You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Machines
  • Review
  • Open Access

17 August 2022

Environmental Risk Assessment and Management in Industry 4.0: A Review of Technologies and Trends

,
and
1
Department of Electromechanical Engineering, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
2
C-MAST—Centre for Mechanical and Aerospace Science and Technologies, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Industrial Process Improvement by Automation and Robotics

Abstract

In recent decades, concern with workers’ health has become a priority in several countries, but statistics still show that it is urgent to perform more actions to prevent accidents and illnesses related to work. Industry 4.0 is a new production paradigm that has brought significant advances in the relationship between man and machine, driving a series of advances in the production process and new challenges in occupational safety and health (OSH). This paper addresses occupational risks, diseases, opportunities, and challenges in Industry 4.0. It also covers Internet-of-Things-related technologies that, by the real-time measurement and analysis of occupational conditions, can be used to create smart solutions to contribute to reducing the number of workplace accidents and for the promotion of healthier and safer workplaces. Proposals involving smart personal protective equipment (smart PPE) and monitoring systems are analyzed, and aspects regarding the use of artificial intelligence and the data privacy concerns are also discussed.

1. Introduction

According to the International Labour Organization [], occupational injury is a personal injury, disease, or death that results from an occupational accident. Occupational accidents, in turn, are unexpected occurrences, including acts of violence, arising out of or in connection with work and resulting in one or more workers incurring personal injury, disease, or death. Occupational diseases are acquired through personal exposure to environmental risks, such as physical, chemical, and biological agents in situations above the tolerance limits imposed by legislation or applicable standards. These diseases are caused or aggravated by specific activities, and are characterized when the causal link is established. between damage to the worker’s health and exposure to certain work-related risks. Occupational diseases occur after various years of exposure, and in some cases, they can arise even after the worker is no longer in contact with the causative agent [].
Many countries have prioritized concerns about workers’ health in recent decades, but statistics show an urgent need to take further action to prevent accidents and illnesses related to work. Worldwide, about two million people die every year because of work-related illnesses or work-related accidents. Many work-related accidents and diseases are not reported, because in several countries there are no adequate data collection systems. Even in countries that adopt sufficient methods for this purpose the number of reported accidents often does not reflect reality, due to the presence of informal workers [,].
In addition, the incidence of fatalities in the workplace varies considerably between developed and developing countries. Insufficient OSH services contribute to the occurrence of accidents and deaths in low- and middle-income countries []. In terms of economic sectors, agriculture, forestry, mining, and construction have the highest death rates. Companies with fewer than 50 employees have a higher incidence of serious and fatal injuries []. In general, migrant workers are more susceptible to informal, abusive, and dangerous work, because the types of work they accept is often affected by lower levels of education [].
With respect to methods and systems to prevent occupational diseases and accidents, as new technologies are added to workplaces, new risks are identified as well as new opportunities. Especially in the last decade, the term Industry 4.0 became more popular, referring to a new paradigm that has revolutionized factories by inserting and integrating several different technologies. Industry 4.0 technologies have impacted OSH by providing new possibilities in environmental risk monitoring and preventing accidents. Workers’ health conditions can also be monitored in real-time. However, aside from new opportunities, new concerns have emerged, especially related to the types of activity commonly performed in Industry 4.0 workplaces. For example, the availability of jobs characterized by sedentary postures or interactions with robots has grown. In this scenario, illnesses related to a sedentary lifestyle and accidents because of interactions with robots are likely to become more and more common. In view of developments to date, it has become necessary for companies to adapt their OSH policies and seek appropriate solutions to this new reality [,].
This paper addresses occupational risks and diseases reported in Industry 4.0, as well as opportunities and challenges. Technologies and devices for use in risk assessment in Industry 4.0 are described, and studies that have successfully applied these technologies are analyzed, especially regarding the use of artificial intelligence and data privacy concerns. In addition, this work indicates some directions for addressing data privacy in IoT and Industry 4.0, and comments on issues within this new context.

