See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/14045163

NIOSH equation horizontal

distances associated with the
Liberty Mutual (Snook) lifting
table box widths.
ARTICLE in ERGONOMICS JULY 1997
Impact Factor: 1.61 DOI: 10.1080/001401397187946 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

58

66

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Jim R Potvin
McMaster University
76 PUBLICATIONS 1,118
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Jim R Potvin

Retrieved on: 21 July 2015

Downloaded By: [McMaster University Library] At: 14:27 15 May 2007

E RGO N OM ICS , 1997,

VOL .

40,

NO .

6, 650 655

NIOSH equation horizontal distances associated with the

Liberty M utual (Snook) lifting table box widths
J. R. P O TVIN and L . R. B ENT
Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Human Biology and Nutritional
Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada NIG 2W1
Keywords: Lifting; Psychophysics; NIOSH equations; Prevention and control;
Evaluation methodology.
A study was conducted to determine the NIOSH equation horizontal distances
(dH ) associated with the three different box widths (34, 49 and 75 cm) and lift
starting heights ( oor, knuckle and shoulder) used in the psychophysically based
Liberty Mutual lifting tables (Snook 1978, Snook and Ciriello 1991). Data were
collected with 12 male and 12 female subjects and three repetitions were
performed for each of the nine lifting conditions. No gender effects were observed
so male and female data were pooled. The value of d H was positively related to
box width but there was also a signi cant interaction between box width and
starting height. When pooled across lift heights the average values of d H were 44,
49 and 57 cm for the 34, 49 and 75 cm box widths, respectively. When pooled
across box widths the average values of d H were 52, 45 and 52 cm for the oor,
knuckle and shoulder height lifts, respectively. A knowledge of the d H associated
with each box width will allow for direct comparisons to be made between the
NIOSH and Liberty Mutual outputs. This will facilitate further validation of the
NIOSH equations. A variable (GAP) was calculated to indicate the horizontal
distance from the ankles to the edge of the box. Previously, this GAP has been
assumed to remain constant and values of 15, 20 and 25 cm have been proposed.
The GAP was observed to have an overall mean of 23 6 cm with individual
condition means ranging from 14 6 cm to 31 2 cm. When pooled across
conditions the mean GAP values were equal to dH minus half the box width.

1. Introduction
M any efforts have been made to provide criteria for establishing acceptable loads
under various sagittal plane lifting conditions. Tw o methods commonly used for this
purpose are: (1) the Liberty M utual (LM ) lifting tables based on a series of
psychophysical studies by Snook and colleagues (Snook 1978, Snook and Ciriello
1991 ) and, (2) the NIO SH lifting equations developed as an integration of
biomechanical, psychophysical, physiological and epidem iological data (NIOSH
1981 , W aters et al. 1993). Both methods use measures that account for the load s
vertical location and displacement as well as the frequency of lifting. NIOSH (1981)
have identi ed the horizontal distance of the load centre of mass from the body (d H )
as the critical determinant of low-back injury risk owing to its effect on the lumbar
moment and subsequent joint compression forces. Consequently, the two methods
have a fourth measurement to account for the horizontal location of the load
although they do this in different ways. Snook and colleagues (1978, 1991 )
manipulated box widths in their studies to alter the horizontal location of the load.
Therefore, to apply the LM lifting tables to various lifting conditions, some estimate
0014 0139 / 97 $12 00

