Scope of the assessment
Stretch film is applied under tension to hold products together on a pallet. This differs from shrink wrapping, which uses a different material and contraction process, and from strapping. An ergonomic assessment should not combine them into one task without describing their differences. It also does not verify cargo restraint during transport: the performance of the unit load requires its own technical checks.
The wrapping cycle includes preparing the roll, starting application, moving around the load, working at lower and upper levels, finishing and removing waste. Roll changes, repeated wrapping after film breaks and trips to collect consumables may also occur. This article proposes observing these stages to identify actual exposures. A completed pallet that looks satisfactory does not reveal the effort required to prepare it or whether the worker had to enter a traffic area to finish. The scope should therefore identify both the product being wrapped and the surrounding workflow.
Postures and movement at different heights
The lower part of a load may require trunk bending, sideways leaning or work close to the floor; the upper part may require arm elevation and reaching. Load height, the worker’s reach, available space and the equipment used change these demands. Looking only at a photograph of the middle level can miss the most demanding moments. Record duration, frequency and transitions between heights alongside the posture itself.
Walking around the load introduces a coordination requirement: while controlling the film, the person must see the route and remain clear of corners and obstacles. A generic instruction to keep the back straight does not solve poor access to the base. Assessment should identify how the task or presentation of the load can change to reduce these postures. Climbing onto pallets or using improvised supports to reach the top is not proposed. Each alternative needs to be evaluated across the full working range.
Force, roll weight and grip
Demand depends on more than roll weight. Required tension, the braking mechanism, diameter, hand position and distance from the body also matter. A lighter roll may need more frequent changes; a longer handle may reduce bending while introducing another effort. These relationships should be checked using the actual material and equipment rather than assuming that a single feature guarantees improvement.
Observation should distinguish supporting the roll, applying tension and handling it during replacement. Where gloves are used, check that grip remains compatible with the task and existing hazards. Repeated breakage or an inconsistent brake can lead to jerking and rework, so record incidents and review material selection or maintenance. Increasing bodily force to compensate for an unsuitable consumable is not an appropriate solution. Nor should improvised attachments alter the intended operation of the dispenser. The purchasing specification needs to consider the whole combination of film, dispenser and job.
Information the assessment should capture
Identify pallet and load types, dimensions, film rolls, devices, cycle numbers and time spent in each stage. Include variation during the shift, pressure before a dispatch deadline and exceptional work that actually occurs. Workers can explain where space becomes restricted, where film breaks and when discomfort appears, without turning a questionnaire into a medical diagnosis.
Select methods according to exposure: ART may assist with repetitive upper-limb work, MAC with lifting or carrying rolls and RAPP with equipment that is pushed. A lifting score alone does not describe walking under tension around a load. Several complementary observations may be necessary, with their limitations stated. Where force is measured, document the instrument, units, conditions and repeatability. A single reading does not establish a universal legal threshold, and one favourable cycle cannot demonstrate that an entire shift is safe. Record the circumstances that the observation represents and those still needing examination.
Prioritising technical solutions
WorkSafe Victoria and NIOSH identify automation as an option for reducing manual wrapping exposure. An organisation’s decision needs to consider its process, load dimensions, available space and ancillary operations. A semi-automatic machine may still require manual starting, finishing, roll changes and waste removal; assess these explicitly. The automatic designation does not guarantee the absence of people from hazardous areas during every stage.
When considering a mobile support, dispenser or lifting and turning system, examine how effort changes and which hazards are introduced. Platforms, moving parts and stability need their own controls. Forklifts or stacks of spare pallets should not become improvised workstations. A suitable solution requires instructions, compatibility and maintenance as well as a safe location. Before purchasing, agree on a trial with representative loads and acceptance criteria covering both ergonomics and equipment safety. Include access for replenishment and foreseeable fault handling, rather than checking production output alone.
What research establishes and what it does not
A 2021 simulated-task study with fourteen healthy university-aged participants compared manual wrapping and a device at several heights. Its abstract reports improvements in some postures with the device but also greater muscle activation. It does not demonstrate fewer injuries in a workforce. The practical implication is to assess posture and effort together rather than assign general effectiveness to an accessory.
