Assessment of the relationship between box weight and trunk kinematics: Does a reduction in box weight necessarily correspond to a decrease in spinal loading?

被引:35
作者
Davis, KG [1 ]
Marras, WS [1 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Inst Ergon, Biodynam Lab, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1518/001872000779656499
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Typically, the simplest and most cost-efficient ergonomic solution to offset the rising casts 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.
引用
收藏
页码:195 / 208
页数:14
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   Trunk kinematics of one-handed lifting, and the effects of asymmetry and load weight [J].
Allread, WG ;
Marras, WS ;
Parnianpour, M .
ERGONOMICS, 1996, 39 (02) :322-334
[2]  
ANDERSSON GBI, 1976, SPINE, V1, P78
[3]   BACK INJURIES IN INDUSTRY - A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY .3. EMPLOYEE-RELATED FACTORS [J].
BIGOS, SJ ;
SPENGLER, DM ;
MARTIN, NA ;
ZEH, J ;
FISHER, L ;
NACHEMSON, A .
SPINE, 1986, 11 (03) :252-256
[4]   PROPOSED STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR STATIC MUSCLE STRENGTH TESTING [J].
CALDWELL, LS ;
CHAFFIN, DB ;
DUKESDOB.FN ;
KROEMER, KHE ;
LAUBACH, LL ;
SNOOK, SH ;
WASSERMAN, DE .
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1974, 35 (04) :201-206
[5]   POSTURAL EFFECTS ON BIOMECHANICAL AND PSYCHOPHYSICAL WEIGHT-LIFTING LIMITS [J].
CHAFFIN, DB ;
PAGE, GB .
ERGONOMICS, 1994, 37 (04) :663-676
[6]   LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF LOW-BACK PAIN AS ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPATIONAL WEIGHT LIFTING FACTORS [J].
CHAFFIN, DB ;
PARK, KS .
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1973, 34 (12) :513-525
[7]   An investigation of perceived exertion via whole body exertion and direct muscle force indicators during the determination of the maximum acceptable weight of lift [J].
Davis, KG ;
Jorgensen, MJ ;
Marras, WS .
ERGONOMICS, 2000, 43 (02) :143-159
[8]   THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMG ACTIVITY AND EXTENSOR MOMENT GENERATION IN THE ERECTOR SPINAE MUSCLES DURING BENDING AND LIFTING ACTIVITIES [J].
DOLAN, P ;
ADAMS, MA .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1993, 26 (4-5) :513-522
[9]   SYMMETRIC AND ASYMMETRIC MANUAL MATERIALS HANDLING .1. PHYSIOLOGY AND PSYCHOPHYSICS [J].
DRURY, CG ;
DEEB, JM ;
HARTMAN, B ;
WOOLLEY, S ;
DRURY, CE ;
GALLAGHER, S .
ERGONOMICS, 1989, 32 (05) :467-489
[10]   Method for measuring external spinal loads during unconstrained free-dynamic lifting [J].
Fathallah, FA ;
Marras, WS ;
Parnianpour, M ;
Granata, KP .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1997, 30 (09) :975-978