2. Occupational Risks and Diseases in Industry 4.0

An occupational risk factor is an agent that can cause damage to a worker’s health. The potential risk factor is called hazard. Occupational risk is the combination of the probability of an adverse effect (damage) on the worker’s health and the severity of this damage, assuming that there is exposure within the work environment [].
Examples of common occupational diseases include occupational asthma [,], vibration-related diseases [,,], noise related diseases [], pulmonary fibrosis [], bronchopulmonary pleural fibrosis and damage caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust [], and occupational cancer [].
As mentioned above, in Industry 4.0 workplaces the presence of new technologies brings new opportunities and new risks. In addition to common occupational diseases, the nature of work in Industry 4.0 has the potential to contribute to the increasing frequency of other diseases, including mental disorders and diseases related to sedentary behavior. In Industry 4.0, several workers can often be involved in creative value-added tasks, while routine activities, as well as certain dangerous tasks, are often performed by robots. This scenario, along with early and continuous risk analysis and management based on various technologies, could make workplaces safer. On the other hand, semi-skilled employees could lose workplace opportunities because of potential difficulties in performing more complex tasks. At the same time, the use of digital tools to continuously monitor the performance of employees may become common, which could result in privacy invasion and psychological pressure [,].
In addition, the risks related to interactions between humans and machines have increased and greater connectivity makes it possible to work anywhere at any time. This scenario brings benefits such as flexibility, but also has the potential to impact individuals’ work–life balance, which may in turn be harmful to mental health []. According to [], depression is very common in workplaces compared to other mental disorders, and affects workers by reducing productivity, diminishing job retention, and increasing the risk of accidents at work. Another issue related to Industry 4.0 is the existence of many sedentary jobs, such as computer-based work. High levels of sedentary posture are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, several cancers including lung and breast, and mental disorders such as depression. In addition, poor lighting conditions in workplaces (for example, store warehouses, since online commerce has been growing) can cause severe headaches and discomfort. Insufficient lighting makes it difficult to perceive the depth, shape, speed, and proximity of objects, and related accidents may often occur [].

3. Organizational Culture as a Key Factor in OSH

According to [], the occurrence of occupational diseases and accidents causes significant losses in companies’ reputation and decreases their productivity. For example, a worker who becomes aware of a colleague’s illness may become discouraged and start to produce less or may look for another job opportunity with better OSH conditions. To combat or significantly minimize these problems, it is necessary to perform preventive actions. The management of a company has an obligation to foresee, organize, and coordinate the organization of work, providing methods for preventing incidents and accidents in the workplace, through the effective management of occupational risks [].
Risk perception depends on a variety of factors, including values and educational level [,]. Environments where workers feel pressured and overworked are in general quite prone to accidents. In addition, unqualified workers are generally more susceptible to accidents, because they often perform dangerous tasks. The low education of these workers tends to affect perception of risks present in the work environment and may make it difficult to understand the issues addressed in the health and safety training provided by companies. This issue demands special attention from professionals who plan and train these workers, to make sure that the topics covered are really understood [].
Aiming to ensure the effectiveness of measures to prevent illnesses and accidents in the work environment, it is necessary that managers remain continuously engaged with the objective of promoting actions focused on the safety and well-being of workers. Improvements within a company should not happen only after an unwanted event has occurred, because this type of approach often means workers fail to take proper precautions after a time and even forget about them completely [].
In this context, the ISO 45001:2018—Occupational health and safety management systems–Requirements with guidance for use—is a standard that aims to provide guidelines to assist organizations in improving OSH performance and preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. This standard is applicable to any organization, regardless of its size or type [].

