OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the low-risk ACGIH TLV to risk outcomes from various validated lifting assessment methods, including the OSU LBD Risk Model, NIOSH Lifting Equation, and LiFFT.
METHODS: Twenty-four subjects were recruited for this study to perform various lifting conditions. The various ergonomic assessment methods were then used to obtain the risk assessment outcomes.
RESULTS: The selected assessment methods showed that the ACGIH-defined TLVs are associated with less than high-risk for LBD for all the assessed tasks. The findings showed a moderate agreement (Kendall\'s W = 0.477) among the various assessment methods risk outcomes. The highest correlation (ρ= 0.886) was observed between the NIOSH Lifting Equation and LiFFT methods risk assessment outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that ACGIH-defined TLVs possesses less than high-risk for LBD. The outcomes of the selected ergonomic assessment methods moderately agree to each other.
目的:本研究的目的是将低风险ACGIHTLV与各种经过验证的提升评估方法的风险结果进行比较,包括OSULBD风险模型,NIOSH提升方程,和LiFFT。
方法:本研究招募了24名受试者进行各种举升条件。然后使用各种人体工程学评估方法来获得风险评估结果。
结果:选定的评估方法表明,ACGIH定义的TLV与所有评估任务的LBD风险均低于高风险。研究结果表明,在各种评估方法风险结果之间存在适度的一致性(Kendall的W=0.477)。在NIOSH提升方程和LiFFT方法风险评估结果之间观察到最高的相关性(ρ=0.886)。
结论:研究结果表明,ACGIH定义的TLV具有较低的LBD风险。所选择的人体工程学评估方法的结果彼此适度一致。