Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study of the Effect of Worker Characteristics on Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Ergonomics for Design and Innovation (HWWE 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 391))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1164 Accesses

Abstract

Manual material handling (MMH) and lifting activities have been identified as risk factors for low back pain (LBP). Statistical findings suggest that about 50% of all back pains are related to manual lifting. Of the many tools available for analyzing and designing lifting tasks, the revised NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE) is perhaps the most widely used. An inherent limitation of the equation is that it addresses task demands only. However, load lifting task is dependent not just on the characteristics of lift but on worker characteristics like age, gender, weight, anthropometry and ethnicity. Thus, the present study investigates the role of worker characteristics like age, gender, BMI and anthropometric variables in a manual lifting task. A psychophysical methodology was adopted to arrive at the maximum acceptable weight limits (MAWLs). 44 industrial workers (22 males and 22 females) participated in the study. ANCOVA for gender using age, height, acromial height and BMI as covariates showed that BMI, gender and age had statistically significant effect on MAWL while the effect of height and acromial height was statistically non-significant. Further, it was observed that the recommended weight limit (RWL) as obtained by the RNLE was 17.2 kg. However, using the psychophysical criteria of 75th percentile women (as per the RNLE guideline), in the present study a MAWL of 19.3 kg was found.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Arjmand N, Amini M, Shirazi-adl A, Plamondon A, Parnianpour M (2015) Revised NIOSH lifting equation may generate spine loads exceeding recommended limits. Int J Ind Ergon 47(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pinder AD, Frost GA (2011) Prospective evaluation of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P et al (2014) The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 73(6):968–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Maiti R, Ray GG (2004) Manual lifting load limit equation for adult Indian women workers based on physiological criteria. Ergonomics 47(1):59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Okimoto MLLR, Teixeira ER (2009) Proposed procedures for measuring the lifting task variables required by the revised NIOSH lifting equation—a case study. Int J Ind Ergon 39(1):15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jackson AS, Sekula BK (1999) The influence of strength and gender on defining psychophysical lift capacity. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 43. SAGE, Texas USA, pp 723–727

    Google Scholar 

  7. Garg A, Boda S, Milwaukee W et al (2014) The NIOSH lifting equation and low-back pain, part 2: association with seeking care in the backworks prospective cohort study. Hum Factors 56(1):6–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Matheson LN, Verna J, Dreisinger TE, Leggett S, Mayer J, Louis S (2014) Age and gender normative data for lift capacity. Work 49(2):257–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ciriello VM, Maikala RV, Dempsey PG, O’Brien NV (2011) Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed after twenty years. Int Arch Occup Env Heal. 84(5):569–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Andersen LL, Sundstrup E, Brandt M, Dastjerdi EL, Persson R, Jakobsen MD (2018) Factors associated with high physical exertion during manual lifting: cross-sectional study among 200 blue-collar workers. Work 59(1):59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nimbarte AD (2014) Risk of neck musculoskeletal disorders among males and females in lifting exertions. Int J Ind Ergon 44(2):253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Marras WS, Davis KG, Jorgensen M (2003) Gender influences on spine loads during complex lifting. Spine J 3(2):93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindbeck L, Kjellberg K (2001) Gender differences in lifting technique. Ergonomics 44(2):202–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Plamondon A, Larivière C, Denis D, St-Vincent M, Delisle A (2014) Sex differences in lifting strategies during a repetitive palletizing task. Appl Ergon 45(6):1558–1569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Plamondon A, Larivi C, Denis D, Mecheri H, Nastasia I (2017) Difference between male and female workers lifting the same relative load when palletizing boxes. Appl Ergon 60:93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sheppard PS, Stevenson JM, Graham RB (2016) Sex-based differences in lifting technique under increasing load conditions: a principal component analysis. Appl Ergon 54:186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sadler EM, Graham RB, Stevenson JM et al (2013) Gender difference and lifting technique under light load conditions: a principal component analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 14(2):159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harari Y, Bechar A, Riemer R (2017) Spinal moments during continuous sequential lifting, carrying, and lowering. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 61(1). SAGE, Texas USA, pp 991–992

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chen YL, Ho TK (2016) Psychophysically determining the maximum acceptable weight of lift for polypropylene laminated bags. Ind Health 54(6):550–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee YH, Chen YL (1996) An isometric predictor for maximum acceptable weight of lift for Chinese men. Hum Factors 38(4):646–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Muslim E, Iadha Nuraini A, Puspasari MA (2013) Analysis of vertical multiplier on revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation for male workers in Indonesia industry. Curr Trends Eng 10:236–242

