Psychophysical capacity of industrial workers for lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically for 8 h work shifts

This paper presents comprehensive maximum acceptable weight of lift (psychophysical lifting capacity) database for male and female industrial workers for lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically for 8h work shifts. The experimental data collected in previous studies on experienced (industrial) and inexperienced (non-industrial) materials handlers (Mital 1984a, Mital and Fard 1986) and the patterns of responses between the two populations (Mital 1985, 1987) were used to generate this database. Since previous work (Mital 1985, 1987) showed that responses of both experienced and inexperienced materials handlers to task variables are similar and also provided multipliers relating the psychophysical lifting capacities of the two populations, it was possible: (1) to convert psychophysical capacity data for asymmetrical lifting of symmetrical and asymmetrical loads, collected on inexperienced workers to reflect psychophysical lifting capacity of experienced workers for asymmetrical lifting; and (2) to take psychophysical lifting capacity data of experienced industrial workers for symmetrical lifting of symmetrical loads and generate from it their psychophysical lifting capacity for symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting of symmetrical and asymmetrical loads by using the response patterns of inexperienced workers to lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically. Both approaches were used and, as expected, provided almost identical values for the psychophysical lifting capacity of industrial workers for symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting of symmetrical and asymmetrical loads. Therefore, the final database tables provided in this paper used combined values generated by the two methods.     

Psychophysical capacity of industrial workers for lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically for 8 h work shifts.

This paper presents comprehensive maximum acceptable weight of lift (psychophysical lifting capacity) database for male and female industrial workers for lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically for 8 h work shifts. The experimental data collected in previous studies on experienced (industrial) and inexperienced (non-industrial) materials handlers (Mital 1984a, Mital and Fard 1986) and the patterns of responses between the two populations (Mital 1985, 1987) were used to generate this database. Since previous work (Mital 1985, 1987) showed that responses of both experienced and inexperienced materials handlers to task variables are similar and also provided multipliers relating the psychophysical lifting capacities of the two populations, it was possible: (1) to convert psychophysical capacity data for asymmetrical lifting of symmetrical and asymmetrical loads, collected on inexperienced workers to reflect psychophysical lifting capacity of experienced workers for asymmetrical lifting; and (2) to take psychophysical lifting capacity data of experienced industrial workers for symmetrical lifting of symmetrical loads and generate from it their psychophysical lifting capacity for symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting of symmetrical and asymmetrical loads by using the response patterns of inexperienced workers to lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically. Both approaches were used and, as expected, provided almost identical values for the psychophysical lifting capacity of industrial workers for symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting of symmetrical and asymmetrical loads. Therefore, the final database tables provided in this paper used combined values generated by the two methods.     

Psychophysical lifting capabilities for overreach heights

Overreach height, in this study, is defined as the maximum reach height of individuals measured to the top of the cut-out box-handles while subjects stand with their heels raised. Since such postures are inherently unstable, knowing how much weight individuals are willing to lift across overreach lifting heights is important. Ten young adult male students (mean age 25·9 years, mean weight 70·8 kg and mean height 175 cm) voluntarily participated in a study designed to investigate the effect of lifting heights above reach height on the maximum acceptable weights of lift. The weight was lifted using a ‘free-style’ technique in the mid-sagittal plane from the floor, knuckle and shoulder heights to overreach heights (individuals stand with their heels raised to deposit the load). The maximum acceptable weight of lift, on the average, declined by approximately 14%, compared with the maximum acceptable weight of lift for reach heights, when the box was lifted to overreach heights. The magnitude of decline in the maximum acceptable weight was highest for the floor to overreach height compared with the knuckle to overreach and shoulder to overreach lifting heights.     

