Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Ergonomic evaluation of workers during manual material handling

Manikandan Rajendran ⇑, Athul Sajeev, Rajesh Shanmugavel, T. Rajpradeesh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kalasalingam Academy of Research & Education, Krishnankoil, Tamil Nadu 626126, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper is focused on the review of ergonomic tools and the ergonomic issues that are present now.
Received 15 December 2020 The main focus on this paper is to identify the ergonomic issues faced by the workers during Manual
Received in revised form 12 January 2021 Material Handling (MMH). The studies show that the workers who had high ergonomic issues like
Accepted 10 February 2021
Musculoskeletal Disorder while in Manual Handling such as lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, and any
Available online xxxx
vibration generating activities. The main reason for enhancing the ergonomic issues is due to the impro-
per knowledge of work, less experience, carelessness, and awkward working posture. The studies also
Keywords:
show that age-wise and gender-wise have a variation in the rate of ergonomic issues. Here we focused
Manual material handling
Musculoskeletal disorder
on the general ergonomic tools and software for accessing easily in an industry or workplace to get
Ergonomic tools the ergonomic risk level in their works. The Ergonomic tools like RULA, REBA, NIOSH, SNOOK Table,
NIOSH etc to be classified based on the work task. The categorization of the ergonomic tool will be helpful to
Lifting and lowering select for particular task risk analysis and posture analysis. The project aims to do risk analysis in lifting
and lowering the object in different sections of an industry with help of the NIOSH calculator (Ergo Fellow
3.0), and then provide necessary recommendations and instructions.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Con-
ference on Materials, Manufacturing and Modelling.

1. Introduction ards [5–6]. In industrial 4.0 there is a lot of sources such as internet
sources, mobile applications, recording electronic devices are to
The workers in an industry are suffering more from health haz- share and gather the information for the evaluation [7]. The worker
ards due to manual material handling. The ergonomic health haz- is facing various problems in industries like fatigue, blood circula-
ard is one of the main hazards during manual material handling. tion, discomfort, back pain due to the improper ergonomic design
The health hazard due to ergonomic issues are may acute or peri- of machines or equipment, and also creates stress in the muscu-
odic manner, that is during some manual task the reaction will be loskeletal system [8]. The improper working posture leads to
sudden or the reaction will be later by the high exposure and reduce productivity by enhancing health problems, musculoskele-
repetitive motion [1]. The manual material handling is the risk task tal disorders, and physical stress [9–10]. The improper work pos-
such as lifting and lowering the objects, pushing and pulling. Each ture, bending, raising, and lowering an object, twisting, pushing,
manufacturing industry considered the ergonomic are the major and pulling are the factors that lead to the formation of ergonomic
problematic issues which cause musculoskeletal disorder and nor- issues [11–12].
mal health of employees [2]. The construction workers were suf-
fered more work-related musculoskeletal disorders rather than
other industrial workers because most of the workers in the con- 2. Methodology
struction field do manual operations [3]. The workers have the
highest frequency of musculoskeletal disorder based on back pain Manual handlings activities ought to be assessed to manage the
followed by lower back, upper back, neck, and shoulder [4]. chances of injury to the staff endeavour them. This risk assessment
The enhancing of musculoskeletal disorder in the industry is different from the overall risk assessment introduced earlier dur-
because the workers shouldn’t follow the safety in ergonomic haz- ing this course as a result of it focuses risk of manual handling. In
this project, the study of various ergonomic tools by the literature
and identify the risk of manual handling task by the suitable ergo-
⇑ Corresponding author. nomic tool. Due to this pandemic condition (COVID 19), it is very
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Rajendran). difficult to access the entire manual task. Here we have considered

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.283
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Modelling.

