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.     

Psychophysical and physiological responses to lifting symmetrical and asymmetrical loads symmetrically and asymmetrically

Eighteen adult males (mean age 22·6 years, weight 78·6kg and height 176·6cm) participated in a study designed to investigate the effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting on the maximum acceptable weight of lift and the resulting physiological cost. Each subject performed sixty different lifting tasks involving two lifting heights, three lifting frequencies and five containers. For each lifting task, the load was lifted either symmetrically (sagittal lifting) or asymmetrically (turning 90^° while continuing to lift). The heart rate and oxygen uptake of the individuals at the maximum acceptable weight of lift were measured. At the end of the experiment, subjects also verbally indicated their preference for symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting. When lifting asymmetrically, subjects accepted approximately 8·5% less weight. There was, however, no difference in the physiological costs when lifting symmetrically or asymmetrically. Lifting asymmetrical loads also resulted in lower maximum acceptable weights. No difference in either oxygen uptake or heart rate was observed when the centre of gravity of the load was offset by 10·16 or 20·32 cm from the mid-sagittal plane in the frontal plane towards the preferred hand. All subjects indicated, verbally, that asymmetrical lifting tasks were physically more difficult to perform.     

The effects of the reach and level of lifting/lowering tasks on metabolic cost in symmetric and asymmetric planes

The energy consumption in the workspace envelope around operators was studied for lifting and lowering tasks. The entire working space was bisected into two identical halves. Within one, 81 target locations were selected. Six male young adults (mean age 27.3 years and mean weight 73.8 kg) stoop lifted and lowered 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 kg loads from floor to their respective knee, hip, and shoulder heights in mid-sagittal, 30° lateral, and 60° lateral planes at half, three-quarters, and full reach distances. The steady state oxygen uptake was measured for quiet standing and the 81 activities. The energy expenditure and inspiratory ventilation volume was subjected to analysis of variance and post hoc analysis. The ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the task reach distance, level of lift and the magnitude of weight (p < 0.001). The plane of activity had no significant effect on metabolic cost. The increased reach of the task required 11–41% more energy and the increased load required 28–100% more energy. A high multiple correlation (r = 0.86, p < 0.001) was achieved for the energy cost of lifting/lowering.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating lifting tasks using subjective and biomechanical estimates of stress at the lower back

The objective of this study was to evaluate five different lifting tasks based on subjective and biomechanical estimates of stress at the lower back. Subjective estimates were obtained immediately after the subjects performed the lifting tasks. Rankings for different tasks were obtained according to the perceived level of stress at the lower back. A biomechanical model was used to predict the compressive force at the L5/S1 disc for the weight lifted considering link angles for the particular posture. The tasks were also ranked according to the compressive force loading at the L5/S1 disc. The weight lifted in these tasks for obtaining the subjective estimate of stress was the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWOL). This was determined separately for each subject using a psychophysical approach. Subjective estimates of stress were obtained for infrequent lifting, specifically for a single lift, as well as for lifting at a frequency of four lifts per min. The results showed that a lifting task acceptable from the biomechanical point of view may not be judged as a safe or acceptable task by the worker based on his subjective perception. This may result in a risk of the worker not performing the recommended task or not following the recommended method.     

A physiological study of manual lifting of loads in Indians

The employment of workers solely for lifting of loads is common in the developing countries. This task can be described in terms of its three principal variables, viz. the weight of the load, the height of the lift and the rate of lifting, but Jew attempts to quantitate the contributions of these variables in determining its strenuousness have been made.

Based on the observed range of variation in an industrial lifting operation, a total of 525 lifting experiments comprising combinations of three different weights of compact loads, lifts to three separate heights from the ground level and three different rates of lifting were carried out on 21 subjects selected from amongst the load lifters.

Comparison of the observed energy expenditures of these tasks with the maximum working capacities of the subjects showed that many of the tasks were unduly heavy. Regression equations depicting the relation between the energy expenditure of lifts of different heights with the other two variables are given. A chart linking these variables has also been prepared; this may be helpful in adjusting those lifting tasks which are continued for prolonged periods so that they are of ‘acceptable’ heaviness.     

