There are two basic hazards here: there is a low edge at the bottom of the equipment with which Mike is to work. Furthermore, the dung that falls from the hatch is of such a fine nature that it can easily enter the eyes, nose and mouth of the person working with it. On the engineering level, the low equipment creates a hazard for head injuries. When Mike climbs onto the truck, the worker warns him to mind his head, which he does just in time to prevent hurting himself.

On the administrative level, Mike is not warned beforehand that the falling dung would create a fine dust that might enter his eyes, nose, and mouth. He is therefore highly exposed to the risk of taking in the hazardous substances in the dung, because he is not focused upon protecting himself from this by turning away or covering his nose and mouth while the dung is dumped onto the truck.

On the personal protection level, Mike receives no protective clothing against the hazards he faces. His head and face are exposed to injury and chemical hazard, although the worker supervising him implies that there is no real chemical hazard when dung particles enters the nose or mouth.

To mitigate these hazards, there are possibilities to mitigate the risks on all three levels. As seen above, the engineering mitigation method is most likely to alos be the most expensive, although it provides the greatest protection in the long-term. Equipment can be modified to create a less serious risk of head injury, for example. The ergonomic design of the equipment that dumps the cricket dung onto the truck, for example, is not favorable to prevent head injuries. Instead, equipment should be engineered in such a way that an adult can stand upright without the risk of head injury. As for the dung particles, equipment...

This can be done by means of either a longer pole to open the hatch, or by automizing the process, so that the hatch is mechanically opened from a protected location. The main disadvantage of these engineering methods is expense. The main advantage is greater protection than the other mitigation practices.
In terms of the administrative level, Mike is warned not to bump his head. In terms of the dung particles, however, he receives not warning to remove himself from the immediate environment while engaged in unloading the dung. He therefore remains where he is and is exposed to the dung hazard. This is the least costly mitigation method, while also being extremely effective in mitigating risks.

Slightly more involved in terms of expense is personal protective gear in the form of a hard hat and protective face masks and glasses. Geared with personal protective equipment, Mike would have been less exposed to the hazard of injury and breathing in questionable substances. Also, there would have been a significantly smaller possibility of any substances entering his mouth or eyes.

When mitigating this risk, the least costly and somewhat effective method that could be recommended is coaching on the administrative level. Like preventing a bump on the head, Mike should also have been shown how to best protect himself from falling and dusty dung. He should have been coached to remain out of the way while the dung was loaded onto the truck. This could be combined with minor protective gear such as a simple mask to protect his nose and mouth against the dung particles. Protective classes could be included, but the face mask is the most important piece of equipment here.[