comparison of the 1991 niosh lifting equation and erector spinae emg n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Comparison of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation and erector spinae EMG PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Comparison of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation and erector spinae EMG

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Comparison of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation and erector spinae EMG - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 388 Views
  • Uploaded on

Comparison of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation and erector spinae EMG . G. G. Weames, M.Sc. J.P. Stothart, Ph.D. and D. Gordon E. Robertson, Ph.D. Biomechanics Laboratory School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, CANADA. Introduction. 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Comparison of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation and erector spinae EMG' - petra


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
comparison of the 1991 niosh lifting equation and erector spinae emg
Comparison of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation and erector spinae EMG

G. G. Weames, M.Sc.

J.P. Stothart, Ph.D. and

D. Gordon E. Robertson, Ph.D.

Biomechanics Laboratory

School of Human Kinetics,

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, CANADA

introduction
Introduction
  • 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation
    • Emperical method for identifying a weight limit for certain lifting tasks.
    • Used by occupational health practitioners to reduce the risk of lifting-related LBP.
    • Revised from the 1981 NIOSH lifting equation reflecting new findings and increasing its applicability:
      • asymmetrical lifts
      • container couplings
      • work durations
      • lifting frequencies
introduction1

Comparison of Lifting Factors for the 1981 and 1991 NIOSH Equations.

Lifting Factors

1981 Equation

1991 Equation

Load constant

40 kg

23 kg

Horizontal (HF)

15/H

25/H

Vertical (VF)

1-.004[V-75]

1-.003[V-75]

Distance (DF)

0.7+7.5/D

0.82+4.5/D

Frequency (FF)

1-F/F

from Table

max

Asymmetry (AF)

not available

1-.0032A

Coupling (CF)

not available

from Table

(Taken from Putz-Anderson and Waters, 1991)

Introduction
study rationale
Study Rationale
  • Increased workload is an important factor in the cause of LBP (Chaffin and Anderson, 1991).
  • There is a general concensus that occupational lifting is an activity that uses trunk muscle tissues to generate the lifting effort (Seroussi and Pope, 1987; Marras and Mirka, 1988, 1989, 1990; McGill, 1991, 1991; Kumar and Garand, 1992; Lavender et al., 1992; Sommerich and Marras, 1992).
  • To date, there are no studies that quantify the safe level of trunk muscle activation during standardized dynamic lifting tasks.
  • There is a need for validation procedures to test the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation (Putz-Andersson, 1991; Waters et al., 1993).
purpose
Purpose
  • The Purpose of this study was to determine if the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation was in agreement with muscular load limits of the m. erector spinae for symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting tasks.
    • It was also possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the 1991 NIOSH equation to adjust the load for different lifting senarios based on the response of the ES EMG activity.
methodology
Methodology
  • Electrode Placement
  • Maximum Voluntary Contraction
  • Lifting Conditions
  • Data Reduction
methodology1
Methodology
  • Lifting apparatus
methodology2

Y

Z

  • Differential
  • Amplifier
  • 10-1000Hz
  • 80dB CMRR
  • 2000 gain

X

Force Platform

6 EMGs

Vertical (Y) force

Raw EMG

  • A/D Converted at 1050 Hz
  • Collected by BIOWARE (Kistler)
  • FWR
  • LPF (crit. damp.)
  • 4Hz cut-off
  • Normalized to %MVC
  • Lift cycle identified
  • BIOPROC (U of O)

386 Kinteak

Methodology
  • Data collection
methodology3
Methodology
  • Data reduction

%MVC

100

0

% Lift

8 within subject

condition trials

  • Ensemble Average
  • (Yang and Winter, 1984)
methodology5

% MVC

Probability Level

2-5% MVC

0.1

10-14% MVC

0.5

50-70% MVC

0.9

Methodology

Threshold Limit APDF Muscular Contraction Levels

results

Mean Condition Lift Durations.

Condition

1

2

3

4

5

3.1

3.0

3.0

3.1

3.2

Mean (s)

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Standard Dev. (s)

Results
results1

Condition %MVC Values that Exceed Muscular Load Limits

for APDF Probabilities 0.1, 0.5 and 0.9

Electrode

Condition

1

2

3

4

5

Right ES (T9)

.1

.1

.1

-

-

Left ES(T9)

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

Right ES(L1)

-

-

-

-

-

Left ES(L1)

-

-

-

-

-

Right ES(L3)

.1, .5

.1, .5

.1, .5

.5

-

Left ES(L3)

-

.1

-

-

-

Results
conclusions
Conclusions
  • The m. erector spinae muscular load limits were in general agreement with NIOSH determined symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting tasks.
  • The m. erector spinae at level L3 produced the highest normalized %MVC levels for all lifting tasks.
  • APDF derived muscular load limits were significantly (p<0.01) more sensitive to the various lifting tasks used in this study than what the 1991 NIOSH equation could detect.