Acceptable weights and physiological costs of performing combined manual handling tasks in restricted postures

Eight healthy, male underground coal miners (mean age=36·9 yrs±4·5 SD) participated in a study examining psychophysical acceptable weights and physiological costs of performing combined lifting and lowering tasks in restricted headroom conditions. Independent variables included posture (stooping or kneeling on two knees), task symmetry (symmetric or asymmetric), and vertical lift distance (35 cm or 60cm). All tasks were 10min in duration and were performed under a 1·22 m ceiling to restrict the subject's posture. Subjects were required to raise and lower a lifting box every 10 s, and asked to adjust the box weight to the maximum amount they could handle without undue strain or fatigue. During the final 5 min of each test, data were collected to determine the energy expenditure requirements of the task. Results of this study demonstrated that psychophysical lifting capacity averaged 11·3% lower when kneeling as compared to stooping. Subjects selected 3·5% more weight in asymmetric tasks, and lifted 5·0% less weight to the 60 cm shelf compared to the 35 cm shelf. Heart rate was not significantly affected by posture, but was increased an average of 4 beats/min in asymmetric conditions, and by 3·5 beats/min while lifting/lowering to/from the high shelf. Oxygen uptake was increased by 9% when stooped, by 10% when lifting/lowering asymmetrically, and by 8·2% when performing the task to the high shelf. Results of this study indicate that, wherever possible, materials that must be lifted manually in low-seam coal mines be designed in accordance with the decreased lifting capacity exhibited in the kneeling posture.     

Kinetic analysis of manual lifting activities: Part II—Biomechanical analysis of task variables

This paper, the second of a series of two papers, presents the results of biomechanical analyses of task variables in manual lifting activities. The three-dimensional dynamic biomechanical model, presented in part I was used to analyze compressive and shear forces generated during symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting, lifting boxes with or without handles, and lifting loads in different size boxes (defined by the box dimension in the sagittal plane). The measured ground reaction forces were also analyzed for the effects of these task variables. The results indicated that even though low-weights are accepted for lifting when lifting loads asymmetrically or in bigger boxes or when handling boxes without handles, the spinal stresses generated are, in general, significantly higher than when lifting loads symmetrically or in compart boxes or when handling boxes with handles. At the maximum acceptable weights of lift, the compressive forces generated were observed to be at least 30% to 50% lower than the compressive failure limit of the spinal structure.     

The load on the lumbar spine during asymmetrical bi-manual materials handling

Previous biomechanical analyses of typical load manipulation tasks were mainly limited to sagittal-plane activities or to static cases. This paper includes the biomechanical determination and assessment of lumbar load during asymmetrical bi-manual materials handling tasks which involve lateral turning of the body, trunk inclination, and sagittal flexion and lateral bending of the spine. Diagonal lifting tasks were analysed for different values for load weight (0-40 kg) and task duration (0·75-1·5 s). Whereas a constant grasp height of 15 cm was assumed, the height for releasing the load differed (50, 100, 150 cm). A dynamic spatial human model (‘The Dortmunder’) was used for calculating the torque in the sagittal, frontal, and transversal planes through the lumbosacral joint and for determining the compressive and the sagittal and lateral shear force at the L5-S1 disc. The trajectories of body segments and load are computer-simulated on the basis of postures adopted during the movement. During diagonal lifting of loads, lumbosacral torque in the sagittal plane is considerably larger than the lateral bending and torsional torque components. Dynamic analyses result in higher maximum values in the lumbar-load time curves than static analyses. The shorter the time for task execution, the higher the resultant dynamic effects and, in consequence, the higher the lumbar load. Lumbosacral compression and shear increase with increasing load-release heights due to higher acceleration and retardation of body and load when the same grasp position and task duration are assumed. The maximum load-bearing capacity of the lumbar spine was determined on the basis of strength data for isolated lumbar segments provided in the literature. The compressive strength falls within the same range as the compressive forces calculated for asymmetrical lifting of loads up to 40 kg. On account of the wide scattering of the compressive strength values, the main influences were determined (age and gender). At an age of 40 years, strength is approx. 6·7 kN for males and 4·7 kN for females (decrease with age per decade: 1·0 kN males, 0·6 kN females). In order to avoid overestimating an individual's lumbar compressive strength, predicted values should be reduced, e.g., by the standard deviation in the male or female samples (2·6 kN or 1·5 kN). Although only a few maximum shear force values are available in the literature, comparison with the calculated values for diagonal lifting leads to the conclusion that sagittal and lateral shear should not be ignored in the assessment of lumbar load during asymmetrical handling tasks.     

