Why cumulative loading calculated using non-weighted integration may not be suitable for assessing physical stress of the lower back: an empirical investigation of strain during lifting and lowering tasks.

When work-related physical stress is assessed using non-weighted integration, it is assumed that different loading conditions have a sufficiently comparable effect on the human body as long as the area under the loading curve is the same. Growing evidence cast doubt on whether this simple calculation can adequately estimate physical work-related strain. This study investigates in vivo, focussing on the lower back, whether the non-weighted method adequately reflects work-related physical strain of the lower back. Strain data resulting from lifting/lowering tasks performed in a laboratory study with an identical area under the loading curve but different load intensities were compared. Results showed that the non-weighted method does not sufficiently reflect the resulting muscular, cardiovascular and perceived strain but underestimates the influence of higher load intensity even in the range of medium physical exposure. Further research is needed regarding the determination of weighting factors and limit values. Practitioner Summary Given the dynamic nature of most physical work activities, the assessment of time-varying loading of the lower back is of particular interest in practice. Results show that the widely used non-weighted calculation method does not accurately reflect the resulting physical strain but underestimates the influence of higher load intensity.Abbreviations: MSD: musculoskeletal disorders; WMSD: work-related musculoskeletal disorders; KIM-LHC: Key Indicator Method Lifting, Holding, Carrying; RES: right erector spinae longissimus; LES: left erector spinae longissimus; HR: heart rate; RPE: rating of perceived exertion; EMG: surface electromyography; ECG: electrocardiography; SENIAM: Surface ElectroMyoGraphy for the Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; ANOVA: analysis of variance; Std. error: standard error HIGHLIGHTSResults of this empirical investigation suggest that the widely used non-weighted calculation method is not fully suitable for calculating cumulative loading of the lower back.Even in the range of medium physical exposure the non-weighted calculation method does not accurately reflect the resulting strain on the human body but tends to underestimate the influence of higher load intensity due to higher external weight.Despite the same cumulative loading value obtained when using the non-weighted method, the resulting physical strain values are generally about 20-25% higher.The results may be used to further develop ergonomic assessment methods in order to avoid a misclassification of loading conditions and to prevent the risk of overexertion.

Prediction model of the effect of postural interactions on muscular activity and perceived exertion.

Musculoskeletal disorders are a prevalent disease in many Western countries. While a large number of ergonomic analyses and assessment methods are nowadays available, most current methods that assess exposure calculate overall risk scores of individual body segments without considering interaction effects of exposure variables. Therefore, a study was conducted that aimed at investigating and quantifying interaction effects of trunk inclination and arm lifting on ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle activity. A multiple regression model to predict musculoskeletal load under consideration of interaction effects was derived. The study revealed that there is a significant interaction effect of trunk inclination and arm lifting. Furthermore, final regression models explained variance in exposure variables in a range of R2 = 0.68 to R2 = 0.147 with a subset of two to three inputs. The predicative equations support the computer-based post-processing of sensor data. Practitioner summary: This article elaborates on the importance of interaction effects of working postures on assessment results of load. In practise, easy to-use-methods for an assessment of working postures are needed. Therefore, a regression model is derived, which facilitates the quantification of work load under consideration of interaction effects. The use of this regression model for the assessment of posture data gathered by range sensors is recommended. Abbreviations: RPE: rating of perceived exertion; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; OWAS: ovako working posture analysing system; RULA: rapid upper limb assessment; LUBA: postural loading on the upper body assessment; REBA: rapid entire body assessment; OCRA: occupational repetitive action;S D: standard deviation; EMG: surface electromyography; LUT: left upper trapezius pars descendens; RUT: right upper trapezius pars descendens; LLT: left trapezius pars ascendens; RLT: right trapezius pars ascendens; LAD: left anterior deltoideus; RAD: right anterior deltoideus; LES: left erector spinae longissimus; RES: right erector spinae longissimus; SENIAM: surface electroMyoGraphy for the non-invasive assessment of muscles; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; MANOVA: multivariate analysis of variance; ANOVA: analysis of variance; OLS: ordinary least squares; MANCOVA: multivariate analysis of covariance.