IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i9p3012-d350706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Lifting Method, Safety Shoe Type, and Lifting Frequency on Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift, Physiological Responses, and Safety Shoes Discomfort Rating

Author

Listed:
  • Fares F. Alferdaws

    (Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, King Saud University, P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia)

  • Mohamed Z. Ramadan

    (Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, King Saud University, P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the physical effects of precision lifting tasks on the maximal acceptable weight of a lift (i.e., psychophysiological lifting capacity where the workers adjust the lifting weight in order to work without any fatigue or strain at the end of the work while wearing common safety shoe types). Additionally, the physical difference between the precise and non-precise lifting conditions associated with wearing safety shoes were assessed by respiration responses and shoe discomfort ratings. To achieve the objective of the study, ten healthy male workers were selected by age (between 25 to 35 years old). Their anthropometric characteristics, including knuckle height, knee height, and body mass index (BMI), were measured. A three-way repeated measures design with three independent variables was used; the variables included—the (1) lifting method (precise and non-precise), (2) lifting frequency (1 and 4 lifts per min), and (3) safety shoe type (light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty). The physiological response variables and one of the subjective factors of this study were—(1) respiration responses, and (2) shoe discomfort rating, respectively. The data were analyzed using the Mauchly’s test of sphericity, Shapiro–Wilk normality test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results showed that the use of heavy-duty safety shoes typically increased the shoe discomfort rating under precise lifting methods. Additionally, the lifting frequency was determined to be one of the main factors affecting respiratory responses and shoe discomfort rating. This study also found that respiration responses rose on four lifts per min as compared to 1 lift per min, regardless of the lifting method type. This study indicated that the replacement of some types of ordinary safety shoes used in some workplaces with those selected appropriately might significantly reduce the rating effort required to lift objects or tools. However, the benefits should be carefully evaluated before replacing the safety shoes.

Suggested Citation

  • Fares F. Alferdaws & Mohamed Z. Ramadan, 2020. "Effects of Lifting Method, Safety Shoe Type, and Lifting Frequency on Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift, Physiological Responses, and Safety Shoes Discomfort Rating," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3012-:d:350706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3012/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3012/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kai Way Li & Wen-Sheng Chiu, 2015. "Isometric Arm Strength and Subjective Rating of Upper Limb Fatigue in Two-Handed Carrying Tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Atef M. Ghaleb & Mohamed Z. Ramadan & Ahmed Badwelan & Khalid Saad Aljaloud, 2019. "Effect of Ambient Oxygen Content, Safety Shoe Type, and Lifting Frequency on Subject’s MAWL and Physiological Responses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Calzavara, M. & Glock, C. H. & Grosse, E. H. & Persona, A. & Sgarbossa, F., 2017. "Analysis of economic and ergonomic performance measures of different rack layouts in an order picking warehouse," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 82127, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robin Orr & Danny Maupin & Robert Palmer & Elisa F. D. Canetti & Vini Simas & Ben Schram, 2022. "The Impact of Footwear on Occupational Task Performance and Musculoskeletal Injury Risk: A Scoping Review to Inform Tactical Footwear," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-39, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diefenbach, Heiko & Emde, Simon & Glock, Christoph H., 2020. "Loading tow trains ergonomically for just-in-time part supply," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(1), pages 325-344.
    2. Calzavara, Martina & Sgarbossa, Fabio & Persona, Alessandro, 2019. "Vertical Lift Modules for small items order picking: an economic evaluation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 199-210.
    3. Loske, Dominic & Klumpp, Matthias & Grosse, Eric H. & Modica, Tiziana & Glock, Christoph H., 2023. "Storage systems’ impact on order picking time: An empirical economic analysis of flow-rack storage systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    4. Diefenbach, Heiko & Grosse, Eric H. & Glock, Christoph H., 2024. "Human-and-cost-centric storage assignment optimization in picker-to-parts warehouses," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(3), pages 1049-1068.
    5. Kai Way Li & Jenn Chun Chu & Ching Chung Chen, 2019. "Strength Decrease, Perceived Physical Exertion and Endurance Time for Backpacking Tasks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-13, April.
    6. Cannan Yi & Kai Way Li & Fan Tang & Huali Zuo & Liang Ma & Hong Hu, 2018. "Pulling strength, muscular fatigue, and prediction of maximum endurance time for simulated pulling tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Stefan Fedtke & Nils Boysen & Patrick Schumacher, 2023. "In-line kitting for part feeding of assembly lines: workload balancing and storage assignment to reduce the workers’ walking effort," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 45(3), pages 717-758, September.
    8. Cannan Yi & Huali Zuo & Caijun Zhao & Kai-Way Li & Hong Hu & Fan Tang & Tong Long, 2022. "Fatigue and Recovery of Muscles for Pulling Tasks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-14, November.
    9. Heiko Diefenbach & Simon Emde & Christoph H. Glock & Eric H. Grosse, 2022. "New solution procedures for the order picker routing problem in U-shaped pick areas with a movable depot," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 44(2), pages 535-573, June.
    10. Glock, Christoph H. & Grosse, Eric H. & Abedinnia, Hamid & Emde, Simon, 2019. "An integrated model to improve ergonomic and economic performance in order picking by rotating pallets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(2), pages 516-534.
    11. Al Theeb Nader A. & Al-Araidah Omar & Al-Ali Malik M. & Khudair Adnan I., 2023. "Impact of Human Energy Expenditure on Order Picking Productivity: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study in a Zone Picking System," Engineering Management in Production and Services, Sciendo, vol. 15(4), pages 12-24, December.
    12. Dominic Loske & Matthias Klumpp & Maria Keil & Thomas Neukirchen, 2021. "Logistics Work, Ergonomics and Social Sustainability: Empirical Musculoskeletal System Strain Assessment in Retail Intralogistics," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-25, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3012-:d:350706. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.