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kenny GP, Groeller H, Mcginn R, Flouris AD (2016) Age, human performance, and physical employment standards. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41(6):S92–S107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jebens E, Mamen A, Medbø JI, Knudsen O, Veiersted KB, Bo K (2015) Are elderly construction workers sufficiently fit for heavy manual labour? Ergonomics 58(3):450–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Singh J, Kalra P, Walia RS (2012) Study of manual material handling tasks using Taguchi technique. Trends Adv Mech Eng 690–696

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chen JA, Dickerson CR, Wells RP, Laing AC (2017) Older females in the workforce—the effects of age on psychophysical estimates of maximum acceptable lifting loads. Ergonomics 60(12):1708–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Girish N, Rauf I, Vivek K (2018) Influence of age on lifting capacity among manual materials handlers. Work 60(1):163–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Song J, Qu X (2014) Effects of age and its interaction with task parameters on lifting biomechanics. Ergonomics 57(5):653–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Song J, Qu X (2014) Age-related biomechanical differences during asymmetric lifting. Int J Ind Ergon 44(5):629–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin CJ, Wang SJ, Chen HJ (2006) A field evaluation method for assessing whole body biomechanical joint stress in manual lifting tasks. Ind Health 44(4):604–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jackson AS, Borg G, Zhang JJ, Laughery KR, Chen J (1997) Role of physical work capacity and load weight on psychophysical lift ratings. Int J Ind Ergon 20(3):181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Singh J, Kalra P, Walia RS (2012) Study of maximum acceptable weight of lift for Indian male industrial workers. Int J Eng Res Technol 1(9):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hamid ASM, Tamrin SBM (2016) A proposed recommended weight limit for lifting activities among young Asian adults. Malaysian J Hum Factors Ergon 1(1):62–67

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gross M, Dailey ES, Dalton MD et al (2000) Relationship between lifting capacity and anthropometric measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30(5):237–247, 258–262

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sangachin MG, Cavuoto LA (2016) Obesity-related changes in prolonged repetitive lifting performance. Appl Ergon 56:19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Singh D, Park W, Hwang D, Levy MS (2015) Severe obesity effect on low back biomechanical stress of manual load lifting. Work 51(2):337–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Corbeil P, Plamondon A, Handrigan G et al (2019) Biomechanical analysis of manual material handling movement in healthy weight and obese workers. Appl Ergon 74:124–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jackson AS, Ross RM (1996) Methods and limitations of assessing functional work capacity objectively. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 6(3):265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dempsey PG (1998) A critical review of biomechanical, epidemiological, physiological and psychophysical criteria for designing manual materials handling tasks. Ergonomics 41(1):73–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Christian M, Fernandez JE, Marley RJ (2016) Using the revised NIOSH lifting equation in the Mexican workplace: biomechanical, physiological, and psychophysical differences. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual world conference of the society for industrial and systems engineering. SISE, USA, pp 283–289

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fox RR, Company GM, Maynard WS et al (2016) The NIOSH lifting equation—Part I: a review of its validation and implications for interpretation. Proc Human Factors Ergon Soc 60(1):961–962

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wu SP (1997) Maximum acceptable weight of lift by Chinese experienced male manual handlers. Appl Ergon 28(4):237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wu SP (2000) Psychophysically determined symmetric and asymmetric lifting capacity of Chinese males for one hour’s work shifts. Int J Ind Ergon 25(6):675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wu SP (2003) Maximum acceptable weights for asymmetric lifting of Chinese females. Appl Ergon 34(3):215–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Barim MS, Sesek RF, Capanoglu MF et al (2019) Improving the risk assessment capability of the revised NIOSH lifting equation by incorporating personal characteristics. Appl Ergon 74:67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Potvin JR (2014) Comparing the revised NIOSH lifting equation to the psychophysical, biomechanical and physiological criteria used in its development. Int J Ind Ergon 44(2):246–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Z.H.C.E.T, A.M.U, Aligarh, India

    Saman Ahmad & Mohammad Muzammil

Authors
  1. Saman Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Muzammil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saman Ahmad .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

    Debkumar Chakrabarti

  2. Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

    Sougata Karmakar

  3. Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

    Urmi R. Salve

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ahmad, S., Muzammil, M. (2022). Study of the Effect of Worker Characteristics on Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift. In: Chakrabarti, D., Karmakar, S., Salve, U.R. (eds) Ergonomics for Design and Innovation. HWWE 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 391. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94277-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94277-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94276-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94277-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation