Uncovering the Ergonomic Risks Threatening the Health of Underground Female Coal Mineworkers

Abstract

Women in mining face unique health and safety challenges due to anatomical and physiological differences, making the assessment and management of ergonomic risks in underground coal mines critical. This study examines the ergonomic experiences of female mineworkers through six focus-group discussions, each comprising eight participants, using a qualitative research design involving women actively engaged in core mining activities at three South African mines. Findings reveal that mining equipment and work environments often fail to accommodate the physiological needs of female workers, exposing them to a range of ergonomic hazards. Beyond physical risks, the study highlights organizational and systemic shortcomings, including inadequate implementation of existing policies and regulations. Poor hygiene in toilet facilities was also reported, with three out of eight participants taking medication for urinary tract infections, underscoring gaps in occupational health provision. The findings emphasize the urgent need for mine-specific ergonomic programs developed through participatory approaches, as part of a broader strategy to prevent musculoskeletal injuries and improve working conditions for female mineworkers. The establishment of the Women in Mining Forum further indicates that the industry is not yet fully prepared to support women in underground mining, highlighting the need for targeted interventions to create a safer, more inclusive work environment.

1. Background

Due to the partial or full mechanization of many mining jobs, a significant amount of time is now spent operating machinery and driving vehicles. These machines, known as Heavy Earth Moving Machineries (HEMMs), have greatly increased productivity. However, this shift has also introduced new occupational hazards and safety challenges. A major concern is the lack of ergonomic considerations in the workplace, which plays a significant role in the rise of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), especially amongst female mineworkers [1]. Gustara and Susilawati [2] defines ergonomics as a multidisciplinary field, incorporating scientific principles from areas such as biomechanics, anthropometry, physiology, psychology, and industrial engineering. This integration helps in designing tools, tasks, and work environments that align with the physical and psychological characteristics of humans. From the given definition of ergonomics, it can be observed that it encompasses aspects of health and safety that come to the fore during the execution of an employee’s work activity, or human interaction with entities from the environment. These aspects of health and safety are related to the impact of various work tools (machines, tools), working conditions (noise, vibration, thermal environment, etc.), and work processes (physical work, mental work, work pace, etc.) on humans [3]. Moreover, ergonomics goes beyond physical design, such as seating arrangements or equipment placement to also cover aspects like work scheduling, task rotation, and stress management, all aimed at reducing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries and enhancing productivity [4].

Fatsiwi et al. [5] explain that musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a group of conditions that affect the muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons, and nerves, leading to pain and functional discomfort in the body. These disorders are commonly linked to daily activities, occupational tasks, or repetitive injuries, and can result in chronic pain or long-term discomfort. They may also impact various parts of the body, such as the lower back, neck, shoulders, wrists, arms, hands, hips, knees, and feet. Musculoskeletal disorders are a leading cause of work-related disability and absenteeism, significantly affecting both individual well-being and company productivity [6]. The risk factors contributing to MSDs can be categorized into physical and psychosocial elements. Physical factors include activities such as overexertion, maintaining awkward or improper postures, performing repetitive motions, and exerting excessive force. On the other hand, psychosocial factors involve elements like job-related stress, low job satisfaction, and insufficient social support in the workplace. Additionally, long working hours without adequate rest breaks are a major contributor to MSDs. When workers are required to sustain intense focus or carry out physically strenuous tasks over extended periods without proper recovery time, muscle fatigue becomes more likely [7]. A high prevalence of MSDs has been reported amongst miners in several countries [8,9,10]. Low back pain reported amongst miners in various countries has ranged from 23% in Indonesian miners to 78% in Turkish miners [8,10,11,12]. Pain in other anatomical sites such as the neck, shoulder, wrist, and leg has also been reported amongst Indian coal miners [8]. The nature of underground mining activities presents several physical and ergonomical risks for workers, which have been associated with work-related MSDs [9]. A key contributor to MSDs is the prolonged use of heavy machinery and transport vehicles, which is commonly linked to lower back pain [13]. In industrialized nations, MSDs account for nearly 90% of occupational injuries and absenteeism. For instance, in the UK, MSDs represented 41% of work-related illnesses and 34% of lost working days between 2015 and 2016. Manual handling activities, particularly those affecting the upper limbs and lower back, were identified as the primary cause [14]. An effective strategy to reduce MSDs in the mining sector is to improve worker ergonomics at job sites; for this, it is necessary to assess workplace ergonomics [15].

Mining has traditionally been a male dominated sector, shaped by heavy physical labour, safety risks, and deeply embedded gender norms. Over recent decades, both globally and in countries like South Africa, there has been growing legal, social, and economic pressure to include women in all levels of mining from underground operations and technical roles to leadership. While progress has been made, women in mining continue to face significant barriers [16]. With the afore mentioned, the mining industry is heavily focused on meeting production goals, making target achievement a top priority. Research has shown that integrating women into the sector has introduced distinct occupational challenges, primarily related to differences in physical strength and endurance, which can influence how certain tasks are carried out [17]. From both physical and psychological perspectives, female workers are more frequently exposed to low-intensity, repetitive upper limb movements, contributing to gender disparities and related health issues [18]. Repetitive musculoskeletal issues often involve inflammation of muscles and tendons, such as tendinitis and bursitis. They can also include cartilage and bone degeneration, as seen in some cases of osteoarthritis, as well as various spinal and nerve compression disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome. These conditions affect both men and women, but several studies consistently show that women present these problems more frequently [19]. Studies have shown that female mineworkers are more likely to report having a high intensity of pain as compared to males [20]. Females experience significantly more physiological strain than men when performing mining tasks [21]. Mine work also requires manual handling of equipment and tools. These equipment and tools are designed to accommodate the size and strength of men [22]. Manual tasks can often be related to back injuries and musculoskeletal disorders in workers [23]. In general, the manual material-handling capabilities of females are substantially lower than those of men. These differences may be attributed primarily to differences in muscle strength [23]. Females only have 55% of men’s upper-body strength and 72% of their lower-body or leg strength [23]. On average, a female’s lifting strength is 60–70% of that of a man [23]. Recent research indicates that female mineworkers are at a higher risk of developing a work-related MSD than men (73% vs. 54.3%). Female mineworkers may be subjected to higher rates of MSDs due to work design issues, for example, the human–machine interface and interaction, the bulky size and shape of the tools and equipment, and the repetitive nature of the task(s) being performed [24].