Please cite this article as: M. Rajendran, A. Sajeev, R. Shanmugavel et al., Ergonomic evaluation of workers during manual material handling, Materials
Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.283
M. Rajendran, A. Sajeev, R. Shanmugavel et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

the lifting task in industry and applied the NIOSH lifting equation Body parts posture score by proper grouping system; Step 3: Calcu-
for the analysis of the risk. The following steps have been taken late the total score and create further action. Grouping of the
(methodology) to complete the project in Fig. 1. worker body part for ergonomic assessment by RULA method is
given in Fig. 2.
3. Ergonomic assessment tools
3.3. REBA (Rapid entire body Assessment)
The Ergonomic is one of the main issues in every manual han-
dling works, the automatization is one of the main solutions to The REBA is an ergonomic tool used for the identification of risk
overcome such manual handling issues. The automatization leads factors responsive to the musculoskeletal by the body posture
to an increase in costs such as installation cost, maintenance cost, analysis. In Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorder (WMSD), the
etc., so practically it is not possible. The Ergonomic assessment risk on the entire body can be estimated with the help of the REBA
tools are used to find out the level of risk in their work and work method. The REBA and RULA are similar in design and have some
posture, finally, we have to generate a good solution to overcome dissimilarity in the case of external load acting and the workload
such issues. coupling [21]. The REBA analysis can be done manually with the
help of the REBA form or use with the help of ergonomic software
3.1. OWAS (Ovako work posture analysis System) such as Ergo Plus, Ergo Fellow. The increase in the postural score
during the period of observation shows that the working body pos-
In the year 1974, the OWAS method was developed to portrait ture varied from the neutral position [22]. The REBA method is fol-
the body position and scores it according to the strain caused at lowed by the six important steps in the standard form [23]]. The
the working periods [13]. The OWAS method is used to identify stages followed of the REBA method given in Fig. 3 and Grouping
and evaluate the working posture to improve the ergonomic pos- of the worker body part for ergonomic assessment by REBA
ture [14]. The OWAS method having an observational part and a method in Fig. 4.
redesigning part; that is the evaluation of the working posture by
observational technique and the redesign part is with a set of 3.4. WERA (Workplace ergonomic risk Assessment)
norms for the reformation of working method and workplaces
[15]. It will lead to improving the workplace comfortable and in WERA is the modified version of the REBA tool for the entire
the field of production quality [16]. The scoring method is used body assessment, also it is considered as an observational tool.
in OWAS to describe the positions of the back, arms/shoulder, legs, The body pain and discomforts were reported with the WERA
and head in the form of four digits code [17]. assessment because have a relationship among work-related mus-
culoskeletal disorder [24]. The WERA is an assessment system to
3.2. RULA (Rapid upper limb Assessment) provide proper guidance on risk to be evaluated during the work
task. This assessment system has no special equipment for the
McAtamney and Corlett in 1993 developed the Rapid Upper evaluation, it is considered as paper and pen technique [25]. The
Limb Assessment Method (RULA) for the examination of the risk WERA assessment considers the five major body parts and six
level based on upper limb disorder [18]. The ergonomic evaluation physical risk factors for the assessment of work tasks [26]. The
of the work-related upper limb disorders in the workplace is car- physical factors and body part categorization of workers using
ried out with the help of the RULA method. It also helps to the eval- the WERA assessment method are given in Fig. 5.
uation of the worker’s adopted postures, workforce, and muscle The work task screening by the WERA method is followed by
action in the various tasks [19]. The RULA is followed by body pos- the stages [27].Stage 1: Observe the work task; Stage 2: Collect
ture diagrams and three scoring table for the risk factor evaluation the relevant data; Stage 3: Risk factor recording; Stage 4: Scoring
[20]. Step 1: Recording of the work posture for analysis; Step 2: system; Stage 5: Instruction and recommendations

3.5. NERPA (Novel ergonomic postural assessment Method)

The upper limb assessment called NERPA was developed in

2013 by Sanchez et al for the manual handling work task [28].
The NERPA was developed for the ergonomic risk evaluation of
manual tasks in an industry, and also it is the version formed by

Fig. 1. Methodology. Fig. 2. Body parts grouping in RULA method.

2
M. Rajendran, A. Sajeev, R. Shanmugavel et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Body parts grouping in REBA method.

