The effects of ergonomic interventions on low back moments are attenuated by changes in lifting behaviour

This study investigated the effects of ergonomic interventions involving a reduction of the mass (from 16 to 11 and 6 kg) and an increase in the initial lifting height (from pallet height to 90 cm above the ground) of building blocks in a mock-up of an industrial depalletizing task, investigating lifting behaviour as well as low back moments (calculated using a 3-D linked segment model). Nine experienced construction workers participated in the experiment, in which they removed building blocks from a pallet in the way they normally did during their work. Most of the changes in lifting behaviour that were found would attenuate the effect of the investigated interventions on low back moments. When block mass was reduced from 16 to 6 kg, subjects chose to lift the building block from a 10 (SD 10) cm greater distance from the front edge of the pallet and with a 100 (SD 66) degrees/s2 higher trunk angular acceleration. When initial lifting height was increased, subjects chose to shift the building blocks less before actually lifting them, resulting in a 10.7 (SD 10) cm increase in horizontal distance of the building blocks relative to the body at the instant of peak net total moment. Despite these changes in lifting behaviour, the investigated ergonomic interventions still reduced the net total low back moment (by 4.9 (SD 2.0) Nm/kg when block mass was reduced and 53.6 (SD 41.0) Nm when initial lifting height was increased).

[1]  T. Andriacchi,et al.  Relationship between moments at the L5/S1 level, hip and knee joint when lifting. , 1990, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  A Leardini,et al.  Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. , 1995, Clinical biomechanics.

[3]  R. Norman,et al.  A comparison of peak vs cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry. , 1998, Clinical biomechanics.

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

[5]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Effects of antagonistic co-contraction on differences between electromyography based and optimization based estimates of spinal forces , 2005, Ergonomics.

[6]  I. Kingma,et al.  Can low back loading during lifting be reduced by placing one leg beside the object to be lifted? , 2006, Physical therapy.

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

[8]  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.

[9]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Weight and frequency effect on spinal loading in a bricklaying task. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[10]  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.

[11]  G. W. Bennett,et al.  Regression models for the prediction of dynamic L4/L5 compression forces during lifting , 1992 .

[12]  K P Granata,et al.  Relation between spinal load factors and the high-risk probability of occupational low-back disorder. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[13]  Idsart Kingma,et al.  Lifting over an obstacle: effects of one-handed lifting and hand support on trunk kinematics and low back loading. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  R W Norman,et al.  A simple polynomial that predicts low-back compression during complex 3-D tasks. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[15]  J. P. Morgan,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 2005, Technometrics.

[16]  Alex Burdorf,et al.  Model for the work-relatedness of low-back pain. , 2003, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

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

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

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

[20]  L. S. Mark,et al.  Scaling affordances for human reach actions. , 2004, Human movement science.

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

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

[23]  I. Kingma,et al.  Validation of a full body 3-D dynamic linked segment model , 1996 .

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

[25]  A. Hof,et al.  An explicit expression for the moment in multibody systems. , 1992, Journal of biomechanics.

[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]  W S Marras,et al.  Spinal loading when lifting from industrial storage bins , 2002, Ergonomics.

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

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