Comparing the results of five lifting analysis tools

The objective of this study was to compare the results of the NIOSH, ACGIH TLV, Snook, 3DSSPP and WA L&I lifting assessment instruments when applied to a uniform task (lifting and lowering milk cases with capacities of 15 and 23 l). To enable comparisons between the various lifting assessment in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied ergonomics 2007, Vol.38 (1), p.91-97
Main Authors: Russell, Steven J., Winnemuller, Lori, Camp, Janice E., Johnson, Peter W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Applied physiology
Back Injuries - etiology
Back Injuries - prevention & control
Biological and medical sciences
Ergonomics
Ergonomics assessment methods
Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology
Food Industry
Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology
Humans
Lifting - adverse effects
Lifting analysis
Male
Materials handling
Medical sciences
Occupational Exposure - adverse effects
Occupational Exposure - analysis
Studies
Task Performance and Analysis
United States
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The objective of this study was to compare the results of the NIOSH, ACGIH TLV, Snook, 3DSSPP and WA L&I lifting assessment instruments when applied to a uniform task (lifting and lowering milk cases with capacities of 15 and 23 l). To enable comparisons between the various lifting assessment instruments, the outputs of each method were converted to an exposure index similar to the NIOSH Lifting Index. All instruments showed higher exposures associated with lifting the 23 l cases versus the 15 l cases . The NIOSH, ACGIH TLV and Snook methods were similar in their results with respect to the pattern of exposure over various height levels and the differences in exposures associated with lifting 15 and 23 l cases. However, the WA L&I and 3DSSPP predicted substantially lower exposures. The reasons for instrument differences are presented so that practitioners can better select the methods they need and interpret the results appropriately.
ISSN:0003-6870
1872-9126
DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.12.006