• Proceedings of the ESK Conference
• /
• 1996.04a
• /
• pp.104-112
• /
• 1996

This paper investigates the job-related low back pains (LBP) in Kuro industrial complex where the manufacturing industries are prevailing. The accident compensation claims during 1992 to 1994 were reviewed and total of 726 LBP claims were analyzed among 7920 compensation claims. A LBP database was constructed to analyze the LBP profiles of this area. The most frequent cause of LBPs was the manual materials handling related lifting, lowering, carrying, pushing or pulling(45.9%) and the second-most frequent cause was fall and slip (29.8%) and collision (7.9%) was the following cause of the LBP.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.190-196
• /
• 2010

Purpose: This study was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of using automated liquid-handling systems equipped with reusable fixed tips in Radioimmunoassays and to demonstrate that the use of an automated pipetting instrument can decrease in the typical daily workload. Materials and Methods: The precisions of the automated pipettor and the manual pipettor were determined gravimetrically (n=30). A total of 30 specimens for HBs Ag were repeatedly pipetted (three replicates) with the automated pipettor and then retested. PSA samples were simultaneously pipetted with either the automated pipettor or the manual pipettor and then analyzed (n=40). Sample carryover test assessed for CA19-9, AFP and HCG when the automated pipettor was used. Pipetting speed of the automated pipettor and the manual pipettor were compared by evaluation of each workload. Results: The precisions coefficients of variation (CV) were 2.1% for the automated pipettor and 1.6% for manual pipettor. The mean cpm and CV for each group of replicates were 41,203 cpm and 3.7% for HBs Ag positive specimens, and 99 cpm and 7.9% for HBs Ag negative specimens, respectively. PSA results showed no significant differences between automated pipettor and manual pipettor (p=0.15, r=0.999). Carryover for CA19-9, AFP and HCG analytes was <0.1 ppm or below the assay limit of detection. Pipetting speed was significantly improved by using the automated instrument. Conclusion: There was no evidence that the use of an automated pipettor adversely affected any of the performance characteristics of the assay. Indeed, routine use of the Tecan automated pipettor has resulted in a decrease in the typical daily workload.

• Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.56
• /
• pp.93-102
• /
• 2000

Today, the number of automated machine has rapidly increased in industrial workplaces. Nevertheless, workers are often required to handle materials manually. Technical information for using the revised NIOSH lifting equation to evaluate a variety of two - handed Manual Material Handling (MMH) tasks was investigated. The NIOSH suggested the Lifting Index that provides a relative estimate of the level of physical stress associated with a particular manual lifting task. To measure operator's workload in lifting task, Lifting Index Simulator(LIS) was developed based upon the revised NIOSH lifting equation in this study. The purpose of this study was to develop LIS and use the NIOSH lifting equation in our workplace.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.11-20
• /
• 2000

Today, technologies and automation have been accelerated up in the industrial workplace. Nevertheless, many systems still require humans to handle materials manually. The Low Back Pain (LBP) is one of modern human being's most common and complex ailments. Many risk factors with the onset of LBP have been identified, however, lifting out of Manual Material Handling(MMH) was the most important factor to the LBP. The Virtual Reality(VR) is used in a variety of ways and often in a confusion and misleading manner. In order to solve the prevention of the LBP, a lifting box was translated in the Virtual Environment(VE). As simulating under the VE, optimal lifting works could be constructed. The purpose of this study is to reduce the chronical low back pain for the manual material handlers.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.239-247
• /
• 2008