Other factors that increase the risk of musculoskeletal problems are the lack of rest. Women combine wage labour with housework and complain more often that they are fatigued. The physical and psychological strain of domestic or unpaid labour, combined with the intense physical demands of operating machinery in underground mining, tends to be greater for women than for men, potentially heightening their risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders [25]. This dual burden encompassing both physical and psychosocial aspects amplify women’s exposure to work-related effects and disrupts the balance between productive labour and rest or reproductive responsibilities, ultimately affecting their overall health. While women are generally capable of handling lighter duties, they often encounter difficulties when required to operate specific types of machinery, such as load haul dump (LHD) machines and rubber dozers, or when using heavy or vibrating power tools [17]. According to Jager et al. [26], average lifting capacities for women range between 20–30 kg for repetitive tasks. The inclusion of women in these mining processes has highlighted concerns regarding the impact of high-energy tasks on their well-being. As Heine [27] notes, there are inherent differences in aerobic capacity between men and women, with women typically exhibiting lower levels. Consequently, women may experience fatigue more rapidly during shifts, potentially hampering their performance relative to their male counterparts. Although machine design and ergonomic challenges affect all workers in the mining industry, women frequently face greater difficulties in adapting to these demanding conditions [27]. This study seeks to examine the ergonomic risks associated with underground mining for female mineworkers. Given the limited research on how ergonomic factors specifically impact women in mining, this paper aims to address and bridge that research gap.

2. Methodology

South Africa has 19 recognized coalfields, primarily situated in the north-eastern part of the country within the provinces of Mpumalanga, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Free State [28]. Most of the nation’s coal production comes from the Witbank and Highveld coalfields, which together account for about 75% of total coal output [28]. Among these, the Witbank coalfield contains the highest concentration of coal mines [28]. Coal extraction in South Africa mainly relies on two mining methods: surface (opencast) and underground mining [29]. The mines examined in this study operate using mechanized bord-and-pillar techniques for underground mining and employ between 1200 and 1600 workers each. One of the participating mines is in Witbank, while the other two are approximately 40 km away. Coal is extracted using continuous miner machines, with production taking place across three rotating shifts lasting eight (8)–nine (9) hours each. This paper examined female mine workers who operate machinery, specifically roof bolters and shuttle cars, as well as those performing general duties like handling continuous miner (CM) cables. The activities mentioned were chosen because the researcher aimed to focus specifically on participants operating machinery and performing general section tasks. A qualitative research approach incorporating thematic analysis was employed to address the study’s objectives. It should be noted that this paper reports only a portion of a larger study. Focus group discussions guided by a structured interview schedule were conducted to gather data. Participation was restricted to female mineworkers from the night shift and those arriving for the morning shift. Purposive sampling was applied to select participants for the qualitative component of the study.

An interview guide containing a series of questions related to ergonomic risk factors experienced by female miners in underground coal mines was utilized. A total of forty-eight (48) female mineworkers participated in the study, with sixteen (16) selected from each of the three mines. Each focus group consisted of eight (8) participants, and discussions lasted no longer than thirty (30) minutes. Refer to Figure 1 for the distribution of the participants.

Participants’ experience in operating mining machinery ranged from five (5) to nineteen (19) years. Some were employed full-time at the mine, while others worked on a contractual basis as contractors. The interviews were conducted in the boardrooms of the respective mines, with permission granted by the mine managers. Participants provided written consent before taking part in the study. The researcher audio-recorded all discussions and completed a summary sheet after each session to capture key points and immediate reflections. Data saturation, defined as the stage where no new information or themes emerge despite additional interviews [30], was achieved after the third (3rd) focus group, as no new insights were identified. Although data saturation was reached after the third focus group, discussions continued to ensure representation from all three mines. This was done to confirm that no new information emerged from participants at the third mine. All audio recordings from the interviews were transcribed verbatim into English. Both spoken content and notes on non-verbal cues were documented. Each interview transcript was saved as an individual file. Collected documents were organized and properly labelled. All data were stored in files named by date. Observation notes and entries from the research journal were recorded electronically. An audit trail was maintained, with all documents labelled using anonymous coding only. The collected data analysed using thematic analysis, a method that facilitates the identification of key themes. The data was grouped, coded, and then organized into categories and overarching themes. The analysis began with a thorough reading of all the data to gain a general understanding, reflect on its overall meaning, and assess the depth, credibility, and usefulness of the information. ATLAS.ti 8 software was utilized to support the coding process, helping to organize the data based on emerging codes, categories, subthemes, and overarching themes. To reduce potential bias, credibility was enhanced by conducting member validation and engaging in debriefing sessions with the study supervisors. The structured questions were intentionally open-ended to avoid directing participants to specific answers. This study supports SDG goal number 5, achieving gender equality and empower all women and girls.

