Heavy loads are carried out manually by rice mill workers, which causes a considerably high compressive force on the spine, particularly in the L4-L5 region.
Objective
To assess the posture and discomfort experienced by the rice mill workers in manual materials handling (MMH) tasks. To estimate the moment and back compressive force (BCF) at L4-L5 using digital human modeling (DHM).
Methods
The posture of 12 males was measured for three MMH tasks and three modes of load carrying. The measured posture was analyzed using the Kinovea software. A manikin was developed using CATIA software to estimate the moment and BCF. The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) discomfort score was estimated on the developed manikin. A survey was carried out using a modified Nordic questionnaire to assess the discomfort among the workers.
Results
The torso flexion varied from 39.6° to 52° and 3.4° to 7.7° for load carrying on back and on head, respectively. The moment and BCF at L4-L5 were significantly (p < 0.05) higher for load carrying on back as compared to load carrying on head. The BCF at L4-L5 during load carrying on back was higher than the threshold limit of 3400 N. The RULA score during load carrying on back was 5 on 7-point scale. The mean discomfort score was relatively higher on the lower back and upper back.
Conclusions
RULA score and BCF suggest the need for intervention to reduce discomfort and compressive force at L4-L5 among rice mill workers.
PradhanCKThakurSChowdhuryAR. Physiological and subjective assessment of food grain handling workers in west Godavari district, India. Ind Health2007; 45: 165–169.
2.
WatersTYeungSGenaidyA, et al.Cumulative spinal loading exposure methods for manual material handling tasks. Part 1: is cumulative spinal loading associated with lower back disorders?Theor Issues Ergon Sci2006; 7: 113–130.
3.
JÄgerMLuttmannA. The load on the lumbar spine during asymmetrical bi-manual materials handling. Ergonomics1992; 35: 783–805.
4.
MarrasWSJorgensenMJDavisKG. Effect of foot movement and an elastic lumbar back support on spinal loading during free-dynamic symmetric and asymmetric lifting exertions. Ergonomics2000; 43: 653–668.
5.
XiangXYamadaYAkiyamaY, et al.Validation of lumbar compressive force simulation in forward flexion condition. Appl Sci2021; 11: 26.
6.
FungIWHTamVWYTamCM,et al.Frequency and continuity of work-related musculoskeletal symptoms for construction workers. J Civ Eng Manag2008; 14: 183–187.
7.
Antwi-AfariMFLiHEdwardsDJ, et al.Biomechanical analysis of risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders during repetitive lifting task in construction workers. Autom Constr2017; 83: 41–47.
8.
SarkarKDevSDasT, et al.Examination of postures and frequency of musculoskeletal disorders among manual workers in Calcutta, India. Int J Occup Environ Health2016; 22: 151–158.
9.
KadikonYRahmanMNA. Manual material handling risk assessment tool for assessing exposure to risk factor of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a review. J Eng Appl Sci2016; 11: 2226–2232.
10.
MehtaCRTewariVK. Biomechanical model to predict loads on lumbar vertebra of a tractor operator. Int J Ind Ergon2015; 47: 104–116.
11.
ParkSAShoemakerCA. Observing body position of older adults while gardening for health benefits and risks. Act Adapt Aging2009; 33: 31–38.
12.
YooIYooW. Effects of different lifting and lowering heights on upper arm, shoulder and back muscle activity during a manual material handling task. Work2016; 53: 175–179.
13.
SatoKKikuchiSYonezawaT. In vivo intradiscal pressure measurement in healthy individuals and in patients with ongoing back problems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1999; 24: 2468–2474.
14.
JansenJPMorgensternHBurdorfA. Dose-response relations between occupational exposures to physical and psychosocial factors and the risk of low back pain. Occup Environ Med2004; 61: 972–979.
15.
KimMHYooWG. Effect of a worktable position on head and shoulder posture and shoulder muscles in manual material handling. Work2015; 51: 289–292.
16.
MurphyBAMarshallPWTaylorHH. The cervical flexion-relaxation ratio: reproducibility and comparison between chronic neck pain patients and controls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2010; 35: 2103–2108.