5. Discussion

It is important to develop solutions that allow daily monitoring of the health conditions of workers, and their exposure to occupational risks, for the reasons explained earlier in this work and because the data obtained can support studies by companies to identify problems and guide OSH policies.
The studies described above were compared regarding the use of artificial intelligence and the use of techniques to ensure data privacy. The comparison is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Study comparison.
The data obtained from continuous monitoring of occupational health, risks, and environmental conditions can also support academic research. Such research may allow new relationships to be established in the long term between occupational hazards and the occurrence of certain diseases. Keeping an updated record of changes in the health conditions of each worker is also a fundamental part of the process, so that the technologies mentioned above can help companies more significantly in making long-term decisions. Reliable data obtained by companies can also guide changes in legislation [,,].
In this context, the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning is essential to obtaining better results, by identifying within work environments which settings or conditions may be safer or more harmful to workers’ health. This type of approach has the potential to reduce workers’ long-term absences, as well as their early retirement. AI/ML can be used to identify dangerous conditions that could result in accidents and/or diseases; by training with large datasets obtained over long periods of time, AI/ML may identify trends and suggest changes in workplaces to make them safer. Various AI/ML techniques have been used in recent studies [,,,,,,,]. Despite the various approaches involving AI/ML, none of the works mentioned take into account the health history of workers, to generate personalized alerts for example. This is a point that can be explored in future research.
It is important to highlight that the challenges involved in implementing new technologies can vary significantly according to the activity. For example, construction sites are very dangerous places because workers are exposed to hazards that can be very hard to measure due to the way tasks are executed in this type of workplace [].
With respect to data privacy, according to [], data collected from wearable devices are transferred to a receiver through wireless networks, making data privacy a very critical issue for this type of device and making workers unwilling to use them. For example, workers may be very uncomfortable in sharing with employers their location information during rest periods. In the study conducted by Häikiö et al. [] an anonymous online questionnaire was applied to construction workers to collect their opinions regarding IoT-based work safety. 4385 workers responded to the questionnaire. 49.7% were very (18.2%) or rather interested (31.5%) in using activity wristbands or other devices for monitoring their movement or physical activities in the workplace. Experienced professionals were less interested in using wearables than younger ones. In general, workers were more interested in sharing their data when they were sure it could help to preserve their health.
Systems for OSH often need to handle workers’ personal data, which according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be anonymized []. Anonymized personal data is has gone through stages that ensure its disconnection from the person, for example, a document number may have some digits suppressed. In such a case, it would not be possible through technical or other means to find out who the data subject was. Anonymized data is no longer subject to the GDPR and is essential for expanding the use of IoT and artificial intelligence. However, in some applications anonymization is not feasible. For this purpose, pseudo-anonymized data that is subject to GDPR may be used. Pseudo-anonymization is treatment through which a data loses the possibility of association, directly or indirectly, with a person. Additional information may be kept separately in a controlled and safe environment, for example, under the responsibility of the company that develops and provides the application. If a system does not handle personal data, GDPR is not applicable. Data privacy was addressed only in [,]. However, it is important to note that not all solutions deal with personal information, as some are intended for monitoring environments. In these cases, it is understood that secure communication, despite being desirable, is not a priority.
According to Zamfir et al. [], in respect to the IoT protocols described earlier in this paper, CoAP and MQTT communication can be secured by Transport Layer Security with digital certificates, as widely used in Internet applications. However, this approach may be costly for a large number of devices, and is often too heavy for IoT devices. In a simpler way, a pre-shared key (TLS-PSK) is an alternative. In this case, the messages are encrypted and signed using the shared key between the parties involved in communication. The same key is used for decryption and authentication of messages at the destination. It is recommended that the pre-shared key (PSK) is configured between each device and the server. Both approaches can be used to provide data privacy, especially when the applications handle sensitive information such as physiological data and location.
According to Maltseva [], wearable devices’ characteristics create multiple opportunities and can help to improve organizational performance. Wearable wristbands are very popular devices, which can continuously collect data such as heart-rate variability and can continue collecting data after working hours. These devices bring benefits and can help to identify health risks. However, extending the use of wearables after working hours causes confusion distinguishing work and rest. It is important to note that training individuals in a clearly and sufficient way is a key factor for success regarding the use of any technologies in the workplace. In addition, workers need to be aware that their data is being used to protect them from work-related diseases and that enough means are being used to keep that data safe.
When it comes to costs and people, the technical and organizational complexity of manufacturing processes have increased in Industry 4.0, and related technologies have imposed great challenges especially on small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Even with several options for free software and low-cost hardware, as mentioned before, more complex monitoring systems tend to be expensive because they demand continuous updating and maintenance service from the manufacturer. However, in Industry 4.0 the use of these technologies is likely to become increasingly common and, with the emergence of more manufacturers, prices will possibly become more affordable. Companies of all sizes are impacted by the availability of sufficiently qualified people to work within complex production systems. In this context, workers will need to spend some time in continuing education [].
In addition to the great need to monitor physiological variables and environmental risks, as revealed in all the studies mentioned in this work, new occupational risks have emerged along with complexity in working environments, such as ergonomic and psychosocial risks, and those associated with the use of collaborative robots (cobots) []. Monitoring the use of PPE with the aid of computer vision, as implemented in [], especially in high-risk activities such as operating machines and working with robots, is very important, mainly because unsafe actions can cause serious injury, amputation, or death.
Regarding psychosocial risks, the study by Verra et al. [] presented a comparison of policies and practices in Europe for promoting health at work. It was identified that more than 70% of establishments in the European Union adopt preventive measures against direct physical damage, and more than 30% implement measures to avoid psychosocial risks. Psychosocial risks are often addressed in national policy, but they have not been addressed by most institutions. In the context of Industry 4.0, psychosocial risks deserve special attention because workers tend to be pressured towards greater productivity, and need to be constantly updated on new technologies, concepts, and tools. In addition, many workers feel obliged to respond to text messages and even solve problems outside work hours, jeopardizing their leisure and rest. Another point that deserves attention is that Industry 4.0 workplaces usually offer a variety of sedentary jobs, for example, information technology positions. As highly documented in the literature, a sedentary lifestyle is often associated with obesity and cardiovascular diseases. Certainly, monitoring psychosocial risks, risks related to sedentary working conditions, and the health conditions of workers in sedentary jobs without intruding on their personal lives are big issues, and bring significant challenges for the OSH sector in the context of Industry 4.0.
Finally, we identified the following points to be explored in future research:
  • Use of AI to monitor the use of PPE, especially in dangerous activities.
  • Monitoring psychosocial risks and risks related to sedentary working conditions.
  • Consideration of workers’ health history, together with data obtained from monitoring the work environment, to generate personalized alerts.
  • Data privacy issues.