3. Results

This section details insights derived from focus group discussions with female mineworkers. Based on the analysis, five (5) main themes were formulated. These themes were “Ergonomic awareness and gender relations in mining, Equipment and Clothing, Health and Safety, Workplace environment and conditions as well as Workplace support.” In addition, twelve (12) subthemes emerged from the main themes. These subthemes which were extracted from the participants’ narratives and were used to provide further insight into the issues discussed. The subthemes included Knowledge about Ergonomics, Perception about Ergonomics and gender dynamics, Machine Assignment and Preferences, Long working hours, Health issues due to machine operation, Lack of structured breaks, medical treatment or check-ups offered, Environmental conditions, Toilet conditions, Supervisor’s support, Male colleagues’ support and Training support. See Figure 2 of the theme mapping. The colour coding is used to differentiate between themes. The main themes are shown in blue, while the subthemes are presented in grey and light grey for clear distinction.

3.1. Experience of the Participants

The first question participants were asked was to describe their experiences as women working in an underground coal mine. Their responses highlighted that workplace experience helped them develop and apply practical methods for working efficiently and safely, even without formal ergonomic training. Through their daily routines, they often made natural adjustments to their posture, tools, or workstations to improve comfort and productivity, key aspects of ergonomic practice. They also mentioned learning from colleagues and responding to physical discomfort or strain by making their own ergonomic improvements. Participants’ underground coal mining experience ranged from five to nineteen years, indicating that the women involved in the study were well established in the mining industry.

Ergonomic Awareness and Gender Relations in Mining

Ergonomic awareness and gender relations in mining influenced how workers experience and manage the physical strain. This theme was subdivided into 2 subthemes: Knowledge about Ergonomics, Perception about Ergonomics and gender dynamics which look basically at how the participants understand and perceive ergonomic issues and how they affect their health as well as production. In addition, the effect of gender was also discussed and its impact on the production and perception.

Knowledge About Ergonomics

Some of the participants had basic understanding of ergonomics, particularly in the context of machine operation and the importance of PPE (e.g., belts for back support). Implying that they demonstrated limited knowledge of ergonomics. Participant in one group indicated that they did receive training through induction. The concept was not familiar to most of the participants, and they had not received any training related to ergonomic practices or regulations. From the findings, no prior training or awareness of ergonomics was evident. Learning about machine operation was task-focused only, with no mention of health impacts or ergonomic concerns, particularly as they relate to women. Nevertheless, they were aware of the physical impact of machinery and tools on their bodies since they could clearly identify issues related to seating, vibration, posture, and heavy equipment. This imply that even though they are not taught about ergonomics but through the experience they have, they are able to relate the ergonomic issues they come across. The following quotes provide an indication of the female participants’ opinions regarding the physical ability of women employed in core mining positions and the constraints experienced:

“Yes, we do receive basic ergonomic training during induction.”

“No, it’s information training mostly at the training centre. There is no physical training and so forth.”

“They will train you to say this lever does this and that but not about the impact it will have to you as a woman. They never told us that.”

Perception About Ergonomics and Gender Dynamics

Participants’ beliefs and personal accounts indicate concerns that prolonged use of machinery may negatively impact reproductive health and kidney function. There were also reports of gender bias, particularly early on, when women were not trusted to handle machinery breakdowns, something that caused frustration. Repeated health issues, especially those related to menstruation, were common; in one group, three out of eight females reported being on medication for urinary tract infections. These health complaints were often met with stigma or not taken seriously. Additionally, there is no formal support system in place for women to openly discuss challenges, seek assistance, or access emotional or ergonomic support. Although one of the mines has an anonymous suggestion box for employees to submit their concerns, participants reported that their issues are not being addressed, and they receive no feedback from management. While “Women in Mining (WIM)” structures do exist, participants felt they have yet to deliver meaningful outcomes. Physical demands, such as handling heavy cables, were noted to have a more severe impact on women. The following quotes express the participants feelings:

“Some women say they have kidney issues … I also have that problem.”

“They kept on telling me that I won’t be able to give birth anymore.”

“There are boxes there, but the last time I checked they were for Gender Based Violence (GBV).”

The above suggests that while mechanisms like the anonymous box and WIM are in place, they are not functioning as intended.

3.2. Equipment and Clothing

Equipment and clothing in the mining industry are crucial for protecting workers’ health and safety, as well as supporting productivity. Providing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and using improved machinery can help reduce injuries and make the work more comfortable. This theme covers subtopics such as machine allocation and preferences, along with issues related to PPE and uniforms, and focuses on the challenges participants face in their work environment.

3.2.1. Machine Assignment and Preferences

Participants shared that while they occasionally have the option to choose the machines they operate, they are often assigned machines they would rather not use. They noted that all machines are physically demanding to operate, mainly due to constant vibrations. Additionally, they pointed out that ergonomic factors are not considered before machines are purchased, they are only informed once the equipment has already been delivered. Several ergonomic concerns were raised, including poor machine design, uncomfortable seating, awkward working postures, and strain on the neck and spine. A major issue is the lack of adjustable features and the refusal to make modifications, even when women express discomfort (such as requests to adjust seats). Operating machinery for long hours without breaks also leads to significant fatigue. The following comments from participants reflect these challenges:

“All machines are difficult to operate, the CM has dust, the shuttle car vibrates a lot, LHDs also vibrates a lot, roof bolter as well. So, all of them has their own issues.”

“You decide for yourself and sometimes they force you to take the machine you don’t want. They give you choices cause when you are working underground, there’s LHD, CM, roof bolter and the shuttle car. So, you have four licenses, so you have to choose between the four licences which one you want to operate. We don’t want a roof bolter and LHD.”

