隨著水資源的急遽變化，面板業製程用水全回收在各界引起熱議，為達成大量回收製程用水之目的，吸引重視水資源與廢水處理之企業投資與購置關鍵乾燥設備，不僅提升水資源的回收率，也減少了廢水處理過程污泥的產出量。乾燥設備日漸普及之下，工作者介入從事所謂運轉中機器掃除作業過程，肢體會產生許多不良姿勢，需要透過審慎的評估方法加以確認其風險程度，以避免人員長時間從事上述作業產生肌肉骨骼傷病。
本研究針對運轉中乾燥機掃除作業過程中，作業人員所產生之各種姿勢，透過半直接方法以攝影器材實錄拍攝，擷取姿勢照片，分別採用快速全身評估（Rapid Entire Body Assessment，REBA）、奧沃科工作評估系統（Ovako Working Posture Analysis System，OWAS）、歐洲人因評估工具檢核表（Ergonomic Assessment Worksheet，EAWS）等方法及量表評估個案作業肌肉骨骼傷害風險等級，並採取矯正預防措施，以改善和預防不良姿勢所衍生肌肉骨骼傷害之可能，並提供與預警各行業工作過程可能產生相似姿勢及早採取人因性危害預防之參考。
研究結果顯示，3種評估方法在改善前均警示本研究作業潛在顯著與極高危害，分別為REBA極高危害（11分）、OWAS顯著危害（89.47％）、EAWS可能潛在風險（39.7分）提供輔助工作梯採取改善後，不良姿勢獲得改善與控制。全身性肌肉骨骼傷害風險分別為REBA中度危害（5分）、OWAS輕微危害（71.43％）、EAWS低或無風險（21分），REBA下降2個階層，OWAS下降1個階層，EAWS下降1個階層，在改善後風險對照建議方面REBA為「必須改善」，OWAS為「近期需要採取改善措施」，EAWS為「建議採取改善行動或無需改善」，顯示乾燥機掃除作業未來仍須採取其它改善行動以降低該設備掃除作業因設備設計所產生的肌肉骨骼傷害。同時採用3種全身性肌肉骨骼風險評估方法目的為確認各方法識別風險程度，歸納出3種評估量表使用上的差異，並藉由量表評估姿勢與條件之差異互相補充，來確認採取改善後風險是否獲得改善。
本研究發現，在量表使用方面，若單獨使用EAWS Part-b可能會忽略頸部姿勢的表現，而EAWS Part-b涵蓋了坐姿與暴露時間上的細節，能夠客觀的提供評估者綜觀所有姿勢整體危害程度，特別是站立與坐姿交替時，加上風險分級的不同，若僅使用一種評估方法，可能導致評估結果傾向過度樂觀或悲觀其中一方。使用評估方法互補，可以讓職業安全衛生人員獲得更全面性的結果，並能夠更精確的選擇改善方案。在作業改善方面，提供輔助工作梯，使作業方式在站和坐姿之間循環，身體扭轉與站立時軀幹彎曲重複性與不良姿勢獲得控制。
建議未來相關行業針對相似作業進行全身性肌肉骨骼傷害風險評估時，可參考本研究採取至少2種以上評估量表同時進行。採取改善時，可利用本研究改善方式，增加坐站姿交替方式矯正與預防不良姿勢的產生。若針對頸部變化較多之作業，先以REBA及OWAS進行初評，再以EAWS Part-b綜觀整體風險。若作業方式改變時，另以其他評估量表確認上肢或其他部位姿勢改變是否衍生其他肌肉骨骼傷害。相關行業投資相似設備於採購管理過程，應先評估建築與機台設計可能為工作者帶來的人因性風險，預防工程變更為工作者所帶來的肌肉骨骼傷害。

The process of 100% water recycling of water used in panel manufacturing has become a main topic of discussion due to the rapid changing of water resources. In order to achieve the goal of recycling large amounts of water used for manufacturing purposes, prioritization of water resources and wastewater treatment has been appealed to invest in fundamental drying equipment. This equipment not only improves the recovery of water resources but also reduces the output of sludge from wastewater treatment processes. As drying equipment becomes a norm in these facilities, workers have to be in many inappropriate and awkward postures to operate said machines when conducting the maintenance process of the machine. These awkward postures need to be carefully evaluated by methods of assessing the risk level while performing the operations to prevent musculoskeletal injuries.
