See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/47450860

Gender differences in psychophysically

determined maximum acceptable weights and
forces for industrial workers observed after
twenty years.
ARTICLE in INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OCTOBER 2010
Impact Factor: 2.2 DOI: 10.1007/s00420-010-0589-0 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

43

130

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Rammohan V Maikala

Patrick G Dempsey

Providence Health and Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

57 PUBLICATIONS 362 CITATIONS

101 PUBLICATIONS 1,011 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Patrick G Dempsey

Retrieved on: 21 July 2015

Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2011) 84:569575

DOI 10.1007/s00420-010-0589-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum

acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed
after twenty years
Vincent M. Ciriello Rammohan V. Maikala
Patrick G. Dempsey Niall V. OBrien

Received: 18 May 2010 / Accepted: 1 October 2010 / Published online: 16 October 2010
Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract
Purpose In the year 1991, manual materials handling
guidelines were published by Liberty Mutual Research
Institute for Safety. In these guidelines, maximum acceptable weights (MAWs) and forces (MAFs) for lifting,
lowering, pushing, pulling, and carrying were derived from
studies conducted in a 20 year span before the above
publication date. The question is whether the present
generation of workers has retained the same gender differences and absolute values in psychophysically determined MAWs and MAFs as those reflected in the
guideline.
Methods Twenty-four female industrial workers performed 20 variations of lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling,
and carrying. A psychophysical methodology was used
whereby the workers chose a workload they could sustain
for 8 h without straining themselves or without becoming
unusually tired, weakened, overheated or out of breath.
Results In females, MAWs of lifting, lowering, and carrying averaged 53% of the present-day male values, similar
to the 55% in the guideline. MAFs of pushing and pulling
were 83 and 86% of the present-day male values but
slightly higher than the 73 and 78% in the guideline,
respectively for initial and sustained forces.
Conclusions The similarity of gender differences between
the guideline and the present findings was coupled with
dramatic decreases in MAWs of lifting, lowering, and carrying. Such decreases may reflect a new psychophysical set
point; however, considerations about adjusting existing

V. M. Ciriello (&)  R. V. Maikala  P. G. Dempsey 

N. V. OBrien
Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety,
71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA 01748, USA
e-mail: vincent.ciriello@libertymutual.com

guidelines on lifting, lowering, and carrying may not be

appropriate until additional data from other sources inside
and outside the US confirm the present findings.
Keywords Psychophysics  Manual materials handling
guidelines  Lifting and lowering  Pushing and pulling 
Carrying  Ergonomic redesign

Introduction
When manual material handling (MMH) tasks are designed
to be within the acceptable limits for a high percentage of
the industrial population, there is a twofold advantage of
accommodating the workplace for workers with and
without low back disability (Snook et al. 1978; Benson
1986, 1987; Snook 1987; Ciriello and Snook 1999; Ciriello
et al. 1999). This is important because MMH is the most
frequent (36% of all claims) and costly (35% of total cost)
category of compensable loss (Leamon and Murphy 1994;
Murphy et al. 1996; Dempsey and Hashemi 1999). MMH
tasks are also associated with the largest proportion
(6370%) of compensable low back disability (Snook et al.
1978; Bigos et al. 1986; Murphy and Courtney 2000). To
establish acceptable workloads in MMH, investigators
have used a variety of work evaluation approaches
including physiological, biomechanical, subjective, observational, focus groups, psychophysical, postural analysis,
and a combination of the all these (Kemper et al. 1990;
Kivi and Mattila 1991; Waikar et al. 1991; Burdorf et al.
1992; Waters et al. 1993; de Looze et al. 1994; Winkel and
Mathiassen 1994; Straker et al. 1996; Van der Beek et al.
2005; Bust et al. 2005).
By relating human sensation to a physical stimulus
which is the basis for the psychophysical technique,