“The roof bolter when you are working at four steams, you don’t rest. As long as it’s grinding, you will stand in the roof bolter until you are done. let’s say you get an operator that cuts well, you don’t rest. You get tired and you don’t want anything, and your spine is too painful. So, already when you knockoff, you don’t want nothing. Then the LHD, yoh, you grade the whole night for 12 hours imagine on an LHD and there’s dust and the fumes that comes out of that machine, they tighten the chest and cause chest infections.”

“All underground machines to be honest are difficult. It vibrates … maybe they can put shocks or something. Our machines, you know my machine is very rough.”

“They tell us that they are bringing a new machine … after they have bought it, you can’t complain about machines… they say others are not complaining about it.”

“And the way it’s designed, like you look in one direction. So, your body and your neck face different direction, which puts a strain on the neck.”

Figure 3 depicts a female mineworker operating a shuttle car. It is clear that her seated position necessitates twisting her neck to control the vehicle. Figure 4 depicts the bus used to transport workers throughout the mine. The uneven, rocky underground terrain presents ergonomic challenges for female mineworkers, and the hard bus seats add to their discomfort.

3.2.2. PPE and Uniform Issues

Participants widely voiced dissatisfaction with the comfort, availability, and practicality of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), especially the safety boots and overalls. Several participants noted that the boots, particularly the newer black boots that the mine has introduced for females, caused discomfort and pain. In contrast, they found the earlier version of the boots, which featured a hint of pink, to be more comfortable. In addition, they highlighted the inconsistencies in boot distribution since they are provided selectively; those working on surface get better boots that are comfortable while some had to fight to receive them, while others like those working underground, were completely refused. They believed that females working underground do not always receive quality gear. PPE is not gender-appropriate; they raised concerns about overalls that are too small and difficult to remove during toilet breaks due to complex, full-body suits and attached gear like rescue pack and the lamp. Obtaining replacements or accommodations for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) often involves dealing with complex bureaucratic procedures, and complaints are frequently disregarded. Some participants pointed out that certain equipment, such as rescue packs, is excessively heavy and worsens back pain. While there have been improvements in developing PPE designed specifically for women, such as overalls that are easier to remove, issues remain with the quality of materials used, as these garments tend to tear easily, and their zippers wear out quickly. The following comments from participants reflect these challenges:

“Our main issue was with the overalls… and others used to raise concern with the safety boots … they got them.”

“It’s the new ones that you are talking about. It’s the old ones that had a bit of pink that were not painful, but the black ones are painful.”

“It’s a struggle. You see the overalls that we wear, it’s a struggle when you need to go to the toilet underground. You have to take out everything.”

“So, there are clothes that you put underneath the overall. So, when you put on the boots it’s now too tight and then you are knocking off and go and take a shower, it’s so painful. So, you might end up doing operations because of that and there are such operations.”

“For instance, if you can check our feet, we are dark in certain parts. I’m not sure if it’s only me. You see, I’m dark here because of the boots.”

Figure 5 shows the boots worn by female mineworkers, designed with a wider calf to accommodate women’s leg shape. While workers are generally satisfied with this design, the issue arises from the clothing worn beneath the overalls, which forces them to choose larger boot sizes that ultimately strain their ankles. Figure 6 and Figure 7 present the safety overalls, which include a back zipper tailored for female mineworkers. However, the material is of poor quality and tears easily, and the zipper often fails to function properly.

3.3. Health and Safety

Ergonomics is important in ensuring health and safety of mine workers by minimising physical strain and promoting workers wellbeing. In the context of this study, the theme of health and safety looks at the health issues due to machine operations, lack of structured breaks and medical treatment or check-ups offered.

3.3.1. Health Issues Due to Machine Operation

Extended exposure to heavy machinery places mine workers at risk of various health issues, including vibration related conditions, hearing loss, respiratory problems, and musculoskeletal injuries. Common concerns raised by participants included back and neck pain, which they attributed to poor posture, long working hours, and uncomfortable equipment such as machine seats, and the layout of machine cabins. Some also reported persistent fatigue and insufficient rest due to high work demands. Additionally, participants noted that dust irritated their eyes, while excessive noise affected their hearing. A few participants also associated machinery use with reproductive health problems, including pelvic pain and menstrual discomfort or irregularities. This is further illustrated by the participants’ own words, as shown in the quotes below:

“You get tired … and your spine is too painful.”

“The doctor would say you need a thrush cream or pills.”

“They have to rub you at home and take the pills before you sleep. For me, if I was at work almost the whole day, I know I have to take pills for pain and pills for bones.”

“For us, most machines affect us in the womb.”

“Especially in shuttle cars, period cycle changes, it causes period pains at the end.”

“The seats are not comfortable, back pain Yoh, other pains you are just used to them because you know it’s an everyday thing, you stay strong.”

These quotes clearly reveal the effects that underground machines have on female mineworkers.

3.3.2. Lack of Structured Breaks

The lack of regular breaks during extended and physically demanding shifts can result in fatigue, decreased alertness, and a higher risk of accidents. Participants reported working long hours without scheduled rest, with breaks often left to the discretion of supervisors, leading to physical exhaustion. They also shared that they frequently eat on the job or while standing, as there are no designated mealtimes. Participants emphasized that they are consistently subjected to high levels of physical strain due to irregular rest periods, as they often operate machinery for nearly seven hours without a break, since rest is granted at the supervisor’s discretion. Some noted that taking breaks is sometimes perceived as a sign of laziness, while others mentioned that occasional rest only occurs during technical malfunctions. While fatigue policies are in place, participants reported that they are not being followed. The following comments from participants reflect these challenges:

“You eat when you get a chance to eat. You eat while working to the machine or while doing something, you work while eating. There are no breaks or lunch.”