6. Conclusions

As mentioned above, Industry 4.0 has brought significant advances in the production process as well as several challenges for OSH. Various benefits arising from the integration of IoT-related technologies in OSH within this new context have been presented in this work. It is important to develop of solutions that allow daily monitoring of exposure to occupational risks and the health conditions of workers, because the data obtained can support more focused studies by companies and more assertively guide OSH policies. For example, artificial intelligence can contribute to building solutions that map existing problems and predict future problems.
Regarding privacy concerns, several studies have shown that data privacy is a critical issue in wearable technology development and that uncertainties around this topic can make workers especially reluctant to use wearable devices. In this context, it is important to highlight that training people in a clear and sufficient way is a key factor for success in the use of any workplace technology. In addition, workers need to be aware that the use of their health-related data may be important to protect them from work-related diseases, and that enough means will be used to keep that data safe. In this case, the agreement of workers is necessary and applicable laws and standards shall be adopted.
For future work, the authors are developing a system for individual environmental risk assessment based on IoT-related technologies. The device is intended to have sufficient energy autonomy to allow monitoring and communication for at least one working day. Issues related to the device’s ergonomics and data privacy must be considered in the project, as well as durability and the viability of cost for industries of all sizes. The main goal is to contribute in the long run to reducing the incidence of occupational diseases resulting from exposure to harmful agents, by facilitating the visualization of data by organizations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L., P.D.G. and T.M.L.; methodology, P.D.G. and T.M.L.; validation P.D.G. and T.M.L.; formal analysis, P.D.G.; investigation, J.L.; resources, P.D.G. and T.M.L.; data curation, J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; writing—review and editing, P.D.G. and T.M.L.; supervision, P.D.G. and T.M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) and C-MAST (Centre for Mechanical and Aerospace Science and Technologies), under project UIDB/00151/2020.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Indicator Description: Occupational Injuries. Available online: https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/concepts-and-definitions/description-occupational-injuries (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  2. Teufer, B.; Ebenberger, A.; Affengruber, L.; Kien, C.; Klerings, I.; Szelag, M.; Griebler, U. Evidence-based occupational health and safety interventions: A comprehensive overview of reviews. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e032528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. WHO/ILO: Almost 2 Million People Die from Work-Related Causes Each Year. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/16-09-2021-who-ilo-almost-2-million-people-die-from-work-related-causes-each-year (accessed on 15 July 2022).
  4. ILO; WHO. WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury, 2000–2016; Global Monitoring Report; ILO/WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ncube, F.; Kanda, A. Current Status and the Future of Occupational Safety and Health Legislation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Saf. Health Work. 2018, 4, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Melchior, C.; Zanini, R.R. Mortality per work accident: A literature mapping. Saf. Sci. 2019, 114, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ronda-Perez, E.; Gosslin, A.; Martínez, J.M.; Reid, A. Injury vulnerability in Spain. Examination of risk among migrant and native workers. Saf. Sci. 2019, 115, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vaidya, S.; Ambad, P.; Bhosle, S. Industry 4.0—A Glimpse. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 20, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yu, F.; Schweisfurth, T. Industry 4.0 technology implementation in SMEs—A survey in the Danish-German border region. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 2020, 4, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Atuação dos Industriais no Âmbito do Sistema da Indústria Responsável-SIR. Available online: https://www.act.gov.pt/(pt-PT)/crc/PublicacoesElectronicas/Documents/atuacaodosindustriaisnoambitodosistemadaindustriaresponsavel_SIR.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2022).