[34]. The stages considered in the PATH methods are [35]. The
steps followed by the PATH assessment method is given in Fig. 6.
Fig. 3. Stages of REBA method.
3.7. SNOOK table
the modification of the RULA assessment method. The RULA has
some limitations, so the NERPA helps to overcome such issues.
The SNOOK table was developed by Snook and Ciriello in the
The NERPA makes standardization by the observation method
year 1991 for the evaluation of manual handling tasks in indus-
and posture modification. ISO1126:2000 Ergonomics is one of the
international standards considered by NERPA [29]. The NERPA
has four score levels like 1or2, 3 or 4, 5 and 6, 7 as per the action
in the form of acceptable; require study, intervention, immediate
intervention. The body parts are classified into two types, group
A consists of arms, forearms, wrists, and Group B is the neck, trunk,
legs [30]. The posture detection method by the NERPA follows the
main steps [31]. Such as Step 1: Status of the work to be recorded;
Step 2: Scoring System with help of NERPA score sheets; Step 3:
Find out the action level. The four-level measures of NERPA also
score the physical states and condition and provide proper instruc-
tions and recommendations [32].

3.6. PATH (Posture activity tools Handling)

PATH is an ergonomic tool that was developed to categorize the

hazard in a work task based on an ergonomic manner. PATH is
mainly used in Manual Material Handling. The working condition
in the workplace will be improved with the help of PATH assess-
ment followed by the proper instructions and recommendations
[33]. The PATH is in the format of Posture (trunk, legs, arms, and
neck), Activity (MMH, grasp, reach, and move). For posture scoring
in the PATH method, the modified OWAS codes were considered Fig. 6. Steps in the PATH method.

Fig. 5. Physical factor and Body parts are considered in the WERA assessment.

3
M. Rajendran, A. Sajeev, R. Shanmugavel et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Lifting Index and Level of Risk.

Lifting Index range Risk Level

LI < 1.0 Normal risk
LI greater than 1.0 High risk

tries. It is used to find out the maximum acceptable weight in the

lifting task as in the form of a psychophysical approach. The
WMSDs are determined and reduced by this experimental method
[36–37]. During the Manual, Material Handling the force and safe
weights are to find out by the SNOOK Table in a scientific way.
Fig. 7. Industries with higher than average rates of musculoskeletal disorders,
The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company developed the snook table
2018/19.
for the industrial purpose described by Snook for the determina-
tion of the safe acceptable weights and forces during the opera-
tions such as lifting, lowering, pushing, and pulling [38–39]. affected human body part is the upper limb, which is about 41%
compared to others. In this project we consider lifting task in a dif-
3.8. NIOSH lifting equation ferent section of industries like the storage section, assemble sec-
tion, package section, and maintenance section [47–48], and also
The NIOSH equation is used to evaluate Manual Material Han- find out the lifting risk with the help of NIOSH equation by the
dling risk in raising and lowering work tasks. As per the occupa- ERGO FELLOW 3.0 Software.
tional health and safety, the revised NIOSH equation is used for The data collection of various lifting task in an industry shown
the lifting and lowering task risk identification [40–41]. The in table 2.
parameters in the NIOSH lifting equation are RWL (Recommended
Weight Limit) and LI (Lifting Index). The risk factor in the Lifting 5. Result and discussion
task is identified by the RWL and LI parameters [42–43]. The
NIOSH lifting equation mainly focuses on the identification of lift- The Ego Fellow 3.0 software is very comfortable to use with the
ing task risk during manual handling. It’s very easy to identify the NIOSH lifting calculator. The data we collected is directly entered
level of risk in lifting tasks and provide recommendations to elim- properly in the software, then the result will be displayed on the
inate such risks. The Risk level and Index range of the Lifting task screen in the form of RWL and LI. The NIOSH calculator in Ergo Fel-
By NIOSH Lifting Equation is given in table 1. low 3.0 software in Fig. 9.
The Recommended Weight Limit is the maximum safe weight The 2D diagram of the lifting task with the help of data in table
to be a lift or lower by the worker during the continuous period 2 given in Fig. 10.
of repetitive work [44–45]. The Recommended Weight Limit and Lifting Index result after
RWL ¼ LCð51Þ  HM  VM  DM  AM  FM  CM ð1Þ the data calculation in the NIOSH equation By Ergo Fellow 3.0 is
given in table 3.
The parameters in NIOSH lifting equations are H (Horizontal The Recommended Weight Limit Vs LOAD graph is plotted with
location of the object), V (Vertical location of the), D (Distance the help of data in table 3 given in Fig. 11.
the object moved), A (Asymmetry angle), F (Frequency), C The graph shows that the load they are carrying is much higher
(Coupling). than the Recommended Weight Limit. It shows that repetitive lift-
ing and lowering such weights are dangerous, that is each lifting
4. Data collection

