Musculoskeletal strain runs high in petrochemical control rooms
In a 2025 cross-sectional study of Iranian petrochemical control room operators, musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic risk were common enough to demand attention from workplace health teams. Among 210 male operators, 27% fell into the moderate-to-high risk range on the Persian Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, and 78% were classified as having moderate-to-high ergonomic risk on the Persian Ergonomic Screening and Priority Tool. Those numbers matter because control room work is often perceived as sedentary and low impact, yet prolonged sitting, constrained postures, repeated visual monitoring, and static load can quietly accumulate into pain syndromes and biomechanical overload.
A single workstation may look calm from a distance. The body inside it is often doing something else entirely.
The study focused on a petrochemical complex where operators were assessed with demographic and occupational questionnaires, the Persian International Physical Activity Questionnaire, pain screening tools, and direct postural and plantar pressure measurements. That mix of subjective and objective assessment gives the findings clinical weight: pain risk was not inferred from self-report alone, and posture was not treated as a vague complaint. Instead, the analysis linked risk categories to measurable traits that industrial health programs can actually target.
Age, body mass index, and tenure tracked with higher pain risk
Multivariable logistic regression identified three factors independently associated with higher odds of falling into the moderate-to-high risk pain category on the P-ÖMSQ. Older age carried an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.02–1.17 and a _p_ value of 0.014. Higher body mass index showed an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.04–1.27 and a _p_ value of 0.006. Longer job tenure carried an adjusted odds ratio of 1.98, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.01–3.89 and a _p_ value of 0.047.
Those associations fit the physiology of chronic occupational strain. Age and tenure likely reflect cumulative exposure to fixed postures and repetitive low-level loading, while excess body mass can increase axial and lower-limb demands during sitting and transitions, amplifying compressive forces across the spine and pelvis. In practical terms, the study suggests that the worker most likely to hurt is not necessarily the one performing heavy lifting, but the one who has spent years sitting in the same constrained position under operational pressure.
Physical inactivity aligned with postural abnormalities
Lower physical activity was associated with a higher prevalence of several postural abnormalities, including forward head posture, thoracic hyperkyphosis, lateral pelvic tilt, and pes planus, with significance reported at _p_ < 0.05. That pattern is clinically intuitive. When movement outside work is limited, the postural variability that normally unloads the spine and lower extremities disappears, and the musculoskeletal system becomes more dependent on a narrow set of positions that may already be ergonomically flawed.
Forward head posture and thoracic hyperkyphosis are especially relevant in control room environments where operators spend long periods scanning monitors. Visual attention often migrates to screens positioned too high, too low, or too far away, forcing the cervical extensors and thoracic spine to compensate. Over time, that compensation can become pain, fatigue, and reduced tolerance for prolonged sitting.
Objective biomechanical abnormalities mirrored the risk scores
Objective biomechanical abnormalities were also significantly associated with higher P-ÖMSQ-based and P-ESPT-based risk categories, again with _p_ < 0.05. The study incorporated postural and plantar pressure assessments, which strengthens the interpretation by tying symptom burden to measurable mechanical disruption. In occupational health terms, this is the point where discomfort stops being a nonspecific complaint and becomes an exposure signal.
Plantar pressure abnormalities matter even in seated workers because lower-limb positioning, foot support, and weight distribution affect pelvic alignment and spinal loading. Poor foot placement can cascade upward through the kinetic chain, altering pelvic tilt and trunk posture. In a control room, that chain of compensation can remain hidden until pain, stiffness, or reduced function emerges.
Twenty interventions were prioritized, but not tested
On the basis of these findings, 20 ergonomic intervention strategies were proposed and prioritized through a stakeholder-informed participatory process. The article does not present these strategies as proven remedies; they were identified as candidates for workplace action. That restraint is important. A prioritized intervention list can guide industrial health planning, but it does not prove that pain will fall or function will improve once changes are made.
The gap between identification and outcome remains large. The proposed measures still need longitudinal and interventional testing before anyone can say which changes matter most, which are feasible in a petrochemical control room, and which ones actually reduce musculoskeletal burden over time.
What industrial health teams can take from the data
For occupational health teams, the study points toward a familiar but often under-addressed reality: musculoskeletal risk in control room work is shaped by cumulative exposure, not just by obvious physical labor. Older operators, workers with higher BMI, and those with longer tenure appear to carry greater risk, while low physical activity and measurable biomechanical abnormalities cluster with poorer musculoskeletal profiles. Screening programs that combine symptom questionnaires with posture and plantar assessment may be better suited to this workforce than symptom review alone.
The study also reinforces a practical hierarchy for prevention. First comes identification of high-risk workers and workstation-related strain. Then comes redesign of the work environment, movement breaks, and targeted physical activity support. Only after those steps can organizations know whether ergonomic investment produces measurable benefit instead of simply shifting discomfort around the room.
The intervention package still needs outcome data. Without prospective testing, the proposed strategies remain a structured plan rather than a demonstrated fix.