Assessment of load on the lumbar spine using two computerised packages and REBA method

• Autorzy: Tokarski Maciej , Roman-Liu Danuta

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.37190/ABB-01509-2019-02

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The aim of the research was a comparative analysis of the back lumbar load assessment using three methods: two with continuous input data and evaluation procedures based on mathematical relationships (ShiftBack, 3DSSPP) and one method with categorized input data and tabular load estimation procedures (REBA). Methods: For the analysis, work activities and the value of applied force were selected. Among the analyzed 24 work activities were those during which there was a symmetrical load, as well as those during which the applied force or the assumed position of the body caused a lack of load symmetry. Results: The results show that the REBA method differentiates 24 cases of unit load into six levels, while the other two methods provide 24 different values between cases. Cases differing in load even over 100%, when assessed according to the 3DSSPP or ShiftBack do not differ in the assessment of REBA. Differences in the assessment of the same tasks between the results obtained from 3DSSPP and ShiftBack that were above 15% concern only 7 cases. Conclusions: A comparative analysis of the assessment of the lumbar part of the back using three methods indicates strong correlations between the results of the assessment carried out using 3DSSPP and ShiftBack. Smaller relationships were demonstrated by comparing these two methods with the REBA method.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

risk assessment; lower back; comparison of assessment procedures; 3DSSPP; ShiftBack

PL

ocena ryzyka; dolna część pleców; porównanie procedur oceny; 3DSSPP; ShiftBack

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 22, no. 3
• Strony: 43--53
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 30 poz., fot., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Tokarski Maciej

• Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute, Department of Ergonomics, ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Roman-Liu Danuta

• Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute, Department of Ergonomics, Warsaw, Poland.

