an exhaustive description of the study area and setting, the questionnaire, and the statistical method adopted, as well as the results of the survey. Optimal Design free software [3] was used for estimating the study sample size, while the standardized semi-structured questionnaire was developed by the authors themselves and validated before being administered. The authors found that shoulder pain, back pain, and neck pain were prominent ergonomic injuries among crop farmers due to the nature of work in farm workplaces, which involves repetitive bending, placement of heavy sprayers on the back, and engaging the back in pulling cassava tubers at harvest. Furthermore, they found that previous agricultural health training on the safe use of farm chemicals can be a protective factor against ergonomic risks. Ergonomic risk factors were also investigated in the article authored by [PERSON] [4]. The author analyzed, by means of a questionnaire survey, disorders through lifting, carrying heavy loads, and sustained or repeated full body bending in a whole peach farming cycle of a South Korean organization. The study was based on a participatory approach, with an ergonomist, farmers, and the Rural Development Agency having parts in it. The data for the ergonomic analysis were collected through discussions with volunteer participants and helped to identify ergonomic interventions to mitigate risk factors in a farming organization. Musculoskeletal loadings before and after ergonomic interventions were assessed through the RULA, Rapid Upper-Limb Assessment [5]. The RULA scores were significantly reduced after the introduction of the proposed ergonomic intervention and the author retains that the procedures and results adopted in the study can be applied to other types of crop farming activities and in industries. The paper authored by [PERSON] et al. evaluated the musculoskeletal risks for coffee farm workers in Honduras [6]. It first identified risk factors and musculoskeletal lesions in farm workers, then it described the study in terms of its participants, instruments, procedure, and results. The Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) method [7] was applied for assessing biomechanical risk factors. It is concluded that, in all the coffee fruit harvesting processes, the people who work in these jobs are exposed to ergonomic risks. Furthermore, they demonstrate that, in future research, it could be interesting to include the evaluation of other risk factors, such as environmental, organizational, and psychosocial, and to address aspects associated with safety in the workplace and social protection for families. On the other hand, it would be interesting to study the incorporation of exoskeleton systems as a viable alternative to help operators and harvesters in agricultural tasks, such as in the coffee industry, since these portable devices help reduce physical demands, avoiding related musculoskeletal injuries with work. The fourth article in the SI, authored by [PERSON] et al., deals with the proper usage of hearing-protection devices (HPD) among noise-exposed mill workers in Malaysia [8]. It evaluated the efficacy of a targeted intervention method to improve the use of HPD between agro-industrial workers. The paper provides a full description of the study design that was implemented on two worker groups, one of which was the control one. The research was carried out by administering questionnaires before and after a training module was allocated to the intervention group. With the study, the authors found the efficacy of a targeted intervention method in improving the use of HPD among noise-exposed workers. In addition, they demonstrated that implementing a well-designed training method is practicable without the need for extensive resources and that better training on hearing protection can lead to improved compliance with HPD usage among workers, thereby reducing the health impact of workplace noise hazards.