Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions

The psychophysical method was used to determine the maximal acceptable load that eight males (age 22–30 years) would lift in each of four different positions: (1) seated, two-handed, symmetrical lift from a table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, (2) a seated lift from a position at the subj...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied ergonomics 1987-09, Vol.18 (3), p.239-243
Hauptverfasser: Yates, J.W., Karwowski, W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 243
container_issue 3
container_start_page 239
container_title Applied ergonomics
container_volume 18
creator Yates, J.W.
Karwowski, W.
description The psychophysical method was used to determine the maximal acceptable load that eight males (age 22–30 years) would lift in each of four different positions: (1) seated, two-handed, symmetrical lift from a table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, (2) a seated lift from a position at the subject's side, on to a table in front of the subject involving a 90 degree twist of the torso, (3) standing, two-handed, symmetrical lift from the table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, and (4) standing, vertical lift from 86 above the floor. Subsequent to a training period, subjects lifted a tray with slotted handles at the rate of 1 or 4 lifts/min. Each subject chose the weight of the tray which was acceptable to him by adding or removing flat pieces of lead over a 45 min period. The weight of the tray, heart rate, and the perceived exertion were measured at 15, 30 and 45 min. Oxygen consumption was measured during the last 5 min of the 45 min experiment. Statistical analysis revealed a significant frequency and position effect. An increase in frequency from 1 to 4 lifts/min resulted in a decrease of 1·6 to 2·1 kg in the maximum acceptable weight for the various tasks. On average, the maximum acceptable weight of lift for standing positions was 16% greater than for sitting positions. Oxygen consumption and heart rate were significantly higher for 4 lifts/min than for 1 lift/min; however, the rating of perceived exertion did not differ for any factor.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90012-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78080612</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>0003687087900123</els_id><sourcerecordid>78080612</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-379efe99d7201849bc977fedd46cd4f305656f75cdd7cadcf6498daaab052dc13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMlKBDEQhoMoOo6-gUgfRPTQmvSS5SLI4MqIFz2HdFKRaG8m3S5vb7fTjDcvVVTx_UXxIXRA8BnBhJ5jjNOYcoZPODsVGJMkTjfQjHCWxIIkdBPN1sgO2g3hdRh5RvJttENyyihNxAzdP6gvV_VVpLSGtlNFCVHpbOfql6hslAmR6f04BFAdmEjVJgrdUMfdZ-PforYJrnNNHfbQllVlgP2pz9Hz9dXT4jZePt7cLS6XsU656OKUCbAghGEJJjwThRaMWTAmo9pkNsU5zalluTaGaWW0pZngRilV4DwxmqRzdLy62_rmvYfQycoFDWWpamj6IBnHHFOSDGC2ArVvQvBgZetdpfy3JFiODuUoSI6CJGfy16FMh9jhdL8vKjB_oUnaABxNgApaldarWruw5ljOBcN0wC5WGAwyPhx4GbSDWoNxHnQnTeP-f-QHr9GOPg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78080612</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Yates, J.W. ; Karwowski, W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Yates, J.W. ; Karwowski, W.</creatorcontrib><description>The psychophysical method was used to determine the maximal acceptable load that eight males (age 22–30 years) would lift in each of four different positions: (1) seated, two-handed, symmetrical lift from a table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, (2) a seated lift from a position at the subject's side, on to a table in front of the subject involving a 90 degree twist of the torso, (3) standing, two-handed, symmetrical lift from the table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, and (4) standing, vertical lift from 86 above the floor. Subsequent to a training period, subjects lifted a tray with slotted handles at the rate of 1 or 4 lifts/min. Each subject chose the weight of the tray which was acceptable to him by adding or removing flat pieces of lead over a 45 min period. The weight of the tray, heart rate, and the perceived exertion were measured at 15, 30 and 45 min. Oxygen consumption was measured during the last 5 min of the 45 min experiment. Statistical analysis revealed a significant frequency and position effect. An increase in frequency from 1 to 4 lifts/min resulted in a decrease of 1·6 to 2·1 kg in the maximum acceptable weight for the various tasks. On average, the maximum acceptable weight of lift for standing positions was 16% greater than for sitting positions. Oxygen consumption and heart rate were significantly higher for 4 lifts/min than for 1 lift/min; however, the rating of perceived exertion did not differ for any factor.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-6870</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-9126</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90012-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15676629</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AERGBW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Ergonomics. Human factors ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; lifting ; Occupational psychology ; physical exertion ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Working environment</subject><ispartof>Applied ergonomics, 1987-09, Vol.18 (3), p.239-243</ispartof><rights>1987</rights><rights>1988 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-379efe99d7201849bc977fedd46cd4f305656f75cdd7cadcf6498daaab052dc13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-379efe99d7201849bc977fedd46cd4f305656f75cdd7cadcf6498daaab052dc13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(87)90012-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3549,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=7589706$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15676629$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yates, J.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karwowski, W.