Manual lifting load limit equation for adult Indian women workers based on physiological criteria

Abstract

A comprehensive equation for the evaluation of a maximum load limit for manual load lifting has been developed for the first time for Indian adult female workers, based on a physiological criterion due to the limitation of applicability of the NIOSH (1991) equation. Ten adult female workers, who had been engaged in building construction activities for at least 7 years participated in this study. The cut-off value was selected as the working heart rate corresponding to the 33% level of maximum aerobic power (i.e. V'O2 max.) of this population, which was equivalent to a heart rate of 101.6 beats x min(-1). An equation was developed based on the effects of the following three lifting parameters on working heart rate: vertical height (knee, waist, shoulder and maximum reach height), lifting frequency (1, 4, 7 and 14 lifts x min(-1)), and load weight (5, 10 and 15 kg). The variations of the specific lifting parameter values were selected from field observations. From this equation, the maximum load limit was calculated as 15.4 kg and the workers give this a psychophysical rating as in the moderate to heavy category.

Effect of different multipliers and their interactions during manual lifting operations

“…N.H.R. prediction equation as reported in earlier study (Maiti and Ray, 2004). The stepwise regression analysis result (Table 6) showed that only four parameters (i.e.…”

“…The detailed description of the experimental set-up ( Fig. 1) and data collection procedure is available in Maiti and Ray (2004). The synchronized output is presented in Fig.…”

“…McKeana and Potvin (2001) mentioned the significant interaction effects of lifting parameters on trunk extensor muscle activity. More recently, Maiti and Ray (2004) showed that after considering the interaction effect of lifting frequency and load weight on working heart rate provided a better predictive equation. These results suggest the importance of interaction effects, and it may not be sufficient to define the interaction effects as a mere multiplication factor.…”

Evaluation of the Impact of the Revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Lifting Equation

“…The remaining studies in category 2 were concerned about (1) work designs for risk of injury using the RNLE as the assessment method (Balasubramanian & Sharma, 2009; Koltan, 2009; Plamondon, Delisle, Trimble, Desjardins, & Rickwood, 2006; Stuart-Buttle, 1995), (2) the relationship between subjective assessments of risk exposures and the LI (Kee & Chung, 1996; Yeung, Genaidy, Karwowski, & Leung, 2002), (3) an investigation of the maximal lifting load limit for adult Indian women using the physiological criteria from the RNLE (Maiti & Ray, 2004), (4) a comparison of the Isernhagen Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) and the RNLE for safe patient lifting (Kuijer et al, 2006), (5) an evaluation of participatory ergonomic (PE) training against the RNLE (Saleem, Kleiner, & Nussbaum, 2003), and (6) testing for automating measurements for some RNLE task variables that could be used in the field (Spector, Lieblich, Bao, McQuade, & Hughes, 2014). Two of the above-mentioned studies are worth elaborating.…”

Pre-Exertion Perceptions of Musculoskeletal Overexertion Injury Risk: An Assessment of Age, Gender, Anthropometric, and Lifting Task Factors

“…A number of studies have been conducted in which limits for lifting have been recommended based upon human physical performance of MMH tasks (Ayoub, Dryden, McDaniel, Knipfer, & Dixon, 1979;C., Smith, & Ayoub, 1985;Ciriello, Snook, Blick, & Wilkinson, 1990;Fernandez, Ayoub, & Smith, 1991;Gallagher, 1991;Garg & Ayoub, 1980;Hafez & Ayoub, 1991;Karwowski, 1991;Karwowski & Yates, 1986;Legg & Myles, 1981;Maiti & Ray, 2004;Mital, 1983;Morrissey & Bittner, 1989;Nicholson, 1989;Potvin & Bent, 1997;Sharp & Legg, 1988;Snook & Irvine, 1967;Stalhammar, Louhevaara, & Troup, 1996;Waikar, Lee, Aghazadeh, & Parks, 1991). We found no investigations that examined the impact of aging upon visual perceptions of lifting injury risk.…”