Iso+11228 1 2021

INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 11228-1
Second edition
2021-10
Ergonomics — Manual handling —

Part 1:
Lifting, lowering and carrying
Ergonomie — Manutention manuelle —
Partie 1: Manutention verticale vers le haut, manutention verticale
vers le bas et manutention horizontale
Reference number
ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
© ISO 2021
Copyright by ISO. Reproduced by ANSI with permission of and under license from ISO. Licensed to Marco Cori. Downloaded 04/26/2022. Not for additional sale or distribution.
ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT

© ISO 2021
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11
Email: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Contents Page
Foreword......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................v
1 Scope.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
2 Normative references...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
3 Terms and definitions..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
4 Risk reduction for manual lifting or carrying tasks...................................................................................................... 3
4.1 General............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
4.2 Risk assessment (step model).................................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2.1 Using the step model........................................................................................................................................................ 3
4.2.2 Recommended limit for manual lifting, lowering and carrying............................................... 6
4.2.3 Cumulative mass of carrying.................................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Risk reduction....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.4 Additional considerations.......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Annex A (informative) Ergonomics approach to the design of lifting and carrying tasks...................... 11
Annex B (informative) Reference mass determination................................................................................................................. 17
Annex C (informative) Assessment method for recommended limits for mass, frequency
and object position.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Annex D (informative) Lifting index.................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Annex E (informative) Simplified model for RML and LI calculation............................................................................. 29
Annex F (informative) Multi-task manual lifting................................................................................................................................. 31
Annex G (informative) Examples of manual handling of objects........................................................................................ 42
Annex H (informative) Carrying............................................................................................................................................................................ 52
Annex I (informative) Exposure and risk: the basis for Table D.1..................................................................................... 55
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved iii

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to
the World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see
www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 159, Ergonomics, Subcommittee SC 3,
Anthropometry and biomechanics.
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO 11228-1:2003), which has been
technically revised.
The main changes to the previous edition are as follows:
— revision of the scope to include lowering;
— expansion of the risk estimation;
— expansion of Annexes A, B and C;
— addition of Annexes D to I to include updated information; expansions of the RNLE (revised NIOSH
lifting equation); more examples for lifting and carrying; detailed information on the scientific
background and recommended interpretation of the RNLE.
A list of all parts in the ISO 11228 series can be found on the ISO website.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www.iso.org/members.html.
iv © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Introduction
0.1 General
The ISO 11228 series establishes ergonomic recommendations for different dynamic manual handling
tasks. It provides information for designers, employers, employees and others involved in work, job and
product design. The ISO 11228 series provides information on the evaluation of static postures.
Disorders of the musculoskeletal system are common worldwide and one of the most frequent
disorders in occupational health. The risk-assessment model in this document allows the estimation
of the risk associated with a manual material handling task. It takes into consideration the hazards
(unfavourable conditions) related to manual handling tasks and the time spent performing them.
Unfavourable conditions can include factors such as the size and mass of the object being handled,
working posture (e.g. twisting, bending, overreaching), quality of grip on items, and the frequency and
duration of manual handling. Any of these can, alone or in combination, lead to a hazardous handling
activity and increase the risk of musculoskeletal disorders. Accordingly, these factors are considered
when determining a recommended safe limit of the mass of objects being handled.
The method of determination of safe recommended limits in this document is based on the integration
of data derived from four major research approaches, namely the epidemiological, the biomechanical,
the physiological and the psychophysical approach.
0.2 The ergonomic approach
0.2.1 General
Ergonomics pursues the specific goals of optimizing human well-being and overall system performance.
This is achieved through contributions to the design and evaluation of tasks, jobs, production,
environment and systems in order to make them compatible with the needs, abilities and limitations
of people. It strives to design or to modify a work system to accommodate, as far as possible, a broad
range of people in order to meet the needs of workers with various characteristics, including people
with special requirements. Thus, the development of special solutions for individuals can be minimized.
Achieving these goals also contributes to organizational sustainability and social responsibility.
Manual handling tasks in the workplace occur within the context of work systems. Interactions of
humans with items, information, environment and other people must be taken into consideration when
designing or modifying tasks and work areas. The ergonomics approach can be used to prevent manual-
handling-related injuries from occurring by being used proactively in the design of processes, systems
or work organization, in addition to when modifications to existing systems are being considered.
The ergonomic approach considers tasks in their entirety, taking into account a range of relevant
factors including the nature of the task, the characteristics of objects handled, the working environment
and the individuals performing the task. It considers environmental conditions (e.g. lighting, noise,
temperature), as well as an individual’s characteristics and experiences. An individual’s characteristics
include physical and mental capabilities, skills, work techniques, behaviour and their perception of the
work environment and its social characteristics.
0.2.2 Organizational considerations
Work organization (e.g. task duration, job duration, recovery time, shift patterns) is a contributing
factor in the prevention or development of musculoskeletal disorders. For example, recovery periods
help to mitigate possible muscular fatigue and help to avoid the overuse of similar muscle groups over
the duration of the work shift. Job rotation, job diversification and job enlargement are all methods of
structuring the work to facilitate variation and recovery within the work period.
Work organization includes appropriate training of workers, including how to safely perform tasks,
how to recognize and respond to hazardous conditions in workplaces, and which procedures and
communication channels to use to report and correct hazards. Regularly and properly maintained
equipment and facilities contribute to safer work, including manual handling tasks. The selection of
© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved v