Bibliografia

• [1] BALOGH I., ØRBAEK P., OHLSSON K., NORDANDER C., UNGE J., WINKEL J., HANSSON G.A., Malmö Shoulder/Neck Study Group. Self-assessed and directly measured occupational physical activities – influence of musculoskeletal complaints, age and gender, Appl. Ergon., 2004, 35, 49–56.
• [2] BORKOWSKI P., Biomechanical analysis and design of a new type of artificial intervertebral disc (in Polish Biomechaniczna analiza i projektowanie nowego typu sztucznego krążka międzykręgowego), doctoral thesis, 2006.
• [3] BULDUK E.Ö., BULDUK S., SÜREN T., OVALI F., Assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders using Quick Exposure Check (QEC) in taxi drivers, Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 2014, 44 (6), 817–820.
• [4] BURDORF A., The role of assessment of biomechanical exposure at the workplace in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders, Scand. J. Work Environ. Health, 2010, 36, 1–2.
• [5] CHAFFIN D.B., ANDERSSON G., MARTIN J., Occupational Biomechanics, fourth ed., Wiley, New York, 2006.
• [6] CHAFFIN D.B., The evolving role of biomechanics in prevention of overexertion injuries, Ergonomics, 2009, 52, 3–14.
• [7] CHANDER D.S., CAVATORTA M.P., An observational method for postural ergonomic risk assessment (PERA), Int. J. Ind. Ergon, 2017, 57, 32–41.
• [8] CHIASSON M.È., IMBEAU D., AUBRY K., DELISLE A., Comparing the results of eight methods used to evaluate risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders, Int. J. Ind. Ergon, 2012, 42 (5), 478–488.
• [9] DUTTA T., Evaluation of the KinectTM sensor for 3-D kinematic measurement in the workplace, Appl. Ergon., 2012, 43 (4), 645–649.
• [10] FEDEROLF P.A., A novel approach to study human posture control: “principal movements” obtained from a principal component analysis of kinematic marker data, J. Biomech., 2016, 49 (3), 364– 370, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.12.030.
• [11] FERGUSON S.A., ALLREAD W.G., BURR D.L., HEANEY C., MARRAS W.S., Biomechanical, psychosocial and individual risk factors predicting low back functional impairment among furniture distribution employees, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon), 2012, 27 (2), 117–123.
• [12] GRIFFITH L.E., SHANNON H.S., WELLS R.P., WALTER S.D., COLE D.C., CÔTÉ P., FRANK J., HOGG-JOHNSON S., LANGLOIS L.E., Individual participant data meta-analysis of mechanical workplace risk factors and low back pain, Am. J. Public Health, 2012, 102, 309–318.
• [13] HELLIG T., MERTENS A., BRANDL C., The interaction effect of working postures on muscle activity and subjective discomfort during static working postures and its correlation with OWAS, Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 2018, 68, 25–33.
• [14] KONG Y.K., LEE S.Y., LEE K.S., KIM D.M., Comparisons of ergonomic evaluation tools (ALLA, RULA, REBA and OWAS) for farm work, Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon., 2018, 24 (2), 218–223.
• [15] KRUGER J., NGUYEN T.D., Automated vision-based live ergonomics analysis in assembly operations, CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Techn. 2015, 64, 9–12.
• [16] MANGHISI V.M., UVA A.E., FIORENTINO M., BEVILACQUA V., TROTTA G.F., MONNO G., Real time RULA assessment using Kinect v2 sensor, Appl. Ergon., 2017, 65, 481–491.
• [17] MAURICE P., PADOIS V., MEASSON Y., BIDAUD P., Humanoriented design of colla-borative robots, Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 2017, 57, 88–102.
• [18] OTTO A., SCHOLL A., Incorporating ergonomic risks into assembly line balancing, European Journal of Operational Research, 2011, 212 (2), 277–286.
• [19] PATRIZI A., PENNESTR E., VALENTINI P.P., Comparison between low-cost markerless and high-end marker-based motion capture systems for the computeraided assessment of working ergonomics, Ergonomics, 2015, 1–8.
• [20] PLANTARD P., AUVINET E., PIERRES A.-S.L., MULTON F., Pose estimation with a kinect for ergonomic studies: evaluation of the accuracy using a virtual mannequin, Sensors, 2015, 15, 1785–1803.
• [21] ROMAN-LIU D., GROBORZ A., TOKARSKI T., Comparison of risk assessment procedures used in OCRA and ULRA methods, Ergonomics, 2013, 56 (10), 1584–1598.
• [22] ROMAN-LIU D., Comparison of concepts in easy-to-use methods for MSD risk assessment, App. Ergon., 2014, 45 (3), 420–427.
• [23] ROMAN-LIU D., External load and the reaction of the musculoskeletal system-A conceptual model of the interaction, Int. J. Ind. Ergonom., 2013, 43(4), 356–362.
• [24] SCHNEIDER E., IRASTORZA X., COPSEY S., OSH in Figures: Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders in the EU d Facts and Figures, 2010, http://dx.doi.org /10.2802/10952.
• [25] SPIELHOLZ P., BAO S., HOWARD N., SILVERSTEIN B., FAN J., SMITH C., SALAZAR C., Reliability and validity assessment of the hand activity level threshold limit value and strain index using expert ratings of mono-task jobs, J. Occup. Environ. Hyg., 2008, 5 (4), 250–257.
• [26] STEINBERG U., CAFFIER G., LIEBERS F., Assessment of manual material handling based on key indicators – german guidelines, [in:] W. Karwowski (eds.), Handbook of standards in ergonomics and human factors, Lawrenz Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2006, 319–338.
• [27] TABORRI J., BORDIGNON M., MARCOLIN F., BERTOZ A., DONATI M., ROSSI S., On the OCRA Measurement: Automatic Computation of the Dynamic Technical Action Frequency Factor, Sensors, 2020, 20, 1643, 10.3390/s20061643.
• [28] University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics, 3D Static Strength Prediction Program User’s Manual, 2014.
• [20] VAN DER BEEK A.J., MATHIASSEN S.E., WINDHORST J., BURDORF A., An evaluation of methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting in scaffolding, App. Ergon., 2005, 36, 213–222.
• [30] WIDANARKO B., LEGG S., STEVENSON M., DEVEREUX J., ENG A., MANNETJE A.T., CHENG S., DOUWES J., ELLISON- -LOSCHMANN L., MCLEAN D., PEARCE N., Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in relation to gender, age, and occupational/industrial group, Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 2011, 41 (5), 561–572.

Uwagi

W bibliografii przedostatnia pozycja [20] jest błędnie ponumerowana, powinno być [29].