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.     

Psychophysical models for manual lifting tasks

This paper provides two models for males and females to assess the psychophysical maximum acceptable weight of lift. The weight guidelines generated by the models are a function of lifting frequency, height of lift, sagittal or asymmetrical lifting, task duration, container size in the sagittal plane, presence or absence of container couplings, and percentage of the working population. The developed models were generated from a knowledge base available in the published literature. A computer program was written in BASIC to assist the user in determining the safe load that could be handled by a specified working population. Model validation showed that the models developed predict the maximum acceptable weight of lift with a reasonable degree of accuracy. A comparison between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommendations and those made on the basis of the models developed in this paper is also presented.     

IEA Newsletter

The aim of this study was to develop a practical and reliable test to predict the maximum lifting capacity of an individual. Dynamic strength during ‘isokinetic’ motion was measured on a device that allowed movement at either 0·73 or 0·97 ms^?1. For the ten men and ten women used as subjects, peak dynamic strength was compared with the maximum dynamic lift (MDL), the maximum load that an individual was able to lift once, from the floor to a shelf 113 cm high, without risk of injury. A step-wise multiple regression analysis indicated that the ‘isokinetic’ dynamic lifting strength (DLS) measured at 0·73 ms^?1 and sex accounted for 94·1% of the variance in MDL. The following equation was derived to predict MDL: MDL = 295 + 0·66 (DLS)? 148 (SEX), where DLS was measured in newtons, and SEX= 1 for men and 2 for women. Maximum acceptable load (MAL) selected for repetitive lifting at a frequency of six per minute was 22% of the MDL for both men and women. A simple test using a portable ‘isokinetic’ dynamic strength measuring device and involving one measurement was thus found to be a good predictor of maximum dynamic lift.     

Comparative analysis of the workload in seated and standing horizontal submaximal lifting tasks

The objective of the present laboratory study was to analyse physiological responses of horizontal lifting tasks when they were performed in sitting and standing positions. Heart rate and blood pressure were used as indices of circulatory strain. Lifting tasks were performed under four lifting positions: sitting-forward lift, sitting-twist lift, standing-forward lift, and standing-twist lift. The weights of the loads were 3, 5 and 7 kg and the frequencies of handling were 1, 4 and 6 lifts/min. This study supports the idea that heart rate is a sensitive measure for evaluating the effects of seated horizontal lifting tasks. The lifting positions and workload (frequency × load × distance) are important parameters in the design of these types of tasks. It appears that within the experimental values examined in this study, a seated position could be recommended while performing horizontal lifting tasks at workloads ≤4·6 kg.m.min ^?1;. The results are supported by smaller physiological responses.     

Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions

The psychophysical method was used to determine the maximal acceptable load that eight males (age 22-30 years) would lift in each of four different positions: (1) seated, two-handed, symmetrical lift from a table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, (2) a seated lift from a position at the subject's side, on to a table in front of the subject involving a 90 degree twist of the torso, (3) standing, two-handed, symmetrical lift from the table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, and (4) standing, vertical lift from 86 above the floor. Subsequent to a training period, subjects lifted a tray with slotted handles at the rate of 1 or 4 lifts/min. Each subject chose the weight of the tray which was acceptable to him by adding or removing flat pieces of lead over a 45 min period. The weight of the tray, heart rate, and the perceived exertion were measured at 15, 30 and 45 min. Oxygen consumption was measured during the last 5 min of the 45 min experiment. Statistical analysis revealed a significant frequency and position effect. An increase in frequency from 1 to 4 lifts/min resulted in a decrease of 1.6 to 2.1 kg in the maximum acceptable weight for the various tasks. On average, the maximum acceptable weight of lift for standing positions was 16% greater than for sitting positions. Oxygen consumption and heart rate were significantly higher for 4 lifts/min than for 1 lift/min; however, the rating of perceived exertion did not differ for any factor.     