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
equipment and supplies which are appropriate for the workplace and task conditions helps to make
work demands safer.
0.2.3 Psychological health and safety and the ergonomics approach
The ergonomics approach considers the cognitive or psychological demands on humans, as well
as the psychosocial environment in which work takes place. Psychological response to work and
workplace conditions (psychosocial factors) has an important influence on mental, physiological and
musculoskeletal health. Psychosocial factors in the workplace include the design, organization and
management of work, work content, job complexity, job demands (cognitive and physical), job content
and the overall social environment (i.e. the context of work).
Undesirable psychosocial aspects of a job can include:
— little or no control over work methods or organization;
— high levels of attention and concentration required;
— poor use of skills;
— little or no involvement in decision-making;
— repetitive, monotonous tasks only;
— machine- or system-paced work;
— work demands perceived as excessive;
— payment systems which encourage working too quickly or without breaks;
— work systems that limit opportunities for social interaction;
— high levels of effort not balanced by sufficient reward (e.g. resources, remuneration, self-esteem,
status);
— no training and skill enhancement encouraged or supported;
— poor co-worker or supervisory support.
Many of the effects of these factors on workers occur via stress-related processes, which can in turn
have a direct effect on biochemical and physiological responses, which can increase the likelihood of
experiencing musculoskeletal injury. Thus, for the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs),
these psychosocial stressors should be controlled in addition to the biomechanical risk factors. For
more information on the effects of the psychosocial stressors on MSDs, see References [63] to [66]. For
further information on psychological health and safety in the workplace, see References [1] to [42]
vi © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Ergonomics — Manual handling —

Part 1:
Lifting, lowering and carrying
1 Scope
This document specifies recommended limits for manual lifting, lowering and carrying while taking into
account the intensity, the frequency and the duration of the task. It is designed to provide requirements
and recommendations on the assessment of several task variables, allowing the health risks for the
working population to be evaluated.
This document applies to manual handling of objects with a mass of 3 kg or more and to moderate
walking speed, i.e. 0,5 m/s to 1,0 m/s on a horizontal level surface.
This document is based on an 8 h working day, but also covers more prolonged working times, up to
12 h. It also addresses the analysis of combined lifting, lowering and carrying tasks in a shift during a
day.
This document does not cover the holding of objects (without walking), the pushing or pulling of objects
or manual handling while seated. The pushing and pulling of objects are covered in the other parts of
the ISO 11228 series.
This document does not cover handling people or animals. (For further information on handling people,
refer to ISO/TR 12296.)
This document does not address the manual lifting of objects while using lift-assistive devices such as
exoskeletons and does not address the needs of pregnant women or persons with disabilities.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https://w ww.iso.org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at http://w ww.electropedia.org/
3.1
manual handling
activity requiring the use of human force to lift, lower, carry or otherwise move or restrain an object
3.2
lifting
manually (i.e. without using mechanical assistance) moving an object from its initial position
© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 1

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
3.3
lowering
manually (i.e. without using mechanical assistance) moving an object from its initial position
downwards
Note 1 to entry: Included in lifting.
3.4
carrying
manually (i.e. without using mechanical assistance) moving an object which is held with either one or
two hands, or positioned on one or two shoulders or on the neck, by walking one metre or more
Note 1 to entry: Does not include the use of backpacks.
3.5
risk assessment
overall process comprising a risk analysis and risk evaluation
3.6
reference conditions
set of conditions (environmental, physical, biomechanical and task-design-related) which are
considered to be the ideal conditions for safe manual handling to take place
Note 1 to entry: See 4.2.1, 4.2.3.2, A.4 and H.1 for detailed definitions of lifting and carrying conditions.
3.7
repetitive lifting
lifting an object more than once every 10 min
Note 1 to entry: Infrequent lifting at one lift every 10 min is defined in Reference [57], where a multiplier of 1,0 is
applied for all duration scenarios at a frequency of 1 lift per 10 min.
3.8
mid-sagittal plane
vertical plane in the anterior-posterior direction that divides a person assuming a neutral body posture
into equal left and right halves
Note 1 to entry: See Figure C.1
Note 2 to entry: A neutral body posture is an upright standing posture with the arms hanging freely by the side
of the body.
3.9
plane of asymmetry
vertical plane passing through the midpoint of the line between the inner ankle bones and the centre
of gravity of the load when the load is at its most extreme displacement from the neutral, mid-sagittal
plane
3.10
angle of asymmetry
angle formed between the lines that result from the intersections of the mid-sagittal plane and the
plane of asymmetry
Note 1 to entry: If the feet are repositioned during the lift or lower sequence, the referent planes shall be
determined at the point in the action sequence where the largest degree of asymmetrical twist is encountered
(see Figure C.1).
3.11
reference mass
mass considered appropriate for use with an identified user population during the application of the
risk-assessment method described herein
2 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
3.12
cumulative carried mass
product of the carried mass and the carrying frequency
Note 1 to entry: The cumulative mass for carrying is defined in kilograms per minute to represent the risk for
short-term carrying, in kilograms per hour to represent the risk for medium-term carrying and in kilograms per
8 h to represent the risk for long-term carrying.
3.13
recovery time
time used for determining the work/recovery pattern, which is the period of light work activity Note 1
to entry: Light work activity can include monitoring activities, light assembly work using the upper
limbs, work not involving lifting or lowering or carrying > 3 kg, and work not involving pushing or
pulling.
4 Risk reduction for manual lifting or carrying tasks
4.1 General
Risk assessment is the overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation, the results
of which are ultimately used in the effort to reduce risk. The goal in manual materials handling risk
reduction is to take measures to improve the design of the task, the object and the working environment
relative to the characteristics of the individuals performing the work.
In those cases where manual handling cannot be avoided, a risk assessment shall be completed to
determine if, and to what extent, modifications are recommended. The risk assessment takes into
account the mass of the object, the grip on the object, the position of the object relative to the position of
the body, and the frequency and duration of a specific task.
The risk assessment is accomplished using the step-by-step approach illustrated in Figure 1 (step
model). With each successive step, the evaluator analyses the interrelated aspects of the tasks.
If recommended limits are exceeded, the task shall be adapted in such a way that all questions in the
step-by-step approach are satisfied.
Employees engaged in manual handling should be provided with adequate information and training on
how to perform these tasks safely. The provision of this information and training does not, in isolation,
ensure safe manual handling in all cases. However, it is an integral part of the ergonomics approach,
and the risk of injury can be reduced by adopting safe ways of manual handling (see A.6).
4.2 Risk assessment (step model)
4.2.1 Using the step model
The step model illustrated in Figure 1 describes the steps involved in beginning, and working through,
a risk assessment of manual handling tasks, including lifting and carrying. Initially, the mass of the
object being handled is determined; if it is more than 3 kg, the risk assessment is continued. The task is
further analysed to determine if the mass exceeds recommended limits for handling (step 1).
The user shall make modifications where limits are exceeded. In those tasks where lifting and carrying
is repetitive, the assessment is continued using the quick assessment procedure (step 2). Based on the
outcome of step 2, the task will possibly:
— require immediate modifications for safety (see Annex A for further information);
— be determined to be acceptable; or
— need further, more detailed, risk evaluation (step 3).

