Search

The article discusses the study that evaluates the low-back injury of young workers in handling farm tasks and feed scooping in the U.S. Findings reveal that feed bag handling reduces the risk of low-back disorder (LBD) by 10 percent as well as the lowering of drop-down flap. It suggests that ergonomic and biomechanical intervention principles should be applied in feed handling and scooping to implement changes in work method. It is believed that education and training of children and adolescents on musculoskeletal disorder could reduce injury risk.

Little information currently exists regarding the risk of low-back disorders among youth who perform physically demanding farm activities. Thus, afield study was conducted in which children and adolescents who engage in farm work were recruited, fitted with a lumbar motion monitoring system, and then observed performing their usual chores. The lumbar motion monitor was used to record the trunk movements required while youth were performing routine manual material handling tasks on a farm. Workplace factors and motions from both males and females were recorded on over 40 farm tasks, such as feeding animals, lifting bales of hay and straw, and other miscellaneous farm chores. Although the sample size and number of observations in this study were small, the results showed that the magnitude of several work-related factors, such as weight and horizontal moment arm, and trunk motions for many farm activities were equal to or greater than those associated with high injury risk jobs previously assessed in industrial workplaces. In this study, we quantified the physical demands of tasks performed by children and adolescents on farms. In addition, the specific farm chores more likely to load the spines of youth and thereby contribute to musculoskeletal injury were identified.

The focus of this study was to determine the amount of data needed to ensure sufficient accuracy in estimating mean trunk motions of employees performing industrial manual materials handling tasks. Over 450 tasks were selected, in which the load weight and the vertical start and destination heights of the activity remained constant throughout the task. Data were collected as employees did their work at the job site, using the Lumbar Motion Monitor. Variance components were estimated in a hierarchical design and used to compute standard errors of mean trunk kinematic measures. These analyses found task-to-task variation to be much larger than the variability due to either multiple employees performing the same task or to repetitive movements within a task. Also, it was found that no significant reduction in the standard errors occurred when data were gathered for more than three employees and three repetitions of each task by an employee. This study indicates that the vast majority of variability in mean trunk motions is accounted for by the design of work tasks, and variations due to repeated cycles of a task or to employees are rather minor. It is also important as a basis for future work on modelling low-back disorder risk based on a job's trunk kinematic measures.

This study investigated trunk kinematic differences between lifts performed using either one hand (unsupported) or two hands. These effects were studied while beginning the lifts from different asymmetric starting positions and while lifting different load weights. Each subject lifted a box from a lower to an upper platform under one- and two-handed lifting conditions. Subjects wore a lumbar spine electrogoniometer, from which relative motion components were calculated in the trunk's three cardinal planes. Results of this study showed that one-handed lifting resulted in significantly higher ranges of motion in the lateral and transverse planes and greater flexion in the sagittal plane. Back motion characteristics previously found to be associated with low back disorders were all significantly higher for one-handed lifts. The two-handed lift technique, on the other hand, produced overall faster trunk motions in the sagittal plane and equal or larger acceleration and deceleration magnitudes in all planes of motion. Increases in load asymmetry affected trunk kinematics, in that magnitude values for range of motion, velocity and acceleration became much greater with increasingly asymmetric load positions. Increasing the load weight appeared to have less of an effect on trunk kinematics, with increases in position mostly occurring during sagittal and lateral bending. These results suggest that unsupported one-handed lifting loads the spine more than two-handed lifts, due to the added coupling. Applying these results to a previously developed model, one-handed lifting was also found to increase one's risk of suffering a low back disorder.

A continuing challenge for ergonomists has been to determine quantitatively the types of trunk motion and how much trunk motion contributes to the risk of occupationally-related low back disorder (LBD). It has been difficult to include this motion information in workplace assessments since the speed at which trunk motion becomes dangerous has not been determined. An in vivo study was performed to assess the contribution of three-dimensional dynamic trunk motions to the risk of LBD during occupational lifting in industry. Over 400 industrial lifting jobs were studied in 48 varied industries. The medical records in these industries were examined so that specific jobs historically categorized as either low, medium, or high risk for occupationally-related LBD could be identified. A tri-axial electrogoniometer was worn by workers and documented the three-dimensional angular position, velocity, and acceleration characteristics of the lumbar spine while workers worked at these low, medium, or high risk jobs. Workplace and individual characteristics were also documented for each of the repetitive lifting tasks. A multiple logistic regression model indicated that a combination of five trunk motion and workplace factors predicted well both medium risk and high risk occupational-related LBD. These factors included lifting frequency, load moment, trunk lateral velocity, trunk twisting velocity, and trunk sagittal angle. Increases in the magnitude of these factors significantly increased the risk of LBD. The analyses have enabled us to determine the LBD risk associated with combined changes in the magnitudes of the five factors. The results indicate that by suitably varying these five factors observed during the lift collectively, the odds of high risk group membership may decrease by over ten times. These results were related to the biomechanical, ergonomic, and epidemiologic literature. The five trunk motion and workplace factors could be used as quantitative, objective measures to redesign the workplace so that the risk of occupationally-related LBD is minimized.