One-handed lifting commonly occurs in the industry. Specific guidelines of proper heights during one-handed lifting could be valuable information to design or to assess the risk of work environment.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to determine the maximum acceptable height and comfortable height during one-handed vertical lifting by gender, participant height, hand, and object weight.
METHODS:
Based on the psychophysical method, 72 males and 50 females, divided into four different height groups, determined their maximum acceptable and comfortable heights by each hand (left and right) and various object weights (1 kg, 3 kg, 5 kg, and 8 kg).
RESULTS:
Males revealed significantly greater maximum acceptable heights (males: 157 cm; females: 135 cm) and higher comfortable heights (males: 104 cm; females: 96 cm) compared to females. The participants’ heights, which hand was used to lift, and the object weight were significant factors in determining the maximum acceptable height for both males and females. The multiple linear regression model of the maximum acceptable height showed more robust predictive power (R2 = 0.55) compared to the comfortable height (R2 = 0.20) as a function of gender, participant height, hand, and object weight.
CONCLUSIONS:
Results suggest that gender, participant height, hand, and object weight are important variables to consider when determining the proper surface height of one-handed vertical lifting. Using the robust predictive model, an appropriate maximum acceptable height could be suggested based on the material handler’s anthropometric information and object weight.
SplittstoesserRE, YangG, KnapikGG, TrippanyDR, HoyleJA, LahotiP, et al.Spinal loading during manual materials handling in a kneeling posture. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2007;17:25–34.
2.
HarknessEF, MacFarlaneGJ, NahitES, SilmanAJ, McBethJ. Risk factors for new-onset low back pain amongst cohorts of newly employed workers. Rheumatology. 2003;42:959–68.
3.
JorgensenK, JensenB, StokholmJ. Postural strain and discomfort during loading and unloading flights. Trends Ergon. Hum Factors IV. 1987:663-73.
4.
LuM-L, DufourJS, WestonEB, MarrasWS. Effectiveness of a vacuum lifting system in reducing spinal load during airline baggage handling. Appl Ergon. 2018;70:247–52.
5.
HajaghazadehM, Marvi-milanH, KhalkhaliH, MohebbiI. Assessing the ergonomic exposure for construction workers during construction of residential buildings. Work. 2019:1-9.
6.
DavisK, MarrasW. Load spatial pathway and spine loading: How does lift origin and destination influence low back response?Ergonomics. 2005;48:1031–46.
7.
HwangJ, KnapikGG, DufourJS, BestTM, KhanSN, MendelE, et al. Validation of a Personalized Curved Muscle Model of the Lumbar Spine during Complex Dynamic Exertions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2017.
8.
MarrasWS, LavenderSA, LeurgansSE, FathallahFA, FergusonSA, AllreadWG, et al.Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders. Ergonomics. 1995;38:377–410. doi: 10.1080/00140139508925111.
9.
ParakkatJ, YangG, ChanyA-M, BurrD, MarrasWS. The influence of lift frequency, lift duration and work experience on discomfort reporting. Ergonomics. 2007;50:396–409. doi: 10.1080/00140130601128065.
10.
HwangJ, KnapikGG, DufourJS, BestTM, KhanSN, MendelE, et al.A biologically-assisted curved muscle model of the lumbar spine: Model validation. Clin Biomech. 2016;37:153–9.
11.
SnookSH, CirielloVM. The design of manual handling tasks: Revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics. 1991;34:1197–213.
12.
SnookSH. The Ergonomics Society the Society’s Lecture The Design of Manual Handling Tasks. Ergonomics. 1978;21:963–85.
13.
AilneniRC, SyamalaKR, KimI-S, HwangJ. Influence of the wearable posture correction sensor on head and neck posture: Sitting and standing workstations. Work. 2019;62:27–35.
14.
CamberaleF. Perception of effort in manual material handling. Scan J Work Env Health. 1990;16:59–66.
15.
GargA, BanaagJ. Maximum acceptable weights, heart rates and RPEs for one hour’s repetitive asymmetric lifting. Ergonomics. 1988;31:77–96.
16.