An organisation can apply this caution through its own trial without presenting that trial as clinical research. Compare the same load and conditions, collect worker feedback and observe whether an improvement for the lower back shifts demand to the shoulder or hand. Duration also matters: a short demonstration does not represent the full shift. Experimental evidence helps frame questions, while workplace assessment determines whether a solution fits the actual context. Commercial claims should be checked against that particular use and the limitations of the available study, not accepted simply because the device is described as ergonomic.
Traffic, stability and waste
A person walking around a pallet needs space allocated for the complete operation, separated from incompatible vehicle movements. Fitting around the load once is insufficient: consider temporary storage, waiting pallets and other workers entering the area. The floor must permit safe movement, and film waste should not accumulate along the route. If the space disappears during peak production, the preventive design no longer works.
Check stability before asking someone to work beside the load. Wrapping does not justify retaining an obviously defective stack or correcting it under pressure while other equipment moves nearby. Film selection, application pattern and transport conditions require specific validation; no universal number of turns is prescribed here. Introducing a machine also requires review of its turning area, access, safeguards and interactions with warehouse traffic. The assessment should include the arrival and removal of pallets as well as the time spent applying film.
Pace, training and reporting discomfort
Dispatch peaks may concentrate many wrapping cycles into a short period. Planning should provide resources and recovery for that actual demand rather than the daily average alone. Moving from wrapping to another activity involving forceful grip and repeated bending may maintain exposure. Rotation requires comparison of demands and evidence of useful variation, while respecting the competence needed for each job.
Training should use the equipment available and explain how to report defects, unstable loads or blocked routes. It does not replace physical improvement of the workstation. Persistent discomfort or limitations need attention through the relevant occupational health and prevention channels; an ergonomic score cannot diagnose an injury. Workers should be able to report concerns without records being used to penalise their pace. Individual adjustments must protect medical information and examine the consequences for other tasks. Supervisors should understand the agreed response when a safe wrapping area or suitable equipment is unavailable.
Example of a before-and-after comparison
Hypothetical example: a warehouse uses hand-held rolls in an area also used for dispatch waiting. The team observes several load types and identifies very low working positions, restricted walking space and repeated work following film breakage. It proposes allocating a wrapping area and trialling a compatible mechanical solution, including arrangements for pallet arrival and removal.
The comparison records time spent bending or elevating the arm, perceived effort, roll changes, incidents and rework. Safeguards and access for the alternative are also reviewed. If a change reduces bending but makes roll replacement difficult or increases pushing effort, the design is adjusted. No percentage reduction in injuries is attributed to this fictional example. The decision is documented with trial conditions, limitations and responsibilities, then confirmed after a representative period of operation rather than only during the supplier’s demonstration. The follow-up also checks whether peak dispatch periods still leave the intended space available.
Prevention records and review
Records should identify the task, load, consumable, equipment, observed workforce, method and measures. Retain the initial situation and acceptance criteria so that the change can be explained. Suggested indicators include manual cycles avoided, equipment usable, outstanding faults, film breaks, rework and verified modifications. Plastic consumption and productivity measures are not equivalent to health indicators.
In Spain, assessment and planning fall within the LPRL and applicable provisions on manual handling and work equipment. Overseas guidance provides technical criteria but does not itself create Spanish obligations. Changes in film, pallet height, order volume or machinery may require reassessment. A written procedure does not establish effectiveness: check that space, materials and equipment remain available throughout the actual working day and that reported difficulties receive a response. Health outcomes require appropriate interpretation over time, while immediate follow-up should establish whether the intended reduction in exposure has actually occurred.
Frequently asked questions
Are stretch wrapping and shrink wrapping the same?
No. Stretch film is applied under tension, while shrink wrapping uses a different process. Their tasks and hazards require separate assessment.
Does a long handle guarantee improvement?
No. It may reduce some reaches while changing force, grip or shoulder loading. Compare the complete cycle using the actual equipment.
Is there a safe number of turns per pallet?
There is no universal ergonomic rule. Packaging depends on the load and validated system; exposure also depends on force, height, frequency and duration.
Does automation remove the need for assessment?
No. Access, safeguards, roll changes, faults and pallet movement still require review, together with any remaining manual tasks.