“We don’t have lunch. No, you can’t work and stop to come and eat. You finish work first and if there’s nothing else that needs to be done then you can eat.”

“We operate machines for almost 7 hours without a break.”

“We are actually entitled to get fatigue breaks, but it depends on your supervisor.”

3.3.3. Medical Treatment or Check-Ups Offered

Participants noted that while medical check-ups are provided, they are generally limited to basic screenings such as chest exams, vision and hearing tests, blood pressure, and body mass index. More specific concerns, such as back pain, are often neglected. Comprehensive assessments typically occur only once, during the certificate of fitness assessment, and usually after the issue has worsened. Participants also mentioned the frequent prescription of medication, including treatments for infections and the regular use of pain relievers and bone-strengthening pills. See below the views of some of the participants:

“They check your chest, eyes and ears. Also, Blood Pressure and Body Mass Index and they say you are overweight and all. But about how your spine is affected and back pains, they don’t check all that.”

This highlights that ergonomic interventions are absent, given that medical testing is restricted to vital, visual, auditory, and respiratory examinations.

3.4. Workplace Environment and Conditions

This section focuses on two subthemes: environmental conditions and toilet facilities. The working environment plays a significant role in influencing workers’ health and overall performance.

3.4.1. Environmental Conditions

Participants indicated that air circulation is sufficient, with ventilation systems operating effectively to maintain consistent airflow. They reported that regular inspections are carried out to identify and prevent potential leaks, ensuring a continuous air supply. Additionally, they mentioned that temperature conditions in their work areas are comfortable, neither too hot nor too cold, and that illumination is fair as they rely also on their personal lamps. However, noise remains a concern due to the machinery in operation. Dust was also identified as an issue, although participants noted that it is being monitored.

3.4.2. Toilet Conditions

Participants expressed strong dissatisfaction with the condition of underground toilets, raising concerns about hygiene, safety, structural design, gender related challenges, and health impacts. While a few acknowledged that the toilets are technically “usable”, the majority highlighted issues such as poor maintenance, infrequent cleaning, and flawed designs that make them uncomfortable, unsafe, or even harmful particularly for female mineworkers. Many workers avoid using the toilets altogether, opting instead to urinate in informal areas like the “madala side (old workings)”, which has led to health problems, including infections. Some participants also reported adverse reactions to the chemicals used in the toilets. Additionally, they noted that the cramped toilet spaces require them to remove their rescue packs and lamps, actions that go against mining safety regulations. The uneven ground where some toilets are installed further contributes to their instability and poses safety risks. Due to the poor toilet conditions, some participants choose to avoid drinking water or any liquids during their shifts. Others, particularly during menstruation, reported having to use multiple sanitary pads at once to prevent leakage, as accessing clean and functional toilets is difficult. Figure 8 represent the type of toilets used underground. The following comments from participants reflect these challenges.

“The cleanliness, they don’t clean those toilets until they get full. Also, the structure of the toilets, they are too short; you have to bend. The chemical they use in the toilets is too strong; you can feel it in your uterus.”

“Also, the structure of the toilets, you need to leave your lamps outside, you can’t go inside the toilet with your lamps. You get used to it. What can you do, you take a urine there at Madala side where there is dust because the toilets … Rather you get dust thrush than toilet thrush.”

“No, we urinate at stick side (Madala side) anyway and I don’t think there’s a female that worked underground who did not have an infection here.”

3.5. Workplace Support

Workplace support was described in terms of the help participants receive from supervisors, male colleagues, or through training. Participants noted that although supervisors do provide some support, it is often inadequate. Some participants shared that certain male co-workers offer assistance, particularly with operating heavy-duty equipment, while others reported experiencing discrimination based on their gender.

3.5.1. Supervisor’s Support

In response to ergonomic-related complaints, some supervisors provide kidney belts, believing they assist with spinal support. However, formal support and assistance remain limited. Although reporting mechanisms such as anonymous suggestion boxes are in place, they are largely ineffective and rarely acted upon. While a few supervisors offer genuine support, others tend to dismiss workers’ concerns. The above is supported by the following:

“It’s like maybe periods remember it’s every month so if you come up with that every month, they end up not taking you seriously.”

So, they just say argh we know her, she has started, every time she doesn’t want to work, she does that.”

“No, you can’t cause when you complain and say you can’t adjust your seat since we like to adjust our seats forward as women then they say others are not complaining about it. So, it’s very hard to make it accommodate us, they don’t listen to us.”

3.5.2. Male Colleagues’ Support

Support from male colleagues is mixed. While some willingly assist with physically demanding tasks, such as lifting heavy cables, others are reluctant or unwilling to help, often influenced by gender dynamics. Although there are no major conflicts reported, the level of cooperation is inconsistent and varies depending on the individual.

“You see me, as a shuttle car operator, and we work equally. This thing of no you are a woman doesn’t work here. They will tell you that we get paid the same and you are employed as a mine employee, not as someone’s wife or someone’s mother. It is you who asked to be woman in mining, this is what you get.”

3.5.3. Training Support

Training is only provided during induction and upon returning from leave; however, comprehensive and practical ergonomic training appears to be minimal or entirely lacking. All machines are physically demanding to operate and contribute to bodily strain. See below participants view:

“Yes, we do get trained and during induction we were told about Ergonomics.”

“They only provide training for operating machines not ergonomics.”

The results indicate that the mining industry still has shortcomings, as sanitation facilities and support systems for women remain problematic.

