests that the management of the sawmill studied needs to do more to enforce practice of safety, especially the use of personal protective equipment, to reduce hazards and injuries associated with wood processing in the firm.
Keeping the workplace safe must not be the concern of only workers and companies but also national and global economies whose productivity and competitiveness play a major role on safe working environment. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) considers issues relating to occupational health and safety (OHS) to be of much importance to the extent that it has devoted about 80% of its standards and instruments either wholly or partly to it [
In Ghana the timber industry has been making substantial contribution to its economy over the years. As indicated by [
Issues regarding OHS in Ghana are regulated by the Department of Factories Inspectorate. This department is responsible for promotion and enforcement of regulatory measures on OHS. In the absence of a national OHS policy in Ghana, the Factories, Offices and Shops Act of 1970, Workmen’s Compensation Law, Act 187 (1987) and Labour Act 651 (2003) are the main legislative documents on OHS (Ghana News Agency, 2003) as cited in [
This study, which assessed the conformity to safety practices and injuries associated with wood processing at a timber processing firm in Ghana is guided by the following research questions:
1) How do woodworkers rate their practice of safety?
2) How does the department of woodworkers affect their rating of practice of safety?
3) How do woodworkers rate the effect of wood processing on their health?
4) How does the department of woodworkers affect their rating of effect of wood processing on their health?
A cross-sectional survey design was used for this study. According to [
The population for this study comprised 702 workers of a selected sawmill in the Ashanti region of Ghana. This includes: 372 workers at the sawmill department, 221 workers at the veneering department, 92 workers at the moulding department, and 17 workers at the sawdoctoring department. Stratified random sampling technique was used to select respondents from the various departments of the selected company. The sample size was 426 and was determined in accordance with the mathematical formula:
The instrument used for the larger study was a questionnaire which was adapted from safety management perception questionnaire prepared by [
The data for this part of the study was collected using a five-point Likert scale questionnaire at a single point in time. The questionnaire was administered by the researchers to the participants directly. A total number of about 426 questionnaires were distributed. The number of questionnaires successfully completed and returned were 300 (Sawmilling = 135; Veneering = 102; Moulding = 52; Sawdoctoring = 11). This represents a return rate of about 70%. According to Dillman (2000) as cited in [
The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Software used for the analysis was Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). The mean and standard deviation of the ratings for each of the items were computed, and the mean compared to the theoretical mean rating of 3.0 (assuming normal distribution of responses) to ascertain the respondents’ perception on the themes studied. Additionally, the effects of department on the respondents’ adherence to safety practices as well as injuries associated with wood processing were determined. An item-by-item one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at 5% level of significance was performed to establish possible significant difference in the respondents’ ratings of the factors of this study. P-values lower than 0.05 were deemed significant. In most of such situations Scheffe’s post hoc test was used to make pair wise comparison of the means.
Occupational health and safety can be important for several reasons, in that, good OHS practice can reduce employee injury and illness-related costs. Additionally, cost associated with sick leave and disability benefit can be reduced. Even though most of these costs could be prevented or significantly reduced through implementation of sound prevention, reporting and inspection practices they persist at various workplaces.
That of safety practices, machine and maintenance, ranged from 2.42 (SD = 1.826) for item # 14 to 4.03 (SD = 1.549) for item # 10. The resultant mean rating of the respondents’ practice of safety was 2.17 (SD = 1.343). Apart from three items (“do you ensure that guards and fences are in place when working”, “do you ensure that workers put off electrical gargets”, “do you ensure that workers maintain and repair machines”) for which the respondents’ ratings were higher, all the other items had mean ratings lower than the theoretical mean of 3.0. This suggests that the workers of the sawmill studied rarely or never wear: gloves, overall, goggles, face shield, nose and mouth mask, earplugs or helmet during wood processing. Furthermore, the workers would rarely or never: insist that only trained personnel operate machines, ensure that workers adhere to safety rules, ensure that saws are adequately conditioned, and ensure that worn out chains and ropes are changed.