Due to this Pandemic Situation (COVID 19), the live data collec-
tion from the industry is very difficult, so some of the data be col-
lected from the ‘‘work-related musculoskeletal disorder statistics
2019 – Great Britain” [46]. The average rates of musculoskeletal
disorders in various sectors during 2018 and 2019 in Fig. 7 and
The MSDS affected the worker’s human body parts in Fig. 8.
The first graph shows that the workers in the construction
industry suffer more from musculoskeletal disorder due to manual
handling and also followed by other sectors such as agriculture,
forestry, and fishing, etc. The above pie chart shows that the most Fig. 8. Musculoskeletal disorders by affected area, 2018/19.

Table 2
Lifting Task data of different sections of industries.

Lifting Task Load H Horizontal location V Vertical location D travel distance A Angle of C F
(Kg) (cm) (cm) (cm) asymmetry Coupling frequency
Lifting sealed bag from the lower 8 50 25 76 90 0.95 0.88
rack
Assemble section 8 45 80 60 60 0.95 0.75
6 45 80 60 60 0.95 0.75
Package section 22 45 90 95 0 0.9 0.88
14 45 90 95 0 0.9 0.88
Maintenance Section (body panel) 20 35 160 160 30 0,95 0,91

4
M. Rajendran, A. Sajeev, R. Shanmugavel et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
The calculated value of RWL and LI in the NIOSH calculator.

Lifting task Load RWL (Recommended LI (Lifting

(Kg) Weight Limit) (Kg) Index)
Lifting a sealed bag from 8 5.12 1.562
the lower rack
Assemble section 8 6.485 1.234
6 6.485 0.925
Package section 22 8.383 2.624
14 8.383 1.67
Maintenance 20 8.112 2.465
Section (body panel)

Fig. 9. The NIOSH calculator in Ergo Fellow 3.0 software.

work in the entire section has a risk on the musculoskeletal disor-

der. The Lifting Index Vs LOAD graph plotted with the help of data
in table 3 is given in Fig. 12.
The graph shows that the lifting index of the corresponding
weights is higher than 1. Refer the table 1, if the Lifting Index
greater than 1.0 denotes that the task is high risk. In the given Fig. 11. Recommended Weight Limit Vs LOAD.
graph has the LI value is higher than 1.0, which means the corre-
sponding works in the entire section have to risk on the muscu-
loskeletal disorder and also need some changes to reduce such
ergonomic issues.

6. Recommendation

Manual material handling is one of the dangerous tasks in

workstations. The high ergonomic issues may affect the person
who does such works. From the different manual handling, the Lift-
ing and lowering of an object is the main task includes high risk.
During the manual lifting and lowering of an object, we should
be careful to follow some instructions such as Avoid unnecessary
bending, Keep the trunk and neck be straight, Avoid twisting, Keep
the feet touch the floor properly, Avoid the stretching of hand and
leg, Lift the weight maximum to the shoulder level, Keep the hand Fig. 12. Lifting Index Vs LOAD.

Fig. 10. 2D diagram of lifting task given in table 2.