4. Discussion

Our background highlighted that ergonomics, by definition, is a multidisciplinary science concerned with optimizing the interaction between people and their work environment. It is broadly categorized into three domains: Physical, Cognitive, and Organisational ergonomics. In the mining industry, all three domains are deeply intertwined, especially for female mineworkers who operate in environments historically designed for male workers. Scientific literature has confirmed that females differ physiologically from males, with notable differences in muscle strength, body structure, and stamina. The findings of this study provide important insights into the lived experiences of female mineworkers in underground coal mining environments. The five key themes, Ergonomic Awareness and Gender Relations, Equipment and Clothing, Health and Safety, Workplace Environment and Conditions, and Workplace Support, along with twelve related subthemes, collectively highlight the complex interplay between gender, physical demands, organisational support, and health outcomes for women in mining. Participants’ accounts indicate that workplace experience served as an informal yet critical mechanism for developing ergonomic coping strategies. Despite the absence of structured ergonomic training, women reported adjusting their posture, modifying how they handled tools, and adopting self-taught methods to minimise discomfort, behaviours consistent with experiential ergonomics described in literature [31]. Participants reported receiving training during induction and upon returning from leave but noted that ergonomic training was either superficial or entirely absent. Instead, training focused primarily on machine operation rather than the health implications of prolonged vibration, awkward postures, or equipment design. This aligns with studies showing that ergonomic training is often overlooked in mining, despite evidence that targeted training can significantly reduce musculoskeletal injuries and improve safety behaviours [32,33]. Lack of gender-sensitive ergonomic training is particularly problematic for female, who face equipment designed for male anthropometry and therefore require tailored instruction to manage posture, vibration exposure, and lifting techniques [34]. Further, a lack of ongoing or practical ergonomic instruction reinforces a reactive safety culture, rather than a preventive one. When workers rely solely on experience rather than formal guidance, risks increase, especially for new workers or less experienced female operators. Prior research similarly shows that in labour-intensive industries, workers often rely on tacit knowledge to compensate for the absence of formal ergonomic guidelines [35]. Their mining experience (5–19 years) demonstrates that women are not newcomers to the sector, countering assumptions that female miners lack competence or exposure. Participants demonstrated only basic ergonomic awareness, mainly related to machine operation and personal protective equipment. This limited knowledge is consistent with studies showing that mining companies often prioritise productivity-specific training over ergonomics or gender-responsive occupational health education [36]. The absence of formal ergonomic instruction reflects broader gaps documented in low- and middle-income mining contexts, where ergonomics is often undervalued despite high exposure to vibration, awkward postures, and repetitive strain [37]. While the Ergonomics Regulations (Section 6) mandate that employers must train employees on ergonomic hazards, the reality in many South African mines is that ergonomic training is superficial, often restricted to induction and lacking depth or practical relevance. This non-compliance undermines workers’ ability to recognize early symptoms of ergonomic strain and report risks effectively. Moreover, the Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA) Section 10 [38], mandates employers to provide a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of employees, which includes ensuring that employees are informed, trained, and supervised. A checkbox approach to ergonomics training fails this legal and ethical obligation.

Furthermore, participants expressed concerns regarding reproductive health, kidney issues, and menstrual-related complications, issues widely documented among women exposed to vibration, heavy lifting, and restricted access to sanitation facilities [39,40]. Repeated health issues, especially those related to menstruation, were common, hence, three out of eight female mineworkers reported being on medication for urinary tract infections. Noge [41] supports the aforementioned, namely, that the physical demands of mining, such as lifting heavy equipment and operating machinery, pose ergonomic challenges for women, increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, particularly for those who may become pregnant, leading to further reproductive health complications. Reports of urinary tract infections among several participants reflect known associations between poor toilet access, long working hours, and fluid restriction, especially for underground female mineworkers [42]. Participants also criticised organisational support systems, such as anonymous suggestion boxes, stating their concerns were ignored. This reflects findings that gender support initiatives in mining often exist at a symbolic level without meaningful implementation [43]. Notably, the physical demands, such as handling heavy cables, were perceived to affect women more severely. Literature supports this, showing that tools and machines in mining are typically designed for the average male body, resulting in poorer fit, higher strain, and increased injury risks for women [34]. Additionally, findings from this study highlight the significant role equipment and clothing play in influencing female’s health, comfort, and productivity in underground coal mining environments. Mining machinery and personal protective equipment (PPE) are essential for ensuring safe and effective work performance, but the participants’ narratives revealed that both are misaligned with female’s ergonomic needs. This challenge, where females are expected to use equipment primarily designed for the average male body, is widely recognised in international research on gender and ergonomics in heavy industries [34,44].