Acceptable weights and physiological costs of performing combined manual handling tasks in restricted postures

Eight healthy, male underground coal miners (mean age = 36.9 yrs +/- 4.5 SD) participated in a study examining psychophysically acceptable weights and physiological costs of performing combined lifting and lowering tasks in restricted head-room conditions. Independent variables included posture (stooping or kneeling on two knees), task symmetry (symmetric or asymmetric), and vertical lift distance (35 cm or 60 cm). All tasks were 10 min in duration and were performed under a 1.22 m ceiling to restrict the subject's posture. Subjects were required to raise and lower a lifting box every 10s, and asked to adjust the box weight to the maximum amount they could handle without undue strain or fatigue. During the final 5 min of each test, data were collected to determine the energy expenditure requirements of the task. Results of this study demonstrated that psychophysical lifting capacity averaged 11.3% lower when kneeling as compared to stooping. Subjects selected 3.5% more weight in asymmetric tasks, and lifted 5.0% less weight to the 60 cm shelf compared to the 35 cm shelf. Heart rate was not significantly affected by posture, but was increased an average of 4 beats/min in asymmetric conditions, and by 3.5 beats/min while lifting/lowering to/from the high shelf. Oxygen uptake was increased by 9% when stooped, by 10% when lifting/lowering asymmetrically, and by 8.2% when performing the task to the high shelf. Results of this study indicate that, wherever possible, materials that must be lifted manually in low-seam coal mines be designed in accordance with the decreased lifting capacity exhibited in the kneeling posture.     

Maximum frequency acceptable to female workers for one-handed lifts in the horizontal plane

Abstract

A laboratory study was conducted to determine the maximum frequencies acceptable to female workers for one-handed lifts in the horizontal plane. A psychophysical method was used to determine maximum acceptable frequency for an 8-hour workday. Ten female college students were required to lift continuously three different loads to two different reach distances (38 and 63 cm) on a 91 cm high work table. The lifting task was paced by a repeating timer which the subject controlled according to her subjective feelings of fatigue. Heart rate and RPE were measured during the last 5min of the experiment to determine the physiological level of functioning and perceived exertion. Psychophysically determined maximum acceptable frequencies were compared with the standards based on methods-time measurement (MTM) analysis.

Statistical analysis showed that both the weight of the load and reach distance had a significant effect on maximum frequency acceptable to the subjects. No single value for percentage of maximum frequency can be used to establish permissible one-handed lift limits in women; rather, this value depends upon the weight of the object and distance of lift. The average maximum acceptable frequency was 51% of the maximum frequency that the subjects could maintain for a period of 4min. The subjects selected workloads which resulted in a mean heart rate of 101 beats/min. The subjects rated the perceived exertion ranging from ‘fairly light’ to ‘somewhat hard’. Performance based on MTM analysis ranged from 11% below to 32% above the maximum workload acceptable to the subjects. The non-significant heart rate differences found among the six load-distance combinations lend strong support for the use of psychophysical methodology in future studies of fatigue criteria. The study also supports the previous findings that separate physiological fatigue criteria are needed for tasks involving arm work and whole body exertion.     

Maximum weights of lift acceptable to male and female industrial workers for extended work shifts

Abstract

This paper reports the development of maximum acceptable weight of lift databases for male and female industrial workers for 12-hour work periods. Using a psychophysical methodology, 37 males and 37 females, experienced in manual lifting, performed various lifting tasks involving four frequencies, three box sizes, and three height levels. The maximum acceptable weight of lift was significantly influenced by the frequency of lift, height of lift, and box size. Box size effects were, however, less profound than frequency, and height effects. The maximum weight, acceptable for 12 hours of lifting, elicited an average heart rate of 90 and 101 beats min ^?1 for males and females, respectively. Males selected weights that, on average, resulted in metabolic energy expenditure rates of 23% of their aerobic capacity for 12 hours of lifting. Females required metabolic energy expenditure rates equivalent to 24% of their aerobic capacity for lifting acceptable levels of weight for 12 hours.     