The rating of the respondents, especially on the use of personal protective equipment was a true reflection of what pertains at the sawmill used for the study. Indeed, most of the workers were either in “slippers” or “canvass” which do not protect their foot/toes (
Item # | Elements of safety practice | Mean rating (n = 300) | Standard deviation |
---|---|---|---|
Personal protective equipment | |||
1 | Do you wear gloves/mittens when working? | 1.72 | 1.082 |
2 | Do you wear overall when working? | 1.10 | 0.520 |
3 | Do you wear goggles when working? | 1.19 | 0.754 |
4 | Do you wear face shield when working? | 1.14 | 0.651 |
5 | Do you wear nose and mouth mask when working? | 2.51 | 1.013 |
6 | Do you wear earplugs or ear muffs when working? | 1.22 | 0.720 |
7 | Do you wear helmet when working? | 1.09 | 0.548 |
Machine and maintenance | |||
8 | Do you ensure that guards and fences are in place when working? | 3.03 | 1.890 |
9 | Do you ensure that trained personnel operate the machines? | 2.56 | 1.528 |
10 | Do you ensure that workers put off electrical gargets? | 4.03 | 1.549 |
11 | Do you ensure that workers adhere to safety rules? | 2.58 | 1.570 |
12 | Do you ensure that workers maintain and repair machines? | 3.31 | 1.854 |
13 | Do you ensure that saws are adequately conditioned? | 2.43 | 1.854 |
14 | Do you ensure that worn out chains and ropes are changed? | 2.42 | 1.826 |
Resultant mean for elements of safety practice | 2.17 | 1.343 |
A study by [
The effect of department on respondents’ rating of their practice of safety is shown in
Item # | Elements of safety practice | Veneering (n1 = 102 ) | Sawmilling (n2 = 135) | Moulding (n3 = 52 ) | Sawdoctoring (n4 = 11) | F-value | p-value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
Personal protective equipment | |||||||||||
1 | Do you wear gloves/mittens when working? | 1.53 | 1.01 | 1.80 | 1.04 | 1.65 | 1.01 | 2.91 | 1.70 | 6.09 | 0.000* |
2 | Do you wear overall when working? | 1.12 | 0.55 | 1.10 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.36 | 0.81 | 1.63 | 0.182† |
3 | Do you wear goggles when working? | 1.21 | 0.80 | 1.10 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 3.00 | 1.55 | 29.28 | 0.000* |
4 | Do you wear face shield when working? | 1.16 | 0.73 | 1.01 | 0.17 | 1.12 | 0.62 | 2.73 | 1.42 | 30.42 | 0.000* |
5 | Do you wear nose and mouth mask when working? | 2.48 | 1.08 | 2.58 | 0.93 | 2.46 | 1.06 | 2.18 | 1.17 | 0.65 | 0.582† |
6 | Do you wear earplugs or ear muffs when working? | 1.20 | 0.77 | 1.24 | 0.74 | 1.15 | 0.54 | 1.45 | 0.82 | 0.59 | 0.619† |
7 | Do you wear helmet when working? | 1.10 | 0.59 | 1.10 | 0.61 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.18 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.615† |
Machine and maintenance | |||||||||||
8 | Do you ensure that guards and fences are in place when working? | 3.09 | 1.80 | 2.84 | 1.92 | 3.08 | 1.98 | 4.55 | 1.21 | 2.93 | 0.034* |
9 | Do you ensure that trained personnel operate the machines? | 2.85 | 1.42 | 2.33 | 1.53 | 2.46 | 1.64 | 3.09 | 1.58 | 2.81 | 0.040* |
10 | Do you ensure that workers put off electrical gargets? | 4.48 | 1.20 | 3.83 | 1.61 | 3.69 | 1.81 | 4.00 | 1.61 | 4.61 | 0.004* |
11 | Do you ensure that workers adhere to safety rules? | 2.75 | 1.34 | 2.40 | 1.65 | 2.54 | 1.71 | 3.55 | 1.57 | 2.40 | 0.068† |
12 | Do you ensure that workers maintain and repair machines? | 3.91 | 1.55 | 3.00 | 1.92 | 2.81 | 1.91 | 3.91 | 1.87 | 6.88 | 0.000* |
13 | Do you ensure that saws are adequately conditioned? | 1.65 | 1.38 | 2.84 | 1.92 | 2.46 | 1.90 | 4.64 | 1.21 | 6.26 | 0.000* |
14 | Do you ensure that worn out chains and ropes are changed? | 1.82 | 1.55 | 2.74 | 1.89 | 2.58 | 1.91 | 3.27 | 1.68 | 15.37 | 0.000* |
*Statistically significant at 0.05 level of significance; †Not statistically significant at 0.05 level of significance.
