A study of lifting tasks performed on laterally slanted ground surfaces

Lifting in most industrial environments is performed on a smooth, level ground surface. There are, however, many outdoor work environments (e.g. agriculture and construction) that require manual material handling activities on variable grade ground surfaces. Quantifying the biomechanical response while lifting under these conditions may provide insight into the aetiology of lifting-related injury. The aim of the current study was to quantify the effect of laterally slanted ground surfaces on the biomechanical response. Ten subjects performed both isometric weight-holding tasks and dynamic lifting exertions (both using a 40% of max load) while standing on a platform that was laterally tilted at 0, 10, 20 and 30° from horizontal. As the subject performed the isometric exertions, the electromyographic (EMG) activity of trunk extensors and knee extensors were collected and during the dynamic lifting tasks the whole body kinematics were collected. The whole body kinematics data were used in a dynamic biomechanical model to calculate the time-dependent moment about L5/S1 and the time-dependent lateral forces acting on the body segments. The results of the isometric weight-holding task show a significant (p < 0.05) effect of slant angle on the normalized integrated EMG values in both the left (increase by 26%) and right (increase by 70%) trunk extensors, indicating a significant increase in the protective co-contraction response. The results of the dynamic lifting tasks revealed a consistent reduction in the peak dynamic L5/S1 moment (decreased by 9%) and an increase in the instability producing lateral forces (increased by 111%) with increasing slant angle. These results provide quantitative insight into the response of the human lifter under these adverse lifting conditions.

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

[2]  I. Kingma,et al.  Evidence for a role of antagonistic cocontraction in controlling trunk stiffness during lifting. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  M. Nordin,et al.  1988 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: The Triaxial Coupling of Torque Generation of Trunk Muscles during Isometric Exertions and the Effect of Fatiguing Isoinertial Movements on the Motor Output and Movement Patterns , 1988, Spine.

[4]  Hongwei Hsiao,et al.  Control and Perception of Balance at Elevated and Sloped Surfaces , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Y Zhao,et al.  Foot-ground forces on sloping ground when lifting. , 1987, Ergonomics.

[6]  C. E. Clauser,et al.  Anthropometric Relationships of Body and Body Segment Moments of Inertia , 1980 .

[7]  Kevin P. Granata,et al.  Influence of Fatigue in Neuromuscular Control of Spinal Stability , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Pelvic and femoral contributions to bilateral hip flexion by subjects suspended from a bar. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[9]  Zongliang Jiang,et al.  Influence of knee angle and individual flexibility on the flexion-relaxation response of the low back musculature. , 2004, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[10]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

[11]  U. Moritz,et al.  Low Back and Neck/Shoulder Pain in Construction Workers: Occupational Workload and Psychosocial Risk Factors , 1992, Spine.

[12]  W S Marras,et al.  Trunk Strength during Asymmetric Trunk Motion , 1989, Human factors.

[13]  Gwanseob Shin,et al.  The effects of a sloped ground surface on trunk kinematics and L5/S1 moment during lifting , 2004, Ergonomics.

[14]  U. Moritz,et al.  Low back and neck/shoulder pain in construction workers: occupational workload and psychosocial risk factors. Part 1: Relationship to low back pain. , 1992, Spine.