Predicting the load constant of the revised NIOSH lifting equation based on demographics

References

• Barim MS, Sesek RF, Capanoglu MF, et al. Improving the risk assessment capability of the revised NIOSH lifting equation by incorporating personal characteristics. Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2019;74:67–73. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okimoto MLLR, Teixeira ER. Proposed procedures for measuring the lifting task variables required by the revised NIOSH lifting equation – a case study. Int J Ind Ergon [Internet]. 2009;39(1):15–22. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, et al. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics. 1993;36(7):749–776. doi:10.1080/00140139308967940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu M-L, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, et al. Evaluation of the impact of the revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Lifting Equation. Hum Factors [Internet]. 2016;58(5):667–682. doi:10.1177/0018720815623894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boda SV, Bhoyar P, Garg A. Validation of revised NIOSH lifting equation and 3D SSP model to predict risk of work-related low back pain. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 54th Annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, USA; 2010, 27 Sept–1 Oct. p. 1185–1189.
   Google Scholar
• Potvin JR. Comparing the revised NIOSH lifting equation to the psychophysical, biomechanical and physiological criteria used in its development. Int J Ind Ergon [Internet]. 2014;44(2):246–252. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2013.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox RR, Lu M-L, Occhipinti E, et al. Understanding outcome metrics of the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2019;81. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003687018307324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters T, Anderson V, Garg A, et al. Application manual for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Cincinnati, OH: DHHS (NIOSH); 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Lu M, Waters TR, Krieg E, et al. Efficacy of the revised NIOSH lifting equation to predict risk of low-back pain associated with manual lifting: a one-year prospective study. Hum Factors [Internet]. 2014;56(1):73–85. doi:10.1177/0018720813513608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christian M, Fernandez JE, Marley RJ. Using the revised NIOSH lifting equation in the Mexican workplace: biomechanical, physiological, and psychophysical differences. 5th Annual world conference of the society for industrial and systems engineering, San Francisco, USA. 2016, Oct 13–14. SISE. p. 283–289.
   Google Scholar
• Fox RR, Company GM, Maynard WS, et al. The NIOSH lifting equation – part I: a review of its validation and implications for interpretation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2016: 961–962, HFES Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lee YH, Chen YL. An isometric predictor for maximum acceptable weight of lift for Chinese men. Hum Factors. 1996;38(4):646–653. doi:10.1518/001872096778827242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu SP. Maximum acceptable weight of lift by Chinese experienced male manual handlers. Appl Ergon. 1997;28(4):237–244. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00080-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu SP. Psychophysically determined symmetric and asymmetric lifting capacity of Chinese males for one hour’s work shifts. Int J Ind Ergon. 2000;25(6):675–682. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00055-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu SP. Maximum acceptable weights for asymmetric lifting of Chinese females. Appl Ergon. 2003;34(3):215–224. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00010-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afshari D, Latifi SM, Kord S, et al. Assessment of low back disorders risk based on allowable weight limits for manual lifting in Iran. Ind Health. 2018;56(4):327–335. doi:10.2486/indhealth.2017-0174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim C, Myung-Kug M, Kim H, et al. A study for the applicability of NIOSH lifting guideline on Korean population. In: Proceedings of Korean Society of Human Engineers. 2019. p. 6–8.
   Google Scholar
• Ardiyanto A, Wirasadha DA, Wulandari NW, et al. An investigation of the maximum acceptable weight of lift by Indonesian inexperienced female manual material handlers. Adv Intell Syst Comput. 2018;820:169–178.
   Google Scholar
• Lee KS, Park HS, Chun YH. The validity of the revised NIOSH weight limit in a Korean young male population: a psychophysical approach. Int J Ind Ergon. 1996;18(2–3):181–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KS, Park HS. Assessment of validity of applying the revised NIOSH weight limit of lifts to Korean young male population: psychophysical approach Human factors and ergonomics society 39th annual meeting, California, USA; 1995, Oct. 9–13. HFES Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Maiti R, Ray GG. Determination of maximum acceptable weight of lift by adult Indian female workers. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;34(6):483–495. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y-L, Ho T-K. Psychophysically determining the maximum acceptable weight of lift for polypropylene laminated bags. Ind Health [Internet]. 2016;54(6):550–553. doi:10.2486/indhealth.2016-0040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harari Y, Bechar A, Riemer R. Spinal moments during continuous sequential lifting, carrying, and lowering. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet [Internet]. 2017;61(1):991–992. doi:10.1177/1541931213601729
   Google Scholar
• Muslim E, Iadha Nuraini A, Puspasari MA. 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. 2013;10:236–242.