5
M. Rajendran, A. Sajeev, R. Shanmugavel et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 13. Better working posture while lifting and lowering an object.

is closer to the leg position while lifting and also have to maintain a [5] Rahman, M. N. A., & Zuhaidi, M. F. A. (2017). Musculoskeletal symptoms and
ergonomic hazards among material handlers in grocery retail industries. In IOP
good working posture [49–50]. The Better working posture is rep-
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 226, No. 1, p.
resented during lifting and lowering an heavy object manually pro- 012027).
vided in Fig. 13. [6] T. Varrecchia, C. De Marchis, M. Rinaldi, F. Draicchio, M. Serrao, M. Schmid, S.
Conforto, A. Ranavolo, Lifting activity assessment using surface
electromyographic features and neural networks, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 66 (2018) 1–9.
7. Conclusion [7] M. Gašová, M. Gašo, A. Štefánik, Advanced industrial tools of ergonomics based
on Industry 4.0 concept, Procedia Eng. 192 (2017) 219–224.
[8] Samad, M. A., Chowdhury, P. P., Al Rahi, A., Angon, E. H. C., & Hossain, M. M.
Manual material handling is one of the risky work tasks which Eliminating Bad Work Posture by Proposing an Alternative Ergonomic
may lead to ergonomic health issues like musculoskeletal disorder. Workstation Design in the RMG Industry.
[9] A.M. Basahel, Investigation of work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs)
The studies show that the workers who had high ergonomic issues in warehouse workers in Saudi Arabia, Procedia Manuf. 3 (2015) 4643–4649.
like Musculoskeletal Disorder while in Manual Handling such as [10] Dewangan, C. P., & Singh, A. K. (2015). Ergonomic study and design of the
lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, and any vibration generating pulpit of a wire rod mill at an integrated steel plant. Journal of Industrial
Engineering, 2015
activities. The main reason for enhancing the ergonomic issues is
[11] N.A.T. Jaafar, M.N.A. Rahman, Review on risk factors related to lower back
due to the improper knowledge of work, less experience, careless- disorders at the workplace, Mater Sci Eng 226 (2017) 012035.
ness, and awkward working posture. The manual lifting in the dif- [12] Y. Kadikon, M.N. Rahman, Manual material handling risk assessment tool for
assessing exposure to, J Eng Appl Sci 100 (10) (2016) 2226–2232.
ferent sections of an industry analyzed by the NIOSH calculator
[13] G.B. Scott, N.R. Lambe, Working practices in a perchery system, using the
and clearly showed that the lifting index in such works is greater OVAKO Working posture analysing system (OWAS), Appl. Ergon. 27 (4) (1996)
than 1.0, so it portraits that the risk in manual lifting can be recti- 281–284.
fied by following proper instructions and a good working posture. [14] O. Karhu, R. Härkönen, P. Sorvali, P. Vepsäläinen, Observing working postures
in industry: Examples of OWAS application, Appl. Ergon. 12 (1) (1981) 13–17.
[15] O. Karhu, P. Kansi, I. Kuorinka, Correcting working postures in industry: a
practical analysis method, Appl. Ergon. 8 (4) (1977) 199–201.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [16] I. KANT, J.H.V. NOTERMANS, P.J.A. BORM, Observations of working postures in