123

570

Snook and Ciriello (1991) have developed maximum

acceptable weights (MAWs) and forces (MAFs). These
MAWs and MAFs can be easily applied in field situations
compared to other techniques mentioned above and have
been used extensively to redesign workplaces (Benson
1986, 1987; Ciriello and Snook 1999; Ciriello et al. 1999).
The development of these MMH guidelines was derived
from the studies conducted during a 21 year span prior to
their publication in 1991. However, it is not known whether the present generation of female workers has retained
the same gender differences in psychophysically determined weights and forces as those reflected in the 1991
guideline. The present-day male equivalents that were used
for the comparisons were from a recent study (Ciriello
et al. 2008). Therefore, the current study investigated
gender differences in typical lifting, lowering, pushing
pulling, and carrying tasks with present-day local industrial
workers and compared the results to the gender differences
observed in the study by Snook and Ciriello (1991). The
second question of interest was to investigate the extent of
change in absolute values of MAWs and MAFs. The third
question of this investigation was whether the relationship
between task variables (frequency, height of lifting or
lowering, lifting vs. lowering, pushing vs. pulling) have
remained similar to those reported in earlier studies. With
the above questions answered, we can assess the extent to
which the industrial population has changed in regard to
males versus females, variable effects changes, and absolute value changes, indicating a shift in the psychophysical
set point. This information may provide a starting point for
modifications to future guidelines.

Subjects and methods

Subjects
Twenty-four female industrial workers were recruited by
newspaper advertisements, and their employment history
was checked to ensure that they had enough industrial
experience to make good psychophysical judgments. They
were then examined by a nurse-practitioner to ensure that
they had no serious cardiovascular problems and had not
experienced previous significant low back pain or musculoskeletal problems of the extremities. Before participation,
subjects signed a written informed consent, which was
approved by our institutional review board. During the
experiment, the subjects were paid for every hour they
worked at the industrial factory rate which was reported in
the Wall Street Journal during the time of the experiment.
Participants shoulder, elbow, and knuckle heights were
measured with an GPM anthropometer to set the ranges for
the lifting and lowering tasks and the heights for pushing

123

Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2011) 84:569575

and pulling. These measurements along with stature and

body mass were also compared with military and industrial
populations to ensure similarity with our subjects. The
subjects mean (SD) values for age, body mass, stature,
shoulder height, elbow height, and knuckle height were
40.4 (9.65) years, 73.7 (15.6) kg, 164.2 (6.4) cm, 134.4
(5.9) cm, 104.8 (4.3) cm, and 73.8 (3.6) cm, respectively.
The comparisons of the above measures with previous
studies yielded a median difference of ?10.5, ?1.3, ?0.7,
?2.2, and ?1.8%, respectively, for body mass, stature,
shoulder height, elbow height, and knuckle height (Ciriello
2004; Ciriello et al. 1990; Eastman Kodak and Human
Factors Section 1986; Gordon et al. 1989; Marras and Kim
1993; Snook and Ciriello 1974).
Industrial tasks
Subjects performed 20 variations of lifting, lowering,
pushing, pulling, and carrying. During lifting and lowering
tasks, a plastic box with external wood handles was used.
The external handles were 17.8 cm long 9 4.2 cm thick
and devoid of sharp edges. This box, which represented a
common small industrial tote box, had the following
dimensions: width, 33.4 cm; length, 56.2 cm; and depth,
16.0 cm. The width represents the box distance in the
sagittal plane away from the body, and the length represents the distance from the outside edge of the left handle
to the outside edge of the right handle. The handles were
placed midway in the width dimension. It is important to
note that these tasks and the specific box were also used as
a criterion in the 1991 guideline (Snook and Ciriello 1991).
Subjects performed lifting and lowering tasks on pneumatically activated shelves that automatically moved to a
specified vertical location and then returned the box to the
original location. The mechanisms of automated shelves
were described in a greater detail in Snook (1978). Briefly,
when the subjects slid the boxes off the shelf, the shelf
quickly moved to a new predetermined position in time for
the subject to place the box back on the shelf. The shelf
then moved back to the original position, thus completing
the lifting or lowering cycle. Lifting the boxes straight up
in a vertical plane was deterred by asking the subject to
imagine a rack of shelves above or below the box to be
lifted or lowered. In most cases, this instruction resulted in
some degree of body twisting during lifting and lowering.
Lifts and lowers had a vertical distance of 51 cm and
were studied within two ranges: between floor level and
knuckle height (low lift/lower), and between knuckle
height and shoulder height (center lift/lower). The lifting
and lowering tasks were performed at frequencies of 12,
4.3, and 1 min-1.
The carrying task required subjects to carry the box at
knuckle height for a distance of 4.3 m at frequencies of 4.3

Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2011) 84:569575

and 1 min-1. A combination task consisted of a lift, a

carry, and a lower. For example, the subject lifted the box
from the floor to knuckle height, turned 90 degrees, walked
2.1 m, turned 90 degrees again, and lowered the box to the
floor. The combination task was also performed at frequencies of 4.3 and 1 min-1.
Dynamic pushing and pulling tasks were simulated on a
specially constructed treadmill (Snook 1978). During
pushing and pulling, the treadmill was powered by the
subjects as they pushed or pulled against a stationary bar. A
load cell on the stationary bar measured the horizontal
force being exerted. The force required to get the treadmill
belt moving is called the initial force. The force required to
keep the belt moving is called the sustained force. Subjects
controlled the resistance of the treadmill belt by varying
the amount of electric current flowing into the magnetic
particle brake that transferred resistance to the drum around
which the belt travels. The current controller was devoid of
visual cues and positioned within arms length of the
subject. Subjects turned the control knob clockwise to
increase the resistance and counterclockwise to decrease
resistance. The control knob could be adjusted before,
during, or after each push. Pushing and pulling tasks were
performed for a distance of 7.6 m and at frequencies of 4
and 1 min-1. Subjects pushed and pulled at a height midway between knuckle and elbow height, an average of
89.3 cm for the group.

Experimental procedure
The psychophysical methodology, as described previously
(Ciriello and Snook 1983; Snook and Ciriello 1991;
Ciriello et al. 1993), was used in this experiment. In brief,
subjects were instructed to adjust the amount of weight or
force until it represented the maximum they could handle
for 8 h without straining themselves or without becoming
unusually tired, weakened, overheated, or out of breath.
During lifting, lowering, and carrying tasks, subjects varied
the weight of the tote boxes by adding or removing steel
shot. In an attempt to minimize visual cues, the boxes
contained false bottoms that could hold up to 11 kg. Subjects were aware of the false bottoms but never knew how
much weight they contained. The amounts of weight in the
false bottom were randomly varied.
All subjects dressed in surgical type scrub suits to
control for heat dissipation. They were also provided with
similar type shoes. The coefficient of friction (COF)
between the shoe sole material and the treadmill belt were
determined by a Brungraber Slip-tester (Model mark II)
and resulted in a COF of 0.86. Three training sessions were
conducted to gradually condition the subjects to the different tasks and to enable them to gain experience in

571

adjusting weight and force. The training progressed as

follows: on day 1 subjects performed six 10 min tasks; on
day 2, six 20 min tasks; and on day 3, six 30 min tasks. On
days 4 through 8, subjects performed five 40 min tasks in
4 h with 10 min breaks between tasks.
At the beginning of each task, subjects were given a box
weight or treadmill force that was randomly selected and
alternately high (1827 kg) or low (211 kg). During the
next 20 min, subjects adjusted the weight or force according
to instructions. At the end of 20 min, subjects received a
new random weight or force and began the adjustment
process again. During the 4 h test session, 10 weight or
force adjustments were made by each subject (two for each
task). The experiment required each subject to work 2 days
per week for 4 weeks to complete the above schedule.
Data analysis
The dependent variables were MAWs and MAFs, and
independent variables were frequency, height of lifting and
lowering, lifting versus lowering, pushing versus pulling,
and combination versus individual tasks. Effects of experimental conditions were analyzed using one-way and twoway analyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures.
If significant differences were present (P \ 0.05), the
Newman-Kuels and Tukey tests were used for post hoc
comparison. Comparisons between the comparable data in
this experiment and the criterion values cited in Snook and
Ciriello (1991) were analyzed with t tests for independent
samples. Statistica (version 5.5) was used for all statistical
analyses (StatSoft Inc.; Tulsa, OK).

Results
Gender differences
The MAWs of lifting, lowering, and carrying for females
averaged 53% of the present-day male values (Ciriello et al.
2008) (Table 1). MAFs of pushing and pulling, for females
averaged 83 and 86% of the present-day male values,
respectively for initial and sustained forces. The lifting,
lowering, and carrying comparisons between males and
females were all significant (P \ 0.0001). Pushing and
pulling comparisons between males and females were not
consistently statistically significant (see Table 2). In the
1991 guideline, MAWs of lifting, lowering, and carrying for
females averaged 55% of the male values (Snook and
Ciriello 1991) and MAFs of pushing and pulling averaged
73 and 78% of the male values, respectively, for initial and
sustained forces (Tables 1, 2). Besides similar gender differences observed in the 1991 guideline and the presentfindings, female MAWs of lifting, lowering, and carrying,

123

572

Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2011) 84:569575

Table 1 Maximal acceptable weights for females performing lifting, lowering, carrying, and a combination tasks with small boxes at various
frequencies and heights
Task

Frequency (tasks/min)

Weight (N)
SD

(F/M)a
0
10/0 08

(F/M)b
0
91/0 91

(F/F)c
0
10/91

56.9

23.5

50

65

53

88.3
100.0

24.5
28.4

55
49

58
52

64
641

68.6

26.5

56

67

70

90.2

23.5

54

57

71

104.9

29.4

55

50

762

12

63.7

18.6

52

53

65

X
Low lift

12
4.3
1

Center lift

12
4.3

Low lower

4.3
1
Center lower

12
4.3
1

Carry

4.3
1

Combination

MAW comparisons (%)

4.3
1

94.1

26.5

53

54

69

101.0

27.5

53

48

643

76.5

24.5

55

55

71

87.3

19.6

49

48

69

104.0

33.3

55

47

764

99.0

27.5

58

60

67

101.0

31.4

46

59

545

55d

67d

84.3

29.4

59

100.0

26.5

53
53d

Females from this experiment/males from Ciriello et al. (2008). All comparisons significant (P \ 0.0001)

Females/males from Snook and Ciriello (1991)

Females from this experiment/females from Snook and Ciriello (1991). Significance for comparison
P \ 0.0001, 4 P = 0.0001, 5 P \ 0.0001

3
d

P \ 0.0001,

P = 0.0032,

Average of the column values

averaged 67% of the 1991 female values (Snook and Ciriello

1991). Comparisons with criterion tasks from the 1991
guideline were all significant (see Table 1). Female MAFs
of pushing and pulling averaged 107 and 91% of the 1991
female values for initial and sustained forces. The initial and
sustained MAFs of the 7.6 m pushing task at the slow rate
was the only pushing or pulling criterion task from the 1991
guideline that could be compared statistically (Table 2).

1 min-1 for both lifting and lowering, MAWs were not

significantly (P [ 0.05) effected by height.
Lifting versus lowering
MAWs of lowering was significantly greater than MAWs
of lifting in the center range (P \ 0.02) at 12 min-1
(Table 1). All other MAW comparisons of lifting and
lowering were not significantly different (P [ 0.05).

Effect of frequency on tasks

Pushing versus pulling
MAWs and forces of all but two tasks were significantly
affected (P \ 0.01) by frequency (Tables 1, 2). The
exceptions were between the 4.3 and 1 min-1 frequencies
for both the low-lower, and carrying tasks.
Effect of height on lifting and lowering
MAWs were significantly affected (P \ 0.05) by the height
range for both the lifting and the lowering tasks at a frequency of 12 min-1 (Table 1). At frequencies of 4.3 and

123

For both frequencies investigated, the duration of pulling

was longer (P \ 0.01) than during pushing. Initial and
sustained MAFs of pulling were significantly lower
(P \ 0.05) than initial and sustained MAFs of pushing at
the 4 min-1 frequency (Table 2). At the slower frequency
of 1 min-1, the initial MAF of pulling was lower
(P \ 0.05) than the initial MAF of pushing. However,
there was no significant difference between pushing and
pulling in the sustained forces at this frequency.

Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2011) 84:569575

573

Table 2 Maximal acceptable forces for females performing a 7.6-m pushing and a 7.6-m pulling task at two frequencies
Task

Frequency (tasks/min)

SD

MAF comparisons (%)

(F/M)c
0
10/0 08

(F/M)d
0
91/0 91

(F/F)e
0
10/91

Push
Initial force (N)a

208.6

45.4

751

77

106

107.6
8.8

26.2
1.6

852

86

91

263.8

62.3

813

61

1171

145.9

44.5

864

68

992

9.1

1.7

190.4

38.7

915

83

102

Sustained force (N)

88.1

20.5

906

85

82

Task duration (s)

11.6

1.4

233.5

58.3

837

70

104

133.9

50.3

828

71

91

11.6

2.6
83f

73f

107f

91g

Sustained force (N)

Task duration (s)

4
b

Initial force (N)

Sustained force (N)

Task duration (s)
Pull
Initial force (N)

Initial force (N)

Sustained force (N)

Task duration (s)