1997 T aylor & Francis L td

Downloaded By: [McMaster University Library] At: 14:27 15 May 2007

NIOSH equation horizontal distances

651

of the box width must be made. Conversely, the N IOSH equations use a direct
measurement of d H as the distance from the centre of mass of the load to the centre
of the ankle joints.
A dif culty in using the LM lifting tables is that the d H associated with a load is
not always determined by the size of the load lifted. For exam ple, when lifting over
an obstacle the d H will be large even for a small box width. In such a case, it would be
more appropriate to recommend safe loads based on table values corresponding to a
box width larger than that of the actual load. In addition, the discrepancy in the
methods used by the NIOSH equations and the LM tables, to account for the
horizontal location of the load, makes it dif cult to compare the output from each
method for sim ilar lifting conditions. Such comparisons are essential to ongoing
efforts to validate the recently proposed NIOSH equation (W aters et al. 1993). For
the original NIOSH equation (N IOSH 1981) it was assumed that the d H associated
with a LM box was half the width plus a constant distance of 15 cm. Subsequently,
the revised NIOSH equation used constant values of 25 and 20 cm when the load
was below and above 75 cm, respectively. Garg (1989) tested 13 male subjects and
demonstrated that these constant values were too low when loads were lifted at oor
and knuckle height and found that the most appropriate values changed with lifting
height.
The purpose of the current study was to determine the NIOSH d H associated
with each combination of the three box widths and three starting heights in the LM
lifting tables. It is anticipated that the data from this study will be useful for: (1)
facilitating use of the LM tables when d H is not constrained prim arily by box width,
(2) allow for direct comparisons to be made between the NIO SH equation an d LM
lifting table outputs for similar lifting conditions, and (3) determine the validity of
using half the width plus a constant distance when converting box width to d H .
2. M ethods
2.1. Subje cts
Twenty-four healthy subjects (12 females, 12 males) participated in the experiment.
The mean height was 1 653 6 0 052 m (fem ale), 1 794 6 0 067 m (male) and
1 723 6 0 092 m (overall). The mean age was 23 5 6 2 4 years (fem ale), 23 9 6 2 6
years (m ale) and 23 7 6 2 5 years (overall). All subjects were informed of the
procedures and risks involved with the protocol and each signed an informed
consent form. None of the subjects reported any history of low-back pain or injury.
2.2. Tasks
Three boxes were constructed with the same dimensions as those used in the LM
lifting tables (Snook 1978 , Snook and Ciriello 1991). Each box had a length (lateral
span) of 48 cm, a height of 14 cm and handles with a height of 7 5 cm from the base.
The boxes differed only in their widths (frontal span) which were 34, 49 and 75 cm.
Each box was loaded such that its total mass was 5 kg.
Subjects were given a warm-up period to become accustomed to each lifting
condition. They then performed lifts with each of the three boxes at the three
different handle starting heights from the LM tables: (1) 7 5 cm (box on the oor),
(2) knuckle height, and (3) shoulder height. The knuckle and shoulder heights were
adjusted to the dimensions of each individual subject. The order of presentation of
the starting heights was randomized for each subject. W ithin a height, the order of
box widths was randomized. Three repetitions were performed for each of the nine

Downloaded By: [McMaster University Library] At: 14:27 15 May 2007

J.R. Potvin and L.R. Bent

652

lifting conditions (n = 27 lifts per subject). Subjects were instructed to approach the
box with at least three strides, grasp the handles in the centre and lift the box
symmetrically in the sagittal plane. They were provided with no other instructions as
to lifting technique.
2.3. Data analy sis
Each lift was recorded on videotape (20 Hz) with a camera placed 6 m lateral to the
subject s right side. The image of a metre stick was recorded so that all data could be
scaled. M arkers on the ankle (lateral malleolus) and the knuckle (3rd metacarpal)
were digitized to determ ine the NIOSH d H (cm) at the start of each lift (NIOSH
1981 , W aters et al. 1993). The d H value directly attributable to the width of the box
(W ) can be calculated as half of W (the distance from the edge of the box to the
knuckle). Generally d H is larger than 12 W and this discrepancy was termed the `GAP .
The relationship between these variables is indicated below:
GAP

dH 2

1
2

where GAP = distance from the ankle to the edge of the box (cm); d H = horizontal
distance from the ankle to the knuckle (cm); and W = width of the box being lifted
(cm).
2.4. Statistics
A mean value was calculated with the d H values measured from the three repetitions
performed with each starting height / box width combination. The coef cients of
variation (CV) were calculated and pooled within the three repeat measures of d H for
each individual condition / subject. CV values were also calculated between subjects
with the means and standard deviations for each condition. A 3-way ANOVA with
repeated measures (1 within subjects was gender, 2 between subjects were box size
and height) with the GAP variable used as the dependent measure. A post hoc
analysis was perform ed on all signi cant m ain effects and interactions. The digitizing
procedure was repeated a second time for one subject so that digitizing reliability
could be assessed.
3. Results
3.1. Starting heights
The average knuckle heights were 0 716 6 0 026 m (females), 0 773 6 0 032 m (males)
and 0 746 6 0 042 m (overall). The average shoulder heights were 1 295 6 0 055 m
(females), 1 434 6 0 063 m (males) an d 1 362 6 0 091 m (overall). The starting height
of the lifts from the oor were always 7 5 cm as this was the height of the handles
from the base of each box.
3.2. GA P distances
For the GAP distance, there were signi cant main effects of each box width and
starting height and a signi cant interaction effect (all p 0 001, table 1). The overall
mean GAP distance was 23 6 cm but the condition means ranged from 14 6 cm
(knuckle height, 75 cm width) to 31 2 cm (shoulder height, 34 cm width). The GAP
distance decreased signi cantly within each starting height as the box width
increased (all p 0 01). The oor and shoulder GAP distances were signi cantly
higher than the knuckle values, by approximately 7 3 cm , for each box width (all