theoretical mean of 3.0, all the other items under the use of personal protective equipment were rated less than the theoretical mean. It is also worth noting that all the item-by-item mean rating of the respondents in the department of sawdoctoring for practice of safety, that is, machine and maintenance was higher than the theoretical mean of 3.0. The rating of the respondents in this department for the practice of safety, machine and maintenance, ranged from 3.09 for item # 9 to 4.64 for item # 13. This result implies that the workers at the sawdoctoring department are more likely to usually or always enforce safety practices in respect of machine and maintenance as compared to those of the other departments who would never or rarely enforce such safety practices. The item-by-item one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that at 5% level of significance, the department for which respondents belongs to significantly had effect on the rating of their use of personal protective equipment for the following items: “do you wear gloves/mittens when working”, “do you wear goggles when working” and “do you wear face shield when working”.
Even though there were significant differences in the respondents’ rating for the use of personal protective equipment for the items mentioned above, with the exception of the item “do you wear goggles when working” all the other items were rated lower than the theoretical mean of 3.0. This means that irrespective of the differences in the ratings of the respondents of departments, they would rarely or never wear gloves/mittens and face shield when working. On the contrary, the rating of the respondents on the following items: “do you wear overall when working”, “do you wear nose and mouth mask when working”, “do you wear earplugs or ear muffs when working” and “do you wear helmet when working” did not differ significantly.
With respect to practice of safety, machine and maintenance, apart from the item “do you ensure that workers adhere to safety rules”, the respondents’ rating for all the other items differed significantly. To determine the items whose mean ratings differed significantly, an item-by-item Scheffe’s post hoc multiple comparison of means was performed especially for the items whose mean ratings were higher than the theoretical mean of 3.0 (Item # 8, 10, 12). The result shows that for item # 8 there was a significant difference between respondents rating for sawmilling and sawdoctoring departments, with that of sawdoctoring being significantly higher than that of sawmilling department. In addition there was significant difference in the ratings of respondents in the veneering and sawmilling departments, and, veneering and moulding departments for items # 10 and # 12 respectively.
The result shown in
Analysis of data collected from 60 respondents from three constituencies in the Tamale Metropolis in Ghana indicated: cut-type of injuries, fractures, sprains, catarrh, waist pains, eye problems and dizziness as the range of injuries and illness associated with wood processing [
The comparison of the respondents’ ratings of health hazards and injuries associated with wood processing for the four departments is shown in
The result for pair-wise comparison of means for the item # 10 (I do report of back pains) indicated that the mean rating of the workers in the veneering (
Item # | Elements of health hazards of wood processing on woodworkers | Mean rating (n = 300) | Standard deviation |
---|---|---|---|
Exposure to sawdust | |||
1 | I do report of skin irritation/dermatitis | 2.25 | 1.122 |
2 | I do report of headaches | 3.38 | 1.252 |
3 | I do report of nausea | 3.13 | 0.846 |
4 | I do report of eye irritation | 2.57 | 1.346 |
5 | I do report of respiratory problems | 3.08 | 1.030 |
6 | I do report of lack of appetite | 1.49 | 0.909 |
Exposure to cutting sharp edge | |||
7 | I do report of small cuts | 3.27 | 0.981 |
8 | Have you ever had arm/leg amputation | 1.10 | 0.514 |
Heavy lifting injury | |||
9 | I do report of neck pains | 2.99 | 1.076 |
10 | I do report of back pains | 3.40 | 0.888 |
