Quantification of Postures for Low-Height Object Manipulation Conducted by Manual Material Handlers in a Retail Environment

Geissinger, Jack; Alemi, Mohammad Mehdi; Simon, Athulya A.; Chang, Samantha; Asbeck, Alan T.

doi:10.1080/24725838.2020.1793825

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Practically, this is likely an upper bound for an exoskeleton lifetime, since relatively few workers lift at 166 lifts/hr continuously. Another recent paper studying stockers in a commercial environment found an average of 41 bends/hr, which corresponds to a quarter of the previous numbers, or 83,000 bends per year (Geissinger et al, 2020).…”

Section: Exoskeleton Comparative Design Analysis Design Goalsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Design and preliminary evaluation of a flexible exoskeleton to assist with lifting

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a passive (unpowered) exoskeleton that assists the back during lifting. Our exoskeleton uses carbon fiber beams as the sole means to store energy and return it to the wearer. To motivate the design, we present general requirements for the design of a lifting exoskeleton, including calculating the required torque to support the torso for people of different weights and heights. We compare a number of methods of energy storage for exoskeletons in terms of mass, volume, hysteresis, and cycle life. We then discuss the design of our exoskeleton, and show how the torso assembly leads to balanced forces. We characterize the energy storage in the exoskeleton and the torque it provides during testing with human subjects. Ten participants performed freestyle, stoop, and squat lifts. Custom image processing software was used to extract the curvature of the carbon fiber beams in the exoskeleton to determine the stored energy. During freestyle lifting, it stores an average of 59.3 J and provides a peak torque of 71.7 Nm.

show abstract

Section: Exoskeleton Comparative Design Analysis Design Goalsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Design and preliminary evaluation of a flexible exoskeleton to assist with lifting

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ground level asymmetrical lifts are where risk of injury is reported to be greatest and often have not been included in previous research [38][39][40]. Most occupational lifting is not from an optimal position directly in front of the body [41], and the repeated 100 lift task allowed for the analysis of biomechanical changes over time between groups. At the start of the repeated lifting task the group with LBP demonstrated less peak intra-lumbar spine flexion, greater vertical orientation of the thorax and pelvis and greater peak knee flexion (more squat-like lift),…”

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics for evidence that lifting technique is associated with LBP

Saraceni

Campbell

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate if lumbar and lower limb kinematics or kinetics are different between groups with and without a history of LBP during lifting. Secondly, to investigate relationships between biomechanical variables and pain ramp during repeated lifting. Methods 21 LBP and 20 noLBP participants completed a 100-lift task, where lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics were measured during lifting, with a simultaneous report of LBP intensity every 10 lifts. Lifts were performed in a laboratory setting, limiting ecological validity. Results The LBP group used a different lifting technique to the noLBP group at the beginning of the task (slower and more squat-like). Kinetic differences at the beginning included less peak lumbar external anterior shear force and greater peak knee power demonstrated by the LBP group. However, at the end of the task, both groups lifted with a much more similar technique that could be classified as more stoop-like and faster. Peak knee power remained greater in the LBP group throughout and was the only kinetic difference between groups at the end of the lifting task. While both groups lifted using a more comparable technique at the end, the LBP group still demonstrated a tendency to perform a slower and more squat-like lift throughout the task. Only one of 21 variables (pelvic tilt at box lift-off), was associated with pain ramp in the LBP group. Conclusions: Workers with a history of LBP, lift with a style that is slower and more squat-like than workers without any history of LBP. Common assumptions that LBP is associated with lumbar kinematics or kinetics such as greater lumbar flexion or greater forces were not observed in this study, raising questions about the current paradigm around ‘safe lifting’.

show abstract

“…These internal injuries can occur from lifting objects, working in awkward (non-ergonomic) postures, or performing repetitive motions. It is possible to teach someone proper lifting techniques, but they may not actually use those techniques in practice [11]. Exoskeletons protect from internal injuries in a similar way to using a proper lifting form: they reduce some of the forces within the body that have the potential to cause injury.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethics of Mandatory Exoskeleton Use in Commercial and Industrial Settings

Pote

Asbeck

2023

IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research shows exoskeletons can reduce muscle activity and decrease the risk of injury for workers. Exoskeletons, therefore, are becoming more prevalent in industrial workplaces, and their use in some circumstances has already been mandated. It is probable that additional employers will mandate the use of exoskeletons as a means of mitigating injuries to their employees. This presents ethical concerns because employers hold power over the employees' wages and employment. Some employees who are required to wear exoskeletons may not be able to, while others may not wish to. How should workers' privacy and preferences be weighted? Should employees be prohibited from jobs that use exoskeletons if the exoskeletons do not fit them or if they do not wish to disclose their body's measurements? Should companies using exoskeletons be permitted to require workers to perform additional work with an exoskeleton? In this paper, we examine these and other ethical considerations related to mandatory exoskeleton use through the Six Pillars of Character framework of the Josephson Institute of Ethics ( 2002) and the Universal Moral Values for Corporate Codes of Ethics framework by Schwartz (2005). We provide a discussion of possible solutions following ethical tenets, including executing pilot studies before mandatory use policies, offering several self-adjustable models of exoskeletons, and allowing existing workers to transfer jobs if they are ill at ease with new exoskeleton policies. The best course of action may depend on specific individual circumstances.

show abstract

Quantification of Postures for Low-Height Object Manipulation Conducted by Manual Material Handlers in a Retail Environment

Cited by 5 publications

References 45 publications

Design and preliminary evaluation of a flexible exoskeleton to assist with lifting

Design and preliminary evaluation of a flexible exoskeleton to assist with lifting

Exploring lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics for evidence that lifting technique is associated with LBP

The Ethics of Mandatory Exoskeleton Use in Commercial and Industrial Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About