초록
Objectives: This study was conducted to investigate the actual condition of the farm work environment and personal protective equipment as part of the effort to improve livestock work for the safety and health of poultry farmers and provide basic data for establishing plans to improve and develop personal protective equipment. Methods: For this purpose, a questionnaire survey on general information about stables, the poultry work environment, accidents, the wearing of work clothes and personal protective equipment, and the level of awareness related to personal protective equipment was conducted among 148 poultry farmers. Results: As a result, it was found that poultry workplace environment was exposed to such risks as fine dusts; organic dusts; poisonous gases; odorous substances; chicken excrement; contact with chickens, bacteria or viruses; and accidents related to machine operation. Thirteen percent of respondents suffered severe respiratory diseases, and the most frequently injured sites due to accidents were the hands (25.7%), knees (23.8%), arms (17.3%), and head (10.9%). The most frequent type of accident was collisions between the body and obstacles or machinery during movement (36.4%), followed by erroneous machine operation such as feeders and electric shocks (8.5%). Regarding the wearing of work clothes and personal protective equipment, 51.7% of the respondents wore worn-out clothing or everyday clothes, whereas only 32.0% wore work clothes. The percentage of farmers who wore proper protective equipment for the work environment during poultry work was 48.4%. The most frequently used type of protective equipment was boots (38.9%), followed by mask (36.7%), gloves (36.3%), appropriate work clothes (22.6%), quarantine clothes (17.6%), helmets (13.4%), and goggles (12.6%). The rate of wearing goggles was low because they were considered inconvenient and lowered work efficiency. Furthermore, they purchased everyday products available on the market for their personal protective equipment which were not appropriate for maintaining safety in an actual harmful environment and its consequent risks. As a result of the survey of the awareness level related to personal protective equipment, their levels of awareness of accidents and attitude proved to be average or higher, but the practice of wearing protective equipment and the level of knowledge and management of personal protective equipment were lower. Conclusion: This survey found that the wearing status of personal protective equipment among poultry farmers was insufficient even though they were exposed to risks. Most respondents were aware of the necessity of wearing personal protective equipment and of the potential for accidents, but they did not wear proper protective equipment. Their wearing rate was low due to a lack of knowledge about protective equipment, as well as the inconvenience of wearing it. Therefore there is a need to improve and develop specialized personal protective equipment for respiration, hands, and eyes, as well as work clothes that can protect farmers from major harmful matter that is generated in the poultry workplace. Based on the results of this investigation, we will conduct further studies on the required performance and design directions of personal protective equipment while collecting more objective data through field-oriented assessments.