86
a

Amount of force needed to get the treadmill moving

Amount of force needed to maintain treadmill movement

Females from this experiment/males from Ciriello et al. (2008). Significance for comparison
P = 0.0870, 5 P = 0.1818, 6 P = 0.1015, 7 P = 0.0358, 8 P = 0.0642

P \ 0.0001,

Females/males from Snook and Ciriello (1991)

Females from this experiment/females from Snook and Ciriello (1991). Significance for comparison
Average of initial forces in the column

f
g

78

P = 0.0229,

P = 0.0155,

P = 0.0030,

P = 0.9273

Average of sustained forces in the column

Combination tasks
MAWs of the individual lowering and carrying tasks,
which make up the two of the components of the combination task, were greater (P \ 0.05) than the combination
task for the 4.3 min-1 frequency. The MAWs of the lifting
task at that frequency were not significantly different from
the combination task. MAWs of the individual lifting,
carrying, and lowering tasks at the 1 min-1 frequency were
all non-significant to that of the combination task.

Discussion
In a typical psychophysical approach, participants undergo
a combination of adjusting the workload and tracking their
ability to sustain the selected load for a prolonged period
without strain, thereby correlating sensory input into an
acceptable response in terms of either force or workload.
The main goal of the present experiment was to replicate

this psychophysical approach at a time distant from the

original investigations in order to detect changes in gender
differences in determined MAWs and MAFs. The present
findings clearly indicate that gender differences were
similar for lifting, lowering, and carrying compared to
values of Snook and Ciriello (1991); however, gender
differences were reduced for females in MAFs of pushing
and pulling. In other words, female performance as a percentage of the male performance increased (Tables 1, 2).
The results also indicate that MAWs for the industrial
females in this study decreased markedly compared to
females in the 1991 guideline. These lower MAWs may
represent a decrease in the female industrial work forces
set point for performance based on an acceptance for a
lower burden on the musculoskeletal system. We have
attempted to replicate this study with a similar protocol to
that of previous experiments, yet the decreases in MAWs
of lifting, lowering, and carrying were substantial. It is
interesting to note that MAFs of pushing and pulling did
not decrease in the same magnitude as lifting, lowering,

123

574

and carrying, a trend observed in a earlier study with

females (Ciriello 2005), indicating the female population is
maintaining performance levels established in our 1991
guidelines (Snook and Ciriello 1991) for pushing and
pulling.
Our recent study on males (Ciriello et al. 2008) reported
that MAWs of lifting, lowering, and carrying, averaged
69% of the male 1991 guideline values (Snook and Ciriello
1991), and this observation was similar to findings in a
earlier study with males (Ciriello 2001) and to the present
study with females. More importantly, males in Ciriello
et al. (2008) reported MAFs of pushing and pulling averaging 82% of the guideline values, whereas females
reporting in the present study have maintained MAFs
levels of the 1991 guideline. Ergonomic strategies call for
designing tasks to be acceptable for 75% of the female
industrial worker. The noted convergence of MAFs of
pushing and pulling for males and females in this study
may actually simplify ergonomic recommendations for
pushing and pulling tasks, thereby representing less risk for
musculoskeletal problems.
There is still a question concerning the significant
decrease in MAWs of lifting, lowering, and carrying in the
present study compared to the guideline of Snook and
Ciriello (1991). In our comparable male study (Ciriello
et al. 2008), we suggested that modification to a less
stringent subject recruitment strategy may have been a
relevant factor in the observed decrease in MAWs. However, Singh et al. (2009) reported MAWs which were very
similar to our male values. Their experimental methodology was comparable to the present study, and 28 of their 30
subjects were documented as manual material handlers.
The experiment of Singh et al. was also conducted in
another area of the country. This confirmation of our results
with males give some credence to the secular changes in
performance observed in our female industrial workers.
In earlier studies, we also documented maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) strengths (Ciriello and Snook
1978; Ciriello et al. 1990, 1993) along with anthropometry
in order to compare our sample with other industrial
samples. In this study, we lack the information on MVC,
which would have been helpful in comparing the percent of
MVC chosen for MAWs and MAFs. In terms of anthropometrics, the shoulder, elbow, and knuckle height and
stature measurements taken in the present experiment were
very similar to our earlier studies (Ciriello et al. 1990;
Ciriello 2004; Snook and Ciriello 1974) and other industrial (Eastman Kodak and Human Factors Section 1986;
Marras and Kim 1993) and military populations (Gordon
et al. 1989). However, the body mass of our sample was
considerably higher than the above-reported studies with a
median difference of ?10.5%. However, without specific
information about % body fat, body segment distribution of