  11. Kelly, K.; Poole, J. Pollutants in the workplace: Effect on occupational asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2019, 143, 2014–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kociolek, A.; Lang, A.; Trask, C.; Vasiljev, R.; Milosavljevic, S. Exploring head and neck vibration exposure from quad bike use in agriculture. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 66, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lundström, R.; Noor Baloch, A.; Hagberg, M.; Nilsson, T.; Gerhardsson, L. Long-term effect of hand-arm vibration on thermotactile perception thresholds. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2018, 13, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gerhardsson, L.; Hagberg, M. Vibration induced injuries in hands in long-term vibration exposed workers. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2019, 14, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Factsheet 57—O Impacto do Ruído no Trabalho. Available online: https://osha.europa.eu/pt/publications/factsheet-57-impact-noise-work (accessed on 18 July 2022).
  16. Álvarez, R.; González, C.; Martínez, A.; Pérez, J.; Fernández, L.; Fernández, A. Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Silicosis. Arch. Bronconeumol. Engl. Ed. 2015, 51, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kratzke, P.; Kratzke, R. Asbestos-Related Disease. J. Radiol. Nurs. 2018, 37, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. World Cancer Report. 2014. Available online: https://publications.iarc.fr/Non-Series-Publications/World-Cancer-Reports/World-Cancer-Report-2014 (accessed on 23 July 2021).
  19. Coenen, P.; Gilson, N.; Healy, G.; Dunstan, D.; Straker, L. A qualitative review of existing national and international occupational safety and health policies relating to occupational sedentary behavior. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 60, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Do, H.; Nguyen, A.; Nguyen, H.; Bui, T.; Nguyen, Q.; Tran, N.; Ho, C. Depressive Symptoms, Suicidal Ideation, and Mental Health Service Use of Industrial Workers: Evidence from Vietnam. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Leso, V.; Fontana, L.; Iavicoli, I. The occupational health and safety dimension of Industry 4.0. La Med. Lav. 2018, 109, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Guzman, H. Microcontroller Based Automated Lighting Control System for Workplaces. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 10th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment and Management (HNICEM), Baguio City, Philippines, 29 November–2 December 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cardella, B. Segurança no Trabalho e Prevenção de Acidentes: Uma Abordagem Holística; Atlas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim, Y.; Park, J.; Park, M. Creating a Culture of Prevention in Occupational Safety and Health Practice. Saf. Health Work 2016, 7, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Leoni, T. What drives the perception of health and safety risks in the workplace? Evidence from European labour markets. Empirica 2010, 37, 165–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xia, N.; Wang, X.; Griffin, M.; Wu, C.; Liu, B. Do we see how they perceive risk? An integrated analysis of risk perception and its effect on workplace safety behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 106, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Swuste, P.; Groeneweg, J.; van Gulijk, C.; Zwaard, W.; Lemkowitz, S.; Oostendorp, Y. The future of safety science. Saf. Sci. 2020, 125, 104593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. ISO 45001—Occupational Health and Safety. Available online: https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100427.html (accessed on 12 July 2022).
  29. Podgórski, D.; Majchrzycka, K.; Dąbrowska, A.; Gralewicz, G.; Okrasa, M. Towards a conceptual framework of OSH risk management in smart working environments based on smart PPE, ambient intelligence and the Internet of Things technologies. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2016, 23, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Smart Personal Protective Equipment: Intelligent Protection for the Future. Available online: https://osha.europa.eu/pt/publications/smart-personal-protective-equipment-intelligent-protection-future/view (accessed on 23 July 2022).
  31. Khan, W.; Rehman, M.; Zangoti, H.; Afzal, M.; Armi, N.; Salah, K. Industrial internet of things: Recent advances, enabling technologies and open challenges. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2020, 81, 106522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, W.; Kara, S. Methodology for Monitoring Manufacturing Environment by Using Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) and the Internet of Things (IoT). Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Awolusi, I.; Marks, E.; Hallowell, M. Wearable technology for personalized construction safety monitoring and trending: Review of applicable devices. Autom. Constr. 2018, 85, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aqueveque, P.; Gutiérrez, C.; Rodríguez, F.; Pino, E.; Morales, A.; Wiechmann, E. Monitoring Physiological Variables of Mining Workers at High Altitude. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2017, 53, 2628–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yu, B.; Wei, W.; Xianyi, Z.; Koehl, L.; Tartare, G. A wearable intelligent system for real time monitoring firefighter’s physiological state and predicting dangers. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 16th International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT), Hangzhou, China, 18–21 October 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wu, F.; Wu, T.; Yuce, M. An Internet-of-Things (IoT) Network System for Connected Safety and Health Monitoring Applications. Sensors 2019, 19, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Marques, G.; Pitarma, R. mHealth: Indoor Environmental Quality Measuring System for Enhanced Health and Well-Being Based on Internet of Things. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2019, 8, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Balakreshnan, B.; Richards, G.; Nanda, G.; Mao, H.; Athinarayanan, R.; Zaccaria, J. PPE Compliance Detection using Artificial Intelligence in Learning Factories. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sanchez, M.; Sergio Rodriguez, C.; Manuel, J. Smart Protective Protection Equipment for an accessible work environment and occupational hazard prevention. In Proceedings of the 2020 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), Noida, India, 29–31 January 2020; pp. 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Márquez-Sánchez, S.; Campero-Jurado, I.; Herrera-Santos, J.; Rodríguez, S.; Corchado, J.M. Intelligent Platform Based on Smart PPE for Safety in Workplaces. Sensors 2021, 21, 4652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shakerian, S.; Habibnezhad, M.; Ojha, A.; Lee, G.; Liu, Y.; Jebelli, H.; Lee, S. Assessing occupational risk of heat stress at construction: A worker-centric wearable sensor-based approach. Saf. Sci. 2021, 142, 105395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kim, J.; Jo, B.; Jo, J.; Kim, D. Development of an IoT-Based Construction Worker Physiological Data Monitoring Platform at High Temperatures. Sensors 2020, 20, 5682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yang, K.; Ahn, C.; Kim, H. Deep learning-based classification of work-related physical load levels in construction. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2020, 45, 101104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Marques, G.; Pitarma, R. A Real-Time Noise Monitoring System Based on Internet of Things for Enhanced Acoustic Comfort and Occupational Health. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 139741–139755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mumtaz, R.; Zaidi, S.M.H.; Shakir, M.Z.; Shafi, U.; Malik, M.M.; Haque, A.; Mumtaz, S.; Zaidi, S.A.R. Internet of Things (IoT) Based Indoor Air Quality Sensing and Predictive Analytic—A COVID-19 Perspective. Electronics 2021, 10, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhou, C.; Ding, L. Safety barrier warning system for underground construction sites using Internet-of-Things technologies. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 372–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhan, X.; Wu, W.; Shen, L.; Liao, W.; Zhao, Z.; Xia, J. Industrial internet of things and unsupervised deep learning enabled real-time occupational safety monitoring in cold storage warehouse. Saf. Sci. 2022, 152, 105766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Campero-Jurado, I.; Márquez-Sánchez, S.; Quintanar-Gómez, J.; Rodríguez, S.; Corchado, J. Smart Helmet 5.0 for Industrial Internet of Things Using Artificial Intelligence. Sensors 2020, 20, 6241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lacamera, D. Embedded Systems Architecture: Explore Architectural Concepts, Pragmatic Design Patterns, and Best Practices to Produce Robust Systems; Packt Publishing Ltd.: Birmingham, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  50. Understanding the IEEE 802.11 Standard for Wireless Networks. Available online: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos-space-apps/network-director3.7/topics/concept/wireless-80211.html (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  51. What Is Arduino? Available online: https://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Introduction (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  52. Bluetooth Wireless Technology. Available online: https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/radio-versions (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  53. Sauter, M. Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM). In From GSM to LTE-Advanced: An Introduction to Mobile Networks and Mobile Broadband; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 1–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. ESP 32. Available online: https://www.espressif.com/en/products/socs/esp32 (accessed on 6 January 2022).
