A comparison of risk assessment of single and combination manual handling tasks: 1. maximum acceptable weight measures

Two-Dimensional Symmetric Box Delivery Motion Prediction and Validation: Subtask-Based Optimization Method

Box delivery is a complicated manual material handling task which needs to consider the box weight, delivering speed, stability, and location. This paper presents a subtask-based inverse dynamic optimization formulation for determining the two-dimensional (2D) symmetric optimal box delivery motion. For the subtask-based formulation, the delivery task is divided into five subtasks: lifting, the first transition step, carrying, the second transition step, and unloading. To render a complete delivering task, each subtask is formulated as a separate optimization problem with appropriate boundary conditions. For carrying and lifting subtasks, the cost function is the sum of joint torque squared. In contrast, for transition subtasks, the cost function is the combination of joint discomfort and joint torque squared. Joint angle profiles are validated through experimental results using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and root-mean-square-error (RMSE). Results show that the subtask-based approach is computationally efficient for complex box delivery motion simulation. This research outcome provides a practical guidance to prevent injury risks in joint torque space for workers who deliver heavy objects in their daily jobs.

Workers' biomechanical loads and kinematics during multiple-task manual material handling

This study investigated the biomechanical loads and kinematics of workers during multiple-task manual material handling (MMH) jobs, and developed prediction models for the moments acting on a worker's body and their peak joint angles. An experiment was conducted in which 20 subjects performed a total of 3780 repetitions of a box-conveying task. This task included continuous sequential removing, carrying and depositing of boxes weighing 2-12 kg. The subjects' motion was captured using motion-capture technology. The origin/destination height was the most influencing predictor of the spinal and shoulder moments and the peak trunk, shoulder and knee angles. The relationship between the origin/destination heights and the above parameters was nonlinear. The mass of the box, and the subject's height and mass, also influenced the spinal and shoulder moments. A tradeoff between the moments acting on the L5/S1 vertebrae and on the shoulder joint was found. Compared to the models developed in similar studies that focused on manual material handling (albeit under different conditions), the high-order prediction equation for peak spinal moment formulated in the present study was found to explain between 10% and 48% more variability in the moments. This suggests that using a high-order equation in future studies might improve the prediction.

Differences in spinal moments, kinematics and pace during single-task and combined manual material handling jobs

This study compared the spinal moments (i.e., peak and cumulative moments acting on the L5/S1 joint), kinematics (i.e., peak trunk and knee angles) and work pace of workers, when either removing a box from a shelf or depositing a box on a shelf, under two conditions: as a single task or as part of a combined task. An experiment was conducted, in which the subjects performed the tasks and were recorded using a motion capture system. An automated program was developed to process the motion capture data. The results showed that, when the removing and depositing tasks were performed as part of a combined task (rather than as single tasks), subjects experienced smaller peak and cumulative spinal moments and they performed the tasks faster. The results suggest that investigations into the separate tasks that comprise a combination have a limited ability to predict kinematics and kinetics during the combined job.

Factors determining workers' pace while conducting continuous sequential lifting, carrying, and lowering tasks

To plan a new manual material handling work process, it is necessary to predict the times required to complete each task. Current time prediction models lack validity when the handled object's mass exceeds 2 kg. In this study, we investigated the effect of workplace design parameters on continuous sequential lifting, carrying, and lowering of boxes weighing from 2 kg to 14 kg. Both laboratory and field experiments were conducted. Results revealed that the box's weight and the lifting and lowering heights influenced the tasks' times. Further, the time to perform a task was influenced by the performance of other tasks in the same work process. New time prediction models were developed using the laboratory experiment data. Our models were found to be more accurate on average than the Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (MOST) and Methods Time Measurement (MTM-1) by 42% and 20%, respectively, for predicting the times of real workers at an actual workplace.

A data-driven approach to modeling physical fatigue in the workplace using wearable sensors

Wearable sensors are currently being used to manage fatigue in professional athletics, transportation and mining industries. In manufacturing, physical fatigue is a challenging ergonomic/safety "issue" since it lowers productivity and increases the incidence of accidents. Therefore, physical fatigue must be managed. There are two main goals for this study. First, we examine the use of wearable sensors to detect physical fatigue occurrence in simulated manufacturing tasks. The second goal is to estimate the physical fatigue level over time. In order to achieve these goals, sensory data were recorded for eight healthy participants. Penalized logistic and multiple linear regression models were used for physical fatigue detection and level estimation, respectively. Important features from the five sensors locations were selected using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), a popular variable selection methodology. The results show that the LASSO model performed well for both physical fatigue detection and modeling. The modeling approach is not participant and/or workload regime specific and thus can be adopted for other applications.