This study further found that operating underground machines such as shuttle cars, continuous miners (CM), load–haul–dump vehicles (LHDs), and roof bolters involved intense physical strain due to constant vibration, awkward postures, and lack of adjustability. These tools do not adequately accommodate female anthropometry, leading to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), chronic back pain, and disturbances in the menstrual cycle, issues that are not just health concerns but also matters of human rights and workplace equality. These results align with findings from NIOSH, which identified being a female mineworker as a strong indicator for the development of tendinitis [45]. These concerns are supported by ergonomic literature indicating that whole-body vibration (WBV), poor seat design, and awkward cab layouts are linked to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), spinal degeneration, fatigue, and decreased functional capacity [33,37]. Several women described machinery with fixed seating positions, limited visibility, and controls requiring repeated twisting of the neck and torso. This is consistent with findings that mining equipment is rarely designed with female’s anthropometric variability in mind, often resulting in height, reach, and strength mismatches [46,47]. These mismatches increase the risk of injury, especially when operating machinery for long, uninterrupted shifts. Moreover, participants highlighted that they were seldom consulted before new machinery was procured, despite being the end-users. This absence of worker participation contradicts widely endorsed ergonomic design principles, which stress the importance of engaging operators during equipment selection to ensure functionality, comfort, and safety [31]. Participants described situations where management dismissed their concerns about discomfort or poor ergonomics, often justifying decisions by saying “others are not complaining.” Such dismissals mirror broader gendered power dynamics in the mining sector, where female’s feedback on equipment is often undervalued or ignored [43]. This reinforces inequalities and limits female’s capacity to influence their working conditions. The combined effects of vibration, fixed postures, lack of breaks, and poor machine design create a hazardous work environment.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is another area of concern; while strides have been made to provide gender-specific PPE, females are often excluded from the decision-making process regarding PPE design, selection, and procurement. This results in ill-fitting gear, discomfort, and reduced protection, violating MHSA Section 21, which requires that all equipment, including PPE, must be suitable for its intended purpose and the people who use it. Feedback from female mineworkers suggests that the material, sizing, and comfort of PPE are often inadequate. These challenges closely align with research showing that PPE in mining is historically designed for men, often failing to consider female’s body proportions, reducing comfort, and increasing injury risk [42,43]. Not consulting the end users, which is female mineworkers in this instance, means that even well-intentioned policies fail in execution. This reinforces the Organisational Ergonomics aspect, where poor communication, planning, and policy implementation increase workplace risks. Participants further, described new female-specific boots as painful, restrictive, and poorly aligned with the clothing worn underneath their overalls. Literature confirms that ill-fitting boots can cause foot pain, restricted circulation, toe deformities, and reduced stability, especially during physically demanding tasks [48]. Unequal distribution of better-quality boots between surface and underground workers suggests systemic bias, aligning with literature on gendered PPE inequity across mining sites [17]. Participants also reported that overalls were too tight, difficult to remove during toilet breaks, prone to tearing, and burdensome when worn with heavy equipment such as rescue packs. Poorly designed overalls, especially those requiring full-body removal, are widely recognised as a significant barrier to comfort, hygiene, and occupational health for women underground [49]. These challenges are compounded in environments where toilet access is difficult, leading to urinary tract infections and bladder complications [39]. Though some progress has been made in designing gender-specific overalls (e.g., the introduction of back zippers), the material quality remains inadequate. This is consistent with global findings that PPE designed for females often remains inferior in durability due to cost-cutting or lack of standards [50]. Improving PPE and machinery design through inclusive ergonomics, user-centred procurement, and gender-responsive workplace policies are therefore essential for enhancing safety, productivity, and equity for female mineworkers.

When it comes to the issue of rest breaks, participants reported the absence of scheduled breaks during long, physically demanding shifts. Instead, rest periods were contingent upon supervisor discretion or unexpected machine stoppages. This aligns with literature showing that a lack of structured rest increases fatigue, reduces alertness, elevates injury risk, and contributes to heat stress and cognitive decline [51,52]. Operating machinery for nearly seven hours without rest exceeds recommended ergonomic guidelines, which advocate for periodic micro-breaks to manage physical and cognitive load [53]. Prolonged exertion without rest also increases MSD risk and greatly reduces reaction times, which can compromise mine safety [54]. The perception that taking breaks signals laziness indicates a workplace culture that undermines fatigue management practices, despite documented evidence linking insufficient rest with accident rates [55]. This cultural tension, between production pressure and safety, reflects broader challenges in mining environments, where safety policies often exist on paper but are inconsistently applied in practice. Furthermore, medical monitoring was inadequate and largely limited to routine assessments such as hearing tests, chest X-rays, and Body Mass Index (BMI) checks. While these are important, the absence of screenings for musculoskeletal issues and ergonomic stress marks a critical gap in occupational healthcare provision. This failure contravenes Section 11 of the MHSA, which mandates that risks to employee health must be identified, assessed, and proactively mitigated. Not evaluating ergonomic exposure is not only a breach of regulation but a direct risk to worker safety and well-being, especially for female mineworkers operating heavy equipment designed for male physiology. While participants noted some positive conditions, including adequate ventilation and acceptable temperatures, dust, noise, and particularly poor toilet conditions emerged as major health and safety concerns. Their accounts reveal significant deficiencies in hygiene, safety, and accessibility issues also identified in global research on gendered sanitation barriers in mining [42,49]. Participants described infrequent cleaning, strong chemicals causing irritation, cramped spaces, and unsafe structural designs. These conditions compel many female mineworkers to avoid toilets altogether, leading to dehydration, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and gynaecological complications. This aligns with studies showing that inadequate sanitation in workplaces disproportionately harms females, increasing the risk of UTIs, reproductive harm, and menstrual challenges [39]. Participants also reported needing to remove rescue packs and lamps before entering the toilets due to the limited space, a direct contradiction of mine safety standards and a significant hazard. Literature confirms that cramped or poorly designed sanitation spaces force mineworkers to violate essential safety protocols [43]. During menstruation, many participants used multiple pads to avoid needing to access toilets, reflecting how sanitation barriers compound gender-specific health burdens. This mirrors findings in studies from South Africa, India, and Latin America showing that female mineworkers face unique menstrual management challenges underground [50]. Concerning workplace support, participants described supervisor support as inconsistent, often constrained, and sometimes dismissive, particularly regarding health and ergonomic concerns. In some cases, supervisors attempted to assist by providing kidney belts for back support, though research shows such interventions offer minimal ergonomic benefit if the underlying physical risks remain unaddressed [37]. More concerning was the tendency for supervisors to disregard female’s complaints, especially when related to menstruation, seat adjustments, or back pain. This reflects well-documented gender bias in mining workplaces, where female’s health concerns are often trivialised or treated as exaggerations [17,56]. On the other hand, the support female mineworkers received from male colleagues was mixed. Some men provided helpful assistance especially with tasks requiring heavy lifting, yet others resisted helping, highlighting entrenched gender dynamics. This echoes global evidence that although some male co-workers may act as allies, mining culture remains largely masculine, competitive, and resistant to gender integration [50]. When peer support is inconsistent or conditional, females become more vulnerable to ergonomic injury, especially when operating heavy equipment or handling large cables [39]. While organizations such as Women in Mining (WIM) aim to support women in the mining sector, far more must be done for their efforts to produce noticeable results. There is a clear lack of consultation, inclusion, and practical support from management. Organisational ergonomics, which focuses on communication, culture, and inclusion, is clearly lacking, despite being one of the core pillars of the Ergonomics Regulations. Employers are required by Section 5(2) of these regulations to consider the interaction between workers, work processes, and the working environment, yet this is not evident in current practices. Despite progress in occupational health and safety within the South African mining sector, this study has unearthed serious gaps in the implementation of ergonomics and gender-sensitive workplace design, particularly in the experience of female mineworkers. The authors would however like to highlight the following limitation: although participants were asked about the levels of dust, noise, lighting, and heat stress, no actual measurements were taken to quantify these exposures.

