Proceedings of the 13th Annual

International Conference on Industrial Engineering

Theory, Applications and Practice
Las Vegas, Nevada
September 7-10, 2008

DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE WEIGHTS IN

NON-STANDARD POSITIONS

De la Vega Bustillos, Enrique Javier, Báez Hernández, Grace Erandy,

Castro Estrada, Claudia Selene and Rodríguez Vega Graciela
1
Departamento de Investigación y Posgrado
Instituto Tecnológico de Hermosillo
Av. Tecnológico y Periferico Poniente
Col. El Sahuaro, C.P. 83170
Hermosillo, Sonora
Corresponding author’s e-mail:e_delavega_mx@yahoo.com

Abstract: At world-wide level different studies related to the manual material handling have taken place in order to
establish standards that might allow diminishing the work injuries, as in the case of the tables proposed by Snook &
Ciriello (1991). In Mexico does not exist any reference that indicates the application of standards in the workstations
design, which generates the necessity to determine if the results of the mentioned investigations are applicable to the
population of Hermosillo, Sonora. 22 men and 17 women, students with ages of 20 to 25 years without industrial ability
in lifting activities participated in the experiment. A psychophysics criterion was applied. The duration of the
experiment was 3 weeks, one of training and tow of taking measurements. The maximum weights were determined for
the following positions: standing up, sitting and kneeling with both hands, for one lifting per minute and per work day
frequencies. We could determine the maximum acceptable weights in nonstandard positions in the repetitive manual
handling of loads with frequency of a lifting per minute and per work day for the population of Hermosillo, Sonora, and
it was found that they do not agree with the standards presented by Snook & Ciriello.

1. INTRODUCTION

On a global level, some of the problems that have appeared in the industries are the backache in which people show at
the end of workday. According to the National Institute for the Occupational Safety and Health there are scientific
evidence that confirms the activities of manual material handling are of high risk, because there are the principal cause
of injuries and pains in the workpeople. From this, a committee of experts developed a model in order to identify the
risks associated with low back pain caused by physical load which the workpeople were submitted and to recommend a
maximum acceptable weight of lifting. In order to find a solution, different studies were made regarding with these
problems, creating standards or tables that serve to diminish injuries or physical risks which the workpeople are
exposed constantly, such is the case of tables proposed by Snook & Ciriello.
In Mexico doesn´t exist reference that indicates the application of standards in the design of workstations, which
generates the need to determine if the results of the investigations of Snook & Ciriello could be applied to the
population of Hermosillo, Sonora because every day injuries are present in their jobs. According to statistics of IMSS
there are 191.639 cases of injuries in the spine including low back pain this represents the 4.7 % of the whole of work
injuries. In addition there are 42.422 reports of total incapability; this includes the low back pains associated with the
lifting of loads.
The objective of this investigation is to determine the maximum acceptable weight in non standard positions in
the repetitive manual handling with frequency of a lifting per minute and per work day for the population of
Hermosillo, Sonora. Because of the differences between the populations under study, it supposes that the Snook &
Ciriello tables cannot be applied in the workstations design for the population of Hermosillo Sonora at a frequency of
one lifting per minute and per work day.

2. METHOD

To set the goal of this investigation psychophysical methodology used by Ciriello and Snook was applied, in which the
investigator allows the subject under investigation to control the variable of weight, according to his perception of
fatigue end effort.

© International Journal of Industrial Engineering 45

ISBN# 97809654506-6-9
Proceedings of the 13th Annual
International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Theory, Applications and Practice
Las Vegas, Nevada
September 7-10, 2008

2.1 Subjects

In the experiment 17 women and 22 men participated, with ages between 20 and 25 years old, all of them students with
bachelor degree and without any industrial abilities of manual material handling. The subjects of investigation assure
not to have any physical problem to do any lifting activities. Participants dress jeans and tennis shoes that didn´t
interfere in the task. Anthropometric measurements were taken to subjects under investigation. The media and standard
deviation of the results are presented in table 1.

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of the anthropometric measurements

Female Male
Standard Standard
Anthropometric measurements Mean deviation Mean Deviation
Weight (kg) 57.30 2.97 83.63 24.41
Arm length (cm) 77.46 3.88 88.42 11.36
Distance wall to knuckle elbow flex. (cm) 35.44 1.20 40.05 2.21
Maximum strength dominate hand (kg) 12.26 3.21 16.23 4.49
Standing measurements
Stature(cm) 159.34 2.24 175.48 6.83
Acromial height (cm) 133.78 2.98 147.52 6.92
Elbow flexed height (cm) 99.76 2.28 108.79 7.06
Knuckle height (cm) 68.60 1.96 74.47 4.67
Sitting measurements
Head height (cm) 124.80 2.37 132.36 8.30
Acromial height (cm) 96.82 3.44 104.88 8.11
Elbow flexed height (cm) 63.44 2.18 67.18 6.42
Seat height (cm) 37.04 4.61 43.18 4.05
Kneeling measurements
Head height (cm) 98.98 44.56 128.77 4.73
Acromial height (cm) 90.66 1.32 100.08 3.84
Elbow flexed height (cm) 51.74 14.72 60.19 10.65
Knuckle height (cm) 33.34 12.23 30.83 9.15