GargA, BadgerD. Maximum acceptable weights and maximum voluntary isometric strengths for asymmetric lifting. Ergonomics. 1986;29:879–92.
17.
GargA, AyoubMM. What criteria exist for determining how much load can be lifted safely?Hum Factors. 1980;22:475–86.
18.
MitalA. Patterns of differences between the maximum weights of lift acceptable to experienced and inexperienced materials handlers. Ergonomics. 1987;30:1137–47.
Safety NI for O, Biomedical HD of, Science B.Work practices guide for manual lifting. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science; 1981.
21.
WatersTR, Putz-AndersonV, GargA, FineLJ. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics. 1993;36:749–76.
22.
CirielloVM. Psychophysically determined horizontal and vertical forces of dynamic pushing on high and low coefficient of friction floors for female industrial workers. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2005;2:136–42.
23.
MaitiR, RayGG. Determination of maximum acceptable weight of lift by adult Indian female workers. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;34:483–95.
24.
AbadiASS, MazlomiA, SarajiGN, ZeraatiH, HadianMR, JafariAH. Effects of box size, frequency of lifting, and height of lift on maximum acceptable weight of lift and heart rate for male university students in Iran. Electron Physician. 2015;7:1365.
25.
CirielloVM, SnookSH. A study of size, distance, height, and frequency effects on manual handling tasks. Hum Factors. 1983;25:473–83.
26.
Gary AllreadW, MarrasWS, ParnianPourM. Trunk kinematics of one-handed lifting, and the effects of asymmetry and load weight. Ergonomics. 1996;39:322–34.
27.
MarrasWS, DavisKG. Spine loading during asymmetric lifting using one versus two hands. Ergonomics. 1998;41:817–34.
28.
FaberGS, KingmaI, KuijerP, Van der MolenHF, HoozemansMJM, Frings-DresenMHW, et al.Working height, block mass and one-vs. two-handed block handling: The contribution to low back and shoulder loading during masonry work. Ergonomics. 2009;52:1104–18.
29.
MarrasWS, DavisKG, JorgensenM. Gender influences on spine loads during complex lifting. Spine J. 2003;3:93–9.
30.
DavisKG, MarrasWS. Assessment of the relationship between box weight and trunk kinematics: Does a reduction in box weight necessarily correspond to a decrease in spinal loading?Hum Factors. 2000;42:195–208.
31.
BrodieEE. Sex and hand-preference effects in the simultaneous and consecutive discrimination of lifted weight. Percept Psychophys. 1988;43:326–30.
Danneskiold-SamsøeB, BartelsEM, BülowPM, LundH, StockmarrA, HolmCC, et al.Isokinetic and isometric muscle strength in a healthy population with special reference to age and gender. Acta Physiol. 2009;197:1–68.
36.
HarboT, BrincksJ, AndersenH. Maximal isokinetic and isometric muscle strength of major muscle groups related to age, body mass, height, and sex in 178 healthy subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112:267–75.
37.
MitalA, AyoubMM. Equation for predicting lifting capabilities of people. Trends Ergon. Factors III, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 1986, pp. 767-774.
38.
LiKW, YuR. Assessment of grip force and subjective hand force exertion under handedness and postural conditions. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:929–33.
39.
KirvesojaH, VäyrynenS, HäikiöA. Three evaluations of task-surface heights in elderly people’s homes. Appl Ergon. 2000;31:109–19.
40.
PheasantS. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. London Taylor & Franci; 1986.
41.
GrandjeanE, KroemerKH. Fitting the task to the human: A textbook of occupational ergonomics. CRC press; 1997.
42.
HoozemansMJ, KingmaI, de VriesWH, van DieënJH. Effect of lifting height and load mass on low back loading. Ergonomics. 2008;51:1053–63.
43.
PinderADJ, BoocockMG. Prediction of the maximum acceptable weight of lift from the frequency of lift. Int J Ind Ergon. 2014;44:225–37.
44.
LeP, DufourJ, MonatH, RoseJ, HuberZ, AlderE, et al.Association between spinal loads and the psychophysical determination of maximum acceptable force during pushing tasks. Ergonomics. 2012;55:1104–14.