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Step 3 is also used for evaluating tasks which take place using non-ideal postures.
The reference condition of manual lifting and lowering posture for manual handling is:
— an upright symmetrical trunk posture (no twisting or lateral bending);
— sagittal trunk inclination of no more than 15° (the minimum inclination observable with the human
eye) from the vertical to accommodate the natural posture of the back;
— the horizontal distance between the object being handled and the centre of mass of the worker as
close as possible;
— the grip height lying within knuckle and elbow height for lifting or between knuckle and shoulder
height for carrying (for anthropometric measurements see ISO 7250-3).
Steps 4 and 5 assist with the further evaluation of the task for cumulative mass for lifting and carrying.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Key
m mass of object to be lifted
Mref reference mass for identified user population group
Mcum cumulative mass (carried)
dc duration (of carrying)
LI lifting index
Figure 1 — Step model

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
4.2.2 Recommended limit for manual lifting, lowering and carrying
4.2.2.1 Weight of the object
Whenever an object of 3 kg or more is lifted or carried, a risk assessment shall be performed, beginning
with the initial screening, step 1. Note that throughout the text whenever the term “lifting” is used the
act of “lowering” is implied.
4.2.2.2 (Step 1) Initial screening
An initial screening of non-repetitive lifting and carrying (performed with reference conditions in
place) requires the determination of the object's mass (step 1). The recommended limit for the mass of
the object, referred to as the reference mass, mref, and based on population characteristics, is presented
in Annex B. For general guidance for designers and additional information related to step 1, see Annex A.
4.2.2.3 (Step 2) Quick assessment of repetitive lifting and carrying
Screening of repetitive lifting and carrying tasks of objects of 3 kg or more is performed using the quick
assessment procedure.
The quick assessment procedure aims to identify, without the need for calculation, the presence of two
opposite exposure conditions:
— acceptable condition, where unacceptable risk has not been identified;
— critical condition, where unacceptable risk has been identified.
When either of these conditions is met, it is not necessary to perform a more detailed evaluation of
the exposure level. Instead, either no further modifications need to be considered (acceptable risk, see
Table 1 and Table 2) or modifications should be made immediately (see Annex A for guidance) due to the
presence of a critical condition (see Table 3). In either case, Table 4 shall also be referenced to identify
the presence of any unfavourable working environment or object circumstances which can further
increase the risk of the task (additional factors).
When neither of the two extreme conditions is met, it is necessary to conduct further risk evaluation by
methods presented in step 3 (see 4.2.2.4).
Table 1 and Table 2 are used for establishing the acceptable risk condition. If all of the listed conditions
are present (yes for each condition), the examined task is acceptable and it is not necessary to continue
with a risk evaluation. If any answers are no, then Table 3 shall be used to confirm if there are critical
conditions. If any of these conditions is met (a yes response), the task shall not be performed before
modifications are made.
In either case, Table 4 shall also be systematically used to identify the presence of any unfavourable
working environment or object characteristics which will potentially further increase the risk of the
task. These factors can be related to the work environment or to the object characteristics, and they
shall be addressed to help reduce risk.
Table 1 — Lifting and lowering — Quick assessment — Acceptable condition

Lifting and lowering
Asymmetry (e.g. body rotation, trunk twisting) is absent No Yes
Load is maintained close to the body (e.g. where space between the body and No Yes
3 kg to 5 kg the item is minimized)
Load vertical displacement is between hips and shoulders No Yes
Maximum frequency: less than five lifts per minute No Yes