This thesis assesses the risk level posed by all postures that workers might be in when operating on a dryer machine (sweeping and scrubbing). The assessment was through video recordings and photographs to capture the postures of the workers and evaluate the risk level which these postures pose to potentially inducing musculoskeletal disorders. The evaluation methods used REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment), OWAS (Ovako Working Posture Analysis System), and EAWS (Ergonomic Assessment Worksheet). After the evaluation, these postures were correct by using tools and prevention guidelines on how to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries for these working processes.
Results showed that before any correction tools or guidelines were implemented all three assessment showed significant or high-risk levels. REBA, OWAS, and EAWS scored a high risk of Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) (11 points), a significant risk level of MSD (89.47%) and possible risk of MSD (39.7 points), respectively. After the implementation of tools and guidelines, awkward postures were successfully revised. The new risk level of MSD for REBA, OWAS, and EAWS were medium risk (5 points), low risk (71.43%) and low or no risk (21 points), respectively. This showed a reduction of 2 risk levels for REBA and 1 risk level for both OWAS and EAWS. Recommendations for the new risk levels were “further investigation, change soon” for REBA, “corrective actions required in the near future” for OWAS, and “redesign if possible or no action is needed” for EAWS. It indicated that the task of operating the dryer machine still needs to be redesigned in the future. The reason behind using three entire body musculoskeletal assessment methods was to see the risk levels outcomes of different methods and also to be able to see the differences of conducting each method. Moreover, using three methods means that they can complement each other by making up for their differences in evaluation to ultimately ensure whether or not the improvements implemented served the purpose.
After using all three assessment methods, if only EAWS Part-b were to be used, some awkward neck postures might be ignored. However, EAWS Part-b provides more detailed measurements such as sitting posture and exposure time, which can objectively grant an overall look at the risk levels posed by all postures, especially when there is an alternation between sitting and standing. Furthermore, the risk levels are different for each method, so when only one assessment method is used, it could result in an overly optimistic or pessimistic evaluation. Using different methods to complement each other can allow for occupational safety and health inspectors to get a grasp of the big picture from all angles, and can, therefore, more precisely diagnose, improve and implement the necessary solutions. As for improvements of the task itself, providing a work ladder controlled and reduced awkward postures repeated bending of the trunk and twisting motions of the body when alternating between sitting and standing.
For future studies that may involve evaluating risk levels of MSDs in similar industries, we recommend that at least two assessment methods should be used in the same task. When redesigning and improving a task, the method from the current study can be considered. We increased the ways to alternate between sitting and standing as well as correcting and preventing the occurrence of awkward posture. If the task involves more postural changes of the neck, use REBA and OWAS to conduct the initial evaluation, then use EAWS Part-b to evaluate the risk level as a whole. In the case that the task varies, use other assessment techniques to confirm whether the postural changes in other body parts will result in other MSDs. Related industries going through the procurement management process of investing in similar equipment, should first assess and prevent the human related risks that infrastructures or machines may cause to the workers.