2.2 Tasks

The tasks studied in the experiment were 3 per gender: standing, sitting and kneeling, with both hands. The lifting
height was 15 cm in all tasks. The task implies taking the loads from the work table (or from the floor in the case of
lifting it in the kneeled position) to a place with a previously mentioned height, placed in front of the load. The
frequency was one lifting per minute.
The load was simulated with packages of papers with a weight of 1 kg. The box size was: 55cm length 34cm de
width y 46cm depth. In the case of one handed lifting we used the same boxes but with a new wooden handle. The
boxes have double bottom with a plain of steel.

2.3 Procedure

Subjects were instructed to work on an incentive basis, working as hard as they could without straining themselves, or
without becoming unusually tired, weakened, overheated or without of breath. Four days of training sessions were
provided to allow subjects to gain experience at monitoring their own feelings and adjusting the object weight. The
training progressed as follows:

1. Day 1: 6 periods of 10 minutes with 5 breaks of 10 minutes.

2. Day 2: 6 periods of 20 minutes with 5 breaks of 10 minutes.
3. Day 3: 6 periods of 30 minutes with 5 breaks of 10 minutes.
4. Day 4: 6 periods of 40 minutes with 4 breaks of 10 minutes.

© International Journal of Industrial Engineering 46

Proceedings of the 13th Annual
International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Theory, Applications and Practice
Las Vegas, Nevada
September 7-10, 2008

Subjects performed the experiment two days per week, taking at least one day off for each day of work to accomplish
this cycle fatigue recovery. The daily sessions lasted 4 hours, divided into 5 work periods of 40 minutes with a break of
10 minutes at the end of the work period.
To avoid identifying the weight lifted, we used two levels of weight, high level (between 32 and 45 kg) and low
(between 2 and 18 kg). The periods of work were divided into 2 segments, one of them started at a high level and the
other one at a low level, this selection was determined randomly. In each segment of 20 minutes, the subjects adjusted
the load, in order to reduce or increase it, according to their own perceptions, striving themselves but without reaching
a state of unusual tiredness, weakness or running out of breath, until it reaches the maximum weight they deem can be
lifted during a period of 8 hr. At the end of each segment was recorded measurement, if the difference in the results was
less than 15% of weight recorded in the first segment, was the average of 2 measurements. On the contrary, the session
was repeated to study the task.

3. RESULTS

Table 2. Maximum acceptable weight for male.

Position
Percentile Standing Sitting Kneeling
90 16.55 13.15 18.79
75 18.00 15.125 20.00
50 19.85 17.55 21.10
25 21.82 20.05 23.35
10 26.03 21.54 25.99

Table 3. Maximum acceptable weight for female

Position
Percentile Standing Sitting Kneeling
90 6.56 5.00 6.88
75 8.00 6.00 9.00
50 9.00 7.20 9.30
25 10.00 9.00 10.30
10 11.00 9.28 11.00

Table 4. Mean and Standard deviation of the maximum acceptable weights for male.

Standard
Position Mean deviation
Standing 8.99 1.63
Sitting 7.17 2.18
Kneeling 9.35 1.69

Table 5. Mean and Standard deviation of the maximum acceptable weights for female

Standard
Position Mean deviation
Standing 20.34 3.65
Sitting 17.88 3.80
Kneeling 22.20 4.44

Table 6. Mean and standard deviation of the maximum acceptable weights for male,
at a frequency of one lifting per work day.

© International Journal of Industrial Engineering 47

Proceedings of the 13th Annual
International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Theory, Applications and Practice
Las Vegas, Nevada
September 7-10, 2008

Standard
Position Mean deviation
Standing 34.17 6.28
Sitting 26.83 5.02
Kneeling 34.75 4.67

Table 7. Mean and standard deviation of the maximum acceptable weights for female,
at a frequency of one lifting per work day.

Standard
Position Mean deviation
Standing 15.4 4.93
Sitting 10.6 3.91
Kneeling 14.4 4.34

Tables 8 to 13 show the data statistical analysis using Minitab 15. Two sample-T test was applied to the data.

Table 8. Two sample T test Standing-Men, Sitting-Men Table 9. Two sample T test Standing-Women, Sitting-Women
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Two-Sample T-Test and CI:
Standing-Men, Sitting-Men Standing-Women, Sitting-Women.