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table 1 (continued)
Asymmetry (e.g. body rotation, trunk twisting) is absent No Yes
Load is maintained close to the body (e.g. where space between the body and No Yes
> 5 kg to 10 kg the item is minimized)
Load vertical displacement is between hips and shoulder No Yes
Maximum frequency: less than one lift per minute No Yes
More than 10 kg Loads of more than 10 kg are absent No Yes
If all of the questions are answered yes, then the examined lifting task is acceptable and it is not necessary to
continue the risk evaluation, except to review Table 4 for other factors to be considered.
If at least one of the questions is answered no, the evaluation shall continue (see Table 3 and Table 4).
Table 2 — Carrying — Quick assessment — Acceptable condition

Carrying
Calculate the cumulative mass (total kg carried during the given durations for the given distance below).
Is the carried cumulative mass less than or equal to recommended cumulative masses values considering distances
(±5 m) and duration (1 min; 1 h; 4 h; 8 h)?
Distance 1 m to ≤ 5 m per
Duration Distance > 5 m to 10 m per action
action
6 h to 8 h 4 800 kg 3 600 kg No Yes
4h 4 000 kg 3 000 kg No Yes
1h 2 000 kg 1 500 kg No Yes
1 min 60 kg 45 kg No Yes
Acceptable conditions for carrying: carry with two hands over a maximum
distance of 10 m, picking up and setting down the object at height, where the
pick-up and set-down height ranges between 0,75 m and 1,10 m, with the full
cycle including returning back to the start point empty-handed over the same
No Yes
distance. The carrying exercise is performed in a comfortable indoor envi-
ronment, on a hard, flat, non-slip floor, without any obstacles in the way, and
in a workspace allowing free body movement and posture. No constraints are
placed on the subject. Awkward postures during the carrying are not present.
If all of the questions are answered yes, then the examined carrying task is acceptable and it is not necessary to
continue the risk evaluation except to review Table 4 for other factors to be considered.
If at least one of the questions is answered no, the evaluation shall continue (see Table 3 and Table 4).
Table 3 — Lifting or carrying— Quick Assessment — Critical condition

Critical condition for lifting: task layout and frequency conditions exceeding the maximum suggested
The hand location at the beginning and end of the lift is
Vertical location No Yes
higher than 175 cm or lower than the surface at the feet
The vertical distance between the origin and the destination
Vertical displacement No Yes
of the lifted object is more than 175 cm
The horizontal distance between the body and load is greater
Horizontal distance No Yes
than full arm reach (>63 cm)
Extreme body twisting (to either side by more than 45°)
Asymmetry No Yes
without moving the feet

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table 3 (continued)
Frequency of lifts[56] More than 15 lifts per min of short duration (manual han-
dling lasting no more than 60 min consecutively in the shift, No Yes
followed by at least 60 min of recovery time)
More than 12 lifts per minute of medium duration (manual
handling lasting no more than 120 min consecutively in the No Yes
shift, followed by at least 30 min of recovery time
More than 10 lifts per minute of long duration (manual han-
No Yes
dling lasting more than 120 min consecutively in the shift)
Critical condition for lifting or carrying: presence of loads exceeding the following limits (see Table B.2
for further information)
Females (20 to 45 years) 20 kg No Yes
Females (<20 or > 45 years) 15 kg No Yes
Males (20 to 45 years) 25 kg No Yes
Males (<20 or > 45 years) 20 kg No Yes
Critical condition for carrying: presence of cumulative carried mass greater than those indicated also
with acceptable conditions for carrying
Carrying distance (per
action) 1 m to 5 m over a 6 000 kg in 6 h to 8 h No Yes
6 h to 8 h period?
action) 5 m to 10 m over a 3 600 kg in 6 h to 8 h No Yes
6 h to 8 h period?
action) 10 m to 20 m over 1 200 kg in 6 h to 8 h No Yes
a 6 h to 8 h period?
Carrying distance is usually more than 20 m No Yes
action) more than 20 m
If at least one of the conditions has a yes response, then consider risk as high and a critical condition is present.
Proceed with task redesign and continue to Table 4 to identify additional factors to be considered, and then con-
tinue to Annex A for identifying urgent corrective actions.
Table 4 — Lifting and carrying — Additional factors to be considered

