Manual materials handling in mining: the effect of rod heights and foot positions when lifting "in-the-hole" drill rods.

There is a paucity of studies focusing on the lifting of rods or long awkward heavy objects. In-the-hole (ITH) drilling is a heavy repetitive mining task, which has been identified as having a relatively high incidence and severity rate of musculoskeletal injuries. The purpose of this study was to examine how the load experienced by ITH drill operators changed when lifting a vertical drilling rod (1.61m, 35kg) using two rod heights and four different foot positions. In addition, a symmetrical lift with a lifting index (LI) of 1.4 also served as a comparison to determine possible risk of low back injury. Eleven experienced ITH drill operators participated in the study. Each subject was required to lift a vertical drilling rod until the upper body was in an erect posture using four different foot positions (0 degrees =subject facing the rod, 45 degrees =subject oblique to the rod, 90 degrees =subject right side to the rod and freestyle). In addition, two rod height conditions were studied where the base of the vertical rod was supported either (1) at ground level (height of rod CG=0.83m) or (2) on a 20cm rack (height of rod CG=1.03m). Finally, each subject lifted a 21.5kg box in the sagittal plane, which corresponded to an LI of 1.4 in the NIOSH lifting equation. Reflective markers were placed on the subjects, and three video cameras and one force plate were used to record the forces and the motion of the subjects' segments. Two surface electrodes were applied on the right and the left erector spinae (ES) at the level of L3. Back loading was defined by the level of the peak moments, the mechanical work and erector spinae muscle activity (EMG). It was found that the vertical height of the rod had the most significant impact on back loading, while the effect of the initial foot positioning relative to the rod was limited by the technique adopted by the drillers. Moreover, it was found that some of the subjects used techniques less strenuous for the back than others. Finally, the asymmetrical lifting component was found to be the most negative aspect of lifting an ITH drill rod compared to a standard symmetrical lift (NIOSH).

[1]  D B Chaffin,et al.  A dynamic biomechanical evaluation of lifting maximum acceptable loads. , 1984, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  Sean Gallagher,et al.  Physical limitations and musculoskeletal complaints associated with work in unusual or restricted postures: a literature review. , 2005, Journal of safety research.

[3]  Micheline Gagnon,et al.  Kinematic analysis of footstep strategies in asymmetrical lifting and lowering tasks , 1999 .

[4]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Asymmetric low back loading in asymmetric lifting movements is not prevented by pelvic twist. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[5]  M. Adams.  The Biomechanics of Back Pain , 2002 .

[6]  O. Schipplein,et al.  The Influence of Initial Horizontal Weight Placement on the Loads at the Lumbar Spine While Lifting , 1995, Spine.

[7]  A Plamondon,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of segment models to estimate the net reaction moments at the L5/S1 joint in lifting. , 1998, Medical engineering & physics.

[8]  Etienne Grandjean,et al.  Fitting the Task to the Man: A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics , 1988 .

[9]  T R Waters,et al.  Methods for assessing the physical demands of manual lifting: a review and case study from warehousing. , 1998, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[10]  G B Andersson,et al.  Influence of body segment dynamics on loads at the lumbar spine during lifting. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[11]  A Plamondon,et al.  Pivoting with the load. An alternative for protecting the back in asymmetrical lifting. , 1993, Spine.

[12]  Monique Lortie.  Manutention : prise d'information et décision d'action , 2002 .

[13]  M. de Looze,et al.  Joint moments and muscle activity in the lower extremities and lower back in lifting and lowering tasks. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  Kermit G. Davis,et al.  Assessment of the Relationship between Box Weight and Trunk Kinematics: Does a Reduction in Box Weight Necessarily Correspond to a Decrease in Spinal Loading? , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Micheline Gagnon,et al.  Biomechanical differences between best and worst performances in repeated free asymmetrical lifts , 2002 .

[16]  A Plamondon,et al.  Moments at the L(5)/S(1) joint during asymmetrical lifting: effects of different load trajectories and initial load positions. , 1995, Clinical biomechanics.

[17]  A. Schultz,et al.  Mechanical Properties of Human Lumbar Spine Motion Segments—Part I: Responses in Flexion, Extension, Lateral Bending, and Torsion , 1979 .

[18]  Jim R. Potvin,et al.  Use of NIOSH equation inputs to calculate lumbosacral compression forces , 1997 .

[19]  S. Gallagher,et al.  Effects of posture on dynamic back loading during a cable lifting task , 2002, Ergonomics.

[20]  G B Andersson,et al.  The effects of lifting speed on the peak external forward bending, lateral bending, and twisting spine moments. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[21]  M. Adams,et al.  Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities. , 1994, Journal of biomechanics.

[22]  K Jørgensen,et al.  The load on the back in different handling operations. , 1985, Ergonomics.

[23]  S. McGill.  Electromyographic activity of the abdominal and low back musculature during the generation of isometric and dynamic axial trunk torque: Implications for lumbar mechanics , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[24]  T. Andriacchi,et al.  Influence of Dynamic Factors and External Loads on the Moment at the Lumbar Spine in Lifting , 1988, Spine.

[25]  W S Marras,et al.  The effects of method of use, tool design, and roof height on trunk muscle activities during underground scaling bar use. , 1991, Ergonomics.

[26]  M Gagnon.  Ergonomic identification and biomechanical evaluation of workers' strategies and their validation in a training situation: summary of research. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[27]  Idsart Kingma,et al.  Foot positioning instruction, initial vertical load position and lifting technique: effects on low back loading , 2004, Ergonomics.

[28]  Monique Lortie,et al.  Handling Techniques: The Influence of Weight and Height for Experts and Novices. , 1995, International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics : JOSE.

[29]  Monique Lortie,et al.  Manual handling techniques: Comparing novices and experts , 1996 .

[30]  A Garg,et al.  Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. , 1993, Ergonomics.

[31]  A Plamondon,et al.  Development and application of predictive equations of maximal static moments generated by the trunk musculature. , 1997, Clinical biomechanics.

[32]  W S Marras,et al.  An electromyographic analysis of an ergonomic intervention with the jackleg drill. , 1990, Applied ergonomics.

[33]  P Vink,et al.  Decrease in back strength in asymmetric trunk postures. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[34]  T P Leskinen,et al.  A dynamic analysis of spinal compression with different lifting techniques. , 1983, Ergonomics.

[35]  Arnold C. Love,et al.  Dynamic biomechanical modelling of symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks in restricted postures. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[36]  S Gallagher,et al.  Acceptable workloads for three common mining materials. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[37]  A. Plamondon,et al.  Validation of two 3-D segment models to calculate the net reaction forces and moments at the L(5)/S(1) joint in lifting. , 1996, Clinical biomechanics.

[38]  M. Coye,et al.  NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE , 1998 .

[39]  W S Marras,et al.  A Comprehensive Evaluation of Trunk Response to Asymmetric Trunk Motion , 1992, Spine.

[40]  M Gagnon,et al.  The efficacy of training for three manual handling strategies based on the observation of expert and novice workers. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[41]  Steven A. Lavender,et al.  The effects of initial lifting height, load magnitude, and lifting speed on the peak dynamic L5/S1 moments , 2003 .