  55. Shelby, Z.; Hartke, K.; Bormann, C. RFC 7252—The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). Available online: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  56. Rescorla, E.; Modadugu, N. RFC 6347—Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2. Available online: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6347 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  57. MQTT Version 5.0. MQTT. Available online: https://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/mqtt-v5.0.html (accessed on 13 November 2021).
  58. Abiodun, O.; Jantan, A.; Omolara, A.; Dada, K.; Mohamed, N.; Arshad, H. State-of-the-art in artificial neural network applications: A survey. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Portugal, I.; Alencar, P.; Cowan, D. The use of machine learning algorithms in recommender systems: A systematic review. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 97, 205–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lu, J.; Wu, D.; Mao, M.; Wang, W.; Zhang, G. Recommender system application developments: A survey. Decis. Support Syst. 2015, 74, 12–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Alibabaei, K.; Gaspar, P.D.; Lima, T.; Campos, R.M.; Girão, I.; Monteiro, J.; Lopes, C.M. A review of the challenges of using deep learning algorithms to support decision-making in agricultural activities. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tran, T.; Felfernig, A.; Trattner, C.; Holzinger, A. Recommender systems in the healthcare domain: State-of-the-art and research issues. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2021, 57, 171–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cook, A.; Mısırlı, G.; Fan, Z. Anomaly Detection for IoT Time-Series Data: A Survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 6481–6494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pang, G.; Shen, C.; Cao, L.; Van Den Hengel, A. Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Review. ACM Comput. Surv. 2022, 54, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Manaswi, N. RNN and LSTM. In Deep Learning with Applications Using Python; Apress: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Alibabaei, K.; Gaspar, P.D.; Lima, T. Modeling soil water content and reference evapotranspiration from climate data using Deep Learning methods. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alibabaei, K.; Gaspar, P.D.; Lima, T. Crop yield estimation using Deep Learning based on climate big data. Energies 2021, 14, 3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Alibabaei, K.; Gaspar, P.D.; Assunção, E.; Alirezazadeh, S.; Lima, T. Irrigation with a deep reinforcement learning model - Case study on a site in Portugal. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 263, 107480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Alibabaei, K.; Gaspar, P.D.; Assunção, E.; Alirezazadeh, S.; Lima, T.M.; Soares, V.N.G.J.; Caldeira, J.M.L.P. Comparison of on-policy deep reinforcement learning A2C with off-policy DQN in irrigation optimization: A case study at a site in Portugal. Computers 2022, 11, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhao, R.; Yan, R.; Wang, J.; Mao, K. Learning to Monitor Machine Health with Convolutional Bi-Directional LSTM Networks. Sensors 2017, 17, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Huang, C.-J.; Kuo, P.-H. A Deep CNN-LSTM Model for Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Forecasting in Smart Cities. Sensors 2018, 18, 2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Choi, B.; Hwang, S.; Lee, S. What drives construction workers’ acceptance of wearable technologies in the workplace?: Indoor localization and wearable health devices for occupational safety and health. Autom. Constr. 2017, 84, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Häikiö, J.; Kallio, J.; Mäkelä, S.-M.; Keränen, J. IoT-based safety monitoring from the perspective of construction site workers. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Saf. 2020, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Data Protection in the EU. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-protection-eu_en (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  75. Zamfir, S.; Balan, T.; Iliescu, I.; Sandu, F. A security analysis on standard IoT protocols. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Applied and Theoretical Electricity (ICATE), Craiova, Romania, 6–8 October 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Maltseva, K. Wearables in the workplace: The brave new world of employee engagement. Bus. Horiz. 2020, 63, 493–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Erol, S.; Jäger, A.; Hold, P.; Ott, K.; Sihn, W. Tangible Industry 4.0: A Scenario-Based Approach to Learning for the Future of Production. Procedia CIRP 2016, 54, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Badri, A.; Boudreau-Trudel, B.; Souissi, A. Occupational health and safety in the industry 4.0 era: A cause for major concern? Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Verra, S.; Benzerga, A.; Jiao, B.; Ruggeri, K. Health Promotion at Work: A Comparison of Policy and Practice Across Europe. Saf. Health Work. 2019, 10, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.