Acceptable workloads for three common mining materials

A series of psychophysical lifting studies was conducted to establish maximum acceptable weights of lift (MAWL) for three supply items commonly handled in underground coal mines (rock dust bags, ventilation stopping blocks, and crib blocks). Each study utilized 12 subjects, all of whom had considerable experience working in underground coal mines. Effects of lifting in four postures (standing, stooping under a 1·5m ceiling, stooping under a l·2m ceiling, and kneeling) were investigated together with four lifting conditions (combinations of lifting symmetry and lifting height). The frequency of lifting was set at four per min, and the task duration was 15?min. Posture significantly affected the MAWL for the rock dust bag (standing MAWL was 7% greater than restricted postures and kneeling MAWL was 6·4% less than stooped); however, posture interacted with lifting conditions for both of the other materials. Physiological costs were found to be significantly greater in the stooped postures compared with kneeling for all materials. Other contrasts (standing versus restricted postures, stooping under 1·5?m ceiling versus stooping under l·2?m ceiling) did not exhibit significantly different levels of energy expenditure. Energy expenditure was significantly affected by vertical lifting height; however, the plane of lifting had little influence on metabolic cost. Recommended acceptable workloads for the three materials are 20·0?kg for the rock dust bag, 16·5?kg for the ventilation stopping block, and 14·7?kg for the crib block. These results suggest that miners are often required to lift supplies that are substantially heavier than psychophysically acceptable lifting limits.     

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.     

Maximum acceptable weight of lift for an asymmetrical combination manual handling task

This paper presents a study on a combination lift and lower manual handling task and was designed to simulate the loading of grocery bags into car trunks. Eighteen male subjects performed an externally-paced task of lifting grocery bags loaded with steel shots from 15 cm above the floor and over a wooden sill. There were two different sill heights of 70 cm and 90 cm, and for each of these heights there were three different sill depths of 28 cm, 43 cm, and 57 cm. The dependent variables were the maximum acceptable weight of lift. Constant conditions were temperature (23–26°C), humidity (52–62%), horizontal distance of lift (136 cm), and time of day the subjects performed the lifting. A unique lifting sequence and a modified version of the psychophysical methodology were used to determine the maximum acceptable weight that subjects were willing to lift. There were no significant differences in the weights lifted across the two sill heights but weights lifted over the 28 cm sill depth was significantly more than the weights lifted for either the 43 cm depth or the 57 cm depth.     

Prediction of the maximum acceptable weight of symmetrical and asymmetrical lift using direct estimation method

The objective of this research was to study the effectiveness and accuracy of using the direct estimation method to determine a worker's lifting capacity or MAWOL of symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting tasks. Sixteen lifting tasks involving four different lifting angles and lifting frequencies were studied. The influence of these independent variables on MA WOL was analysed. In the first session of the study, ten male subjects performed sixteen lifting tasks to predict the MA WOL for each task condition using the psychophysical method. In the second session of the study, the MAWOL for sixteen task conditions were estimated using the direct estimation method. The results of this study indicate that direct estimation is an accurate method to establish MAWOL quickly for a series of lifting tasks. Analysis of the MAWOLs determined by two different methods indicated no significant difference between these two values. However, a significant difference was found between the direct estimated MAWOL and the psychophysicaly predicted MAWOL at the frequency of I lift/min with 30° or 60° asymmetry. This finding shows the limitation of the direct estimation method in developing MAWOL which indicates as the interval between lifts increases, subjects have difficulty in making accurate estimates of the stress of the specific task.     

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.