Inertial motion capture (IMC) has gained popularity in conducting ergonomic studies in the workplace. Because of the need to measure contact forces, most of these in situ studies are limited to a kinematic analysis, such as posture or working technique analysis. This paper aims to develop and evaluate an IMC-based approach to estimate back loading during manual material handling (MMH) tasks. During various representative workplace MMH tasks performed by nine participants, this approach was evaluated by comparing the results with the ones computed from optical motion capture and a large force platform. Root mean square errors of 21 Nm and 15 Nm were obtained for flexion and asymmetric L5/S1 moments, respectively. Excellent correlations were found between both computations on indicators based on L5/S1 peak and cumulative flexion moments, while lower correlations were found on indicators based on asymmetric moments. Since no force measurement or load kinematics measurement is needed, this study shows the potential of using only the handler’s kinematics measured by IMC to estimate kinetics variables. The assessment of workplace physical exposure, including L5/S1 moments, will allow more complete ergonomics evaluation and will improve the ecological validity compared to laboratory studies, where the situations are often simplified and standardized.

The aim of this study was to evaluate eight methods for aligning the orientation of two different local coordinate systems. Alignment is very important when combining two different systems of motion analysis. Two of the methods were developed specifically for biomechanical studies, and because there have been at least three decades of algorithm development in robotics, it was decided to include six methods from this field. To compare these methods, an Xsens sensor and two Optotrak clusters were attached to a Plexiglas plate. The first optical marker cluster was fixed on the sensor and 20 trials were recorded. The error of alignment was calculated for each trial, and the mean, the standard deviation, and the maximum values of this error over all trials were reported. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that the alignment error differed significantly across the eight methods. Post-hoc tests showed that the alignment error from the methods based on angular velocities was significantly lower than for the other methods. The method using angular velocities performed the best, with an average error of 0.17 ± 0.08 deg. We therefore recommend this method, which is easy to perform and provides accurate alignment.