Skip to main content
Log in

Comparisons with subjective and objective indexes of lifting risk among different combinations of lifting weight and frequency

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is evident that the lifting risk increases with both the lifting weight and frequency. However, little is known whether or not different combinations of lifting weight and frequency cause different risks even lifting the same total weight over a period of time. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of lifting weight and frequency combinations on the lifting risk in the same amount of weight lifted over a period of time. Oxygen consumption, heart rate, and NIOSH’s (US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) Lifting Index (LI) were measured and considered as objective risk indexes. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was collected as subjective risk index. Sixteen young adults participated in the experiment. Each participant performed four lifting trials with different combinations of lifting weight and frequency, i.e. 12 kg & 2 lift/min, 8 kg & 3 lift/min, 6 kg & 4 lift/min, and 4 kg & 6 lift/min. Each lifting trial last 16 min. Each participant’s oxygen consumption and heart rate were measured during the lifting trial. After each trial, the participant’s RPE and LI were collected. The results indicated the combination of weight and frequency had a significant effect on RPE and LI, but had little effect on oxygen consumption and heart rate. The larger lifting weight accompanied with lower frequency (12 kg & 2 lift/min) had a significant greater RPE and LI than the other three lifting trials. This study provided useful information to determine proper risk predictors for manual lifting tasks with different combinations of object weight and lifting frequency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Borg G (1985) An introduction to Borg’s scale. Movement Publications, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin DB, Anderson GBJ (1991) Occupational biomechanics, 7th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin DB, Park KS (1973) A longitudinal study of low-back pain as associated with occupational weight lifting factors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 34:513–525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ciriello VM, Snook SH, Hashemi L, Cotnam J (1999) Distributions of manual materials handling task parameters. Int J Ind Ergon 24:379–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg A, Chaffin DB, Herrin GD (1978) Prediction of metabolic rates for manual materials handling jobs. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 39:661–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr MS, Frank JW, Shannon HS, Norman RWK, Wells RP, Neumann WP, Ontario Universities Back Pain Study Group et al (2001) Biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for low back pain at work. Am J Public Health 91:1069–1075

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kroemer KHE, Grandjean E (1997) Fitting the task to the human, 5th edn. Taylor & Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marley RJ, Duggasani AR (1996) Effects of industrial back supports on physiological demand, lifting style and perceived exertion. Int J Ind Ergon 17:445–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marras WS, Lavender SA, Leurgans SE, Fathallah FA, Ferguson SE, Allread WG (1995) Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders. Ergonomics 38:377–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sesek R, Gilkey D, Drinkaus P, Bloswick DS, Herron R (2003) Evaluation and quantification of manual materials handling risk factors. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 9:271–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ (1993) Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 36(7):749–776

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A (1994) Application manual for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. U.S. Department of health and human services, Public Health Service. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science, Cincinnati, Ohio (45226)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu HC, Wang MJJ (2002) Relationship between maximum acceptable work time and physical workload. Ergonomics 45:280–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wu HC, Hsu WH, Chen T (2005) Complete recovery time after exhaustion in high-intensity work. Ergonomics 48(6):668–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zurada J (2012) Classifying the risk of work related low back disorders due to manual material handling tasks. Expert Syst Appl 39:11125–11134

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology, R.O.C (Grand no. NSC95-2221-E-324-007). The authors especially want to thank Chia-Hao Wang and all participants for their assistance in experimental data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsin-Chieh Wu.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, HC., Hong, WH. & Chiu, MC. Comparisons with subjective and objective indexes of lifting risk among different combinations of lifting weight and frequency. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 14, 14561–14565 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0948-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0948-3

Keywords

Navigation