Chase Ergonomics Literature

 
Back to Literature
Study Reviews

Reproduction prohibited without express written permission from Chase Ergonomics, Inc.

 

Overview of Recent Back Support Studies

 

Preferred Tension and Psychophysical Lifting Limits With and Without Back Belts

 
Bowen D.J., Purswell J.L., Schlegel R.E. and Purswell J.P.
School of Industrial Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

 

Introduction: The authors of this study note that the tension of a back support has not been part of previous studies, including those reviewed by NIOSH in its 1994 back belt booklet. They suggest this lack of control of belt tension may contribute to the controversy regarding back supports. Specifically, this study tried to determine:

· the wearer-preferred tension in an elastic back support during repetitive lifting, and

· the psychophysical lifting limit for subjects with no belt, a belt at minimal tension and a belt at the tension preferred by the wearer.

Method: A total of 31 subjects, screened for previous back problems and other medical conditions which could be compromised by lifting, were asked to lift a box of varying weight as if they were in a manufacturing situation requiring lifting and lowering 26 to 30 pounds for an eight-hour shift. Subjects adjusted their flexible elastic support to the tension they preferred. This was marked and a load cell attached to set the tension to the same place each time. Lifts were with the belt at this setting, with the belt at minimal tension and without a belt.

Conclusions: The preferred tension in two different groups of subjects agreed very closely with a mean tension of 14 to 15 pounds. Also, subjects lifting with a belt at the tension they preferred were able to lift 13 to 18 percent more than when they lifted with a belt at minimal tension or without a support.

The study also showed subjects lifting under the same conditions tended to select a common support tension. For example, those in a group lifting from knuckle to shoulder height preferred a higher tension than those lifting from the floor to knuckle height, perhaps because they did not have to bend as much and therefore the support was more comfortable.

The authors suggest that maintaining the preferred tension throughout the day and with regard to the range of the lift may be an important issue in the reporting of back belt effectiveness.

 

"Subjects wearing a flexible back support adjusted to the tension they preferred were able to lift more than those wearing a belt at minimal tension or without a belt."

David J. Bowen, MS

 

Published in Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety VII, proceedings of the 10th annual International Industrial Ergonomics and Safety Conference, June 1995. (Review by Chase Ergonomics, Inc. approved by David Bowen, October 1996.)