Is the working environment unfavourable for lifting and carrying?
Presence of extreme (low or high) thermal stress (e.g. temperature, humidity, air movement) No Yes
Presence of slippery, uneven, unstable floor No Yes
Presence of insufficient space for lifting and carrying No Yes
Are there unfavourable object characteristics for lifting and carrying?
The size of the object reduces the worker’s view and hinders movement No Yes
The load centre of gravity is not stable (e.g. liquids, items moving around inside of object) No Yes
The object shape or configuration presents sharp edges, surfaces or protrusions No Yes
The contact surfaces are too cold or too hot No Yes
Improper handholds or coupling
Does the lifting or carrying task(s) last more than 8 h a day? No Yes
If at least one of the questions is answered yes, the specified condition shall be addressed and the risks minimized.
4.2.2.4 (Step 3) Recommended limits for mass, frequency and object position
When none of the two conditions identified in step 2 is met, it is necessary to conduct a risk evaluation
(step 3) to determine the recommended limits for the task.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
To determine the recommended mass limit (RML; Annex C) while taking into account working posture,
object position and lifting frequency and duration, use Formulae (C.1) to (C.5). These formulae take
into account task variables (characteristics of the task). A lifting index (LI; Annex D) is also calculated
for further risk exposure information. The analyst first checks if the RML for lifting is exceeded and,
if so, checks if the LI exceeds appropriate limits (Table D.1). If both are exceeded then the task shall
be adapted by changing the mass, the lifting frequency, the lifting duration or the object position.
Table D.1 provides interpretation of the results and consequent measures. Annex E reports a simplified
model for RML and LI calculation. Annex F reports procedures for analysing multiple manual lifting
tasks (composite, variable and sequential lifting tasks), Annex G reports examples of analysis of simple
and variable lifting tasks. Annex I reports a brief review of the relevant literature regarding the
interpretation of the lifting index and is the basis for Table D.1.
4.2.3 Cumulative mass of carrying
4.2.3.1 General
For an object to be carried once for a modest distance (one or two steps or less than 1 m), only the limits
for lifting shall be applied as per steps 1, 2 and 3.
For screening the cumulative mass per day for carrying (step 4), the recommended limits in 4.2.2.2
and 4.2.2.3 shall initially be used. Once this has been completed, limits recommended in 4.2.3.2 for a
reference carrying condition shall be applied.
For determining the cumulative mass of carrying related to distance, time patterns and other
influencing factors, refer to 4.2.3.3 (step 5).
4.2.3.2 (Step 4) Recommended limit for cumulative mass per day
The cumulative mass in a certain period is calculated as a product of mass and frequency of carrying.
These two values are limited in steps 1, 2 and 3. In this way, the reference mass cannot exceed a
maximum of 25 kg (i.e. mass shall decrease from 25 kg as the frequency increases) and the frequency of
carrying should never exceed a maximum of 15 times per minute (i.e. frequency shall decrease from 15
times per minute when the mass being carried is increased).
Reference conditions are described as carrying an object with two hands over a distance of 2 m, picking
up and setting down the object at height, where the pick-up and set-down height ranges between 0,75 m
and 1,10 m, with the full cycle including returning back to the start point empty-handed over the same
distance. The carrying exercise is performed in a comfortable indoor environment, on a hard, flat,
non-slip floor, without any obstacles in the way, and in a workspace allowing free body movement and
posture. No constraints are placed on the subject.
Reference conditions regarding distance, way back and environmental and workspace conditions shall
be adopted for carrying on shoulder(s) or neck. The height of picking up and object release is about
shoulder height (125 cm to 155 cm). Alternatively, these actions are performed by a co-worker, for
example a co-worker placing a load on the shoulder of another worker who then carries it.
With reference conditions in place, the recommended limit for cumulative mass of carrying is 6 000 kg
per 8 h.
4.2.3.3 (Step 5) Recommended limit for cumulative mass of carrying related to time patterns,
distance and other influencing factors
For carrying with reference conditions in place, the recommended limits for cumulative mass
considering the different duration scenarios for carrying are presented in Table 5[11],[28],[36],[38].

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table 5 — Recommended limits in the carrying reference conditions for cumulative mass
related to carrying duration during the shift (for general working population)
Carrying dis- kg per min kg per 1 h kg per 2 h kg per 3 h kg per 4 h kg per 5 h kg per 6 h
tance > 1 m and ≤ 2 m to 8 h
Recommended limits
for cumulative mass 75 2 500 3 400 4 200 5 000 5 600 6 000
for manual carrying
To evaluate the cumulative mass carried, the duration of the carrying tasks in a period of time shall
be considered. Table 5 provides recommended limit values of cumulative mass based on time devoted
to manual handling (including loads that are both lifted and then carried) in the shift and represents
the product of handling different possible masses at different frequencies. For example, the limit of a
cumulative mass of 75 kg for a single minute can be achieved by a mass of 12,5 kg × 6 times/min.
When carrying conditions differ from the reference condition, recommended limits in Table 5 shall
be adjusted by applying correction ratios (multipliers) into the calculation. The multipliers represent
true conditions of the task as observed (e.g. carrying distance, height of pick up or set down and other
relevant conditions). Multipliers are provided in Annex H.
4.3 Risk reduction

Risk reduction can be achieved by minimizing or excluding hazards resulting from the task, the object,
the workplace, the work organization or the environmental conditions; examples are given in A.3 to
A.5.
4.4 Additional considerations