Causal assessment of workplace manual handling or assisting patients and low back pain: results of a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder associated with a considerable social and economic burden within the working-age population. Despite an unclear etiology, numerous physical activities are suspected of leading to LBP. Declaring a causal relationship between occupational activities and LBP remains challenging and requires a methodologically rigorous approach.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review focused on assessing the potentially causal relationship between workplace manual handling or assisting patients and LBP.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

SAMPLES

Studies reporting an association between workplace manual handling or assisting patients and LBP.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Numerical association between different levels of exposure to manual handling or assisting patients, and the presence or severity of LBP.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Occupational Safety and Health database, gray literature, hand-searching occupational health journals, reference lists of included studies, and content experts. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. The overall level of evidence supporting various Bradford-Hill criteria for causality for each category of manual handling or assisting patients and type of LBP was then evaluated. Studies were deemed of higher quality if they received a score of five or more on the modified NOS and used appropriate statistical analysis methods.

RESULTS

This search yielded 2,766 citations, and 32 studies met the eligibility criteria. Three high-quality studies reported on manual handling and LBP, including two prospective cohorts and one cross-sectional design. None demonstrated a significant association in most of their multivariate risk estimates. One study was able to assess dose-response and temporality, but its results did not support these criteria. Only one study discussed the biological plausibility of this association. Four high-quality studies evaluated assisting patients and LBP, including two case-controls, one cross-sectional, and one prospective cohort design. These studies were consistent in reporting no significant association. Two studies demonstrated a nonsignificant dose-response trend, and two studies discussed the biological plausibility of this association. No studies were able to demonstrate the temporality or experiment criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies reviewed did not support a causal association between workplace manual handling or assisting patients and LBP in a Bradford-Hill framework. Conflicting evidence in specific subcategories of assisting patients was identified, suggesting that tasks such as assisting patients with ambulation may possibly contribute to LBP. It appears unlikely that workplace manual handling or assisting patients is independently causative of LBP in the populations of workers studied.

A survey of the optimal handle position for boxes with different sizes and manual handling positions

Handles on objects are very important for enhancing the safety and efficiency of manual handling for people who use them. In this study, four different prototype boxes with auxiliary handles were designed to determine the optimal handle position of a box based on the evaluated user preferences and body part discomfort (BPD). Twenty male students participated in the experiment. Likert-5 point summated rating was applied to evaluate user preferences for the provided boxes with handles in upper, middle, and lower positions, in four different sizes and manual handling positions. Ten additional subjects were asked to indicate their BPD on a body chart after performing a similar experiment. The results show that the subjects preferred the upper part of the handle on a small box regardless of handling position; while the mid to upper parts of the handle on a big box were preferred for handling above the waist height. BPD also indicated that an upper handle was less stressful for a relatively smaller box than a big one; and mid to upper handles were less comfortable for a big box. The optimal handle positions depending on box size and handling position were suggested based on the results of the evaluation. It is thus recommended that a box provides a handle according to its relevant position, depending on size and manual handling condition, to reduce the musculoskeletal stress and in turn to increase user satisfaction.

Dynamic pushing on three frictional surfaces: maximum acceptable forces, cardiopulmonary and calf muscle metabolic responses in healthy men

Pushing is an important materials handling activity in many occupations; however, pushing-related physiological investigations are still in infancy. The purpose was to evaluate maximum acceptable forces and physiological responses while pushing on: treadmill (TREAD); plywood floor (PLY); and Teflon floor (TEF). Acceptable forces, cardiopulmonary and calf muscle oxygenation and blood volume responses were collected simultaneously while 12 men (age 39 +/- 13 years; height 178 +/- 6 cm; and body mass 91.5 +/- 16 kg) pushed for 2 h on each surface at their psychophysical workload. Participants selected higher forces on the PLY, resulting in higher pulmonary oxygen uptake compared to that of TEF (by approximately 9%) and TREAD (by approximately 18%). Pushing on the TEF demonstrated 50-56% lower blood volume changes and 1.5-1.8 times more oxygenation-force ratio than that for other surfaces. It is concluded that, to avoid a potential slip, participants were conservative in selecting acceptable forces to push on the slippery TEF. Part of this compensatory strategy on the TEF resulted in less muscle activity and, therefore, less demand for oxygen delivery to the calf muscle than for other surfaces. The present findings of significant force- and physiological-related differences in treadmill vs. high inertia pushcart clearly demonstrate that pushing experiments are essential to evaluate functional abilities of the workers.

