Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 6, Issue 4 ( Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2019)
Iran J Ergon 2019, 6(4): 46-57 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Habibi E, Mirsalimi E, Darabi F, Ebrahimi K. A Survey lifting the cylindrical things and comparing them with the NIOSH lifting index. Iran J Ergon 2019; 6 (4) :46-57
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-616-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-616-en.html
1- Professor, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2- Graduate Student, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran ,emad.mirsalimi@ymail.com
3- Graduate Student, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
4- Graduate Student, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2- Graduate Student, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran ,
3- Graduate Student, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
4- Graduate Student, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract: (8209 Views)
Background and Objectives: This study focused on lifting drill rods. Drilling is a repetitive and heavy mining operation with a high incidence and severity of musculoskeletal injuries. The purpose of this study was to examine how to lift a vertical drill bit (1.61m and 35kg in height) using two types of rod height and four feet positions, and finally compare them with the Lifting Index (LI).
Methods: Seven workers participated in this study. Each person raised a rod and held it vertically. Reflective markers were installed on each person, and from three cameras and an Ergo-meter plate for record forces and Movement of the limbs. In this case, four positions of the foot and pressures on the lower back were Investigated (position0=to the rod, position45=diagonally to the rod, position90=right side of the bar and free posture). In addition, two positions of the height of the rod were Investigated, at the first, the end of rod was on the ground (height of the rod was 83 m), and in the following the end of rod was on the Basket with height 20cm (rod height of 1.03 m).
Results: The Lifting Index (LI) for each person was equal to 1.4 in the NIOSH lifting equation. It was found that the vertical height of the rod had the greatest effect at the load on the lower back. Some workers use techniques that endure less pressure on their waist.
Conclusion: Finally, it was found that the asymmetric loading Condition (90 ° angle) was the worst case compared to the Lifting index and NIOSH standard.
Methods: Seven workers participated in this study. Each person raised a rod and held it vertically. Reflective markers were installed on each person, and from three cameras and an Ergo-meter plate for record forces and Movement of the limbs. In this case, four positions of the foot and pressures on the lower back were Investigated (position0=to the rod, position45=diagonally to the rod, position90=right side of the bar and free posture). In addition, two positions of the height of the rod were Investigated, at the first, the end of rod was on the ground (height of the rod was 83 m), and in the following the end of rod was on the Basket with height 20cm (rod height of 1.03 m).
Results: The Lifting Index (LI) for each person was equal to 1.4 in the NIOSH lifting equation. It was found that the vertical height of the rod had the greatest effect at the load on the lower back. Some workers use techniques that endure less pressure on their waist.
Conclusion: Finally, it was found that the asymmetric loading Condition (90 ° angle) was the worst case compared to the Lifting index and NIOSH standard.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2019/02/19 | Accepted: 2019/06/8 | ePublished: 2019/06/8
Received: 2019/02/19 | Accepted: 2019/06/8 | ePublished: 2019/06/8
References
1. Gagnon M, Delisle A, Desjardins P. Biomechanical differences between best and worst performances in repeated free asymmetrical lifts. International journal of industrial ergonomics. 2002;29(2):73-83. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00052-X]
2. Jorgensen K, Andersen B, Horst D, Jensen S, Nielsen A. The load on the back in different handling operations. Ergonomics. 1985;28(1):183-96. Gallagher S, Hamrick CA. Acceptable workloads for three common mining materials. Ergonomics. 1992;35(9):1013-31. [DOI:10.1080/00140139208967379] [PMID]
3. Gallaghe S, Hamrick CA, Love AC, Marras WS. Dynamic biomechanical modelling of symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks in restricted postures. Ergonomics. 1994;37(8):1289-310. [DOI:10.1080/00140139408964909] [PMID]
4. Gallagher S, Marras WS, Davis KG, Kovacs K. Effects of posture on dynamic back loading during a cable lifting task. Ergonomics. 2002;45(5):380-98. [DOI:10.1080/00140130210127639] [PMID]
5. Freivalds A, Chaffin DB, Garg A, Lee KS. A dynamic biomechanical evaluation of lifting maximum acceptable loads. Journal of Biomechanics. 1984;17(4):251-62. [DOI:10.1016/0021-9290(84)90136-2]
6. Marras W, Kim J. Anthropometry of industrial populations. Ergonomics. 1993;36(4):371-8. [DOI:10.1080/00140139308967894]
7. Desjardins P, Plamondon A, Gagnon M. Sensitivity analysis of segment models to estimate the net reaction moments at the L5/S1 joint in lifting. Medical engineering & physics. 1998;20(2):153-8. [DOI:10.1016/S1350-4533(97)00036-2]
8. Plamondon A, Gagnon M, Desjardins P. Validation of two 3-D segment models to calculate the net reaction forces and moments at the L 5 S 1 joint in lifting. Clinical Biomechanics. 1996;11(2):101-10. [DOI:10.1016/0268-0033(95)00043-7]