123

Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2011) 84:569575

the increased mass, and muscle composition of the segments, we cannot assign the changes in psychophysically
chosen weights to body mass changes. Interestingly, in a
recent comprehensive study that looked at only body mass
index (BMI) as a factor in selecting MAWs, Singh et al.
(2009) concluded that a higher BMI does not reduce
MAWs of lift.
Although MAWs have decreased for lifting, lowering,
and carrying, variable effects, such as frequency, heights,
lifting versus lowering, pushing versus pulling and tasks in
combination, have remained relatively constant. Frequency
was significant in this experiment and has been a significant factor in all of our previous papers for both males and
females (Snook 1971; Ciriello and Snook 1983; Ciriello
et al. 1990, 2008; Ciriello 2003, 2007). The results on the
effects of heights on lifting and lowering were similar to
earlier studies, which reported no height effects for males
and females (Snook 1971; Ciriello 2001, 2005; Ciriello
et al. 1993, 2008), but contrary to other studies which
found significant height effects for males and females
(Ciriello and Snook 1983; Ciriello et al. 1990; Snook and
Ciriello 1974). MAWs of lowering were consistently
greater than MAWs of lifting as reported in previous
studies (Ciriello and Snook 1983; Ciriello et al. 1990). For
pushing versus pulling, the results are the same as those
reported in our male study (Ciriello et al. 2008). In previous experiments of comparing pushing and pulling at the
similar 1 min-1 frequency and 7.6 m distance, both initial
and sustained MAF were non-significant (Ciriello et al.
1990; Ciriello 2002, 2004). And lastly, our previous studies
of combination tasks, which included lifting, carrying, and
lowering, concluded that the limiting factor of the combination task was the individual task with the smallest difference in MAW to the combination task (Ciriello et al.
1990, 1993). In the present study, this rule applies to both
frequencies. The above findings are encouraging and imply
that participants are fairly consistent in reaction to variables when choosing their respective MAWs. Future
guidelines for lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, and carrying may reflect the findings from this study and might
take into account the knowledge that lifting is similar to
lowering, low and center lifting and lowering are similar,
and sustained forces for pushing and pulling are also
similar.
It was concluded that considerations about adjusting
existing guidelines on lifting, lowering, and carrying
may not be appropriate until these findings are confirmed by replicating these psychophysical experiments
on a wide variety of subject pools by other investigators
in different areas of the US and different countries.
However, adjustments to pushing and pulling guidelines
may have less merit based on the evidence available at
this time.

Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2011) 84:569575

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledges the data
collection assistance of Susan OBrien and Amanda Rivard.
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict
of interest and will receive no benefits in any form from a commercial
party related directly of indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

References
Benson J (1986) Control of low back pain in industry through
ergonomic redesign of manual materials handling tasks. In:
Karwowski W (ed) Trends in ergonomic/human factors III.
Amsterdam, Elsevier
Benson J (1987) Application of manual handling task redesign in the
control of low back pain. In: Asfour SS (ed) Trends in
ergonomics/human factors IV. Amsterdam, Elsevier
Bigos SJ, Spengler DM, Martin NA, Zeh J, Fisher L, Nachemson A,
Wang MH (1986) Back injuries in industry: a retrospective
study: II. Injury factors. Spine 2:246251
Burdorf A, Derksen J, Naaktgeboren B, van Riel M (1992)
Measurement of trunk bending during work by direct observation and continuous measurement. Appl Ergon 23:263267
Bust PD, Gibb AGF, Haslam RA (2005) Manual handling of highway
kerbs-focus group findings. Appl Ergon 36:417425
Ciriello VM (2001) The effects of box size, vertical distance, and
height on lowering tasks. Int J Ind Ergon 28:6167
Ciriello VM (2002) The effects of distance on psychophysically
determined pushing and pulling tasks. Proceedings of the human
factors society 46th annual meeting, Baltimore, MD, pp 11421146
Ciriello VM (2003) The effects of box size, frequency, and extended
horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting. Int J
Ind Ergon 32:115120
Ciriello VM (2004) The effects of distance on psychophysically
determined pushing and pulling tasks for female industrial
workers. Proceedings of the human factors society 48th annual
meeting, New Orleans, LA, pp 14021404
Ciriello VM (2005) The effects of box size, vertical distance, and
height on lowering tasks for female industrial women. Int J Ind
Ergon 35:857863
Ciriello VM (2007) The effects of box size, frequency, and extended
horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting for
female industrial workers. Appl Ergon 38:15
Ciriello VM, Snook SH (1983) A study of size distance height, and
frequency effects on manual handling tasks. Hum Factors
25:473483
Ciriello VM, Snook SH (1999) Survey of manual handling tasks. Int J
Ind Ergon 23:149156
Ciriello VM, Snook SH, Blick AC, Wilkinson PL (1990) The effects
of task duration on psychophysically-determined maximum
acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics 33:187200
Ciriello VM, Snook SH, Hughes GJ (1993) Further studies of
psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and
forces. Hum Factors 35:175186
Ciriello VM, Snook SH, Hashemi L, Cotnam J (1999) Distributions of
manual materials handling task parameters. Int J Ind Ergon
24:379388
Ciriello VM, Dempsey PG, Maikala RV, OBrien NV (2008) Secular
changes in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable
weights and forces over 20 years for the male industrial
population. Ergonomics 51:593601

