Manual lifting tasks are a leading cause of occupational low back disorders (LBD).
Objective
This study aimed to predict the compressive force (CPF) at L5/S1 among young Thai lifting workers.
Methods
Sixty healthy Thais aged from 18 to 24, evenly divided by gender, performed repetitive lifting tasks with five different lifting frequencies (1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 lifts/minute). A three-dimension static strength prediction program (3D SSPP) was used to identify the injury risk on the low back L5/S1 using biomechanical criteria (compression and shear forces) at extreme postures. Multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) was used to predict factors related to the CPF.
Results
The load weight significantly impacted the CPF at L5/S1 joint for both the lift origin and destination. Lift origin, load weight, trunk angle, body mass index (BMI), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) significantly affected the CPF exerted at L5/S1 for lift origin (p < 0.001). In part of the CPF for the lift destination, load weight, trunk angle, forearm angle, BMI, lifting frequency, and gender were significantly influential. The CPF at L5/S1 for the lift origin and destination in males exceeded that of females at every lifting frequency.
Conclusions
This study helps identify ergonomics risks and may be used to determine the proper weight load for reducing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries (MSI). Therefore, based on the findings of this study, the ergonomic training programs focusing on lifting techniques should consider to improve awareness of MSI.
AnwerSLiHAntwi-AfariMF,et al.Associations between physical or psychosocial risk factors and work-related musculoskeletal disorders in construction workers based on literature in the last 20 years: a systematic review. Int J Ind Ergon2021; 83: 103113.
2.
BrandlCBrunnerOMarzaroliP, et al.Using real-time feedback of L5/S1 compression force based on markerless optical motion capture to improve the lifting technique in manual materials handling. Int J Ind Ergon2022; 91: 103350.
3.
OakmanJLambertKARogersonS,et al.We know it doesn’t work: why do we still use how to lift training for the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders?Int J Ind Ergon2024; 100: 103542.
4.
SkalsSBláfossRde ZeeM, et al.Effects of load mass and position on the dynamic loading of the knees, shoulders and lumbar spine during lifting: a musculoskeletal modelling approach. Appl Ergon2021; 96: 103491.
5.
Health and safety executive. Statistics - Work-related ill health and occupational disease [Internet]. HSE; 2023 [cited 2025 Feb 6]. Available from: https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/
6.
Office of the Compensation Fund, Social Security Office, Ministry of Labor. Situations of accidents or illnesses due to work from 2018 to 2022 [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jan 1]. Available from: https://www.ohswa.or.th/attachments/view/?attach_id=359766
7.
FirouzabadiAArjmandNZhangT, et al.Effect of low back pain on the kinetics and kinematics of the lumbar spine - a combined in vivo and in silico investigation. J Biomech2024; 164: 111954.
8.
ChaffinDBAndersonGB. Occupational biomechanics. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience, 1984.
9.
WatersTRPutz-AndersonVGargA,et al.Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics1993; 36: 749–776.
10.
BeyramiSSahlabadiASTalebolhaghS,et al.Evaluation of compressive and shear forces exerted on the lower back in manual load handling tasks among young workers of selected block maker using 3DSSPP. Int J Occup Hygiene [Internet]2021 [cited 2023 Apr 17]; 13: 49–63. Available from: https://ijoh.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijoh/article/view/500
11.
MartinezRAssilaNGoubaultE,et al.Sex differences in upper limb musculoskeletal biomechanics during a lifting task. Appl Ergon2020; 86: 103106.
12.
SchneiderE.OSH in figures: Young workers. Brussels, Facts and figures. Brussels, Belgium: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2007.
13.
CharoenpornNOutamaAKaewdokT, et al.Maximum acceptable weight of lift in adolescence aged 15 to less than 18 years old. Adv Intell Syst Comput2018; IX: 778–788.
PrairieJPlamondonAHegg-DeloyeS, et al.Biomechanical risk assessment during field loading of hydraulic stretchers into ambulances. Int J Ind Ergon2016; 54: 1–9.
18.
Salehi Sahl AbadiANasl SarajiGMazloumiA, et al.Changes in back compressive force when measuring Maximum acceptable weight of lift in Iranian male students. Iran J Public Health2016; 45: 1199–1207.
19.
YoviEYAwaliyahN. Postural analysis on manual pine resin collecting work: lifting Index and L5/S1 compression-shear forces. J Sylva Lestari2021; 9: 368–378.
20.
Nail-UlloaIZabalaMSesekR, et al.Estimating compressive and shear forces at L5-S1: exploring the effects of load weight, asymmetry, and height using optical and inertial motion capture systems. Sensors2024; 24: 1941–1941.
21.
JiaNZhangMZhangH, et al.Prevalence and risk factors analysis for low back pain among occupational groups in key industries of China. BMC Public Health2022; 22: 1–10.
22.
HignettSMcAtamneyL. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl Ergon2000; 31: 201–205.
23.
McAtamneyLNigel CorlettE. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon1993; 24: 91–99. [Internet]. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15676903/
24.
NishizawaAPoJKatsuhira, et al. A simple method for estimating the intervertebral disc compressive force based on the posture analysis of community-dwelling older adults. J Phys Ther Sci2021 [cited 2024 Feb 26]; 33: 423–428.
25.
JenaSKumarASinghJK,et al.Biomechanical model for energy consumption in manual load carrying on Indian farms. Int J Ind Ergon2016; 55: 69–76.
CorbeilPPlamondonAHandriganG, et al.Biomechanical analysis of manual material handling movement in healthy weight and obese workers. Appl Ergon2019; 74: 124–133.
28.
SinghDParkWHwangD,et al.Severe obesity effect on low back biomechanical stress of manual load lifting. Work2015; 51: 337–348.
29.
GhezelbashFShirazi-AdlAArjmandN, et al.Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model. J Biomech2016; 49: 3492–3501.
CoppockJADanylukSTEnglanderZA, et al.Increasing BMI increases lumbar intervertebral disc deformation following a treadmill walking stress test. J Biomech2021; 121: 110392.
32.
HeuchIHeuchIHagenK,et al.Body mass Index as a risk factor for developing chronic low back pain. Spine2013; 38: 133–139.
33.
Lucha-LópezMOHidalgo-GarcíaCMonti-BallanoS, et al.Body mass Index and its influence on chronic low back pain in the spanish population: a secondary analysis from the European health survey (2020). Biomedicines2023; 11: 2175–2175.
34.
ChaffinDBErigM. Three-Dimensional biomechanical static strength prediction model sensitivity to postural and anthropometric inaccuracies. IIE Trans1991; 23: 215–227.
35.
GargABadgerD. Maximum acceptable weights and maximum voluntary isometric strengths for asymmetric lifting. Ergonomics1986; 29: 879–892.
36.
MarrasWSParakkatJChanyAM, et al.Spine loading as a function of lift frequency, exposure duration, and work experience. Clin Biomech2006; 21: 345–352.
37.
GhalebAMRamadanMZBadwelanA,et al.Effect of ambient oxygen content, safety shoe type, and lifting frequency on subject’s MAWL and physiological responses. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019; 16: 4172.
38.
AlferdawsFFRamadanMZ. Effects of lifting method, safety shoe type, and lifting frequency on Maximum acceptable weight of lift, physiological responses, and safety shoes discomfort rating. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 3012.