An experimental evaluation of psychophysical criteria for repetitive lifting work

Two experiments were performed to test the reliability and validity of psychophysically determined maximum acceptable workloads for setting lifting standards. The perceived workload in a repetitive diagonal lifting task was found to be a positively accelerated function of the weight lifted and of the work pace respectively. A twofold increase in objective workload resulted in a four- to fivefold increase in perceived workload. This relation was independent of previous occupational experience of lifting work. The psychophysically assessed maximum acceptable workloads for this type of lifting task appeared to be satisfactorily reproducible when subjects had to adjust work pace or when they were left free to adjust both the weight and the work pace. However, the results raised several questions concerning the applicability of the psychophysical assessment of maximum acceptable lifting work. Slight changes in the instructions given to the subjects had a definite effect on the selection of workloads. Furthermore, the workloads selected by subjects with previous occupational experience of lifting work — i e, warehouse workers — were systematically lower than those selected by subjects without such previous experience — i e, office employees. At the same time, the warehouse workers rated perceived exertion higher than the office employees, indicating that previous occupational experience of lifting work enhanced the subjective assessment of physical effort. There were no consistent relations between the workloads found acceptable by the subjects and their physical characteristics and performance capacity.     

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 psychophysical study of high-frequency arm lifting

Ergonomics research on worker lifting in industry, and the many tools and methods that have resulted from it, have most often concentrated on the maximum amount of weight that a worker is capable and willing to lift in a given situation. In most psychophysical research on lifting, the frequency is one of a number of controlled variables along with container size, lift range, etc. Most of the relatively few studies that have investigated frequency as the response variable have used relatively heavy loads. In the study reported here, the focus was on the lifting of light weights and the subject acceptance of maximum frequency of lift for a two-handed lifting task. The lift range was set at approximately knuckle to shoulder height and was intended to simulate industrial jobs where the worker is tasked with either loading or unloading relatively light weight items to or from a processing line operation. Twelve college-age male subjects were used. Two conditions of weight, 0.7 kg (1.5 lb.) and 4.45 kg (10 lb.) were used and the subject adjusted his frequency of lift by communicating with the researcher, who adjusted a metronome to pace the task. The subjects were instructed to work at as fast a rate as they could for an hour period without becoming overheated, overly tired, out of breath or in pain. Measurements of oxygen consumption and heart rate were taken to supplement the psychophysical measure of lift frequency. Two replications of each weight condition were performed. At the conclusion of the metronome-paced sessions, an additional session for each weight condition was performed where the subject was instructed to lift as fast and consistently as they could with no external cuing device. The mean frequencies of lift identified in the experiment were 31.21 lifts per minute and 23.50 lifts per minute for the 0.7 kg and 4.5 kg lift weights respectively. The two weight conditions were significantly different from each other in their effects on subject metabolic energy expenditure with the subjects tending to work significantly harder physiologically at the heavier weight.     

The effects of load knowledge on stresses at the lower back during lifting

This study investigated the effects of load uncertainty on the lifting characteristics of 40 male volunteers during the initial portion of a lift. Twenty subjects were experienced weightlifters while another 20 were subjects who had never lifted weights nor held a job that required them to on a regular basis. The subjects each lifted a container 20 × 45 × 40 cm, with handles, from floor to waist height 12 times with loads of 68, 10·2 or 13·6 kg. The loads were lifted under conditions of either havingor not having verbal and visual knowledge of the load magnitude prior to the lift. The subjects were allowed to perform the lift in a manner of their choosing. A 2 (groups) × 3 (loads) × 2 (load knowledge) ANOVA was performed on the data. Maximim force (F_max) value analysis revealed group and technique differences. The experienced lifters had lower stress levels at L4/L5 and utilized two technique strategies that were dependent upon the load knowledge condition, whereas the non-lifters used the same strategy for all lifts. Maximum moment values (M_max were significantly higher for the inexperienced lifters under all conditions, indicating a greater dependence on the low back musculature for initiating the lifting of a load.     

Effect of lifting height and load mass on low back loading

The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of lifting height and mass lifted on the peak low back load in terms of net moments, compression forces and anterior-posterior shear forces. Ten participants had to lift a box using four handle heights. Low back loading was quantified using a dynamic 3-D linked segment model and a detailed electromyographic driven model of the trunk musculature. The effects of lifting height and lifting mass were quantified using a regression technique (GEE) for correlated data. Results indicate that an increase in lifting height and a decrease in lifting mass were related to a decrease in low back load. It is argued that trunk flexion is a major contributor to low back load. For ergonomic interventions it can be advised to prioritise optimisation of the vertical location of the load to be lifted rather than decreasing the mass of the load for handle heights between 32 cm and 155 cm, and for load masses between 7.5 and 15 kg. Lifting height and load mass are important determinants of low back load during manual materials handling. This paper provides the quantitative effect of lifting height and mass lifted, the results of which can be used by ergonomists at the workplace to evaluate interventions regarding lifting height and load mass.     