575
de Looze MP, Kingma I, Thunnissen W, van Wijk MJ, Toussaint HM
(1994) The evaluation of a practical biomechanical model
estimating lumbar moments in occupational activities. Ergonomics 37:14951502
Dempsey PG, Hashemi L (1999) Analysis of workers compensation
claims associated with manual materials handling. Ergonomics
42:183195
Eastman Kodak Co, Human Factors Section (1986) Ergonomic design
for people at work. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Gordon CC, Bradtmiller B, Churchill T, Clauser CE, McConville JT,
Tebbets I, Walker RA (1989) 1988 anthropometric survey of US
army personnel: methods and summary statistic. Tech. report 89/
044. Anthropology Research Project, Yellow Springs
Kemper HCG, van Aalst R, Leegwater A, Maas S, Knibbe JJ (1990)
The physical and physiological workload of refuse collectors.
Ergonomics 33:14711486
Kivi P, Mattila M (1991) Analysis and improvement of work postures
in the building industry: application of the computerized OWAS
method. Appl Ergo 22:4348
Leamon T, Murphy PL (1994) Ergonomic losses in the workplace: their
reality. In: Aghazadeh F (ed) Advances in Industrial Ergonomics
and Safety VI. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 8188
Marras WS, Kim JY (1993) Anthropometry of industrial populations.
Ergonomics 36:371378
Murphy PL, Courtney TK (2000) Low back pain disability: relative
costs by antecedent and industry group. Am J Ind Med 37:558571
Murphy PL, Sorock G, Courtney TK, Webster BS, Leamon TL (1996)
Injury and illness in the American workplace: a comparison of
data sources. Am J Ind Med 30:130141
Singh D, Park W, Levy MS (2009) Obesity does not reduce maximum
acceptable weights of lift. Appl Ergo 40:17
Snook SH (1971) The effects of age and physique on continuous work
capacity. Hum Factors 13:467479
Snook SH (1978) The design of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics
21:963985
Snook SH (1987) Approaches to the control of back pain in industry:
job design, job placement, and education/training. Spine: State of
the Art Reviews 2:4559
Snook SH, Ciriello VM (1974) Maximum weights and workloads
acceptable to female workers. J Occup Med 16:527534
Snook SH, Ciriello VM (1991) The design of manual tasks: revised
tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics
34:11971213
Snook SH, Campanelli RA, Hart JW (1978) A study of three preventive
approaches to low back pain. J Occup Med 20:478481
Straker LM, Stevenson MG, Twomey LT (1996) A comparison of
single and combination manual handling tasks risk assessment: 1.
Maximal acceptable weight measures. Ergonomics 39:128140
Van der Beek AJ, Mathiassen SE, Windhorst J, Burdorf A (2005) An
evaluation of methods assessing the physical demands of manual
lifting in scaffolding. Appl Ergon 36:213222
Waikar A, Lee K, Aghazadeh F, Parks C (1991) Evaluating lifting
tasks using subjective and biomechanical estimates of stress at
the lower back. Ergonomics 34:3347
Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ (1993) Revised
NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting
tasks. Ergonomics 36:749776
Winkel J, Mathiassen SE (1994) Assessment of physical work load in
epidemiologic studies: concepts, issues and operational considerations. Ergonomics 37:979988

123