摘要
Abstract
表目錄
圖目錄
第一章 緒論 ----------------------------------- 1
第二章 文獻回顧 ------------------------------ 6
第三章 研究方法 ------------------------------ 35
第四章 結果與討論 --------------------------- 40
第五章 結論與未來方向 ------------------------- 65
參考文獻 ------------------------------------- 67
中文文獻 ------------------------------------- 67
英文文獻 ------------------------------------- 69

中文文獻
1. 李開偉（2009），實用人因工程學（第3版），全華圖書，ISBN：9789572171073
2. 林志森（2001），廢棄物資源回收與處理設備技術手冊（乾燥設備篇），臺灣綠色生產力基金會
3. 林慕宗（2017），肌肉骨骼危害防制實物探討－以面板製造為例，國立臺北科技大學，碩士論文
4. 勞動部勞動及職業安全衛生研究所，人因工程肌肉骨骼傷病預防指引，2014年，第20頁
5. 勞動部勞動及職業安全衛生研究所，人因工程肌肉骨骼傷病預防研究重要績效輯，2014年，第2-3頁
6. 勞動部勞動及職業安全衛生研究所，人因性危害防止計畫研究，2014年，第44-89頁
7. 勞動部勞動法令查詢系統，https://laws.mol.gov.tw/，造訪日期，2019年2月
8. 勞動部勞動統計查詢網，https://statfy.mol.gov.tw/default.aspx，造訪日期，2019年2月
9. 勞動部職業安全衛生署，https://www.osha.gov.tw/，造訪日期，2019年2月
10. 郭沛昕（2017），下背肌肉骨骼危害防制實務探討以金屬加工為例，國立臺北科技大學，碩士論文
11. 何廷芳（2015），油漆作業生理負荷與上肢肌肉骨骼危害評估，國立臺北科技大學，碩士論文
12. 經濟部水利署，http://wuss.wra.gov.tw/annfacwater.aspx，造訪日期，2019年2月
13. 行政院環境保護署環保統計查詢網，https://stat.epa.gov.tw/，造訪日期，2019年2月
14. 新竹縣政府，https://www.hsinchu.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=139&s=100356，造訪日期，2019年2月
15. 曾維忞（2015），廢有機污泥減量與資源化處理技術，工業污染防治，第131期，第3-24頁
16. 孫培峰（2017），應用Kinect體感器於全身肌肉骨骼危害評估，國立臺北科技大學，碩士論文
17. 王景玟、鄭淑芬、劉蘭萍、林政江（2008），工業區污水處理廠污泥資源化案例探討，綠基會通訊
18. 袁顥庭（2016），國家永續發展獎，取自：https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/
20161216004575-260412，2019年2月

英文文獻
1. Bambang Suhardi, Rahmaniyah Dwi Astuti, Argadia Teguh Widodo.（2015）. Design of polishing tools for improving work posture in furniture industry, proceedings of the joint international conference on electric vehicular technology and industrial, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering（ICEVT & IMECE）. Surakarta, pp.223-228.
2. Banibrata Das.（2015）. An evaluation of low back pain among female brick field workers of West Bengal, India. Environ Health Prev Med, Volume 20, pp 360-368.
3. BLS（Bureau of Labor Statistics）.（2013）. Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, publication No.USDL-14-2246, pp.1.
4. Chakravarthy, Srikanth P. (2015). Ergonomics study of automobile assembly line. International journal on recent technologies in mechanical and electrical engineering, Volume 2, Issue 5 , pp.110-115
5. EU-OHSA（European Agency for Safety and Health at Work）.（2010）. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU：facts and figures. Published：2010-05-03, ISBN：978-92-9191-261-2, pp.16.
6. David G.C.（2005）. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine, Volume 55, Issue 3,
May 2005, pp.190–199.
7. Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Agrawal B.P.（2018）. Postural analysis of air filling operators working at petrol filling stations. Industrial Engineering Journal, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp.6-12.
8. Kadefors R.（1978）. Application of electromyography in ergonomics：new vistas.
Scand J Rehabil Med, 10（3）,pp.127-133.
9. Karhu O., Kansi P., Kuorinka I..（1977）. Correcting working postures in industry：a practical method for analysis. Appl. Ergon. 8（4）, pp.199-201.
10. Kee, Dohyung & Karwowski, Waldemar.（2007）. A comparison of three observational techniques for assessing postural loads in industry. International journal of
occupational safety and ergonomics, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp.3-14.
11. Keyserling W.M., Brouwer M., Silverstein B.A..（1992）.A checklist for evaluating ergonomic risk factors resulting from awkward postures of the legs, trunk and neck.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 9（4）, pp.283-301.