5. Conclusions

The study aimed to investigate the ergonomic risks faced by female mineworkers in underground mining. Due to the scarcity of research focusing on the specific effects of ergonomic factors on females in this sector, the study sought to fill this knowledge gap. Based on the findings, the study successfully met its objective. Preventing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) necessitates a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy, including workplace modifications, ergonomic interventions, and appropriate education and training for employees. This study reveals that although females have long contributed to underground coal mining, their working conditions remain shaped by systems, tools, and practices designed for men. The five core themes, ergonomic awareness, equipment and clothing, health and safety, workplace environment, and organisational support, show a persistent misalignment between legal obligations, workplace realities, and women’s actual needs. Female mineworkers rely heavily on experiential learning to cope with ergonomic demands, as formal ergonomic and gender-responsive training remains superficial or absent. The design of machinery, PPE, workstations, and sanitation facilities does not adequately accommodate female anthropometry, resulting in musculoskeletal strain, reproductive health risks, and heightened vulnerability to injury. Poor organisational ergonomics, including limited consultation, weak reporting systems, and inconsistent supervisor support, further compounds these risks. While efforts such as Women in Mining (WIM) exist, their impact is constrained by symbolic rather than meaningful implementation within mines. Overall, the study underscores a critical gap between regulatory requirements and workplace practice. To advance safety, equity, and productivity for female mineworkers, mining organisations must move beyond compliance and adopt a gender-responsive, ergonomics-driven approach that prioritises inclusive design, participatory decision-making, and proactive health protection.

5.1. Practical Recommendations

The study calls for comprehensive improvements to better support female mineworkers in underground environments. First, gender-responsive ergonomic training should be strengthened through practical, mandatory modules that address vibration exposure, posture, lifting techniques, and gender-specific health risks, supported by regular refresher sessions. Second, mining machinery and equipment must be redesigned or modified; using participatory procurement that involves female operators, prioritising adjustability, visibility, and vibration reduction, with regular ergonomic audits to address anthropometric mismatches. Third, properly fitted, high-quality PPE tailored for female’s body proportions should be standardised across all work areas. Fourth, sanitation facilities must be redesigned to ensure adequate space, safety, ventilation, cleanliness, adequate lighting, and menstrual hygiene support. Additionally, structured rest and fatigue-management systems should be implemented, including scheduled micro-breaks and fatigue monitoring. Occupational health screening must be expanded to include musculoskeletal, ergonomic, reproductive, and vibration-related assessments. Organisational ergonomics should be strengthened through effective reporting systems, gender-sensitive supervision, and diverse safety committees. Support structures such as Women in Mining (WIM) should be empowered to participate directly in operational decisions. Finally, strict compliance with the MHSA and Ergonomics Regulations should be ensured through regular audits, accountability mechanisms, and timely corrective action.

5.2. Future Studies

In line with the study’s findings, several research avenues emerge for further scholarly investigation. First, there is a need to assess the effectiveness of gender-responsive ergonomic training programmes, particularly in relation to musculoskeletal injury reduction, vibration exposure management, and skill adaptation. Second, ergonomic fit studies focused on machinery and PPE design could generate evidence for inclusive engineering solutions tailored for female anthropometry. Third, sanitation infrastructure and menstrual hygiene management require systematic evaluation, especially regarding how environmental constraints drive health risks such as Urinary Tract Infections and dehydration. Research into how toilet design, location, ventilation, and material quality influence female’s sanitation behaviour and health outcomes. Engineering-based studies could propose and test improved underground sanitation design. Further research should also explore fatigue management frameworks, examining the physiological and cognitive effects of prolonged underground shifts without scheduled rest. Moreover, longitudinal epidemiological studies could deepen understanding of reproductive and gynaecological health outcomes associated with mining exposures. Finally, organisational ergonomics, including reporting systems, supervisory attitudes, worker participation in procurement, and regulatory compliance, represents a critical direction for research aimed at transforming mining culture and promoting gender-equitable safety systems. Qualitative and mixed-method studies could explore how supervision style, communication patterns, gender bias, and organisational norms shape female’s safety, reporting behaviours, and participation in decision-making.