Biomedical subjects

M J Hoozemans

Publications and source records attributed to M J Hoozemans.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Evaluation of methods to assess push/pull forces in a construction task.

The objective of the present study was to determine the validity of methods to assess push/pull forces exerted in a construction task. Forces assessed using a hand-held digital force gauge were compared to those obtained using a highly accurate measuring frame. No significant differences were found between the methods, except for peak push forces, for which the forces assessed with the force gauge were significantly lower than those assessed with the measuring frame. When the construction task was reproduced close to the actual workplace by simulation against a fixed object using the force gauge, all exerted forces on the force gauge were significantly lower than those on the measuring frame, except for mean pull forces. When self-reports were compared to the exerted forces on the measuring frame, the construction workers overestimated the exerted push/pull forces by 50%. In conclusion, when applied for direct measurements, the force gauge can be used to validly assess push/pull forces at the workplace.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Group-based measurement strategies in exposure assessment explored by bootstrapping.

OBJECTIVES: The precision of mean exposure to pushing was examined in 2 occupational groups using various combinations of the number of workers and measurements per worker. METHODS: The frequency and duration of pushing of the 2 occupational groups was assessed using onsite observation. All data were divided into successive periods of 30 minutes of observation. The precision of the group mean exposure to pushing was expressed by 90% confidence intervals obtained by bootstrapping. The effect on the confidence interval of varying numbers of workers and numbers of periods per worker was examined. RESULTS: For both occupational groups there was little precision to be gained when >10 workers were observed. Within the maximum number of workers used in the bootstrap simulations, it appeared that, beyond 10 workers, the confidence intervals decreased by <5% for every worker that was added, when each worker was observed at least 8 periods of 30 minutes. If workers were observed exactly 4 periods of 30 minutes per worker, an additional 4 workers were required to compensate for the loss of precision. An unbalanced strategy with approximately 8 periods of 30 minutes per worker hardly decreased the precision of the group mean, however. CONCLUSIONS: The precision of the group-based mean exposure to pushing is influenced by the number of workers observed and by the number of repeated measurements per worker. In the planning of measurement strategies, it is advisable to account for possible sources of variance in advance and to assess the exposure variability.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Gender differences in exerted forces and physiological load during pushing and pulling of wheeled cages by postal workers.

The aim was to determine gender differences regarding exerted forces and physiological load during push/pull tasks simulating the daily working practice of postal workers. Eight female and four male workers handled four-wheeled cages under eight conditions corresponding to the cage weight (130, 250, 400, 550 kg) and the direction of force exertion (pushing, pulling). For each of the five dependent variables, average force, initial force, ending force, oxygen uptake and heart rate, two analyses of variance with repeated measurements were performed, i.e. with and without correction for the worker's body weight, body height and maximum capacity regarding the dependent variable. Exerted forces and physiological load were high for the cages weighing 400 and 550 kg. Gender differences were significant for all dependent variables (p = 0.030-0.000). When the personal factors were included in the model, male workers exerted significantly higher average forces and ending forces than their females, while differences regarding initial forces and physiological load were not significant. However, none of the personal factors were significantly related to any of the dependent variables. It is concluded that gender differences in exerted forces were not caused by differences in anthropometry and maximum capacity, but due to application of different work methods by women in order to balance work demands and work ability.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Stoop or squat: a review of biomechanical studies on lifting technique.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the biomechanical evidence in support of advocating the squat lifting technique as an administrative control to prevent low back pain. BACKGROUND: Instruction with respect to lifting technique is commonly employed to prevent low back pain. The squat technique is the most widely advised lifting technique. Intervention studies failed to show health effects of this approach and consequently the rationale behind the advised lifting techniques has been questioned. METHODS: Biomechanical studies comparing the stoop and squat technique were systematically reviewed. The dependent variables used in these studies and the methods by which these were measured or estimated were ranked for validity as indicators of low back load. RESULTS: Spinal compression as indicated by intra-discal pressure and spinal shrinkage appeared not significantly different between both lifting techniques. Net moments and compression forces based on model estimates were found to be equal or somewhat higher in squat than in stoop lifting. Only when the load could be lifted from a position in between the feet did squat lifting cause lower net moments, although the studies reporting this finding had a marginal validity. Shear force and bending moments acting on the spine appeared lower in squat lifting. Net moments and compression forces during lifting reach magnitudes, that can probably cause injury, whereas shear forces and bending moments remained below injury threshold in both techniques. CONCLUSION: The biomechanical literature does not provide support for advocating the squat technique as a means of preventing low back pain. RELEVANCE: Training in lifting technique is widely used in primary and secondary prevention of low back pain, though health effects have not been proven. The present review assesses the biomechanical evidence supporting the most widely advocated lifting technique.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed1998

