手工搬举负荷及其卫生限值的研究

发布时间：2018-04-03 04:02

本文选题：手工搬举作业　切入点：最大静态肌力　出处：《华中科技大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的手工搬举作业（Manual Lifting Task, MLT）在工业生产中比较常见，是导致工人肌肉骨骼疾患的重要原因。欧美发达国家已制定手工搬举的卫生限值，而我国尚无系统的限值。此次研究以我国工人和大学生为研究对象，通过最大力的测定，手工搬举负荷影响因素的研究以及最大可接受搬举重量的比较研究，借鉴并修订美国ACGIH的搬举阈限值，由此提出符合我国人群的搬举重量限值。方法第一部分以938名工人和大学生为研究对象，测定其背提力、左手提力、右手提力、手臂提力和肩提力五种静态肌力，与欧美人群静态肌力进行比较，得出我国人群与欧美人群力量的差距范围。第二部分以43名男性大学生为研究对象，设计不同的搬举重量，搬举垂直高度，搬举水平距离并模拟搬举作业，测定和分析第10胸椎水平（T10）和第3腰椎水平（L3）左、右两侧竖脊肌的表面肌电信号，每个搬举任务结束时，受试者对该任务进行自感用力度评级。第三部分中，10名男性大学生志愿者将一重16kg的木箱由胫骨中点高搬上至指掌关节高的平台，再由平台搬下至原处，如此反复操作，技术人员通过标记区分搬上和搬下两种作业，10分钟内模拟完成搬上、搬下作业各30次，采集受试者两侧斜方肌和竖脊肌的表面肌电信号，最后对两种作业方式进行自感用力度评级。第四部分比较我国人群和欧美人群最大可接受搬举重量，得到我国人群与欧美人群搬举能力的差距范围。结果静态肌力测定表明男性背提力、左手提力、右手提力、手臂提力和肩提力分别为107.7kg、57.7kg、60.9kg、31.8kg和46.5kg，而女性则分别为59.7kg、30.7kg、34.1kg、18.2kg和25.2kg。20~29岁年龄组工人和大学生背提力的比较，男性工人的背提力大于大学生，二者差异无统计学意义（P0.05），而女性则是大学生背提力大于工人，差异有统计学意义（P0.01）。男性受试者背提力、右手提力和左手提力的平均值最高组均为20~29岁。女性受试者三种力量平均值的最高组分别为30~39岁、40~49岁、40~49岁，20~29岁组的三种力量平均值都最小。不同年龄组之间背提力、右、左手提力的比较无统计学差异。在相同的搬举高度下，当搬举物体的重量分别为3.6kg、7.5kg和11.4kg时，竖脊肌表面肌电幅度依次为36.15、45.63和52.35，差异有统计学意义（P 0.05）。当搬举重量为13.7kg时，左、右侧T10处均显示肌电幅度在“地面至可触及高”时大于“地面至肩关节高”（P 0.05），左、右侧L3处也均显示肌电幅度在“地面至可触及高”时大于“地面至肩关节高”（P 0.05，P0.05）。另外，在不同的搬举重量和不同的水平距离下，肌电幅度显示7kg/70cm14kg/50cm18kg/30cm，差异有统计学意义（P0.05）。Borg评分结果与肌电幅度信号的分析结果相似。搬上和搬下作业时，受试者斜方肌的平均MVE%分别为25.1和20.9，搬上高于搬下，二者之间的差异有统计学意义（P 0.01）；竖脊肌的MVE%平均分别为39.8和34.9，同样显示搬上高与搬下（P 0.01）。Borg评分结果搬下11.0为搬上13.2的83%，两者差异具有统计学意义（P 0.01）。结论中国人静态肌力低于欧美国家人群，总体上男性比欧美男性力量低15~23%，女性低15~18%。女性各种力量均比男性小，总体上是男性力量的一半左右。五种等长收缩时的最大力量从大到小依次为：背提力、右手提力、左手提力、肩提力和手臂提力。20岁以上男性的力量随着年龄的增长逐渐降低，女性中这种趋势不明显，20~29岁年龄组力量反而低于30~49年龄组。人体尺寸和最大力在男性受试者中呈现一定的相关性，在女性受试者中相关性不强。搬举重量，搬举的垂直高度和水平距离是影响搬举作业负荷的重要因素，在搬举限值制定时需重点考虑。与最大力相比，，MAWL更能反映人的搬举能力，更适合作为对TLV进行修订的比例依据，并且随着频率增加，中国人搬举能力下降比美国人快，建议将ACGIH搬举阈限值的三个表中重量限制依次下调21%、25%和28%。虽然搬下时肌肉活性低于搬上，但在搬举限值中是否提高搬下重量应该慎重考虑，所以在搬下时依然和搬上使用相同的限值。
[Abstract]:The purpose of manual lifting tasks (Manual Lifting, Task, MLT) is common in industrial production, is an important cause of workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Western developed countries have developed the health manual lifting limit, and there is no system in our country limits. In the study of Chinese workers and college students as the research object, determination the maximum force, manual lifting load factors and the maximum acceptable weight of lift for comparative study, reference and revised the ACGIH lifting threshold, the lifting weight limit in line with China's population.
For the first part of the 938 workers and college students as the research object, the determination of the back lifting force, the left hand, right hand arm lifting force, lifting force and shoulder lifting force of five kinds of static strength, static strength compared with the European and American people, that the population of our country and western people power gap range. In the second part, 43 male college students as the research object, the design of different lifting weight, vertical lifting height, lifting horizontal distance and Simulation of lifting tasks, determination and analysis of tenth thoracic and lumbar level (T10) third (L3) of left and right sides of surface EMG signal of erector spinae, each lifting task at the end of the the subjects of perceived exertion rating on the task. In the third part, 10 male student volunteers will be a heavy box by 16KG high middle tibia and moved to palm joint high platform, the platform moved down to the place, so repeatedly, by technical personnel Move on and move the marker to distinguish between two types of operation, 10 minutes to complete the simulation to move operations, each 30 times, collecting the subjects of surface EMG on both sides of the trapezius and erector spinae muscle signal at the end of the two working modes of perceived exertion rating. The fourth part is the comparison of the population of our country and the European beauty group the maximum acceptable weight of lift, in China and in the Caucasian. Lifting the gap.
The results of static strength determination showed that the male back lifting force, the left hand, right hand arm lifting force, lifting force and shoulder lifting force are respectively 107.7kg, 57.7kg, 60.9kg, 31.8kg and 46.5kg, while women were 59.7kg, 30.7kg, 34.1kg, 18.2kg and 25.2kg.20~29 age group of workers and college students back more lifting force. Male workers back lifting force is greater than the college students, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P0.05), and the female students is put back force greater than the workers, the difference was statistically significant (P0.01). Male subjects back lifting force, lifting force and the right hand left hand force average highest group is 20~29 years old. The highest groups of female subjects three strength average value were 30~39, 40~49, 40~49, three power 20~29 age group the average minimum. Between different age groups provided back, right, left hand force had no statistical difference.
In the same lifting height, when lifting the weight of the object are respectively 3.6kg, 7.5kg and 11.4kg, erector spinae EMG amplitude were 36.15,45.63 and 52.35, the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). When the lifting weight is 13.7kg, left, right T10 showed EMG amplitude in the ground to reach high "than" ground to shoulder high "(P 0.05), left and right L3 also showed EMG amplitude in the ground to reach high" than "ground to shoulder high" (P 0.05, P0.05). In addition, in different lifting weight and different the horizontal distance, the EMG amplitude of 7kg/70cm14kg/50cm18kg/30cm, the difference was statistically significant (P0.05). Results of.Borg and EMG amplitude signal analysis results are similar.
And move onto the operation, the average MVE% subjects of the trapezius muscle were 25.1 and 20.9, higher than the move move, there were statistically significant differences between the two (P 0.01); the average MVE% of erector spinae were 39.8 and 34.9, also showed high and move onto P (0.01 results the.Borg scores of 11) moved to move on 13.2 of the 83%, the difference was statistically significant (P 0.01).
Conclusion Chinese static strength lower than that of the developed countries on the whole population, male 15~23% lower than the European and American male, female low 15~18%. women of all power were smaller than men, is generally about half of male power. Five the maximum strength of isometric contraction from large to small is as follows: the back lifting force, lifting force of the right hand, left hand lifting force, lifting force and lifting force of arm shoulder.20 men over the age of strength decreased gradually with the increase of age, women in this trend is not obvious, the 20~29 age group strength but lower than the 30~49 age group. There was a relationship between body size and maximum stress in male subjects, in female subjects correlation not strong. Lifting weight, lifting the vertical height and horizontal distance are important factors affecting the lifting load, the lifting limit to be considered when making. Compared with the maximum stress, MAWL can better reflect the lifting capacity, more suitable Cooperation is revised according to the proportion of TLV, and with the increase of frequency, Chinese lifting capacity decreased faster than an American, would limit the weight lifting table three ACGIH threshold values are down 21%, 25% and 28%. while the move was lower than that of muscle on the move, but whether in the lifting limit improve the move under the weight of should consider carefully, so in the move still and move with the same limit.

【学位授予单位】：华中科技大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：R131

【参考文献】