Maximum acceptable weights for asymmetric lifting of Chinese females

This study used the psychophysical approach to evaluate the effects of asymmetric lifting on the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) and the resulting heart rate, oxygen uptake and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). A randomized complete block factorial design was employed. Twelve female college students lifted weights at three different lifting frequencies (one-time maximum, 1 and 4 lifts/min) in the sagittal plane and at three different asymmetric angles (30 degrees, 60 degrees, and 90 degrees ) from the floor to a 68-cm height pallet. This lifting experiment was conducted for a 1-h work period using a free-style lifting technique. The MAWLs for asymmetric lifting were significantly lower than those for symmetric lifting in the sagittal plane. The MAWL decreased with the increase in the angle of asymmetry. However, the heart rate, oxygen uptake and RPE remained unchanged. Though the MAWL decreased significantly with lifting frequency, both the physiological costs (heart rate and oxygen uptake) and rating of perceived exertion increased with the increase in lift frequency. The most stressed body part was the arm. Lifting frequency had no significant effect on the percentage decrease in MAWL from the sagittal plane values. On average, decreases of 5%, 9% and 14% for MAWL at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 degrees asymmetric lifting, respectively, were revealed. This result was in agreement with the findings of Chinese males studied by Wu [Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 25 (2000) 675]. The percentage decrease in MAWL with twisting angle for the Chinese participants was somewhat lower than those for Occidental participants. In addition, even though there was an increase in heart rate and RPE with the increase in the symmetrical lift angle for Occidental participants, it was different from the Chinese participants. Lastly, the 1991 NIOSH equation asymmetry multiplier is more conservative in comparison with the results of the present study.     

The psychophysical lifting capacities of Chinese subjects

The psychophysical lifting capacity (MAWL) of twelve subjects was determined in this study. The subjects were all young Chinese males who performed lifting tasks in three lifting ranges (floor to knuckle, floor to shoulder, and knuckle to shoulder) and four lifting frequencies (one-time maximum, 1 lift/min, 4 lifts/min, and 6 lifts/min). The oxygen uptake (1/min) and heart rate (beats/min) were recorded while subjects were lifting. Upon completion of each lifting task, the subjects were required to rate their perceived exertion levels. The statistical analyses results indicated the following. Chinese subjects have smaller body size and MAWLs compared with past studies using the US population. The MAWLs decreased with an increase in lifting frequencies. The decrements of MAWL due to lifting frequencies were in agreement with the results of past studies. However, there were larger decreases due to lifting ranges. The MAWLs of the floor to knuckle height lift were the largest, followed by the MAWLs of the floor to shoulder height lift, and the MAWLs of the knuckle to shoulder height lift. The measured physiological responses were considered similar to those obtained in past studies. Subjects' perceived stress levels increased with the lifting frequency and the upper extremities received the most stress for the total range of lifting tasks. The comparisons of the Chinese MAWLs with the NIOSH lifting guidelines for limits (AL and MPL) indicated that the vertical discounting factor in the guidelines should be modified before the NIOSH limits can be applied to non-Western populations.     

Psychophysically determined symmetric and asymmetric lifting capacity of Chinese males for one hour's work shifts

A laboratory experiment was conducted to determine the effects of asymmetric lifting on psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) and the resulting heart rate, oxygen uptake and rating of perceived exertion. Thirteen male college students were recruited as participants. Each participant performed 12 different lifting tasks involving three lifting frequencies (one-time maximum, 1 and 4 lifts/min) and four twisting angles (including the sagittal plane and three different angles of asymmetry, i.e., 0, 30, 60, and 90°) from the floor to a 76 cm high pallet for one hour's work shift using a free-style lifting technique. The results showed that: (1) The MAWLs were significantly lower for asymmetric lifting than for symmetric lifting in the sagittal plane. The MAWL decreased with an increase in the angle of asymmetry, however, the heart rate, oxygen uptake and RPE remained unchanged; (2) Lifting frequency had no significant effect on the percentage decrease in MAWL from the sagittal plane values. Correction factors of 4, 9, and 13% for MAWL at 0, 30, 60, and 90°of asymmetric lifting, respectively, are recommended; (3) Both the physiological costs (heart rate and oxygen uptake) and rating of perceived exertion increased with an increase in lifting frequency though maximum acceptable weight of lift decreased. The most stressed body parts were the lower back and the arm; and (4) The percentage decrease in MAWL with twisting angle for the Chinese participants was somewhat lower than those of the Occidental participants. In addition, even though there was a decrease in MAWL, heart rate and RPE increased with an increase in the angle of a symmetric lifting for the Occidental participants, it was different from that of the Chinese participants.