Pushing and pulling in relation to musculoskeletal disorders: a review of risk factors.

The objective was to review the literature on risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders related to pushing and pulling. The risk factors have been described and evaluated from four perspectives: epidemiology, psychophysics, physiology, and biomechanics. Epidemiological studies have shown, based on cross-sectional data, that pushing and pulling is associated with low back pain. Evidence with respect to complaints of other parts of the musculoskeletal system is lacking. Risk factors have been found to influence the maximum (acceptable) push or pull forces as well as the physiological and mechanical strain on the human body. The risk factors have been divided into: (a) work situation, such as distance, frequency, handle height, and cart weight, (b) actual working method and posture/movement/exerted forces, such as foot distance and velocity, and (c) worker's characteristics, such as body weight. Longitudinal epidemiological studies are needed to relate pushing and pulling to musculoskeletal disorders.

Arm Injuries↗

PubMed1997

Anticipatory postural adjustments before load pickup in a bi-manual whole body lifting task.

Balance regulation and movement control were examined in the context of bi-manual lifting. Subjects picked up a load (20% body mass) after several unloaded cycles using the leg-lift technique. The addition of the load to the body caused the system center of mass to shift forward and thus presented the subject with an expected perturbation of balance. To examine whether the disturbances to balance were counteracted by anticipatory postural adjustments, the last cycle, in which the barbell was grasped and lifted, was compared with the preceding unloaded cycle. Using a global mechanical analysis of the movement, we found that anticipatory postural adjustments were present before load pickup in bi-manual lifting. These anticipatory postural adjustments were characterized by a backward directed horizontal momentum, a backward directed horizontal component of the ground reaction force accompanied with a forward shift of the center of pressure, and a backward shift of the center of mass (CoM). These characteristics could all be understood from the mechanical consideration that adding a load in front of the body induces a forward shift of the CoM. However, major compensations of the position of the CoM were also observed after bar grasp. It is therefore proposed that commands giving rise to postural adjustments are closely tied to commands controlling the ongoing movement. On the basis of this insight the strict dichotomy in the control of posture and movement is being questioned.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Optimizing the determination of the body center of mass.

The position or trajectory of the body center of mass (COM) is often a parameter of interest when studying posture or movement. For instance, in balance control studies the body COM can be related to the ground reaction force or to the base of support. Since small displacements of the body COM are important in balance control studies, it is essential to obtain valid estimates of the body COM. The main source of error in the determination of the body COM is the estimation of the masses and centers of mass of the body segments. Especially the determination of the trunk COM is prone to error. In the current study five subjects maintained three postures, differing in trunk angle, during a few seconds. The relation between the center of pressure of the ground reaction force and the vertical projection of the body COM during the postures was used to optimize the trunk COM position. Additionally the subjects performed two lifting movements. The validity of the body COM trajectory estimation during the lifting movements, both with and without optimized trunk COM, was checked by relating the external moment of the ground reaction force with respect to the body COM to the rate of change of the angular momentum of the whole body. It was shown that the correspondence between the external moment and the rate of change of the angular momentum improved after optimization of the trunk COM. This suggests that the body COM trajectory estimation can be improved by the proposed optimization procedure.

Adult↗