For over four decades, individuals from various disciplines have extensively researched the tasks comprising manual materials handling (MMH): lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying and holding. The primary motivation for these research efforts has been a desire to understand human capabilities so that tasks can be designed such that the demands of the task are at or below the capacities of the workers performing the task. Various criteria for defining acceptable task demands have been developed from the principles of biomechanics, physiology, and psychophysics. Although significant bodies of literature exist on each class of criteria, there are still areas that need to be examined. Additionally, the validity of several of the criteria is unknown, primarily due to a lack of epidemiological verification of the criteria. This paper presents a critical review of MMH criteria, the shortcomings of and conflicts between the various criteria, and the areas needing further examination. The critical need for epidemiological studies is also detailed.

Following the revision of the 1981 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation, research needs related to the new equation were outlined. Aside from epidemiological studies, the need to evaluate the usability of the 1991 NIOSH equation in realistic work environments was expressed. This paper reports on extensive experiences with training users and application of the equation in varied work settings. Qualitative results from training sessions indicated that frequency, asymmetry and duration were the parameters that required relatively longer instruction periods and resulted in the most questions. Field applications indicated that the variable nature of lifting/lowering demands found in many jobs resulted in difficulty applying the equation. Approximately 35% of 1103 lifting and lowering tasks had at least one parameter outside of acceptable ranges, while a majority of workers (62.8%) reported other manual handling tasks that are counter to assumptions made in the development of the equation. The practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Work-related low-back disorders (LBDs) continue to be one of the single largest sources of compensation costs. The relative contributions of personal, workplace, organizational, and environmental variables to the development and severity of LBDs are not completely understood. The inclusion of personal variables in epidemiologic studies of LBDs has been inconsistent, and different authors have different opinions concerning the importance of such variables. Personal variables either known or suspected to influence outcomes are discussed to elucidate the importance of these variables with respect to understanding LBDs and conducting epidemiological studies in industry. The authors suggest that age, gender, injury history, relative strength, smoking, and psychosocial variables be studied further, and that height, weight, pathologies, genetic factors, maximum oxygen uptake, and absolute strength are unlikely to produce significant effects in industrial populations.

Workers' compensation claims associated with manual materials handling (MMH) represent the single largest source of claims and costs. Surprisingly, there have been few analyses of such losses associated with MMH. An examination of the nature of the injuries associated with MMH as well as the body parts most frequently affected can lead to a better understanding of the losses attributed to MMH to suggest further research efforts. A large sample of MMH claims was analysed and stratified with respect to body part affected and the nature of the injury. The outcome measures examined were frequency (number of claims) and severity (cost measures) of the claims. The analyses revealed that the lower back area and upper extremities were the body parts associated with approximately 70% of the claims. Strain was the nature of injury most frequently reported (51.3%). Lower back area strains were the most frequently reported nature of injury and body part combination. Additionally, an analysis of median claims costs revealed the occurrence of a small number of very expensive traumatic injuries.