Two-sample T for Standing-Men vs Sitting-Men Two-sample T for standing-Women vs Sitting-Women

N Mean StDev SE Mean N Mean StDev SE Mean
Standing-Men 22 20.34 3.66 0.78 Standing-Women 17 8.99 1.63 0.40
Sitting-Men 22 17.89 3.81 0.81 Sitting-Women 17 7.17 2.18 0.53
Difference = mu (Standing-Men) - mu (Sitting-Men) Difference = mu (Standing-Women) - mu (Sitting-Women)
Estimate for difference: 2.45 Estimate for difference: 1.818
99% lower bound for difference: -0.27 99% lower bound for difference: 0.198
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 2.18 T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 2.75
P-Value = 0.017 DF = 42 P-Value = 0.005 DF = 32
Both use Pooled StDev = 3.7331 Both use Pooled StDev = 1.9279

Table 10. Two sample T test Kneeling-Men, Sitting-Men Table 11. Two sample T test Kneeling-Women, Sitting-Women
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Two-Sample T-Test and CI:
Kneeling-Men, Sitting-Men Kneeling-Women, Sitting-Women

Two-sample T for Kneeling-Men vs Sitting-Men Two-sample T for Kneeling-Women vs Sitting-Women

N Mean StDev SE Mean N Mean StDev SE Mean
Kneeling-Men 22 22.20 4.45 0.95 Kneeling-Women 17 9.35 1.69 0.41
Sitting-Men 22 17.89 3.81 0.81 Sitting-Women 17 7.17 2.18 0.53
Difference = mu (Kneeling-Men) - mu (Sitting-Men) Difference = mu (Kneeling-Women) - mu (Sitting-Women)
Estimate for difference: 4.32 Estimate for difference: 2.182
99% lower bound for difference: 1.30 99% lower bound for difference: 0.540
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 3.46 T-Test of difference
Table 12. Two
P-Value sample
= 0.001 DFT=test
42 Standing-Men, Kneeling-Men Table 13. Two sample T=test
0 (vs >): T-Value = 3.25
Standing-Women, Kneeling-Women
P-Value = 0.001 DF = 32
Both use Pooled
Two-Sample StDev
T-Test = 4.1395
and CI: Both use Pooled
Two-Sample StDev
T-Test and=CI:
1.9551
Standing-Men, Kneeling-Men Standing-Women, Kneeling-Women

Two-sample T for Standing-Men vs Kneeling-Men Two-sample T for Standing-Women vs Kneeling-Women

N Mean StDev SE Mean N Mean StDev SE Mean
Standing-Men 22 20.34 3.66 0.78 Standing-Women 17 8.99 1.63 0.40
Kneeling-Men 22 22.20 4.45 0.95 Kneeling-Women 17 9.35 1.69 0.41
Difference = mu (Standing-Men) - mu (Kneeling-Men) Difference = mu (Standing-Women) - mu (Kneeling-Women)
Estimate for difference: -1.86 Estimate for difference: -0.365
99% lower bound for difference: -4.83 95% lower bound for difference: -1.331
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = -1.52 T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = -0.64
P-Value = 0.932 DF = 42 P-Value = 0.736 DF = 32
Both use Pooled StDev = 4.0700 Both use Pooled StDev = 1.6634
© International Journal of Industrial Engineering 48
Proceedings of the 13th Annual
International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Theory, Applications and Practice
Las Vegas, Nevada
September 7-10, 2008

4. CONCLUSIONS

We can determinate the maximum acceptable weights in non standard postures in the repetitive manual handling of
loads with frequency of a lifting per minute and per work day for the population of Hermosillo, Sonora. We conclude
that kneeling position allows people to lift a heavier load than standing and sitting positions. We also conclude that the
Snook tables should not be applied for the Hermosillo population.

5. REFERENCES

Ayoub, M.M. and Mital, A.(1989). Manual Materials Handling. Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Chaffin, D.B. and Andersson, G.B. (1984). Occupational Biomechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New Yok, USA.
Davis, P.R. and Stubbs, P.A. (1977). Safe levels of manual forces for young males (1). Applied Ergonomics, 8:141-50.
Davis, P.R. and Stubbs, P.A. (1977). Safe levels of manual forces for young males (2). Applied Ergonomics, 8:219-
228.
Davis, P.R. and Stubbs, P.A. (1977). Safe levels of manual forces for young males (3). Applied Ergonomics, 9:33-37.
Randall, S. (1997). A guide to Manual Material Handling and Back Safety. Raleigh, NC: N.C. Department of Labor.
Shoaf, C. and Genaidy, A. (1997). Comprehensive manual handling limits for lowering, pushing, pulling and carrying
activities. Ergonomics, 40:1183-1200.
Smith, J.L. and Ayoub, M.M. (1992). Manual materials handling capabilities in non-standard postures. Ergonomics, 35:
807 – 831.
Snook, S.H.and Ciriello, M.S. (1991). The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable
weights and forces. Ergonomics, 34: 1197- 1213.
Yates, J.W. and Karwowski W. (1987). Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions.
Applied Ergonomics,18:239-43.
Waters, T.R. and Putz-Anderson, V. (1994). Application manual for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Cincinnati
OH: Department Health and Human Services.

© International Journal of Industrial Engineering 49