The effects of container size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting for female industrial workers

In the development of our present manual materials handling (MMH) guidelines (Snook, S.H., Ciriello, V.M., 1991. The design of manual tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics 34, 1197-1213), the assumption was made that the effects of frequency on maximum acceptable weights (MAWs) of lifting with a large box (hand distance, 38 cm from chest) were similar to that of lifting with a small box (hand distance, 17 cm from chest). The first purpose of the present experiment was to investigate this assumption with female industrial workers. The second purpose was to study the effects of extended horizontal reach lifting (hand distance, 44.6 cm from chest) on MAWs as a confirmation of the results of a previous studies on this variable with males (Ciriello, V.M., Snook, S.H., Hughes, G.J., 1993. Further studies of psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces. Hum. Factors 35(1), 175-186; Ciriello, V.M., 2003. The effects of box size, frequency, and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 32, 115-120). Lastly, we studied the effects of high frequency (20 lifts/min) on MAWs of lifting. Ten female industrial workers performed 15 variations of lifting using our psychophysical methodology whereby the subjects were asked to select a workload they could sustain for 8h without "straining themselves or without becoming unusually tired weakened, overheated or out of breath". The results confirmed that MAWs of lifting with the large box was significantly effected by frequency. The frequency factor pattern in this study was similar to the frequency pattern from a previous study using the small box (Ciriello, V.M., Snook, S.H., 1983. A study of size distance height, and frequency effects on manual handling tasks. Hum. Factors 25(5), 473-483) for all fast frequencies down to one lift every 2 min with deviations of 7%, 15%, and 13% for the one lift every 5 and 30 min tasks and the one lift in 8h task, respectively. The effects of lifting with an extended horizontal reach decreased MAW 22% and 18% for the mid and center lift and the effects of the 20 lifts/min frequency resulted in a MAW that was 47% of a 1 lift/min MAW. Incorporating these results in future guidelines should improve the design of MMH tasks for female workers.     

Effect of lifting height and load mass on low back loading

The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of lifting height and mass lifted on the peak low back load in terms of net moments, compression forces and anterior–posterior shear forces. Ten participants had to lift a box using four handle heights. Low back loading was quantified using a dynamic 3-D linked segment model and a detailed electromyographic driven model of the trunk musculature. The effects of lifting height and lifting mass were quantified using a regression technique (GEE) for correlated data. Results indicate that an increase in lifting height and a decrease in lifting mass were related to a decrease in low back load. It is argued that trunk flexion is a major contributor to low back load. For ergonomic interventions it can be advised to prioritise optimisation of the vertical location of the load to be lifted rather than decreasing the mass of the load for handle heights between 32 cm and 155 cm, and for load masses between 7.5 and 15 kg. Lifting height and load mass are important determinants of low back load during manual materials handling. This paper provides the quantitative effect of lifting height and mass lifted, the results of which can be used by ergonomists at the workplace to evaluate interventions regarding lifting height and load mass.     

Psychophysical lifting capacity over extended periods

The effect of time on an individual's lifting capacity over extended periods using a psychophysical approach was studied. Twelve male subjects estimated their lifting capacity in a 25 min period, and then attempted to lift this weight for an 8 h period under varying conditions. For one experimental condition the subjects were allowed to adjust the weight, the final adjusted maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWOL) averaged 85.4% of the original MAWOL determined in the 25 min session. The subjects also attempted to lift for an 8 h period, without any weight adjustments. All 12 subjects lasted the 8 h at 2 lifts per min, but at a frequency of 8 lifts per min only three subjects completed the eight hour lifting task. This indicates that the psychophysical approach is a valid method to measure lifting capacity across the lower lifting frequency range but overestimates the lifting capacity at the higher frequency range. Slight fluctuations were noted in heart rate and oxygen consumption which were recorded every hour.     

Relationship between posture and lifting capacity

This study investigates the effect of changes in posture caused by wearing high-heeled shoes on the maximum lifting capacity. Nine female college students, ages 20 to 25 years, participated in this study. Three heel heights (flat, 5 cm and 7.6 cm), two lifting heights (floor to knuckle and knuckle to shoulder), and lifting frequency of 4 per minute were examined. The results indicate that a significant difference exists between MAWOL with flats and that with 7.6 cm heels for both lifting heights. Subjects lifted 21.5% less weight using 7.6 cm heels than wearing flats. No significant difference was found between MAWOL with flats and 5 cm high heels. In addition, in evaluating the tasks subjectively, the subjects reported that they experienced a stress ontheir legs when lifting with 5 cm and 7.6 cm high-heeled shoes. The conclusion of this study indicates that a change in posture affects lifting capacity, and individuals should adjust their predetermined MAWOL while wearing high-heeled shoes.     

