Volume 3, Issue 4 (Winter 2017)                   johe 2017, 3(4): 1-9 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Yari P, Yarahmadi R, Khosravi Y, Asivnd E. Present of occupational accidents dimensions based on risk-injury affinity groups (case study, from1384 to 1393). johe. 2017; 3 (4) :1-9
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-235-en.html
Associate Professor - , yarahmadi.r@iums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (2469 Views)

Background and aim: correspondence analysis method as the best method to optimize matrix functions that using the risk-injury matrix methods are analyzed. This method reduces the information contained in the risk-injury table and to determine the correlation between the variables in the matrix. The aim of this study is to present accidents and occupational hazards dimensions is dependent to risk-injury groups, using occupational accidents that can be managed.

Method: in this study the reports of occupational accidents registered in the social security organization in a period of ten years from the beginning of 1384 until the end of 1393 ( 222,300 incidents) were collected and type of Risk and injury related to any accident identified based on criteria, the International Labour Organization and classified in a risk-injury matrix (18 × 18). Using correspondence analysis of dimensions are identified individually, this dimensions Most indicate the most correlation between risk and injury that facilitate decision-making in the risk assessment companies are covered by Social Security. 

Results: Hair criteria recommends dimensions with inertia higher than 0.2 are suitable for the study and interpretation of results, based on this study were obtained from the dimensions of inertia (eigenvalue) greater than 0.2 include the dim1 ,dim2 ,dim3 to consider and the correlation between variables is obtained based on singular value (variable distance from the centeroid). (Singular value of dim1: 0.750, singular value of dimension 2: 0.647 and singular value dimension3: 0.521)

Full-Text [PDF 181 kb]   (470 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research Article | Subject: Special

References
1. Amendola A. Recent paradigms for risk informed decision making. Safety Science. 2002;40(1–4):17-30. [DOI:10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00039-X]
2. Kjellén U, Sklet S. Integrating analyses of the risk of occupational accidents into the design process Part I: A review of types of acceptance criteria and risk analysis methods. Safety Science. 1995;18(3):215-27. [DOI:10.1016/0925-7535(94)00053-6]
3. Frijters ACP, Swuste PHJJ. Safety assessment in design and preparation phase. Safety Science. 2008;46(2):272-81. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.032]
4. Leveson N. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science. 2004;42(4):237-70. [DOI:10.1016/S0925-7535(03)00047-X]
5. Rouhiainen V. QUASA: A method for assessing the quality of safety analysis. Safety Science. 1992;15(3):155-72. [DOI:10.1016/0925-7535(92)90002-H]
6. Conte JC, Rubio EA, García AI, Cano FJ. Correspondence model of occupational accidents. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 2011;83:1131-46. [DOI:10.1590/S0001-37652011005000029] [PMID]
7. Papazoglou IA, Ale BJM. A logical model for quantification of occupational risk. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2007;92(6):785-803. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.017]
8. Nicholson A. Analysis of spatial distributions of accidents. Safety Science. 1998;31(1):71-91. [DOI:10.1016/S0925-7535(98)00056-3]
9. Sari M, Selcuk AS, Karpuz C, Duzgun HSB. Stochastic modeling of accident risks associated with an underground coal mine in Turkey. Safety Science. 2009;47(1):78-87. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.12.004]
10. Hammer W. Unfallgefährdung und -verhütung beim Gehen, Laufen, Tragen, Schieben und Ziehen im landwirtschaftlichen Betrieb. Safety Science. 1994;17(2):117-43. [DOI:10.1016/0925-7535(94)90005-1]
11. yari P, Yarahmadi R, Khosravi Y, Salehi m, Kariznovi H. Present of occupational accidents pattern based on risk-injury affinity groups. Journal of Health and Safety at Work. 2016:(in press).
12. Conte JC, Rubio E, García AI, Cano F. Occupational accidents model based on risk–injury affinity groups. Safety Science. 2011;49(2):306-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.09.005]
13. Yarahmadi R YP, Khosravi Y, Salehi M, Kariznovi H. Correspondence analysis of occupational accidents occurred among insured workers Social Security for a period of ten years. Iran Occupational Health Journal. 2016:(in press).
14. 10th International Conference of Labour Statisticians [Internet]. 1962.
15. Olariaga LMJ, Hernández LL. Análisis de correspondencias1999.
16. Houman H. Correspondence Analysis and Applicaion. tehran: samt; 2010. 178 p.
17. Hair JF, Suárez MG. Análisis multivariante: Prentice Hall Madrid; 1999.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA code

Send email to the article author


© 2018 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb