Citation

McCoy MA, Congleton JJ, Johnston WL, Jiang BC. Int. J. Ind. Ergonomics 1988; 2(4): 259-266.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1988, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The objectives of this research were to demonstrate the effects of belts on load lifting capabilities of individuals using the psychophysical method, subjective surveys, and the measurement of external pressure on the abdomen. Two types of belts were used in this study: (a) the Air belt, a registered trade mark and product of Pneumedic Corporation, which represented the type of support belt characterized by an inflatable bladder; and (b) the CompVest belt, a product and registered trade mark of the Comp Equipment Corporation, which represented a mechanical, elastic type of support. Twelve male college students were required to lift tote boxes containing steel shot from the floor to metacarpal III height (knuckle height) at a rate of three lifts per minute for a period of 45 min. Each subject performed three sets of lifts, i.e. once with no belt (control) and once with each of the two belts. The maximum acceptable weight of lift was recorded. Changes in the external abdominal belt pressures during the lifting were recorded using the Texas Interface Pressure Evaluator. A subjective survey consisting of eight questions was administered to each subject after each belt was tested to determine the subject's feelings. In addition to the above survey, a post-test question was given asking the subjects to rank the three treatments in order of preference. Statistical tests showed that the belts did increase the perceived maximum acceptable weight of lift with respect to the control (no belt); however, there was no significant difference between the two belts. Also, the external abdominal pressures generated by the two belts were essentially the same. Results of the subjective surveys tended to favor the CompVest belt over the Air belt.