<

<

Downloaded By: [McMaster University Library] At: 14:27 15 May 2007

NIOSH equation horizontal distances

653

Table 1. Horizontal distance of the GAP (cm). This value was calculated as the horizontal
distance minus half the box width. The data has been pooled across genders. Standard
errors are presented in brackets (n= 24 for each cell, n= 72 for each column and row
mean, and n= 216* for the overall mean).
Snook table box width
Lift starting
height
Shoulder
Knuckle
Floor
Mean

34 cm
31 2
22 2
28 4
27 3

(1 3)
(0 9)
(1 0)
(0 8)

<

49 cm
27 0
19 3
26 8
24 4

75 cm

(0 8)
(0 7)
(1 0)
(0 7)

19 5
14 6
23 0
19 0

(0 9)
(0 7)
(0 8)
(0 6)

Mean
25 9
18 7
26 1
23 6*

(0 7)
(0 8)
(0 9)
(0 5)

p 0 001). W hen compared to the shoulder G AP values, the oor values were
signi cantly lower for a width of 34 cm (p 0 001), not different for a width of 49 cm
and signi can tly higher for a width of 75 cm (p 0 001).

<

<

3.3. Horizontal distances

As d H = GAP+ 12W , the differences in d H for each box width were identical to those
of GAP variable. Also, the variability between subjects for each condition were the
sam e for d H and GAP. H ow ever, as box widths were increased, the increases in half
the box width ( 12W ) were larger than the concomitant decreases in GAP so that there
was a net increase in the d H for each starting height. The interaction between d H , box
width and lift starting height could be de ned with the following regression equation
2
(n = 9, r = 0 97, RM S error = 1 3 cm):
dH

29 . 3 1

[0 . 3 W ] 1

[0 . 1 | V 2

75 |]

where V = vertical distance from the oor to the load (cm).

3.4. W ithin and between subject variability
The average within and between subject CVs for the GAP m easurement were 4 3%
and 9 0% , respectively. W hen repeat measurements were made with the data from
one subject, the average absolute difference between m easurements was 0 77 cm
(1 52% of the mean).
4. Discussion
The current study determined the NIOSH equation d H associated with the box
widths in the LM lifting tables (Snook 1979, Snook and Ciriello 1991). However, not
all of the conditions from the studies of Snook et al. were studied. It was assumed
that d H was not affected by changes in lifting frequency. This assumption was
supported by Garg (1989) who found no changes in d H with four frequencies (0 2, 3,
6, 9 lifts per minute) during lifts with three box widths and two starting heights. The
current study also assum ed that d H was not dependent on the load being lifted, as
5 kg was used for all conditions. Potvin et al. (1992) dem onstrated no signi cant
effect of three loads (5, 17, 33 kg) on d H when loads were lifted from the oor. Garg
(1989) also observed no effect of the maximum acceptable weight of lift (M A W L)
load on the d H within each condition tested. For example, with a box width of 36 cm
starting at oor height the M AW L s ranged from 10 8 to 25 4 kg while the d H only
ranged from 41 8 to 42 2 cm .

Downloaded By: [McMaster University Library] At: 14:27 15 May 2007

J.R. Potvin and L.R. Bent

654

Table 2. Average NIOSH equation horizontal moment arms (cm) associated with each
combination of box width and lift starting height. The data had been pooled across
genders (n= 24 for each cell, n= 72 for each column and row mean, and n= 216* for the
overall mean).
Snook table box width
Lift starting
height