12. Kim Eun-A, Nakata Minori.（2014）.Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Korea and Japan：a comparative description. Annals of occupational and environmental medicine, Volume 26：17, pp.1-7.
13. Kivi P., Mattila M..（1991）. Analysis and improvement of work postures in the building industry：application of the computerised OWAS method. Applied Ergonomics, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp.43-48.
14. Lavatellia, Schaub, Caragnano（2012）. Correlations in between EAWS and OCRA index concerning the repetitive loads of the upper limbs in automobile manufacturing industries .Work, volume 41, pp.4436-4444.
15. Lin Jia-Hua. （2015）. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders （WMSDs） in Washington State, Manufacturing, pp.19.
16. MartaGÓMEZ-GALÁN, JoséPÉREZ-ALONSO, Ángel-JesúsCALLEJÓN-FERRE, JavierLÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ.（2017）. Musculoskeletal disorders：OWAS review. Industrial health, 55（4）, pp.314–337.
17. Nadri H., Fasih F., Nadri F., Nadri A. （2013）. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment results from quick exposure check and rapid entire body assessment in an anodizing industry of Tehran, Iran. Journal of Occupational Health and Epidemiology, 2（4）, pp.195-202.
18. Neville Stanton, Alan Hedge, Hal W. Hendrick, Eduardo Salas, Karel Brookhuis.（2004）, Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Taylor & Francis, Inc., Bristol, PA, USA. ISBN：0415287006, pp.189.
19. NIOSH（National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health）.（1997） , Elements of Ergonomics Programs： A primer based on workplace evaluations of musculoskeletal disorders. Publication No. 97-117, pp.3-24.
20. OSHA（Occupational Safety and Health Administration）. Please refer to APA Web site（https：//www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/）
21. OSHA（Occupational Safety and Health Administration）.（2003）.Ergonomics in Action：A Guide to Best Practices for the Food-Processing Industry. pp.20.
22. Pal A., Dhara P.C.（2018）. Work related musculoskeletal disorders and postural stress of the women cultivators engaged in uprooting job of rice cultivation. Indian J Occup Environ Med, 22（3）, pp.163-169.
23. Rahmaniyah Dwi Astuti, Susy Susmartini, Ade Putri Kinanthi.（2017）. Improving the work position of worker based on manual material handling in rice mill industry. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1902, Issue 1.
24. Sarkar K., Dev S., Das T., Chakrabarty S., Gangopadhyay S.（2016）. Examination of postures and frequency of musculoskeletal disorders among manual workers in Calcutta, India. Int J Occup Environ Health, 22（2）, pp.151-158.
25. Schaub K.G., Rademacher H., Caragnano G., Guth A., Bruder R.（2008）. Ergonomics risk assessments in automotive and electrical industry based on the dual European concept of health and safety at work., pp.230.
26. Schaub, Karlheinz and Ghezel-Ahmadi, Kazem.（2008）. Vom AAWS zum EAWS - Ein erweitertes Screening-Verfahren für körperliche Belastungen. In：Bericht zum 53. Arbeitswissenschaftlichen Kongress vom 28, pp.601–604.
27. Shivani Chowdhury Salian, Jinal Boricha, Sujata Yardi.（2012）Identification of awkward postures that cause discomfort to liquid petroleum gas workers in Mumbai, India. Indian journal of occupational and environmental medicine, Volume 16, pp.3-8.
28. Sue Hignett, Lynn McAtamney.（2000）. Rapid entire body assessment （REBA）, Applied Ergonomics.31, pp.201-205.
29. Stefania Spada, Lidia Ghibaudo, Silvia Gilotta, Laura Gastaldi, Maria Pia Cavatorta.（2018）Advances in Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors, Volume 602, pp.236-244.
30. SWA（Safe Work Australia）.（2016）. Statistics on work-related musculoskeletal disorders. ISBN：978-1-76028-825-9, pp.5.