   Google Scholar
• Matheson LN, Verna J, Dreisinger TE, et al. Age and gender normative data for lift capacity. Work. 2014;49(2):257–269. doi:10.3233/WOR-131671
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ciriello VM, Maikala RV, Dempsey PG, et al. Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed after twenty years. Int Arch Occup Env Heal. 2011;84(5):569–575. Doi:10.1007/s00420-010-0589-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen LL, Sundstrup E, Brandt M, et al. Factors associated with high physical exertion during manual lifting: cross-sectional study among 200 blue-collar workers. Work. 2018;59(1):59–66. doi:10.3233/WOR-172655
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nimbarte AD. Risk of neck musculoskeletal disorders among males and females in lifting exertions. Int J Ind Ergon [Internet]. 2014;44(2):253–259. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2013.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marras WS, Davis KG, Jorgensen M. Gender influences on spine loads during complex lifting. Spine J. 2003;3(2):93–99. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00570-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plamondon A, Larivière C, Denis D, et al. Sex differences in lifting strategies during a repetitive palletizing task. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(6):1558–1569. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plamondon A, Larivi C, Denis D, et al. Difference between male and female workers lifting the same relative load when palletizing boxes. Appl Ergon. 2017;60:93–102. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.10.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheppard PS, Stevenson JM, Graham RB. Sex-based differences in lifting technique under increasing load conditions: a principal component analysis. Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2016;54:186–195. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler EM, Graham RB, Stevenson JM, et al. Gender difference and lifting technique under light load conditions: a principal component analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2013;14(2):159–174. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2011.611264
   Google Scholar
• Kenny GP, Groeller H, Mcginn R, et al. Age, human performance, and physical employment standards. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(6):S92–S107. doi:10.1139/apnm-2015-0483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jebens E, Mamen A, Medbø JI, et al. Are elderly construction workers sufficiently fit for heavy manual labour? Ergonomics. 2015;58(3):450–462. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.977828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh J, Kalra P, Walia RS. Study of manual material handling tasks using Taguchi technique. Trends and advances in mechanical engineering, Faridabad, Haryana, India; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Chen JA, Dickerson CR, Wells RP, et al. Older females in the workforce – the effects of age on psychophysical estimates of maximum acceptable lifting loads. Ergonomics [Internet]. 2017;60(12):1708–1717. http://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1335883
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girish N, Rauf I, Vivek K. Influence of age on lifting capacity among manual materials handlers. Work. 2018;60(1):163–168. doi:10.3233/WOR-182713
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Song J, Qu X. Age-related biomechanical differences during asymmetric lifting. Int J Ind Ergon [Internet]. 2014;44(5):629–635. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2014.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song J, Qu X. Effects of age and its interaction with task parameters on lifting biomechanics [Internet]. Ergonomics. 2014;57:653–668. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.897376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin CJ, Wang SJ, Chen HJ. A field evaluation method for assessing whole body biomechanical joint stress in manual lifting tasks. Ind Health. 2006;44(4):604–612. doi:10.2486/indhealth.44.604
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson AS, Borg G, Zhang JJ, et al. Role of physical work capacity and load weight on psychophysical lift ratings. Int J Ind Ergon. 1997;20(3):181–190. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00054-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh J, Kalra P, Walia RS. Study of maximum acceptable weight of lift for Indian male industrial workers. Int J Eng Res Technol. 2012;1(9):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Hamid ASM, Tamrin SBM. A proposed recommended weight limit for lifting activities among young Asian adults. Malaysian J Hum Factors Ergon. 2016;1(1):62–67.
   Google Scholar
• Gross M, Dailey ES, Dalton MD, et al. Relationship between lifting capacity and anthropometric measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2000;30(5):237–247; discussion 258–262. doi:10.2519/jospt.2000.30.5.237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangachin MG, Cavuoto LA. Obesity-related changes in prolonged repetitive lifting performance. Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2016;56:19–26. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh RP, Batish A, Singh TP, et al. An experimental study to evaluate the effect of ambient temperature during manual lifting and design of optimal task parameters. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2014;24(1):54–70. doi:10.1002/hfm.20353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Ashaik RA, Ramadan MZ, Al-saleh KS, Khalaf TM. Effect of safety shoes type, lifting frequency, and ambient temperature on subject’s MAWL and physiological responses. Int J Ind Ergon [Internet]. 2015;50:43–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafez HA, Ayoub MM. A psychophysical study of manual lifting in hot environments. Int J Ind Ergon. 1991;7(4):303–309. doi:10.1016/0169-8141(91)90076-X
   Google Scholar
• Powell S, Davies A, Bunn J, et al. The effects of thermal environment on the risks associated with manual handling. Derbyshire: HSE books.
   Google Scholar
• Ciriello VM. The effects of container size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting for female industrial workers. Appl Ergon. 2007;38(1):1–5. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks JJ, Caldwell GE. Are psychophysically chosen lifting loads based on joint kinetics? Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2019 Jan;74:17–23. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciriello VM. The effects of box size: vertical distance, and height on lowering tasks for female industrial workers. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35(9):857–863. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciriello VM. The effects of box size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting. Int J Ind Ergon. 2003;32:115–120. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00045-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehi Sahl Abadi A, Nasl Saraji G, Mazloumi A, et al. Changes in back compressive force when measuring maximum acceptable weight of lift in Iranian male students. Iran J Public Health. 2016;45(9):1199–1207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu SP, Chen JP. Effects of the adjustment period on psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weight of lift and the physiological cost. Int J Ind Ergon. 2003;31(5):287–294. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00218-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters TR, Lu M-L, Piacitelli LA, et al. Efficacy of the revised NIOSH lifting equation to predict risk of low back pain due to manual lifting: expanded cross-sectional analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(9):1061–1067. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31822cfe5e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kranz C, Lee K, Jadhav P, et al. Kinematic and perceptual responses in heavy lifting and pulling: are there differences between males and females? Appl Ergon. 2021;90(Sep 2020):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Chakrabarti D. Indian anthropometric dimensions for ergonomic design practice. National institute of design. Vol. 1611997
   Google Scholar