Health surveillance should be provided by the employer with respect to work-related risks.
Health surveillance is preventive in nature and should ensure, before starting the job and then on
an ongoing basis, that the relationship between the individual’s health status and his or her working
conditions is satisfactory.
More specifically, health surveillance aims to:
— identify any negative health conditions at an early enough stage to prevent them from worsening;
— identify people who require greater protective measures in addition to those adopted for other
workers;
— contribute, based on appropriate feedback, towards enhancing the accuracy of collective and
individual risk assessments;
— monitor preventive measures to ensure their continuing adequacy;
— collect exposure or injury data in order to compare different groups of workers and different
scenarios;
— collect data on absences caused by specific disorders so as to estimate the cost of non-prevention.
Health surveillance related to manual handling should be focused both on the spine and on other
parts of the body, especially considering the involvement of the shoulders and the upper limbs.
Personal mental health (e.g. depression) and work-related psychosocial factors (e.g. job satisfaction,
supervisory support) should also be considered in health surveillance for comprehensive prevention of
musculoskeletal injuries or disorders in the workplace.
Technical or mechanical means of reducing risk should be provided and complemented with information
and appropriate training on how to use manual materials handling aids appropriately (see A.6). All
workers should be provided with information regarding work-related hazards, their risks and how to
safely minimize exposure.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex A
(informative)
Ergonomics approach to the design of lifting and carrying tasks
A.1 General
Scientific knowledge stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach in removing or reducing the risk
of manual-handling-related injury. Ergonomics focuses on the design of work and its accommodation of
human needs and physical and mental capabilities.
In seeking to avoid injury from manual handling, it is pertinent to ask whether manual handling which
is hazardous or presents a risk of injury can be eliminated altogether. Those designing new systems of
work, or installing new plants, should consider introducing an integrated handling system that, where
appropriate, fully utilizes powered or mechanical handling rather than a manual system. It should,
however, be remembered that the introduction of automation or mechanization can create different
risks. Mechanization, for example, by the introduction of a lift truck, hoist, trolley, sack truck, chute
or pallet inverter, needs to be well maintained and a defect-reporting and -correction system should
be implemented. All handling aids should be compatible with the rest of the work system, effective,
appropriately designed and easily operated. Training concerning handling aids should cover their
appropriate usage, and knowledge of safe storage and procedures to be used in the event of breakdown.
Training should also include techniques on appropriate body positioning when using the equipment.
Operating instructions and safety concerns should be clearly placed on the equipment.
If manual handling cannot be avoided, technical aids should be available. Handling devices such as
hand-held straps, slide mats, hooks or suction pads can simplify the problem of handling an object.
A.2 Design of the work: task, workplace and work organization

A.2.1 Task
Stress levels on the back increase substantially as the distance between the object and the body
increases. Therefore, in the planning of tasks it is relevant to avoid long reaching, twisting, stooping,
bending and awkward movements or postures. Being able to gain secure and close footing to the object
is central to designing for good posture. Often obstacles that prevent this can be avoided; a common
example is long reaches across to an object from the far side of a pallet, which can be resolved by the
use of pallet-rotating equipment. Another example where awkward postures are seen and alternatives
are achievable is retrieving objects from the rear of deep shelves or racks less stressfully by installing
rollers. The best height for storage is between the mid-thigh and chest height of the workers involved,
with lighter items being stored above or below this region.
A good grip is essential for avoiding accidents with respect to handling and is often determined by the
characteristics of the object. This means that the object should normally be equipped with suitable
handles, cut-outs or finger slots. Objects with large dimensions should have two handles. The handles
should be of sufficient dimensions and should be placed so that the centre of gravity falls at the midpoint
of the line between the two handles.
A.2.2 Workplace
The work area should be designed to minimize the amount of manual effort, thus reducing the need
for twisting, bending, reaching and carrying. The distance that both typical and infrequently handled
objects have to be moved should be taken into account, together with the heights between which objects
can be transferred.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Gangways and other working areas should be large enough to allow adequate room to manoeuvre.
Sufficient space is a prerequisite for efficiently carrying out work in appropriate working postures.
Also, the use of suitable mechanical devices often requires more room than manual lifting.
A person carrying an object should have a clear view ahead, unobstructed by the object. Lifting and
carrying on stairways and on ladders should be avoided.
It is important to provide adequate space around the object and in the gangways, as well as sufficient
headroom to avoid stooping postures while handling an object.
Floor or ground surfaces should be level, well maintained, not slippery and clear of obstacles to avoid
potential slipping or tripping accidents. The presence of steps, steep slopes and ladders can increase
the risk of injury by adding to the complexity of movement when handling objects. Debris and materials
(e.g. used wrapping materials) can also pose tripping and slipping hazards and should be cleared.
A.2.3 Work organization

The amount of work undertaken in fixed postures is also an important consideration. Recommendations
on this issue are made in ISO 11226. The frequency of handling an object can influence the risk of injury.
Particular care is necessary where the handler cannot control or vary the rate of work. Consideration
should, therefore, be given to whether there are adequate opportunities for rest (i.e. momentary pauses
or breaks from work) or recovery (i.e. changing to another task which uses a different set of muscles).
Job enrichment, job enlargement and job rotation have a key role to play in countering potential fatigue
and maintaining levels of safe production output, though this issue is complicated by a large variation
in individual susceptibility to fatigue.
Handling by two or more people can render possible an operation that is beyond the capability of one
person or reduce the risk of injury to a single person. The object that a team can handle safely is less
than the sum of the masses that the team members can cope with individually. Additional difficulties
can arise if team members impede each other’s vision or movement and if the object offers insufficient
suitable handholds.
When engineering or other controls do not provide adequate protection, personal protective equipment
should be used only as a last resort. Advance planning is especially important in dealing with hazardous
materials or other potentially dangerous loads. It can be necessary to give special attention to handling
methods and provision made for dealing with an emergency, including emergency equipment and clear
instructions. Where the wearing of personal protective equipment cannot be avoided, its implications
for the risk of manual handling injury should be taken into consideration. For example, gloves can
impair manual dexterity; other clothing, such as uniforms, can inhibit free movement during manual
handling. Personal protective equipment, such as gloves, aprons, overalls, gaiters or safety footwear,
should be well fitting. Footwear should provide adequate support, be stable, have a non-slip base, have
anti-fatigue qualities and provide proper protection.
A.3 Design of the object