Relevance to industry

It is generally believed that asymmetric lifting involving torso twisting is more harmful to back spine than symmetric lifting. However, the previous studies were conducted in Europe and North America, and the data were obtained from the Caucasian populations. This work, therefore, aims to investigate the influence of asymmetric lifting on the lifting capacity of the Chinese participants, and to compare the differences with the Occidental populations.     

The muscular load on the lower back and shoulders due to lifting at different lifting heights and frequencies

The aim of the study was to investigate the muscular load on the lower back and shoulders and the circulatory load on employees at a post center during repetitive lifting of mail transport boxes. A mock-up was designed in the laboratory, a total of nine combinations of lifting height and frequency were studied. Surface EMG was recorded bisymmetrically from m. erector spinae (L3-level) and m. trapezius. The circulatory load was evaluated by measuring the heart rate. The results show a trade off between the low back and shoulders. The maximum load on the low back occurred at the low lifting height (36.3 and 54.4 cm) whereas the maximum load on the shoulders occurred at the high lifting height (144.9 and 163.0 cm).     

Maximum acceptable weights and maximum voluntary isometric strengths for asymmetric lifting

A laboratory study was conducted to determine the effects of asymmetric lifting on psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and maximum voluntary isometric strengths. Thirteen male college students lifted three different boxes in the sagittal plane and at three different angles of asymmetry (30,60 and 90°) from floor to an 81-cm high table using a free-style lifting technique. For each lifting task, the maximum voluntary isometric strength was measured at the origin of lift.

The maximum acceptable weights and the static strengths for asymmetric lifting were significantly lower than those for symmetric lifting in the sagittal plane for three box sizes (P<0·01). The decrease in maximum acceptable weight and static strength from the sagittal plane values increased with an increase in the angle of asymmetry (P < 0·01). Box size had no significant effect (P≥ 0·05) on the percentage decrease in maximum acceptable weight or voluntary isometric strength from the sagittal plane values. Correction factors of 7,15 and 22% for maximum acceptable weights and 12, 21 and 31% for static strength at 30, 60 and 90% of asymmetric lifting are recommended. Lastly, in the absence of epidemiological data, a comparison of maximum acceptable weight and static strength in the sagittal plane with the NIOSH guidelines for action and maximum permissible limits indicates that the guidelines may be conservative.     

A comparison of isokinetic lifting strength with static strength and maximum acceptable weight with special reference to speed of lifting

A laboratory study was conducted to determine the effects of the speed of lifting and box size on isokinetic strength and to compare isokinetic lifting strengths with static lifting strengths and psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights. Nine male college students lifted three different boxes (250, 380 and 510 mm wide) from the floor to a bench height of 0.8 m using a free-style lifting technique at a rate of 0.2 lifts min^?1. For each lifting task static strength was measured at the origin of lift. Isokinetic lifting strength was measured at 0.41,0.51 and 0.6 ms^?1 using a Biokinetic ergometer and attaching boxes to the load cell. Ratings of perceived exertion were recorded for the low back. There was a progressive decrease in mean and peak isokinetic lifting strengths both with an increase in lifting speed and with an increase in box width (p<0.01). The lifting speed had a much greater effect (29% and 27%) than the box width (18% and 15%) on mean and peak isokinetic lifting strengths. However, high speed lifting was perceived subjectively to be less stressful (RPE = 10.7) than slow speed lifting (RPE = 12.7). Static strength and maximum acceptable weight had higher correlations with mean isokinetic strengm (r = 0.65 and 0.82) than with peak isokinetic strength (r = 0.52 and 0.73). At 0.41 ms^?1, mean isokinetic strength was 6% greater than the mean static strength (p ≥0,05). Extrapolation of mean isokinetic strength data showed that at 0.73 ms^?1 the estimated mean isokinetic strengths were within 6% of maximum acceptable weights. It is concluded that isokinetic strength is highly dependent upon die speed of lifting. At a slow speed (0.41 ms^?1), mean isokinetic strength is equal to mean static strength; and, at a high speed (0.73 ms^?1), it appears to be equal to the maximum acceptable weight. It is recommended that both speed of lifting and box width should be controlled carefully to simulate job-specific isokinetic lifting strength.     