garages using the Ovako Working Posture Analysing System (OVVAS) and
Manikandan Rajendran: Validation, Writing - original draft. consequent workload reduction recommendations, Ergonomics 33 (2) (1990)
209–220.
Athul Sajeev: Writing - original draft. Rajesh Shanmugavel: [17] P. Kivi, M. Mattila, Analysis and improvement of work postures in the building
Supervision. T. Rajpradeesh: Validation, Writing - original draft. industry: Application of the computerized OWAS method, Appl. Ergon. 22 (1)
(1991) 43–48.
[18] C.M. Rahman, Study and analysis of work postures of workers working in a
Declaration of Competing Interest ceramic industry through rapid upper limb assessment (RULA), Int. J. Eng. 5 (3)
(2014) 8269.
[19] B.M. Deros, D.D.I. Daruis, I.M. Basir, A study on ergonomic awareness among
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
workers performing manual material handling activities, Procedia-Soc. Behav.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared Sci. 195 (2015) 1666–1673.
to influence the work reported in this paper. [20] L. McAtamney, E. Nigel Corlett, RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work-related upper limb disorders, Appl. Ergon. 24 (2) (1993) 91–99.
[21] M. Motamedzade, M.R. Ashuri, R. Golmohammadi, H. Mahjuba, Comparison of
References ergonomic risk assessment outputs from rapid entire body assessment and
quick exposure check in an engine oil company, J. Res. Health Sci. 1 (1) (2011)
[1] S.T. Yang, M.H. Park, B.Y. Jeong, Types of manual materials handling (MMH) 26–32.
and occupational incidents and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in the motor [22] Deros, B. M., Mohd, H. A., Mohamad, D., & INDAH, D. D. D. (2016). Ergonomic
vehicle parts manufacturing (MVPM) industry, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 77 (2020) risk assessment on oil palm industry workers
102954. [23] Sue Hignett, Lynn McAtamney, Rapid entire body assessment (REBA), Appl.
[2] Hameed, A. Z., & Basahel, A. M. (2019). Investigation of Work-Related Disorders Ergon. 31 (2) (2000) 201–205.
by Rapid Upper Limb Assessment. [24] M.N.A. Rahman, M.R.A. Rani, J.M. Rohani, Investigation of work-related
[3] P.K. Ray, R. Parida, E. Saha, Status survey of occupational risk factors of manual musculoskeletal disorders in wall plastering jobs within the construction
material handling tasks at a construction site in India, Procedia Manuf. 3 industry, Work 43 (4) (2012) 507–514.
(2015) 6579–6586. [25] Mufti, D., Ikhsan, A., & Putri, T. M. (2019, May). Workplace Ergonomic Risk
[4] B.M. Deros, D.D. Daruis, A.R. Ismail, N.A. Sawal, J.A. Ghani, Work-related Assessment Toward Small-Scale Household Business. In IOP Conference Series:
musculoskeletal disorders among workers’ performing manual material Materials Science And Engineering (Vol. 528, No. 1, p. 012013). IOP Publishing
handling work in an automotive manufacturing company, Am. J. Appl. Sci. 7 [26] Sugiono, S., Efranto, R. Y., & Budiprasetya, A. R. (2018). Reducing
(8) (2010) 1087. musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risk of wiring harness workstation using

