Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A comparative study of methods for establishing load handling capabilities.

A S Nicholson

    Ergonomics
    |September 1, 1989
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet.

    Preventive medicine·1999
    Same author

    Slipping, tripping and falling accidents to delivery drivers.

    Ergonomics·1985
    Same author

    Accident information from four British industries.

    Ergonomics·1985
    Same author

    Magnitude and distribution of trunk stresses in telecommunications engineers.

    British journal of industrial medicine·1981

    Comparing manual handling techniques, this study found

    Area of Science:

    • Occupational Biomechanics
    • Ergonomics
    • Human Factors Engineering

    Background:

    • Quantifying manual handling capabilities is crucial for workplace safety.
    • Four primary methods exist: biomechanical modeling, intra-abdominal pressure measurement, psychophysics, and metabolic/physiological criteria.
    • This study focuses on comparing the first three techniques.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To quantitatively compare data from biomechanical modeling, intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurements, and psychophysics for manual handling tasks.
    • To assess agreement and discrepancies between different methods in determining safe lifting and pushing/pulling limits.
    • To evaluate the biomechanical implications (L5/S1 compressive forces) of the limits derived from these methods.

    Main Methods:

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparative analysis of existing databases for bimanual, sagittal plane lifting.
  • Inclusion of pushing and pulling data from psychophysics and IAP ('force limits') databases.
  • Utilized a static sagittal plane biomechanical model to estimate L5/S1 compressive forces.

    • Main Results:

    • 'Force limits' (IAP) proposed lower weights for bimanual lifting than psychophysics, except near shoulder height.
    • Closest agreement between methods was for lifting above knuckle height.
    • 'Force limits' suggested minimum lift weights from floor, while psychophysics suggested maximum; psychophysical lifting from floor exceeded NIOSH limits.
    • Lifting 'force limits' weights generated significantly lower L5/S1 compressive forces than NIOSH Action Limit (AL).
    • Good agreement for pushing, but 'force limits' suggested considerably higher weights than psychophysics for pulling.

    Conclusions:

    • Significant discrepancies exist between 'force limits' and psychophysical data for lifting, particularly from floor level.
    • Biomechanical implications vary considerably depending on the method used to set manual handling limits.
    • Findings highlight the need for careful consideration of methodology when establishing safe manual handling guidelines, especially for pushing and pulling tasks.