</creatorcontrib><title>Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions</title><title>Applied ergonomics</title><addtitle>Appl Ergon</addtitle><description>The psychophysical method was used to determine the maximal acceptable load that eight males (age 22–30 years) would lift in each of four different positions: (1) seated, two-handed, symmetrical lift from a table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, (2) a seated lift from a position at the subject's side, on to a table in front of the subject involving a 90 degree twist of the torso, (3) standing, two-handed, symmetrical lift from the table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, and (4) standing, vertical lift from 86 above the floor. Subsequent to a training period, subjects lifted a tray with slotted handles at the rate of 1 or 4 lifts/min. Each subject chose the weight of the tray which was acceptable to him by adding or removing flat pieces of lead over a 45 min period. The weight of the tray, heart rate, and the perceived exertion were measured at 15, 30 and 45 min. Oxygen consumption was measured during the last 5 min of the 45 min experiment. Statistical analysis revealed a significant frequency and position effect. An increase in frequency from 1 to 4 lifts/min resulted in a decrease of 1·6 to 2·1 kg in the maximum acceptable weight for the various tasks. On average, the maximum acceptable weight of lift for standing positions was 16% greater than for sitting positions. Oxygen consumption and heart rate were significantly higher for 4 lifts/min than for 1 lift/min; however, the rating of perceived exertion did not differ for any factor.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Ergonomics. Human factors</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>lifting</subject><subject>Occupational psychology</subject><subject>physical exertion</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Working environment</subject><issn>0003-6870</issn><issn>1872-9126</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1987</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMlKBDEQhoMoOo6-gUgfRPTQmvSS5SLI4MqIFz2HdFKRaG8m3S5vb7fTjDcvVVTx_UXxIXRA8BnBhJ5jjNOYcoZPODsVGJMkTjfQjHCWxIIkdBPN1sgO2g3hdRh5RvJttENyyihNxAzdP6gvV_VVpLSGtlNFCVHpbOfql6hslAmR6f04BFAdmEjVJgrdUMfdZ-PforYJrnNNHfbQllVlgP2pz9Hz9dXT4jZePt7cLS6XsU656OKUCbAghGEJJjwThRaMWTAmo9pkNsU5zalluTaGaWW0pZngRilV4DwxmqRzdLy62_rmvYfQycoFDWWpamj6IBnHHFOSDGC2ArVvQvBgZetdpfy3JFiODuUoSI6CJGfy16FMh9jhdL8vKjB_oUnaABxNgApaldarWruw5ljOBcN0wC5WGAwyPhx4GbSDWoNxHnQnTeP-f-QHr9GOPg</recordid><startdate>19870901</startdate><enddate>19870901</enddate><creator>Yates, J.W.</creator><creator>Karwowski, W.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19870901</creationdate><title>Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions</title><author>Yates, J.W. ; Karwowski, W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-379efe99d7201849bc977fedd46cd4f305656f75cdd7cadcf6498daaab052dc13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1987</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Ergonomics. Human factors</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>lifting</topic><topic>Occupational psychology</topic><topic>physical exertion</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Working environment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yates, J.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karwowski, W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Applied ergonomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yates, J.W.</au><au>Karwowski, W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions</atitle><jtitle>Applied ergonomics</jtitle><addtitle>Appl Ergon</addtitle><date>1987-09-01</date><risdate>1987</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>239</spage><epage>243</epage><pages>239-243</pages><issn>0003-6870</issn><eissn>1872-9126</eissn><coden>AERGBW</coden><abstract>The psychophysical method was used to determine the maximal acceptable load that eight males (age 22–30 years) would lift in each of four different positions: (1) seated, two-handed, symmetrical lift from a table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, (2) a seated lift from a position at the subject's side, on to a table in front of the subject involving a 90 degree twist of the torso, (3) standing, two-handed, symmetrical lift from the table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, and (4) standing, vertical lift from 86 above the floor. Subsequent to a training period, subjects lifted a tray with slotted handles at the rate of 1 or 4 lifts/min. Each subject chose the weight of the tray which was acceptable to him by adding or removing flat pieces of lead over a 45 min period. The weight of the tray, heart rate, and the perceived exertion were measured at 15, 30 and 45 min. Oxygen consumption was measured during the last 5 min of the 45 min experiment. Statistical analysis revealed a significant frequency and position effect. An increase in frequency from 1 to 4 lifts/min resulted in a decrease of 1·6 to 2·1 kg in the maximum acceptable weight for the various tasks. On average, the maximum acceptable weight of lift for standing positions was 16% greater than for sitting positions. Oxygen consumption and heart rate were significantly higher for 4 lifts/min than for 1 lift/min; however, the rating of perceived exertion did not differ for any factor.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>15676629</pmid><doi>10.1016/0003-6870(87)90012-3</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-6870
ispartof Applied ergonomics, 1987-09, Vol.18 (3), p.239-243
issn 0003-6870
1872-9126
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78080612
source ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Ergonomics. Human factors
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
lifting
Occupational psychology
physical exertion
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Working environment
title Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T20%3A03%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Maximum%20acceptable%20lifting%20loads%20during%20seated%20and%20standing%20work%20positions&rft.jtitle=Applied%20ergonomics&rft.au=Yates,%20J.W.&rft.date=1987-09-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=239&rft.epage=243&rft.pages=239-243&rft.issn=0003-6870&rft.eissn=1872-9126&rft.coden=AERGBW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0003-6870(87)90012-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78080612%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78080612&rft_id=info:pmid/15676629&rft_els_id=0003687087900123&rfr_iscdi=true