17.
NormanRWellsRNeumannP, et al.A comparison of peak vs cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry. Clin Biomech1998; 13: 561–573.
18.
HoltermannAClausenTAustB, et al.Risk for low back pain from different frequencies, load mass and trunk postures of lifting and carrying among female healthcare workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2013; 86: 463–470.
19.
GrahamRBAgnewMJStevensonJM. Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid at reducing low back physical demands during an automotive assembly task: assessment of EMG response and user acceptability. Appl Ergon2009; 40: 936–942.
20.
RaineSTwomeyLT. Head and shoulder posture variations in 160 asymptomatic women and men. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1997; 78: 1215–1223.
21.
ShaghayeghfardBAhmadiAMaroufiN,et al.Evaluation of forward head posture in sitting and standing positions. Eur Spine J2016; 25: 3577–3582.
22.
SimpsonKMMunroBJSteeleJR. Effect of load mass on posture, heart rate and subjective responses of recreational female hikers to prolonged load carriage. Appl Ergon2011; 42: 403–410.
23.
MerryweatherASLoertscherMCBloswickDS. A revised back compressive force estimation model for ergonomic evaluation of lifting tasks. Work2009; 34: 263–272.
24.
SwangnetrMJuntaracenaKKarukunchitU, et al. Assessment of ergonomic risk and compressive force on lumbar spine for farmers in the complete rice cultivation cycle. In: Proc. 19th Trienn. Congr, Melbourne: IEA, 2015, pp.1–6.
25.
LeskinenTPJ. Comparison of static and dynamic biomechanical models. Ergonomics1985; 28: 285–291.
26.
BloswickDVillnaveT. Ergonomics. In: HarrisRL (eds) Patty’s Ind. Hyg., vol. 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2000, pp.2531–2638.
27.
HlávkováJLebedaTTichýT, et al.Evaluation of lumbar spine load by computational method in order to acknowledge low-back disorders as occupational diseases. Cent Eur J Public Health2016; 24: 58–67.
28.
BhandareABahiratPNagarkarV,et al.Postural analysis and quantification of fatigue by using RULA and REBA techniques. Int J Mech Prod Eng2013; 1: 46–50.
29.
DubeBMishraDSatapathyS,et al.Ergonomic evaluation of seeding, fertilizing and weeding postures in agricultural field. Int J Pure Appl Math2018; 119: 1875–1880.
30.
ChangSWWangMJJ. Digital human modeling and workplace evaluation: using an automobile assembly task as an example. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf2007; 17: 445–455.
31.
ChaffinDB. Digital human modeling for workspace design. Rev Hum Factors Ergon2008; 4: 41–74.
32.
SchallMCFethkeNBRoemigV. Digital human modeling in the occupational safety and health process: an application in manufacturing. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors2018; 6: 64–75.
33.
PlantardPShumHPHLe PierresAS,et al.Validation of an ergonomic assessment method using kinect data in real workplace conditions. Appl Ergon2017; 65: 562–569.
34.
ZhuWFanXZhangY. Applications and research trends of digital human models in the manufacturing industry. Virtual Real Intell Hardw2019; 1: 558–579.
35.
LloydRParrBDaviesS,et al.Subjective perceptions of load carriage on the head and back in Xhosa women. Appl Ergon2010; 41: 522–529.
36.
LloydRParrBDaviesS,et al.A kinetic comparison of back-loading and head-loading in Xhosa women. Ergonomics2011; 54: 380–391.
37.
JenaSKumarASinghJK,et al.Biomechanical model for energy consumption in manual load carrying on Indian farms. Int J Ind Ergon2016; 55: 69–76.
38.
KumarAPramanikASinghJK, et al.An ergonomic intervention for manual load carrying on Indian farms. Int J Ind Ergon2021; 83: 103126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103126
39.
KhayerSMPatelTNingthoujamB. Ergonomic postural and biomechanical analysis of manual weeding operation in agriculture using digital human models. Chakrabarti, A. Res. Into Des. a Connect. World. Smart Innov. Syst. Technol.2019; 135: 451–462.