11 | I do report of hip and leg pains | 3.35 | 0.862 |
Noise/poor ventilation injuries | |||
12 | I do report of hearing loss | 1.35 | 0.810 |
13 | I do report of poor eye sight | 1.77 | 1.003 |
Resultant mean for the elements of health hazard of wood processing on woodworkers | 2.55 | 0.993 |
Item # | Wood processing effect on the health of woodworkers | Veneering (n1 = 102 ) | Sawmilling (n2 = 135) | Moulding (n3 = 52 ) | Sawdoctoring (n4 = 11) | F-value | p-value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
Exposure to sawdust | |||||||||||
1 | I do report of skin irritation | 2.31 | 1.08 | 2.21 | 1.11 | 2.27 | 1.21 | 2.09 | 1.30 | 0.252 | 0.860† |
2 | I do report of headaches | 3.25 | 1.06 | 3.52 | 1.30 | 3.37 | 1.39 | 2.91 | 1.58 | 1.417 | 0.238† |
3 | I do report of nausea | 3.19 | 0.73 | 3.16 | 0.88 | 3.06 | 0.85 | 2.55 | 1.21 | 2.120 | 0.098† |
4 | I do report of eye irritation | 2.77 | 1.31 | 2.43 | 1.35 | 2.35 | 1.34 | 3.45 | 1.13 | 3.419 | 0.018* |
5 | I do report of respiratory problems | 3.10 | 0.91 | 3.19 | 1.06 | 2.79 | 1.16 | 2.91 | 0.94 | 1.988 | 0.116† |
6 | I do report of lack of appetite | 1.53 | 0.93 | 1.39 | 0.85 | 1.46 | 0.85 | 2.36 | 1.29 | 4.109 | 0.007* |
Exposure to cutting sharp edge | |||||||||||
7 | I do report of small cuts | 3.22 | 0.75 | 3.38 | 1.08 | 3.15 | 1.07 | 3.09 | 1.14 | 1.012 | 0.388† |
8 | Have you ever had arm/leg amputation | 1.07 | 0.35 | 1.07 | 0.43 | 1.15 | 0.67 | 1.55 | 1.29 | 3.336 | 0.020* |
Heavy lifting injury | |||||||||||
9 | I do report of neck pains | 3.14 | 0.90 | 2.88 | 1.17 | 3.06 | 1.07 | 2.55 | 1.21 | 1.804 | 0.147† |
10 | I do report of back pains | 3.39 | 0.80 | 3.40 | 0.87 | 3.62 | 0.91 | 2.45 | 1.29 | 5.402 | 0.001* |
11 | I do report of hip and leg pains | 3.36 | 0.79 | 3.35 | 0.82 | 3.46 | 0.98 | 2.64 | 1.12 | 2.865 | 0.037* |
Noise/poor ventilation injuries | |||||||||||
12 | I do report of hearing loss | 1.38 | 0.80 | 1.21 | 0.66 | 1.46 | 0.94 | 2.09 | 1.38 | 4.892 | 0.002* |
13 | I do report of poor eye sight | 1.82 | 1.01 | 1.69 | 0.94 | 1.77 | 1.06 | 2.36 | 1.29 | 1.687 | 0.170† |
*Statistically significant at 0.05 level of significance; †Not statistically significant at 0.05 level of significance.
Studies conducted in other parts of the world suggest that the wood industry is exposed to high levels of occupation hazards. This in no doubt affects the social well-being of the workers, their families as well as the economies of this industry. In view of the above, this study was conducted to assess the safety practices and injuries associated with a wood processing company in Ghana. The study found that the workers of the timber firm studied would rarely or never wear: gloves, overall, goggles, face shield, nose and mouth mask, earplugs or helmet during wood processing. Additionally, the workers would rarely or never: insist that only trained personnel operate machines; ensure that workers adhere to safety rules; ensure that saws are adequately conditioned; and ensure that worn out chains and ropes are changed. The workers at the saw doctoring department are also more likely to enforce safety practices on machine and maintenance as compared to those of the other departments. It could further be concluded from the study that the workers of this sawmill do rarely report of: skin irritation/ dermatitis, eye irritation, lack of appetite, arm/leg amputation, neck pains, hearing loss and poor eye sight. Nevertheless, they usually report of headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, small cuts, back pains, and hip and leg pains. It is therefore recommended that occupational health and safety practices should be promoted in the sawmill studied through adoption of good health and safety practice as a personal and organisational value.
The authors are grateful to the management of the timber firm used for the study. Our appreciation also goes to the workers for willingly accepting to be part of this study. Special thanks also go to Mr. Francis Donkor of the Department of Mechanical Technology Education, University of Education for his professional advice during the preparation of the instrument for the study.