کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
590437 | 878771 | 2006 | 13 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
![عکس صفحه اول مقاله: Objective and subjective measurements of slipperiness in fast-food restaurants in the USA and their comparison with the previous results obtained in Taiwan Objective and subjective measurements of slipperiness in fast-food restaurants in the USA and their comparison with the previous results obtained in Taiwan](/preview/png/590437.png)
Floor slipperiness is a critical issue in slip and fall incidents which are a major source of occupational injuries. The objectives of the current study were to investigate if the protocols used in a field study conducted in Taiwan could be used in similar environments in the USA and whether consistent results could be obtained. Protocols used in the field study to investigate floor slipperiness in western-style fast-food restaurants in Taiwan included both objective and subjective measurements. Using the same methods as in Taiwan, friction was measured on tiles in six major working areas of 10 fast-food kitchens in the USA as an objective measurement of slipperiness, while the subjective measurement was employees’ ratings of floor slipperiness over the same areas. The Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients in the USA between the averaged friction coefficients and subjective ratings for all 60 evaluated areas across 10 restaurants were 0.33 (p = 0.01) and 0.36 (p = 0.005), respectively, which were lower than the correlations of 0.49 and 0.45, respectively, obtained in Taiwan. Cultural differences, the amount of water on the floors in the sink areas and the existence of a slip resistant shoe program in one country might be contributors to the lower correlation coefficients in the USA. However, the current study confirmed the results obtained in Taiwan that average friction coefficient and perception values are in fair agreement, suggesting that both might be reasonably good indicators of slipperiness.
Journal: Safety Science - Volume 44, Issue 10, December 2006, Pages 891–903