Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 7;16(4):e57747.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.57747. eCollection 2024 Apr.

Modification of the Revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Lifting Equation to Determine the Individual Manual Lifting Risk in Malaysia's Manufacturing Industry

Noor Adillah Dawad  1 , Siti Munira Yasin  1 , Azlan Darus  2 , Ahmad Taufik Jamil  1 , Nyi Nyi Naing  3
Affiliations

Modification of the Revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Lifting Equation to Determine the Individual Manual Lifting Risk in Malaysia's Manufacturing Industry

Noor Adillah Dawad et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Introduction: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) established the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation (RNLE) for manual lifting risk assessment. The objectives of this study were to determine the characteristics of physical factors using the RNLE and to explore additional factors to RNLE by modifying it to an Individual Lifting Equation (ILE).

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the manufacturing industry of three states in Malaysia among manual lifting workers. A questionnaire was administered, which comprised the sociodemographic characteristics and Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) assessing low back pain (LBP). The RNLE dataset includes a load constant and six manual lifting variables collected from observational ergonomic risk assessment. The RNLE was modified to ILE by incorporating age, gender, and BMI. The equations' Lifting Index (LI) computed provides an overall manual lifting risk estimate.

Results: There were 165 participants, with a mean age of 28 years, and 108 (65.5%) were male. Most participants had a BMI within the normal range (60 (36.4%)) or were classified as overweight (54 (32.7%)). The lifting horizontal location showed the highest risk estimates, with the lowest mean multiplier value of 0.55. In contrast, age and BMI had the lowest risk estimates, with mean multiplier values of 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. Among the participants, LI values of one or less, indicating very low risk, were observed in 58 (35.1%) for RNLE and 39 (23.6%) for ILE. Additionally, RNLE and ILE showed figures of 11 (6.7%) and 20 (12.1%), respectively, signifying a very high risk of LI exceeding three.

Conclusion: Studying the lifting factors and equation multipliers from RNLE is critical for evaluating the risk estimates of manual lifting. Exploring the ILE based on individual characteristics is appropriate to support the ergonomic program. Further study is needed to validate the ILE as an accurate screening tool for determining LBP risk estimates.

Keywords: ergonomics risk assessment; manual lifting; manufacturing industry; niosh lifting equation; rnle.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Are work-related musculoskeletal disorders claims related to risk factors in workplaces of the manufacturing industry? Bao S, Howard N, Lin JH. Ann Work Expo Health. 2020;64:152–164. - PubMed
    1. Types of manual materials handling (MMH) and occupational incidents and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in motor vehicle parts manufacturing (MVPM) industry. Yang ST, Park MH, Jeong BY. Int J Ind Ergon. 2020;77:102954.
    1. Ergonomics and occupational safety and health: an ILO perspective. Niu S. Appl Ergon. 2010;41:744–753. - PubMed
    1. Ergonomics hazard analysis techniques-a technical review. Ramaganesh M, Jayasuriyan R, Rajpradeesh T, Bathrinath S, Manikandan R. Mater Today Proc. 2021;46:7789–7797.
    1. Ergonomics assessment methods used by ergonomics professionals. Lowe BD, Dempsey PG, Jones EM. Appl Ergon. 2019;81:102882. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources