Assessment of the Relationship between Box Weight and Trunk Kinematics: Does a Reduction in Box Weight Necessarily Correspond to a Decrease in Spinal Loading?

Typically, the simplest and most cost-efficient ergonomic solution to offset the rising costs of low back injuries is to reduce the box weight that is lifted. However, there is limited research on how a worker interacts with the box. In the present study, we quantify the utility of reducing the weight that is lifted---specifically, how changes in the box weight affect trunk kinematics, trunk moments, and ultimately, spinal loads. In the experiment, 15 participants lifted a variety of box weights (from 9.1 to 41.7 kg) from knee height, carried it a distance of 5 feet (1.5 m), and placed it on a shelf at elbow height. For the lower weights, small increases in box weight (3-9 kg) were offset by the trunk dynamics (sagittal velocity), resulting in no difference in spinal loads. At the same time, spinal loads were found to be significantly higher for weights above 25 kg. Thus, when making ergonomic changes (reduction of box weight), it is important to consider how workers will interact with the box. These results indicate that purely weight-based ergonomic controls might not sufficiently reduce the risk of low back disorders. Furthermore, this study provides additional evidence of the utility of using more complex spinal load models (dynamic, multiple muscle models) when evaluating highly dynamic and complex tasks.

[1]  Gary A. Mirka,et al.  Accuracy of a three-dimensional lumbar motion monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion characteristics , 1992 .

[2]  W S Marras,et al.  A stochastic model of trunk muscle coactivation during trunk bending. , 1993, Spine.

[3]  W S Marras,et al.  Spine loading during asymmetric lifting using one versus two hands. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[4]  S Kumar Lumbosacral compression in maximal lifting efforts in sagittal plane with varying mechanical disadvantage in isometric and isokinetic modes. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[5]  P. Dolan,et al.  The relationship between EMG activity and extensor moment generation in the erector spinae muscles during bending and lifting activities. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  W S Marras,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Motion Model of Loads on the Lumbar Spine: I. Model Structure , 1991, Human factors.

[7]  R. Norman,et al.  1986 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: Partitioning of the L4 - L5 Dynamic Moment into Disc, Ligamentous, and Muscular Components During Lifting , 1986, Spine.

[8]  D B Chaffin,et al.  Postural effects on biomechanical and psychophysical weight-lifting limits. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[9]  Avis,et al.  An investigation of perceived exertion via whole body exertion and direct muscle force indicators during the determination of the maximum acceptable weight of lift , 2001 .

[10]  W S Marras,et al.  Muscle activities during asymmetric trunk angular accelerations , 1990, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

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

[12]  D. Spengler,et al.  Back Injuries in Industry: A Retrospective Study: III. Employee-related Factors , 1986, Spine.

[13]  D. Chaffin,et al.  A proposed standard procedure for static muscle strength testing. , 1974, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

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

[15]  K P Granata,et al.  Female and male trunk geometry: size and prediction of the spine loading trunk muscles derived from MRI. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[16]  C G Drury,et al.  Symmetric and asymmetric manual materials handling. Part 1: Physiology and psychophysics. , 1989, Ergonomics.

[17]  William S. Marras,et al.  Industrial electromyography (EMG) , 1990 .

[18]  S. Snook,et al.  A study of three preventive approaches to low back injury. , 1978, Journal of occupational medicine. : official publication of the Industrial Medical Association.

[19]  W. Marras,et al.  An EMG-assisted model of trunk loading during free-dynamic lifting. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[20]  W. Marras,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Motion Model of Loads on the Lumbar Spine: II. Model Validation , 1991, Human factors.

[21]  W. Marras,et al.  The Influence of Trunk Muscle Coactivity on Dynamic Spinal Loads , 1995, Spine.

[22]  M. Pope,et al.  The relationship between trunk muscle electromyography and lifting moments in the sagittal and frontal planes. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[23]  W S. Marras,et al.  The development of an EMG-assisted model to assess spine loading during whole-body free-dynamic lifting. , 1997, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[24]  A. Schultz,et al.  Loads on the lumbar spine. Validation of a biomechanical analysis by measurements of intradiscal pressures and myoelectric signals. , 1982, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  W. Marras,et al.  A Biomechanical Assessment and Model of Axial Twisting in the Thoracolumbar Spine , 1995, Spine.

[26]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Finite-Element Evaluation of Contact Loads on Facets of an L2-L3 Lumbar Segment in Complex Loads , 1991, Spine.

[27]  W S Marras,et al.  Quantification of back motion during asymmetric lifting. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[28]  W S Marras,et al.  Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[29]  J. Y. Kim,et al.  Quantitative trunk muscle electromyography during lifting at different speeds , 1987 .

[30]  W S Marras,et al.  Electromyographic studies of the lumbar trunk musculature during the generation of low‐level trunk acceleration , 1993, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[31]  W. Marras,et al.  Spine loading during trunk lateral bending motions. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[32]  K P Granata,et al.  Effects of box features on spine loading during warehouse order selecting. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[33]  K P Granata,et al.  Changes in Trunk Dynamics and Spine Loading During Repeated Trunk Exertions , 1997, Spine.

[34]  W. G. Allread,et al.  The Role of Dynamic Three-Dimensional Trunk Motion in Occupationally-Related Low Back Disorders: The Effects of Workplace Factors, Trunk Position, and Trunk Motion Characteristics on Risk of Injury , 1993, Spine.

[35]  W. Marras,et al.  Variation in spinal load and trunk dynamics during repeated lifting exertions. , 1999, Clinical biomechanics.

[36]  K P Granata,et al.  A method for measuring external spinal loads during unconstrained free-dynamic lifting. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[37]  R W Norman,et al.  Dynamically and statically determined low back moments during lifting. , 1985, Journal of biomechanics.

[38]  D. Spengler,et al.  Back Injuries in Industry: A Retrospective Study: II. Injury Factors , 1986, Spine.

[39]  J. Kelsey,et al.  An epidemiologic study of lifting and twisting on the job and risk for acute prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc , 1984, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[40]  W S Marras,et al.  Trunk kinematics of one-handed lifting, and the effects of asymmetry and load weight. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[41]  D B Chaffin,et al.  A longitudinal study of low-back pain as associated with occupational weight lifting factors. , 1973, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[42]  W S Marras,et al.  An Assessment of Complex Spinal Loads During Dynamic Lifting Tasks , 1998, Spine.

[43]  G. Andersson,et al.  Quantitative Studies of Back Loads in Lifting , 1976 .

[44]  W. Marras,et al.  An EMG-assisted model of loads on the lumbar spine during asymmetric trunk extensions. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

[45]  W S Marras,et al.  Significance of biomechanical and physiological variables during the determination of maximum acceptable weight of lift. , 1999, Ergonomics.