The object to be handled can constitute a hazard because of its mass or resistance to movement,
size, shape, rigidity or the absence of handgrips. In determining if a load represents a risk, proper
account shall also be made of the circumstances in which the load is handled. For example, postural
recommendations, frequency and duration of handling, workplace design and aspects of work
organization, such as incentive schemes and piecework, should be considered.
The shape of an object affects the way in which it can be held. In general, if any dimension of the object
exceeds about shoulder width or if it is not a compact object, its handling is likely to pose an increased
risk of injury. This is especially the case where this size is exceeded in more than one dimension. The
risk is further increased if the object does not possess convenient handholds.
If the centre of gravity of the object is not positioned centrally within the object, an inappropriate
handling style can result. Sometimes, as with a sealed and unmarked carton, an offset centre of gravity

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
is not visibly apparent. In these circumstances, the risk of injury is increased since the handler can
unwittingly hold the object with its centre of gravity further from the body than is necessary.
Consideration should be given to using pack filling for objects liable to shift when being handled. Equally,
greater care is needed when handling objects which are inherently difficult to grasp. In addition, there
can be physical or chemical hazards which should also be indicated, for example the object can have
sharp edges, be too hot or too cold to touch, or contain materials or substances which can be hazardous
if spilled.
A.4 Design of the working environment

General environmental conditions, including illumination, noise and climate, should be within tolerable
levels. It is recommended to apply ISO 7730 for thermal comfort requirements. Extra care should be
taken if work has to be done at extremes of temperature. For example, high temperatures or humidity
can cause rapid fatigue; work at low temperatures can require gloves to prevent numbness of the
hands but can also lead to a loss of manual dexterity. Air circulation (indoor and outdoor) is also a
factor that influences body temperature. Rapid air circulation cools the body and should be avoided as
far as possible. In very hot climates or working conditions, rapid air circulation can be desirable. It is
important that there should be sufficient light to enable the workers to see clearly what they are doing
and also prevent poor working postures. High noise levels can lead to reduced vigilance. For outdoor
work, account needs to be taken of the effects of changing weather conditions. Extra care is needed in
strong winds or where gusts are likely, for example around buildings. Assistance or mechanical devices
can be especially necessary when carrying large sheets or bulky objects in such conditions.
Reference conditions for manual materials handling include the following criteria:
— moderate ambient thermal environment;
— two-handed operation only;
— unrestricted standing posture;
— handling by one person only;
— smooth lifting;
— good coupling between the hands and the objects handled;
— good coupling between the feet and the floor;
— manual handling activities, other than lifting, are minimal;
— the objects to be lifted are not cold, hot or contaminated;
— vertical displacement of the load is less than or equal to 0,25 m and does not occur below knuckle or
above shoulder height;
— the trunk is upright and not rotated;
— the load is kept close to the body;
— the load is carried less than 20 m.
A.5 Individual considerations

Manual handling injuries are associated with the nature of the operations, the way they are organized
and variations among individual physical capabilities. It is a fact that the ability to lift and carry does
vary among individuals.
In general, the lifting strength for women as a group is up to two-thirds that of men. However, the
range of strength and ability among individuals is large and means that some women can deal safely

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
with heavier objects than some men. In those cases where neither manual lifting nor carrying can be
eliminated in the short term, special demands on the physical capability of the worker, regardless of
gender, can be necessary.
Young and old workers can have particular needs. For example, younger people are likely to be less
skilled. Older people are more susceptible to sudden strains due to a decreasing elasticity of parts of
the musculoskeletal system. With age, there is a reduction in physical capability, which becomes more
significant after the age of 45.
There is good evidence that an individual with a medical history of a back disorder is more susceptible
to recurrent episodes of back pain. Workers with a history of back disorders should be assessed and
monitored. Eventually, it can become necessary to make modifications to prevent further recurrence of
back problems.
Workers who suffer from spinal pathologies (Table A.1), both malformative and degenerative in nature,
both work-related and not work-related, that are influenced by biomechanical overload, should be
exposed to a lower level of manual handling than the general healthy population[18],[24],[25],[26],[62].
To accommodate these workers in workplaces, the reference masses given in Table B.1 which are
protective for almost 99 % of the population (10 kg or 15 kg) can be used for calculating the appropriate
RML and LI. This results in lifting conditions where the RML is not exceeded or the LI is less than or
equal to 1.
In particular, also considering the type and severity of spinal pathologies reported in Table A.1:
— for males with pathologies of medium severity, the RML and the LI are calculated using 15 kg as the
reference mass;
— for females with medium to severe pathologies and males with severe pathologies, the RML and the
LI are calculated using a reference mass of 10 kg;
Loads shall only be lifted vertically between the height of the knees and the shoulders, and the frequency
and duration of time assigned to lifting in the shift shall be limited.
It is important to recognize that these provisions for defining “acceptable” weights for lifting, by
subjects with spinal pathologies, be used with caution and using a practical approach, possibly involving
physician monitoring where appropriate. They are based on research-derived conclusions. However,
the effectiveness of individual measures to restrict exposure to risk on a case-by-case basis is required
in the field (through close follow-up of individual health and working conditions).

