Integrating sEMG into NIOSH protocol: a manual material handling risk assessment in the fruit and vegetable department of a supermarket

A. Silvetti, A. Ranavolo, G. Chini, T. Varrecchia, A. Tatarelli, L. Fiori, A. Papale, A. Fiorelli, F. Draicchio
{"title":"Integrating sEMG into NIOSH protocol: a manual material handling risk assessment in the fruit and vegetable department of a supermarket","authors":"A. Silvetti, A. Ranavolo, G. Chini, T. Varrecchia, A. Tatarelli, L. Fiori, A. Papale, A. Fiorelli, F. Draicchio","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1002598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The biomechanical risk of cashiers in the retail sector has been extensively studied in literature. Despite high back pain prevalence in this sector manual material handling (MMH), instead, seems almost ignored. The aim of our study is MMH risk assessment in a fruit and vegetable department of a supermarket. This task wasn't still investigated, to date, together with standardized protocols and instru-mental-based tools. The sizes of the shelf allowed the use of the NIOSH protocol for the low level, whereas middle and high did not allow its use due to horizontal distance that exceeded the 63 cm set by the protocol. To integrate the NIOSH pro-tocol was used surface electromyography (sEMG). The recommended weight limit (RWL) in our case, according through NIOSH liftinq equation, was 17 Kg. The maximum handled weight from the workers was 14 Kg. The maximum mean peak value while lifting 14 Kg at a low level was 40.1% of Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) in the left Erector Spinae. We assumed this sEMG value to be a safety value and used as a limit for lifts at the middle and high shelf levels because the maximum handled weight of 14 Kg was lower than the 17 Kg limit calculated through the NIOSH equation for the low level. This sEMG limit was exceeded, in the middle, while lifting 14 Kg (47.8% MVC), and in the high level lifting 10 Kg (44.7% MVC), 12 Kg (50.3% MVC), and 14 Kg (57.7% MVC). Our findings show that, for the analyzed shelf and for the male working popula-tion of that supermarket, we could accept as reasonably safe handling boxes up to 14 Kg for the low level, up to 12 Kg in the middle, and up to 8 Kg in high. This study shows that the integration of different assessment tools, such sEMG and NIOSH protocol, could help to a better estimation of biomechanical risk assess-ment. The study, moreover, provided practical guidelines for the health and safety service concerning the recommended load handled on each shelf level to minimize the risk of MMH in the fruit and vegetable department.","PeriodicalId":130337,"journal":{"name":"Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002598","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The biomechanical risk of cashiers in the retail sector has been extensively studied in literature. Despite high back pain prevalence in this sector manual material handling (MMH), instead, seems almost ignored. The aim of our study is MMH risk assessment in a fruit and vegetable department of a supermarket. This task wasn't still investigated, to date, together with standardized protocols and instru-mental-based tools. The sizes of the shelf allowed the use of the NIOSH protocol for the low level, whereas middle and high did not allow its use due to horizontal distance that exceeded the 63 cm set by the protocol. To integrate the NIOSH pro-tocol was used surface electromyography (sEMG). The recommended weight limit (RWL) in our case, according through NIOSH liftinq equation, was 17 Kg. The maximum handled weight from the workers was 14 Kg. The maximum mean peak value while lifting 14 Kg at a low level was 40.1% of Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) in the left Erector Spinae. We assumed this sEMG value to be a safety value and used as a limit for lifts at the middle and high shelf levels because the maximum handled weight of 14 Kg was lower than the 17 Kg limit calculated through the NIOSH equation for the low level. This sEMG limit was exceeded, in the middle, while lifting 14 Kg (47.8% MVC), and in the high level lifting 10 Kg (44.7% MVC), 12 Kg (50.3% MVC), and 14 Kg (57.7% MVC). Our findings show that, for the analyzed shelf and for the male working popula-tion of that supermarket, we could accept as reasonably safe handling boxes up to 14 Kg for the low level, up to 12 Kg in the middle, and up to 8 Kg in high. This study shows that the integration of different assessment tools, such sEMG and NIOSH protocol, could help to a better estimation of biomechanical risk assess-ment. The study, moreover, provided practical guidelines for the health and safety service concerning the recommended load handled on each shelf level to minimize the risk of MMH in the fruit and vegetable department.
将表面肌电信号整合到NIOSH协议中:超市果蔬部人工物料处理风险评估
零售业收银员的生物力学风险已被广泛研究。尽管高腰痛流行在这个部门手工材料处理(MMH),相反,似乎几乎被忽视。本研究的目的是对某超市果蔬部的MMH风险进行评估。迄今为止,这项任务尚未与标准化协议和基于工具的工具一起进行研究。架子的大小允许在低水平使用NIOSH协议,而由于水平距离超过协议规定的63厘米,中、高水平不允许使用。采用表面肌电图(sEMG)整合NIOSH程序。在我们的案例中,根据NIOSH举重方程,推荐的重量限制(RWL)为17 Kg。工人搬运的最大重量是14公斤。在低水平举起14 Kg时,最大平均峰值为左竖棘最大自愿收缩(MVC)的40.1%。我们假设这个表面肌电图值是一个安全值,并将其用作中高货架层的升降机限值,因为14 Kg的最大搬运重量低于通过NIOSH方程计算出的低水平17 Kg的限值。在举重14公斤(47.8% MVC)和高水平举重10公斤(44.7% MVC)、12公斤(50.3% MVC)和14公斤(57.7% MVC)时,超过了这个肌电图限制。我们的研究结果表明,对于所分析的货架和该超市的男性工作人员来说,我们可以接受的合理安全处理的箱子,低至14公斤,中至12公斤,高至8公斤。本研究表明,结合不同的评估工具,如肌电图和NIOSH方案,有助于更好地评估生物力学风险。此外,该研究还为健康和安全服务部门提供了实用的指导方针,涉及在每个货架上处理的推荐负荷,以尽量减少水果和蔬菜部门MMH的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信