Differences in lifting strength profiles between experienced workers and novices at various exertion heights

This study compared lifting strength patterns between experienced workers and novices at various exertion heights. Twenty-one experienced workers and 21 novices were recruited to determine their static-lifting strength under various heights (10-150 cm in increments of 10 cm) using two exertion methods (vertically upward lifting, VUL, and toward body lifting, TBL). Testing posture was also recorded by a motion analysis system for comparing with the corresponding strength values.Results showed that strength during VUL were much higher than strength during TBL at 15 height positions (p < 0.001). Strength in all 30 task combinations showed no difference between the two groups except for the VUL at heights of 100-120 cm. On the average, strength exerted by novices during VUL was 4.57-7.61 kg lower than that of workers while lifting at 100-120 cm heights (all p < 0.05). The strength during TBL consistently decreased with increased heights of lifting. When workers performed VUL, the strength surprisingly remained nearly unchanged throughout the heights of interest. The postures adopted by workers during VUL were also highly differentiated from novices while performing near-floor positions, but the strength was equivalent to each other. This study demonstrated that the static-lifting strength of novices were significantly lower than those of experienced workers while upward lifting near the participant’s elbow height. It was concluded that workers tend to adopt a safer (i.e., more flexed knees) and more skillful technique than novices to generate forces, resulting in lower spinal loads during both methods of lifting.

Relevance to Industry

Many studies have established the human strength data based on student participants who do not have experience in manual materials handling. The present findings clearly suggest that lifting strength data collected on novices (e.g., on students) should be carefully applied in the task (re)design at the workplace as their strength profiles and the postures adopted during lifting differ from workers.     

Static and dynamic lifting strength at different reach distances in symmetrica] and asymmetrical planes

Postural and therefore biomechanical standardization in strength testing has not been rigorously and consistently applied. To develop a quantitative relationship between strength and posture (body position, symmetry, and reach) 30 normal subjects (18 male and 12 females) were required to stoop and squat lift or exert in the relevant posture against a standardized instrumented handle. The isometric lifting efforts and isokinetic lifts were studied. The isokinetic lifts were done at a linear velocity of 50cm/s of the hand displacement from the floor to the knuckle heights of the respective subjects in stoop and squat postures. The isometric stoop lifting efforts were exerted in two standardized postures: (a) with 60° hip flexion; and (b) with 90° hip flexion. The isometric squat lifting efforts were also exerted in two standardized postures: (a) with 90° knee flexion; and (b) with 135° knee flexion. All isometric lifting efforts and isokinetic lifts were performed at half, three-quarters, and full horizontal reach in sagitally symmetrical, 30° left lateral, and 60° left lateral planes. Isometric stoop and squat lifting efforts were also measured in self-selected optimal postures. These 56 conditions were tested in random order. The analysis of variance revealed that the gender, the mode of lifting, the postural asymmetry and reach of lifting affected the strength significantly (p<0·0001). Most two-way and three-way interactions were significant (p<0·01). Of 108 prediction regression equations, 103 were significant with up to 90% of the variation explained by anthropometric variables and sagittal plane strength. The reach affected the strength most profoundly followed by postural asymmetry and the mode of lifting.