9. Gagnon M. The efficacy of training for three manual handling strategies based on the observation of expert and novice workers. Clinical Biomechanics. 2003;18(7):601-11. [DOI:10.1016/S0268-0033(03)00076-7]
10. Grandjean E, Kroemer KH. Fitting the task to the human: a textbook of occupational ergonomics: CRC press; 1997. [Google]
11. Kroemer KH, Grandjean E. Fitting the task to the human: a textbook of occupational ergonomics: Taylor & Francis; 1997. [DOI:10.1201/b16825] [PMCID]
12. Buseck M, Schipplein O, Andersson G, Andriacchi T. Influence of dynamic factors and external loads on the moment at the lumbar spine in lifting. Spine. 1988;13(8):918-21. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-198808000-00009] [PMID]
13. De Looze M, Toussaint H, Van Dieen J, Kemper H. Joint moments and muscle activity in the lower extremities and lower back in lifting and lowering tasks. Journal of Biomechanics. 1993;26(9):1067-76. [DOI:10.1016/S0021-9290(05)80006-5]
14. Dolan P, Earley M, Adams M. Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities. Journal of biomechanics. 1994;27(10):1237-48. [DOI:10.1016/0021-9290(94)90277-1]
15. Kingma I, Bosch T, Bruins L, Van Dieën JH. Foot positioning instruction, initial vertical load position and lifting technique: effects on low back loading. Ergonomics. 2004;47(13):1365-85. [DOI:10.1080/00140130410001714742] [PMID]
16. Lavender SA, Andersson GB, Schipplein OD, Fuentes HJ. The effects of initial lifting height, load magnitude, and lifting speed on the peak dynamic L5/S1 moments. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2003; 31(1):51-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00174-9]
17. Leskinen T, Stålhammar H, Kuorinka I, Troup J. A dynamic analysis of spinal compression with different lifting techniques. Ergonomics. 1983;26(6):595-604. [DOI:10.1080/00140138308963378] [PMID]
18. Schipplein O, Reinsel T, Andersson G, Lavender S. The influence of initial horizontal weight placement on the loads at the lumbar spine while lifting. Spine. 1995;20(17):1895-8. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-199509000-00010] [PMID]
19. Tsuang Y-H, Schipplein O, Trafimow J, Andersson G. Influence of body segment dynamics on loads at the lumbar spine during lifting. Ergonomics. 1992;35(4):437-44. [DOI:10.1080/00140139208967824] [PMID]
20. Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics. 1993;36(7):749-76. [DOI:10.1080/00140139308967940] [PMID]
21. Disorders PoM, Workplace t, Medicine Io. Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities: National Academy Press; 2001. [Google]
22. Lavender S, Li Y, Andersson G, Natarajan R. The effects of lifting speed on the peak external forward bending, lateral bending, and twisting spine moments. Ergonomics. 1999;42(1):111-25. [DOI:10.1080/001401399185838] [PMID]
23. Plamondon A, Gagnon M, Gravel D. Moments at the L5/S1 joint during asymmetrical lifting: effects of different load trajectories and initial load positions. Clinical Biomechanics. 1995;10(3):128-36. [DOI:10.1016/0268-0033(95)93702-U]
24. Authier M, Gagnon M, Lortie M. Handling techniques: the influence of weight and height for experts and novices. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics. 1995;1(3):262-75. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.1995.11076324] [PMID]
25. Gagnon M. Ergonomic identification and biomechanical evaluation of workers' strategies and their validation in a training situation: summary of research. Clinical Biomechanics. 2005;20(6):569-80. [DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.03.007] [PMID]
26. Davis KG, Marras WS. Assessment of the relationship between box weight and trunk kinematics: does a reduction in box weight necessarily correspond to a decrease in spinal loading? Human factors. 2000;42(2):195-208. [DOI:10.1518/001872000779656499] [PMID]
27. Leskinen T, Haijanen J, editors. Torque on the low back and the weight limits recommended by NIOSH in simulated lifts. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on; 1996. [Google Scholar]
28. Potvin J. Use of NIOSH equation inputs to calculate lumbosacral compression forces. Ergonomics. 1997;40(7):691-707. [DOI:10.1080/001401397187847]
29. Gravel D, Gagnon M, Plamondon A, Desjardins P. Development and application of predictive equations of maximal static moments generated by the trunk musculature. Clinical Biomechanics. 1997;12(5):314-24. [DOI:10.1016/S0268-0033(97)00001-6]
30. Vink P, Daanen H, Meijst W, Ligteringen J. Decrease in back strength in asymmetric trunk postures. Ergonomics. 1992;35(4):405-16. [DOI:10.1080/00140139208967821] [PMID]
31. Marras W, Mirka G. A comprehensive evaluation of trunk response to asymmetric trunk motion. Spine. 1992;17(3):318-26. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-199203000-00013] [PMID]
32. Adams M, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P. The Biomechanics of Back Pain, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, London, New York. Oxford, Philadelphia, St Louis, Sydney, Toronto; 2002. [Google Scholar]
33. Authier M, Lortie M, Gagnon M. Manual handling techniques: Comparing novices and experts. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1996;17(5):419-29. [DOI:10.1016/0169-8141(95)00005-4]
34. Delisle A, Gagnon M, Desjardins P. Kinematic analysis of footstep strategies in asymmetrical lifting and lowering tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1999;23(5-6):451-60. Lortie M. Manutention: Prise d'information et décision d'action. Le travail humain. 2002;65(3):193-216. [DOI:10.3917/th.653.0193]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