6
M. Rajendran, A. Sajeev, R. Shanmugavel et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

workplace ergonomic risk assessment (WERA) method. Przegla˛d Naukowy. [39] Heidar Mohammadi, Majid Motamedzade, Mohammad Amin Faghih, Hadi
_
Inzynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska, 27(4 [82]) Bayat, Majid Habibi Mohraz, Saeed Musavi, Manual material handling
[27] ABD RAHMAN, M. N., RANI, M. R. A., & ROHANI, J. M. (2011). WERA: an assessment among workers of Iranian casting workshops, Int. J. Occupat. Saf.
observational tool develop to investigate the physical risk factor associated Ergonom. 19 (4) (2013) 675–681.
with WMSDs. Journal of human ergology, 40(1_2), 19-36 [40] Min K. Chung, Dohyung Kee, Evaluation of lifting tasks frequently performed
[28] A. Golbaghi, L. Nematpour, The comparison of risk factors caused by during fire brick manufacturing processes using NIOSH lifting equations, Int. J.
musculoskeletal disorders in female assembly workers utilizing MFA and Ind. Ergon. 25 (4) (2000) 423–433.
NERPA methods, Archives Occupat. Health 4 (2) (2020) 577–585. [41] H Nadri, F Fasih Ramandi, Assessment of manual material handling in a tile
[29] Sanchez-Lite, A., Garcia, M., Domingo, R., & Sebastian, M. A. (2013). Novel and ceramic factory using the National Institute for Occupational Safety
ergonomic postural assessment method (NERPA) using product-process computer- and Health equation in 2016, J. Occupation. Health Epidemiol. 5 (2) (2016)
aided engineering for ergonomic workplace design. PloS one, 8(8), e72703. 105–111.
[30] Saeid Yazdanirad, AmirHossein Khoshakhlagh, Ehsanollah Habibi, Asma Zare, [42] A. Flocerfida, A.K. Clariz, T.R. Ann, NIOSH Lifting Equation for Assessing Manual
Mohammad Zeinodini, Fatemeh Dehghani, Comparing the effectiveness of Material Handling Technique in a Warehouse Company, Int. J. Eng. 3 (2) (2019)
three ergonomic risk assessment methods—RULA, LUBA, and NERPA—to 40–45.
predict the upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders, Indian J. Occupation. [43] R.R. Fox, M.L. Lu, E. Occhipinti, M. Jaeger, Understanding the outcome metrics
Environ. Med. 22 (1) (2018) 17. of the revised NIOSH lifting equation, Appl. Ergon. 81 (2019) 102897.
[31] S. Vosough, S. Mahdavi, Ergonomic assessment of working postures Using [44] K.V. Manjunath, An analysis of work-related muscular-skeletal disorders
NERPA and REBA methods (Case Study: Abadan Oil Refinery), Arch. Occupat. among employees in garment industry, Int. J. Sci. Technol. Eng. Manage.-A VTU
Health 4 (3) (2020) 632–641. Public. 1 (2) (2019) 60–64.
[32] Mohsen Sadeghi Yarandi, Ahmad Soltanzadeh, Alireza Koohpaei, Ali Asghar [45] Shamsudin, m. Z., & shahid, n. M. Evaluation of manual lifting and lowering
Sajedian, Vahid Ahmadi, Sogand Sakari, Saeid Yazdanirad, Effectiveness of three activities using the revised NIOSH lifting equation: a case study among
ergonomic risk assessment tools, namely NERPA, RULA, and REBA, for screening automotive assembly workers.
musculoskeletal disorders, Archives Hygiene Sci. 8 (3) (2019) 188–201. [46] P. Buckley, Work-related musculoskeletal disorder statistics, Great Britain 210
[33] Victor Paquet, Laura Punnett, Bryan Buchholz, An evaluation of manual (2016).
materials handling in highway construction work, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 24 (4) [47] Chin, J., Iridiastadi, H., Shu-Chiang, L., & Persada, S. F. (2019, December).
(1999) 431–444. Workload Analysis by Using Nordic Body Map, Borg RPE, and NIOSH Manual
[34] Bryan Buchholz, Victor Paquet, Laura Punnett, Diane Lee, Susan Moir, PATH: a Lifting Equation Analyses: a Case Study in Sheet Metal Industry. In Journal of
work sampling-based approach to ergonomic job analysis for construction and Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1424, No. 1, p. 012047). IOP Publishing
other non-repetitive work, Appl. Ergon. 27 (3) (1996) 177–187. [48] Kamat, S. R., Zula, N. M., Rayme, N. S., Shamsuddin, S., & Husain, K. (2017, June).
[35] Beheshti, m. H., Javan, z., & yarahmadi, g. (2016). Ergonomic evaluation of The ergonomics body posture on repetitive and heavy lifting activities of
musculoskeletal disorders in construction workers using posture, activity, workers in aerospace manufacturing warehouse. In IOP Conference Series:
tools, handling (PATH) method. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene, Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 210, No. 1, p. 012079). IOP Publishing
8(2), 110-115 [49] Runyu L. Greene, Yu Hen Hu, Nicholas Difranco, Xuan Wang, Ming-Lun Lu,
[36] Steven J. Russell, Lori Winnemuller, Janice E. Camp, Peter W. Johnson, Comparing Stephen Bao, Jia-Hua Lin, Robert G. Radwin, Predicting sagittal plane lifting
the results of five lifting analysis tools, Appl. Ergon. 38 (1) (2007) 91–97. postures from image bounding box dimensions, Hum. Factors 61 (1) (2019)
[37] P.G. Dempsey, W.S. Maynard, Manual materials handling, Profess. Saf. 50 (5) 64–77.
(2005) 20. [50] Gert S. Faber, Idsart Kingma, Jaap H. van Dieën, The effect of initial horizontal
[38] O. Giahi, M. Sarabi, J. Khoubi, E. Darvishi, The effect of ergonomic intervention object position on peak L5/S1 moments in manual lifting is dependent on task
in reducing musculoskeletal disorders by Snook table method in the steel type and familiarity with alternative lifting strategies, Ergonomics 54 (1)
industry, J. Adv. Environ. Health Res. 2 (2) (2014) 65–71. (2011) 72–81.