|
| Trial | Handles Dimension | Boxes’ characteristic | Measurements | Body part | Result |
|
| Handles Design |
| Drury et al, 1980-1 | 7 types: 5 cylindrical, 1 rope and 1 flat circle | 42.5x20.0x39.5 | Scale of working time duration | Not reported | The recommendation was cylindrical handles with metal counterpart. |
| Drury et al, 1980-2 | 14 types with different diameters | not reported | Dynamometer, Comfort scale (Salvaterra and Chiusano 1978) | Not reported | The optimum diameter related was at 31 to 38mm. |
| Deeb et al, 1986-1 | Wood handles with 2,5cmX10 and diameter of 2.5 cm. | 39.5x21.5x42.5 | Borg scale (Borg 1962) | All body | The results show that there were no differences in the variables between the forms of handle (straight or curved). Already the smallest thickness of the handle had a negative impact on variables |
| Deeb et al, 1986-2 | Curve handles thick 150mm and forwarded to the radio | 40.0x40.0x40.0 | Gravity roller conveyor system, cameras, Beckman Dynographic, Borg scale (Borg 1962) | Elbow, wrist and spine | Handle shape was not significant for any of the variables. Handle position symmetrical had a significant effect on both elbow angles, left wrist angle, and disc comprehensive force. |
|
| Handles position |
| Coury et al, 1982 | 10 types coupled in different positions | 40.0x40.0x40.0; 40.0x40.0x50.0; 45.0x40.0x45.0; 50.0x40.0x40.0; 50.0x40.0x50.0 | dynamometer, Beckman model, Borg scale (Borg 1962) | Hands | The force production decreasing as the handles was used. The HR measures and the subject’s perception of effort were similar with higher values in the symmetric handles in the top of the box. The recommendations varied according to the handle combination 1, 2 and 4 |
| Deeb et al, 1985 | 9 types coupled in different positions | 40.0x40.0x40.0 | dynamometer and camera, Borg scale (Borg 1962), Corlett and Bishop’s (1976) scale, Body part discomfort severity (BPDS) | All body | Handle positions 3/8 and 6/8 give clearly lower heart rates than the other positions for handling in floor and waist levels and the symmetrical positions (2/2 and 8/8) for heavy containers near floor level. Handle angle should be about 70° for all handles. Although the positions 3/8 and 6/8 are preferred in the subjective scales, symmetric grip has lower power peaks. |
| Drury et al, 1986 - 1 | 5 types in different positions | 40.0x40.0x40.0 | Films and Beckman Model R611 polygraph | Upper limbs | Optimum box handle positions were 6/8, 3/8 for most lifts. Position 2/2 was useful for heavy boxes at floor level. |
| Drury et al, 1986 - 2 | 9 types coupled in different positions | 40.0x40.0x40.0 | Beckman Model R611 polygraph, Borg scale (Borg 1962), Body part discomfort frequency. Body part discomfort severity (Corlett 1976). | Trunk, arms and legs | For the floor level symmetrical handles position 2/2 was better. For handling to the waist and to the shoulder level handle position 3/8 was better, while for the largest distance from the floor to the shoulders levels handle position 3/7 had lower reports of discomfort and HR measurements. The handle position 6 was adequate at 60 degrees of angulation while at hand position 8 indicated 50 degrees of angulation. Benefit of symmetry only for lower handling conditions and asymmetry for the other handling levels. |
| Ciriello et al, 1993 | Wood handles (7.8x4.2 cm) in the top edges of the box | Cardboard: s,m,l. Plastic: 6 dimensions | Dynamometer, bicycle ergometer, Psychophysical scale (Ciriello e Snook 1983) | Trunk | The handles provide greater MAW except at the lowest height and does not interfere in HR and VO2. The size and combination tasks didn’t affect the MAW. |
| Shih et al, 1997 | 6 diameters: 25.4 mm, 31.8 mm, 38.1 mm, 44.5 mm, 50.8 mm and 57.2 mm. 6 handle angles: radial 20°, 10°, neutral, ulnar 10°, 20° and 30° | 25x20x35 | Psychophysical scale, AHP 9-point scale (Saaty, 1980. | Hands | The authors recommended handle diameter with 31mm and neutral handle angle. |
| Davis et al, 1998 | 8.9x2.5cm in the center side of the box | S: 30.5x40.6x20.3. L: 30.5x49.5x27.5 | Lumbar Motion Monitor, EMG, force platform, EGM | Spine | Handle coupling and pallet region were found to significantly influence both |
| anterior-posterior shear as well as compression forces. Handles reduced the lateral shear forces in the lower regions. The importance of handles was specially in the lower regions of the pallet deposition. They concluded handles should be adopted. |
| Marras et al.1999 | 8.9x2.5 | S 20.3x40.6x30.5 L28.0x49.5x30.5 | lumbar monitor motion, EMG, force platform | Spine | The inclusion of handles had an effect similar to reducing the box weight by 4.5 kg, whereas box size did not effectively in the spine loading. |
| Ando et al, 2000 | (1) handle type: upper edges of the box. (2) Bottom type: bottom edges on either side. (3) Oblique type: holding the left lower proximal corner and the right upper distal corner | 29 cm long, 24.5 cm wide, 23 cm high and 10 kg weight | Dynamometer; Borg scale | Arms, shoulders, back, and thighs | In dynamic lifting Handle type lifting was recommended while in isometric effort oblique type was better. |
| Jung et al, 2010 | 11.5x 2.5 x3.8 to 5cm to the box’s upper border, in the middle and 5 cm to the box’s lower border | 30.0x30.0x30.0; 40.0x40.0x40.0; 50.0x50.0x50.0; 60.0x60.0x60.0 | Body part discomfort frequency (Corlett 1976). | Neck, shoulder, back, elbow, hand, thigh, knee, ankle | It was recommended that a box provides a handle according to its relevant position, depending on size and manual handling condition. |
| Silva et al, 2012 | 9 x 4 | 27.0x47.0x53.0 | Electrogoniometers and films | Upper limbs | The majority of the workers used the cutouts, either symmetrically or asymmetrically. The use of the bottom surface was reported mainly when heavier boxes (10kg) were handled. The preference for upper grip were shown handling light boxes (4.2 kg). |
| |
| Silva et al, 2013 | Two bilateral cutouts (12x4 cm, 5 cm) below the upper edges and two others inserted under in the box surface | 44.0x31.0x31.5 | EMG, EGM, INC, camera, perceived comfort and grip preference | Upper limbs | The use of box adapted with handles decrease musculoskeletal load in both measurements. The preference was according handing heights. |
| Nogueira et al, 2016 | Two bilateral cutouts (12x4 cm, 5 cm) below the upper edges and two others inserted under in the box surface | 44.0x31.0x31.5 | EMG, EGM, INC, camera, perceived comfort and grip preference | Upper limbs | The mainly biomechanics effects were identified for inexperienced subjects. Both groups preferred handling tasks using handles. |
|