Low back disorders (LBDs) have been the most common musculoskeletal problem in Korean workplaces. It affects many workers, and is associated with high costs to many companies as well as the individual, which can negatively influence even the quality of life of workers. The _evaluation of low back disorder risk associated with manual materials handling tasks can be performed using variety of ergonomic assessment tools such as National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Revised Lifting Equation (NLE), the Washington Administrative Code 296-62-0517 (WAC), the Snook Tables etc. But most of these tools provide limited information for choosing the most appropriate assessment method for a particular job and in finding out advantage and disadvantage of the methods, and few have been assessed for their predictive ability. The focus of this study was to _evaluate spinal loads in real time with lifting and pulling heavy cow leathers in variety of postures. Data for estimating mean trunk motions were collected as employees did their work at the job site, using the Lumbar Motion Monitor. Eight employees (2 males, 6 females) were selected in this study, in which the load weight and the vertical start and destination heights of the activity remained constant throughout the task. Variance components (three dimensional spaces) of mean trunk kinematic measures were estimated in a hierarchical design. They were used to compute velocity and acceleration of multiple employees performing the same task and to repetitive movements within a task. Therefore, a results of this study could be used as a quantitative, objective measure to design the workplace so that the risk of occupationally related low back disorder should be minimized.

• Journal of Korea Society of Industrial Information Systems
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.77-86
• /
• 2000

Even manual materials handling tasks(MMHT) is decreasing by adopt of automatic manufacturing system & transportation supporting machine because of increase of productivity, wage lack of labor, safety, in fact working at inclined & complicated slope such as farm, orchard, harbor loading & unloading, logging place and mining place can't be substituted by machine perfectly. So, workers should do MMHT at this place by themselves, lifting on slope can cause much of hazard, include falling. Keeping balance net to slip can be a reason of low back pain(LBP) by overloaded musculoskeletal system but, there's no enough study about lift on slope. Therefore, In this study, we assessed and analyzed change of center of pressure(COP) when lifting on slope by force platform. The result showed that the length lengthen as increasing angle of slope. Especially, the length extremely increased over 15°. Through These basic result, present proper angle boundary, prevent industrial accidents and give proper data not only lifting but also pushing and pulling on slope someday.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.371-378
• /
• 2014

Manual materials handling tasks are the main risk factors for the work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Many assistant tools for manual materials handling are being used in various kind of industries. One of them is a 4-wheeled cart which is widely used in manufacturing factories, hospitals, etc. The major force required to control the 4-wheeled cart is pushing and pulling. There are two types of handles being used for the 4-wheeled cart : vertical type (two vertical handles), and horizontal type (one horizontal handle). This study tried to investigate the pushing forces and subjective discomforts (hand/writst, shoulder, low back, and overall) of the two handle types with different handle height and distance conditions. Twelve healthy male students (mean age = 23.4 years) participated in the experiment. The independent variables were handle angle (horizontal, vertical), handle height (low, medium, high), and handle distance (narrow, medium, wide). The full factorial design was used for the experiment and the maximum pushing forces were measured in 18 different conditions ($2{\times}3{\times}3$). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure was conducted to test the effects of the independent variables on the pushing force and discomfort levels. Handle height and angle were found to be the critical design factors that affect the maximal pushing forces and subjective discomfort. In the middle height, subjects exerted higher pushing forces, and experience lower discomfort levels compared to the high, and low height. There was no statistical influence of the handle distance to the pushing forces and subjective discomfort levels. It was found out that the effects of the handle angle (horizontal and vertical) on both pushing force and subjective discomfort were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The vertical handle revealed higher pushing force and lower discomfort level than the horizontal handle. The reason for that was thought to be the different postures of the hand when grasping the handles. The horizontal handle induced pronaton of the hand and made hand posture more deviated from the neutral position.

• Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.72-81
• /
• 2014

Even though two-hands lifting/lowering activity of manual materials handling tasks are prevalent at the industrial site, many manual materials handling tasks which require the worker to perform one-hand lifting/lowering are also very common at the industrial site, forestry, farming, and daily life. The objective of this study was to compare one-hand lowering activity to lifting activity in terms of biomechanical stress for the range of lowering heights from knuckle height to 10cm above floor level with two workload 7.5kg and 15.0kg. Eight male subjects with LMM were asked to perform lifting/lowering tasks using both a one-handed (left-hand and right-hand) as well as a two-handed technique. Spinal loading was estimated through an EMG-assisted free-dynamic biomechanical model. The biomechanical stress of one-hand lowering activity was shown to be 43% lower than that of one-hand lifting activity. It was claimed that the biomechanical stress for one-hand lifting/lowering activity is almost twice (194%) of the one for two-hands lifting/lowering activity. It was also found that biomechanical stress by one-hand lowering/lifting activity with the half workload of two-hands lowering/lifting activity was greater than that of the two-hands lowering/lifting activity. Therefore, it might be a risk to consider the RWL of one-hand lowering/lifting activity to simply be a half of the RWL of two-hands lowering/lifting activity recommended by NIOSH.

• Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea
• /
• v.30 no.5
• /
• pp.597-603
• /
• 2011

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare one-hand and two-hands lifting activity in terms of biomechanical stress for the range of lifting heights from 10cm above floor level to knuckle height. Background: Even though two-hands lifting activity of manual materials handling tasks are prevalent at the industrial site, many manual materials handling tasks which require the worker to perform one-hand lifting are also very common at the industrial site and forestry and farming. Method: Eight male subjects were asked to perform lifting tasks using both a one-handed as well as a two-handed lifting technique. Trunk muscle electromyographic activity was recorded while the subjects performed the lifting tasks. This information was used as input to an EMG-assisted free-dynamic biomechanical model that predicted spinal loading in three dimensions. Results: It was shown that for the left-hand lifting tasks, the values of moment, lateral shear force, A-P shear force, and compressive force were increased by the average 43%, as the workload was increased twice from 7.5kg to 15.0kg. For the right-hand lifting task, these were increased by the average 34%. For the two-hands lifting tasks, these were increased by the average 25%. The lateral shear forces at L5/S1 of one-hand lifting tasks, notwithstanding the half of the workload of two-hands lifting tasks, were very high in the 300~317% of the one of two-hands lifting tasks. The moments at L5/S1 of one-hand lifting tasks were 126~166% of the one of two-hands lifting tasks. Conclusion: It is concluded that the effect of workload for one-hand lifting is greater than two-hands lifting. It can also be concluded that asymmetrical effect of one-hand lifting is much greater than workload effect. Application: The results of this study can be used to provide guidelines of recommended safe weights for tasks involved in one-hand lifting activity.

• Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.413-420
• /
• 2013

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare one-hand and two-hands lowering activity in terms of biomechanical stress for the range of lowering heights from knuckle height to 10cm above floor level. Background: Even though two-hands lifting/lowering activity of manual materials handling tasks are prevalent at the industrial site, many manual materials handling tasks which require the worker to perform one-hand lifting/lowering are also very common at the industrial site and forestry and farming. Method: Eight male subjects were asked to perform lowering tasks using both a one-handed as well as a two-handed lowering technique. Trunk muscle electromyographic activity was recorded while the subjects performed the lowering tasks. This information was used as input to an EMG-assisted free-dynamic biomechanical model that predicted spinal loading in three dimensions. Results: It was shown that for the left-hand lowering tasks, the values of moment, lateral shear force, A-P shear force, and compressive force were increased by the average 6%, as the workload was increased twice from 7.5kg to 15kg. For the right-hand lowering task, these were increased by the average 17%. For the two-hands lowering tasks, these were increased by the average 14%. Conclusion: Even though the effect of workload on the biomechanical stress for both one-hand and two-hands lowering tasks is not so significant for the workload less than 15kg, it can be claimed that the biomechanical stress for one-hand lowering is greater than for two-hands lowering tasks. Therefore, it can be concluded that asymmetrical lowering posture would give greater influence on the biomechanical stress than the workload effect for one-hand lowering activity. Application: The result of this study may be used to provide guidelines of recommended safe weights for tasks involved in one-hand lowering activity.