Literature DB >> 15694076

An evaluation of methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting in scaffolding.

Allard J van der Beek1, Svend Erik Mathiassen, Judith Windhorst, Alex Burdorf.   

Abstract

Four methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting were compared. The scaffolding job was evaluated and three distinct scaffolding tasks were ranked using: (1) the revised NIOSH lifting equation (NIOSH method), (2) lifting guidelines for the Dutch construction industry (Arbouw method), (3) rapid appraisal of the NIOSH lifting equation (practitioners' method), and (4) systematic observations. For the three first-mentioned methods the same dataset was used; observation took place in a different setting in the same company. At job level, all methods indicated that ergonomic interventions are required to protect scaffolders from an increased risk for low back pain. The NIOSH, Arbouw and practitioners' method resulted in a similar ranking order of tasks (transport>construction>dismantlement). In contrast, the observational method gave transport the lowest ranking. The underlying cause was probably that the observational method is more sensitive to durations of tasks and lifting within tasks than the three other methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15694076     DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2004.10.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Ergon        ISSN: 0003-6870            Impact factor:   3.661


  7 in total

1.  Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed after twenty years.

Authors:  Vincent M Ciriello; Rammohan V Maikala; Patrick G Dempsey; Niall V O'Brien
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 3.015

2.  Classification of body postures using smart workwear.

Authors:  Christian Lins; Andreas Hein
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 2.562

Review 3.  Evaluation of the Impact of the Revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Lifting Equation.

Authors:  Ming-Lun Lu; Vern Putz-Anderson; Arun Garg; Kermit G Davis
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 2.888

4.  Prediction of trapezius muscle activity and shoulder, head, neck, and torso postures during computer use: results of a field study.

Authors:  Jennifer L Bruno Garza; Belinda H W Eijckelhof; Maaike A Huysmans; Peter W Johnson; Jaap H van Dieen; Paul J Catalano; Jeffrey N Katz; Allard J van der Beek; Jack T Dennerlein
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Evaluation of ergonomic physical risk factors in a truck manufacturing plant: case study in SCANIA Production Angers.

Authors:  Mohsen Zare; Agnes Malinge-Oudenot; Robert Höglund; Sophie Biau; Yves Roquelaure
Journal:  Ind Health       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 2.179

Review 6.  Systematic Comparison of OWAS, RULA, and REBA Based on a Literature Review.

Authors:  Dohyung Kee
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Comparison of risk assessment procedures used in OCRA and ULRA methods.

Authors:  Danuta Roman-Liu; Anna Groborz; Tomasz Tokarski
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 2.778

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.