Applications of biomechanics for prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders

This paper summarises applications of biomechanical principles and models in industry to control musculoskeletal disorders of the low back and upper extremity. Applications of 2-D and 3-D biomechanical models to estimate compressive force on the low back, the strength requirements of jobs, application of guidelines for overhead work and application of strain index and threshold limit value to address distal upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders are presented. Several case studies applied in the railroad industry, manufacturing, healthcare and warehousing are presented. Finally, future developments needed for improved biomechanical applications in industry are discussed. The information presented will be of value to practising ergonomists to recognise how biomechanics has played a significant role in identifying causes of musculoskeletal disorders and controlling them in the workplace. In particular, the information presented will help practising ergonomists with how physical stresses can be objectively quantified.

The effect of different surfaces on biomechanical loading of shoulder and lumbar spine during pushing and pulling of two-wheeled containers

Seven waste collectors pushed and pulled a two-wheeled container on three different surfaces: flagstones, paving stones, grass. Net torques at the shoulder joint and the lumbar spine as well as the compression and shear forces in the lumbar spine at the L4/L5 level were calculated for the tilting, initial and sustained phases. The lumbar spine compression force was below 1800N and the shear force was below 200 N in all situations. The shoulder torque when pulling with one hand was up to 80 N m. The container weight affected the magnitude of the push/pull forces and the load on the shoulders but not the load on the lumbar spine. The type of surface affected the magnitude of the push/pull forces during initial and sustained phases, and affected the load on the shoulder in the sustained phase. However, it did not affect the compression in the lumbar spine.

Psychophysical and psychosocial comparison of squat and stoop lifting by young females

Psychophysical and psychological criteria are accepted risk measures for manual handling task assessment, yet few reports have compared squat and stoop using these criteria. Seventeen university students participated in a within-subjects cross over design study to compare squat and stoop techniques using maximum acceptable weight (MAW), perceptions of exertion (RPE), discomfort and preference. Mean (SD) MAW for squat was lower than for stoop (7.0 (2.2) kg vs 8.5 (2.4) kg) and RPE for squat was greater than for stoop (15.2 (1.5) kg vs 13.3(1.5) kg). More subjects reported discomfort following squat and a preference for stoop. The results provide limited support for use of stoop rather than squat technique for lifting a medium sized box from floor to knuckle height.

A comparison of risk assessment of single and combination manual handling tasks: 2. Discomfort, rating of perceived exertion and heart rate measures

Although many manual handling activities involve combinations of pull, lift, carry, lower and push, there are few reports of investigation of how to assess the risk in these combination tasks. Two strategies have been suggested in the literature for estimating the risk in a combination task based on the measures of the separate components of that task. The aim of the study was to compare the risks assessed in single manual handling tasks with those in combination tasks. Ratings of discomfort, exertion and heart rate were collected from nine male and nine female students, performing combination and single tasks. Combination tasks consisted of sequences of pull, lift, carry, lower and push tasks. Combination tasks were performed at 1.min-1 and 3.min-1 whilst single tasks (lift, lower, push, pull and carry) were performed at 3.min-1 and 6.min-1. The rating of exertion and heart rate for each combination task was compared to the exertion rating and heart rate of the single tasks which comprised the combination task using repeated measures analysis of variance with specified contrasts. Similar comparisons for the discomfort data were performed using Friedman and Wilcoxon tests. In at least one of the twelve comparisons performed for each dependent variable, the combination task value was significantly different to each single task value. The differences occurred regardless of whether the most critical single task value or an average of all single task values was used. It was concluded that the risk in combination manual tasks can not be accurately assessed by using estimates from discomfort, exertion ratings and heart rate measures of single tasks.