Workplace design guidelines for asymptomatic vs. low-back-injured workers

While numerous efforts have attempted to provide quantitative guidelines for the prevention of initial low back disorders during material handling tasks, none have appeared in the literature that address the issue of recurrent low back disorders due to materials handling when returning to the workplace. A study comparing the spine loads of low back pain patients and asymptomatic controls was conducted. Subjects lifted weights varying from 4.5-11.4 kg at four vertical heights, two horizontal distances and five task asymmetries collectively representing common industrial lifting situations. Spine loading was calculated using a validated EMG-assisted biomechanical model. Spine loads observed during lifting tasks were compared to spine tolerance values believed to initiate low back injuries. In addition, the percentage of patients successfully performing the lift was noted and used as an indication of the willingness of the subject to perform the task. These evaluations are summarized in a series of three lifting guidelines indicating safe, medium risk and high risk lifting tasks for low back patients as well as asymptomatic workers. It is believed that adherence to these guidelines can minimize the risk of recurrent low back disorders due to occupational lifting.     

Maximum acceptable weight of lift reflects peak lumbosacral extension moments in a functional capacity evaluation test using free style, stoop and squat lifting

It is unclear whether the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL), a common psychophysical method, reflects joint kinetics when different lifting techniques are employed. In a within-participants study (n = 12), participants performed three lifting techniques--free style, stoop and squat lifting from knee to waist level--using the same dynamic functional capacity evaluation lifting test to assess MAWL and to calculate low back and knee kinetics. We assessed which knee and back kinetic parameters increased with the load mass lifted, and whether the magnitudes of the kinetic parameters were consistent across techniques when lifting MAWL. MAWL was significantly different between techniques (p = 0.03). The peak lumbosacral extension moment met both criteria: it had the highest association with the load masses lifted (r > 0.9) and was most consistent between the three techniques when lifting MAWL (ICC = 0.87). In conclusion, MAWL reflects the lumbosacral extension moment across free style, stoop and squat lifting in healthy young males, but the relation between the load mass lifted and lumbosacral extension moment is different between techniques. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: Tests of maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) from knee to waist height are used to assess work capacity of individuals with low-back disorders. This article shows that the MAWL reflects the lumbosacral extension moment across free style, stoop and squat lifting in healthy young males, but the relation between the load mass lifted and lumbosacral extension moment is different between techniques. This suggests that standardisation of lifting technique used in tests of the MAWL would be indicated if the aim is to assess the capacity of the low back.     

Relative importance of expertise, lifting height and weight lifted on posture and lumbar external loading during a transfer task in manual material handling

The objective of this study was to measure the effect size of three important factors in manual material handling, namely expertise, lifting height and weight lifted. The effect of expertise was evaluated by contrasting 15 expert and 15 novice handlers, the effect of the weight lifted with a 15-kg box and a 23-kg box and the effect of lifting height with two different box heights: ground level and a 32 cm height. The task consisted of transferring a series of boxes from a conveyor to a hand trolley. Lifting height and weight lifted had more effect size than expertise on external back loading variables (moments) while expertise had low impact. On the other hand, expertise showed a significant effect of posture variables on the lumbar spine and knees. All three factors are important, but for a reduction of external back loading, the focus should be on the lifting height and weight lifted. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: The objective was to measure the effect size of three important factors in a transfer of boxes from a conveyor to a hand trolley. Lifting height and weight lifted had more effect size than expertise on external back loading variables but expertise was a major determinant in back posture.     

Review of:“Sex Differences in Human PerformanceEdited by M. A. BAKER (Chichester,England: John Wiley, 1987.) [Pp. xvi + 202.] £22·00. ISBN 0-471-91119-4.

An experiment was conducted to examine the role that maximal lifting power has in predicting maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) for a frequency of one lift per 8 h. The secondary aim of the study was to compare the ability of power to predict MAWL to previously used measures of capacity including two measures of isometric strength, five measures of isokinetic strength, and isoinertial capacity on an incremental lifting test. Twenty-five male subjects volunteered to participate in the experiment. The isometric tests involved maximum voluntary contractions for composite lifting strength at vertical heights of 15 and 75 cm. Peak isokinetic strength was measured at velocities of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 m s^?1 using a modified CYBEX® II isokinetic dynamometer. Isoinertial lifting capactity was measured on the X-factor incremental lifting machine and peak power was measured on the incremental lifting machine by having subjects lift a 25 kg load as quickly as possible. The results indicate that peak isoinertial power is significantly correlated with MAWL, and this correlation was higher than any of the correlations between the other predictor variables and MAWL. The relationships between the isokinetic strength measures and MAWL were stronger than the relationships between the isometric measures and MAWL. Overall, the results suggest that tests used to predict MAWL should be dynamic rather than static.