Carisa Harris-Adamsona, , , Alexis Mielkeb, Xu Xuc, Jia-Hua Lind

    a Department of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
    b Department of Physical Therapy, Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, CA, USA
    c Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, USA
    d Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, WA, USA

    Received 27 February 2015, Revised 26 January 2016, Accepted 12 May 2016, Available online 30 May 2016

Abstract

Aim

Transportation of materials using a pallet jack pulled behind the operator is common due to the visual advantages while transporting fully loaded pallets. The objective of this laboratory study was to quantify muscle activity, posture, and low back compressive and shear forces while completing typical pallet jack activities using a standard handle that required one handed pulling of a pallet jack compared to an alternative handle that allowed for two handed pushing

Methods

Participants (n = 14) performed six to ten trials of common pallet jack tasks (straight travel and turning) with each handle. Posture analysis of the trunk and right upper extremity was performed using Motion Analysis (Santa Rosa, CA, USA) and back compressive and shear forces were analyzed using 3D Static Strength Prediction Program (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI). Activity of the upper trapezius (UT), pectoralis major (PM), flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) and extensor digitorum (ED) muscles were recorded (Telemyo 2400 T, Noraxon, Scottsdale, Arizona) and normalized to percent reference voluntary contraction values. All outcomes were compared using the paired t-test

Results

Peak and mean muscle activity of the PM (p < 0.001) and ED (p < 0.01) were significantly higher using the alternative push handle during all three tasks. There were larger compressive forces at L4/L5 (p < 0.08) and L5/S1 (p < 0.002) using the alternative handle, and greater shear forces using the standard handle at both L4/L5 (p < 0.0001) and L5/S1 (p < 0.000)

Discussion

The standard handle outperformed the alternative handle with regard to muscle activity. The alternative handle had significantly greater compressive forces at L5/S1 due to the pushing nature of the hand-handle interface, yet the standard handle increased shear forces at both L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels in the low back

Conclusion

In this analysis, there was not a clear benefit to using either handle in terms of trunk strength capacity and varied benefits and drawbacks to each handle when comparing compressive and shear forces in the low back. However, given favorable subjective reports described in a prior publication, and the increased reliance on dynamic versus passive force production, facilitating a workers' ability to push a pallet jack while travelling with large loads is worth further investigation