34 cm

49 cm

75 cm

Mean

Shoulder
Knuckle
Floor
Mean

48 2
39 2
45 4
44 3

51 5
43 8
51 3
48 9

57 0
52 1
60 5
56 5

52 2
45 0
52 4
49 9*

As expected, the average d H increased with increasing box width (table 2). The
observed chan ges in d H were in contrast to those of Garg (1989) who noted
substantial increases in d H as the starting height increased from oor to knuckle
level. At oor level, the results of Garg for 38 and 51 cm wide boxes were
comparable to those of the current study for 34 and 49 cm box widths. There were,
however, large discrepancies observed when d H was compared at knuckle height. As
the load was moved from oor to knuckle level, Garg observed average increases in
d H of 9 3 and 11 1 cm for the 38 and 51 cm boxes, respectively. Conversely, under
similar conditions in the current study, the d H decreased by 6 2 and 7 5 cm,
respectively. It is dif cult to explain these discrepancies at knuckle height as there do
not ap pear to be substantial differences between the task characteristics of the two
studies. It should be noted that while the CV values for the current study s 34 and
49 cm lifts were 11 1 and 8 1% , respectively, G arg s CVs for sim ilar boxes were 15 8
and 14 8% . This may indicate some differences in the reliability of the methods used
to quantify the d H as box width was changed.
The current values can be used to facilitate use of the LM lifting tables when the
box width is not the only factor determining the d H of the load from the body. In
many cases, small loads must be held at a distance from the body because of
obstacles to lifting (e.g. lifting from a bin or the back of a table). Therefore, alway s
associating the smallest box size in the LM lifting tables (34 cm) with a small load
may lead to a M AW L that overestim ates the actual safe load. Substituting the
proposed d H values for the current box widths in the LM lift tables would allow for a
more accurate account of the load d H regardless of load size or lifting obstacles. Such
a substitution would result in both the NIOSH equations and the LM lifting tables
having similar inputs so that their outputs could be compared. This would further
facilitate current efforts to validate the NIOSH equation s psychophysical basis.
The results of the GAP variable provided direct evidence that the subjects moved
closer as the boxes becam e wider (table 1). The average GAP was observed to
decrease from 27 3 cm with a 34 cm box width to 19 0 cm with a 75 cm box width.
This may have been done to minimize the biomechanical implications of an increased
obstacle size. Both NIOSH equations suggest that increases in d H will result in
substantial decreases in the acceptable load or, alternatively, increases in the injury
risk associated with a particular load (NIOSH 1981 , W aters et al. 1993). The average
GAP magnitudes also appeared to be affected by the starting height, with overall
average values being 18 7 cm at knuckle height and ap proxim ately 26 cm at both
oor and shoulder heights. This result may indicate that subjects were able to move

Downloaded By: [McMaster University Library] At: 14:27 15 May 2007

NIOSH equation horizontal distances

655

the load in close to the body at knuckle height but som e larger clearance was needed
when subjects were required to reach the hands down to oor level or up to shoulder
level. The lower d H values observed at knuckle height were consistent with the
NIOSH equations assumption that this is the optim al vertical height for lifting
(NIOSH 1981 , W aters et al. 1993). The average GAP of 23 6 cm was in the range of
20 25 cm assumed by W aters et al. (1993) and 25 cm assumed by Chaf n and Page
(1994), however it is substantially larger than the value of 15 cm used by NIOSH
(1981). The m ost recent NIOSH equation appeared to be correct in assum ing that
the GAP was greater when V was below knuckle height (25 versus 20 cm). However,
the current results indicate that a value of 20 cm should not be set for all V 75 cm
as the average GAP was found to be 25 9 cm at shoulder height. It is proposed that
the GAP values provided in table 1 are more appropriate than the constant values of
15, 20 or 25 cm that have been used to date.

>

5. Conclusions
It was concluded from the current study that female and male subjects adopted
similar d H in response to changing box widths and relative lift starting heights. It is
proposed that the d H values determined in this study may be substituted for the box
widths currently in the LM lifting tables. This will allow the psychophysically based
tables to be applied under more varied lifting conditions than is currently possible. In
addition, such a substitution would result in similarly measured inputs for the
NIOSH equation and the LM lifting tables. This would facilitate a comparison
between the output of both methods for a variety of lifting conditions. Although the
average GAP was 23 6 cm for all conditions tested, there was a large range (16 6 cm)
of GAP observed between the conditions. This observation disagrees with the
previous assumption of a constant GAP made during the development of the
NIOSH equations.
References
C HAFFIN , D. B. and P AG E , G. B. 1994, Postural effects on biomechanical and psychophysical
weight-lifting limits, Ergonomics, 37, 663 676.
G ARG , A. 1989, An evaluation of the NIOSH guidelines for manual lifting, with special
reference to horizontal distance, American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 50,
157 164.
NIOSH 1981, Work practices guide for manual lifting. Technical report, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 81, 122.
P OTVIN , J. R., N ORM AN , R. W., E CKENRA TH , M. E., M C G ILL , S. M. and B EN NETT , G. W. 1992,
Regression models for the prediction of dynamic L4 /L5 compression forces during
lifting, Ergonomics, 35, 187 201.
S N OOK , S. H. 1978, The design of manual handling tasks, Ergonomics, 21, 963 985.
S N OOK , S. H. and C IRIELLO , V. M. 1991, The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of
maximum acceptable weights and forces, Ergonomics, 34, 1197 1213.
W ATERS , T. R., P U TZ -A ND ER SO N , V., G A RG , A. and F IN E , L. J. 1993, Revised NIOSH equation
for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks, Ergonomics, 36, 749 776.