40.
ThokchomSChhetryBSKDewanganKN. Evaluation of traditional design of shovel in dairy farms using digital human models. Smart Innov. Syst. Technol.2023; 343: 139–149.
41.
PaulBPGnanarajDSPaulS. Ergonomic design and RULA analysis of a motorised wheelchair for disabled and elderly. Int J Mech Eng Technol2019; 10: 1014–1025.
42.
KharbSSBelokarRMKantS,et al.Biomechanical evaluation of spinal loading using farm hand tools and handle design modifications for Haryana male farmers. J Inst Eng Ser A2021; 102: 103–110.
43.
HussainMMQutubuddinSMKumarKPR.Digital human modeling in ergonomic risk assessment of working postures using RULA. Proc Int Conf Ind Eng Oper Manag, Bangkok, Thailand2019: 2714–2725.
44.
MeenakshiSMuralidharVNNandlalB. Postural evaluation and related musculoskeletal pain among under graduate dental students using Kinovea - education on ergonomic principles. Int J Heal Sci Res2020; 10: 236–247.
45.
Guzmán-ValdiviaCHBlanco-OrtegaAOliver-SalazarMA,et al.Therapeutic motion analysis of lower limbs using kinovea. Int J Soft Comput Eng2013; 3: 359–365.
46.
DihingiaPCDewanganKN. Musculoskeletal symptoms among tea pluckers in India. Occup Ergon2011; 10: 69–81.
47.
DewanganKNOwaryCDattaRK. Anthropometry of male agricultural workers of north-eastern India and its use in design of agricultural tools and equipment. Int J Ind Ergon2010; 40: 560–573.
48.
WuHCWangMJJ. Relationship between maximum acceptable work time and physical workload. Ergonomics2002; 45: 280–289.
49.
SharmaRKambojKBhardwajJ. Gender response and safe carrying load limit for sugar industry workers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2019; 25: 51–60.
50.
Government of Maharashtra. Maharashtra Factories Rules 1963.
51.
Department of Factories & Boilers Kerala. Kerala Factories Rules 1957.
52.
TsengHYLiuBS. Effects of load carrying methods and stair slopes on physiological response and postures during stairs ascending and descending. Ind Health2011; 49: 30–36.
53.
AttwellsRLBirrellSAHooperRH,et al.Influence of carrying heavy loads on soldiers’ posture, movements and gait. Ergonomics2006; 49: 1527–1537.
54.
CrowninshieldRDJohnstonRCAndrewsJG,et al.A biomechanical investigation of the human hip. J Biomech1978; 11: 75–85.
55.
ThakurtaAG. The influence of three different load carrying methods on gait parameters of Indian construction workers. MOJ Anat Physiol2017; 3: 113–116.
56.
DaveBRKrishnanARaiRR, et al.The effect of head loading on cervical spine in manual laborers. Asian Spine J2021; 15: 17–22.
57.
WatersTRPutz-AndersonVGargA,et al.Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics1993; 36: 749–776.
58.
ChaffinDB. A computerized biomechanical model-development of and use in studying gross body actions. J Biomech1969; 2: 429–441.
59.
AstutiRDSusmartiniSKinanthiAP. Improving the work position of worker based on manual material handling in rice mill industry. AIP Conf Proc2017; 1902: 020043.
60.
PuttewarASJaiswalSB. An empirical study of posture related discomforts in rice mill workers. Int J Res Aeronaut Mech Eng2014; 2: 50–54.
61.
ArjmandNShirazi-AdlA. Role of intra-abdominal pressure in the unloading and stabilization of the human spine during static lifting tasks. Eur Spine J2006; 15: 1265–1275.
62.
ChaffinDBAnderssonGBMartinBJ. Occupational biomechanics. 4th Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006.
63.
OkoroTSellP. A short report comparing outcomes between L4 / L5 and L5/S1 single-level discectomy surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech2010; 23: 40–42.
64.
Bureau of Indian Standards. textiles - sandwich extrusion laminated polypropylene (PP) woven sacks for packaging bulk commodities - specification 2023.
