Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Venkateswara Hi-TECH Engineering College, Gobichettipalayam, Erode
Industrial safety is a critical factor in manufacturing industries to prevent accidents, occupational diseases, and productivity loss. This study focuses on risk assessment and safety upgradation of machinery in a leather goods manufacturing division. A structured Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) method combined with a 5×5 risk matrix was used to identify and evaluate hazards. Engineering controls such as machine guarding, interlocks, emergency stop systems, electrical protection, dust extraction systems, and ergonomic improvements were implemented.A post-implementation audit was conducted over a period of three months across 42 machines. The results showed a significant reduction in risk levels, with extreme risks reduced from 25 to 0 and high risks from 16 to 1. Key performance indicators such as injury rate, near-miss incidents, downtime, and PPE compliance showed considerable improvement. This study confirms that systematic safety interventions combined with continuous monitoring significantly improve workplace safety performance
Industrial safety management is an essential aspect of manufacturing industries. In leather goods manufacturing, workers are exposed to multiple hazards such as cutting operations, rotating machinery, electrical systems, dust exposure, noise, and repetitive manual work.
These hazards can cause:
• Mechanical injuries (cuts, crush, entanglement)
• Electrical shock
• Respiratory diseases
• Hearing loss
• Musculoskeletal disorders
To control these risks, a systematic approach involving risk assessment, engineering controls, and performance evaluation is required.
This study is divided into:
• Phase I: Hazard identification and implementation
• Phase II: Validation and performance evaluation
II.LITERATURE REVIEW
Previous studies emphasize that:
• Machine guarding reduces accidents by >60%
• Electrical protection reduces shock incidents significantly
• LEV systems reduce dust exposure effectively
• PPE compliance improves safety cultur
Fig:1. Industrial Safety Framework Diagram
Standards referenced:
• ISO 45001:2018
• ISO 12100
• Factories Act, 1948
III. OBJECTIVES
Main Objective
To evaluate the effectiveness of safety interventions in reducing workplace risks.
Specific Objectives
• Identify hazards in machinery
• Perform risk assessment
• Validate machine safeguards
• Verify electrical safety systems
• Evaluate dust, noise, ergonomics
• Analyze health surveillance
• Measure KPI improvement
IV. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Study Scope
• 42 machines inspected
• Departments covered:
o Cutting
o Splitting
o Skiving
o Buffing
o Embossing
o Pressing
o Fusing
Duration:3months
Figure 2:Machine Guarding Improvements
4.2 Risk Assessment Method
Risk calculated as:
RR = Severity × Likelihood
Risk Levels:
• Low
• Medium
• High
• Extreme
4.3 Safety Measures Implemented
Mechanical Controls
• Fixed guards
• Interlocks
• Emergency stops
Electrical Controls
• MCP
• ELCB
• Earthing
Environmental Controls
• Dust extraction (LEV)
• Ventilation
Administrative Controls
• PPE enforcement
• SOP boards
• Training
4.4 Data Collection
• Safety audit checklist
• Machine inspection
• Health reports
• Incident records
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Machine Safety Performance
|
Parameter |
Result |
|
Guard Integrity |
100% |
|
Interlock Response |
<1.5 sec |
|
Bypass Incidents |
0 |
Machine hazards significantly reduced
5.2 Electrical Safety Performance
|
Parameter |
Result |
|
MCP |
Working |
|
ELCB |
Instant trip |
|
Earthing |
<1 Ω |
No electrical accidents recorded
5.3 Dust Control Results
• LEV installed
• PPE used (N95 masks)
• Respiratory complaints ↓ ~45%
5.4 Noise & Ergonomics
|
Area |
Before |
After |
|
Hammering |
95 dB |
84 dB |
|
Buffing |
92 dB |
85 dB |
Ergonomic improvements reduced fatigue
5.5 Occupational Health Monitoring
Tests conducted:
• PFT
• Audiometry
• CBC
• LFT
Figure:3. Pulmonary Function Test (PFT) for dust exposed workers
No abnormal health trends
Form 27 (Certificate of Fitness) was maintained for workers engaged in hazardous processes to ensure statutory compliance
5.6 Risk Reduction Analysis
|
Risk Category |
Before |
After |
|
Extreme |
25 |
0 |
|
High |
16 |
1 |
|
Medium |
8 |
10 |
|
Low |
6 |
20 |
Major risk reduction achieved
5.7 KPI Performance
|
Risk Category |
Before |
After |
|||
|
Extreme |
25 |
0 |
|||
|
High |
16 |
1 |
|||
|
Medium |
8 |
10 |
|||
|
Low |
6 |
20 |
|||
|
Parameter |
Before |
After |
|
||
|
Injuries |
12 |
4 |
|
||
|
Near Miss |
15 |
5 |
|
||
|
Downtime |
20 hrs |
10 hrs |
|
||
|
PPE |
62% |
98% |
|
||
Figure 4. Safety Key Performance Indicators (Before Vs After)
DISCUSSION
The results confirm:
• Engineering controls are highly effective
• PPE compliance improved safety culture
• Environmental improvements enhanced worker health
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrates that:
• Machine safeguarding eliminates major risks
• Electrical safety prevents shock hazards
• Dust and noise control improves health
• KPI improvements validate effectiveness
? Extreme risks were completely eliminated
Workplace safety significantly improved
REFERENCES
M. Boopalan, Risk Assessment and Safety Upgradation of Machinery in Leather Goods Manufacturing Industry, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2026, Vol 4, Issue 4, 4368-4372, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19786381
10.5281/zenodo.19786381