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table A.1 — Classification of moderate and severe spinal pathologies[19],[25],[61],[62]

“Moderate” pathologies
Significant scoliosis (20° Cobb with torsion 2; 30° Cobb with torsion 1+)
Baastrup syndrome
Scheuermann disease (with structured curving of the spine)
Klippel-Feil syndrome (even with only one synostosis)
Cervical and/or dorsal hernia
Grade 1 spondylolisthesis, spondylolysis
Sacralization (fully or partially fused or articulated)
Spinal canal stenosis without neurological signs
Severe lumbar disk disease (spondylodiscopathy)
Inverted lumbar lordosis with disc disease
Slight vertebral instability (10 % or 15 % in the presence of certain pathologies)
Lumbar protrusion with dural sac impingement
Surgically reduced lumbar disc herniation without adverse outcomes
“Severe” pathologies
Herniated disc
Surgically reduced lumbar disc herniation with adverse outcomes
Spinal canal stenosis with root or dural sac impairment
Grade 2 spondylolisthesis (>25 % slippage)
Klippel-Feil syndrome (cervical or dorsal synostosis with vertebral instability)
Significant scoliosis (at least COBB 30° and torsion 2)
Scheuermann disease with approximately 40° structured curving of the spine and lumbar disc disease
Severe vertebral instability (i.e. spondylolisthesis, Klippel-Feil syndrome, disc disease, fractures with vertebral
slippage of 25 %)
Degenerative or newly formed lesions of the bones and joints (e.g. severe osteoporosis, vertebral angioma)
Systemic disease with severe spinal impairment
A.6 Information and training

As a complement to a safe system of work, effective training has an important part to play in preventing
and reducing manual handling injuries. To be effective, training shall be work-related and reinforced at
regular intervals.
Elements within a training program can include:
— how to recognize potentially hazardous handling operations, how to advocate improvements, how
to deal with unfamiliar handling operations;
— the appropriate use of handling aids and personal protective equipment;
— ergonomic principles of task, object and working environment design;
— safe handling techniques, including practical training elements.
Additional elements to be included within a training program are anatomy and physiology of the
back, body mechanics and proper lifting techniques, and exercises to stretch and strengthen the back
muscles.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
A good technique is one where the person is balanced, in complete control throughout the task, and
uses the minimum amount of effort to achieve, where possible, a smooth, uninterrupted movement.
When lifting or carrying the object, it should be kept as close to the body as possible and both hands
should be used. When applying effort, jerky or twisting movements and stooped postures should be
avoided.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex B
(informative)
Reference mass determination
B.1 Reference mass determination (step 1)

Step 1 of the determination of the RML for manual handling involves an initial screening of an object's
mass. To determine if the mass is at or below a recommended limit for the population in question, the
actual weight being handled (or planned to be handled) can be compared to a reference mass, mref, for
that population. Table B.1 gives the reference masses, taking into consideration different populations.
Table B.1 — Reference mass, mref, for different populations

Percentage of user popula-
Field of appli- mref
tion protected Population group
cation
kg F and M F M
Non-occupa- 5 Data not available Children and the elderly
tional use 10 99 99 99 General domestic popu- Total population
lation
15 95 90 99 General working popu-
Professional 20 90 to 95 85 99 lation
Working population
use 23 90 75 99
Adult working population
25 85 70 to 75 95 to 99
Key
F female
M male
NOTE 1 The reference mass of 23 kg has been used most often in the NIOSH lifting equation and has been found to be
protective for at least 99 % of healthy male workers and at least 75 % of healthy female workers at LI = 1,0.
NOTE 2 Data on the percentage of user population protected derive from different studies they represent as representative
mean results[10],[14],[24]–[26],[31],[42].
B.2 Special considerations

In order to lower the risk for people at work, particularly those with less physical capability, the
recommended limit for mass should not exceed 15 kg. This increases the level of health protection
afforded to the working population by up to 95 %. In this instance, a reference mass of 15 kg instead of
25 kg should be used in Formula (C.1) (see C.1.3.3).
As workplaces are expected to be accessible to everyone within the working population, exceeding
the recommended limit mass of 25 kg should be regarded as an exception. When exceeding the
recommended limits, working conditions must remain safe. In these cases, it is especially important
that workers are well trained and instructed for these specific tasks.
B.3 Age and gender considerations

In circumstances where age and gender need to be more specifically considered (beyond the intent of
Table B.1) in the general healthy working population, the reference masses in Table B.2 can be adopted.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table B.2 — Suggested reference masses, mref, considering gender and age, in the general
healthy working population[18],[31],[38],[39],[42],[43]
Working population by gender and age Reference mass
mref
Females (aged 20 to 45) 20 kg
Females (aged < 20 or > 45) 15 kg
Males (aged 20 to 45) 25 kg
Males (aged < 20 or > 45) 20 kg
NOTE Table B.2 is included in step 1.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex C
(informative)
Assessment method for recommended limits for mass, frequency

and object position
C.1 Assessment method for recommended limits for mass, frequency and object
position
C.1.1 Recommended mass limit
The RML is the mass of a load that nearly all people in a specific population of people can handle over
a substantial period of time without an increased risk of developing lifting-related lower back pain.
The formula used to derive the RML [Formula (C.1)] is a product of multipliers assigned to various
conditions (variables) present in the handling task. Formula (C.1) and the multipliers are described in
detail in this annex.
C.1.2 Non-repetitive lifting tasks

The mass of an object or the working postures used to manipulate the load in non-repetitive lifting tasks
can lead to health risks. Masses which are higher than the reference mass (Annex B), and unfavourable
postures like a bent or twisted trunk or a far reach, should be avoided.
To estimate the influence of an unfavourable posture, use a frequency multiplier of “1” in the risk-
assessment model formula [Formula (C.1)]. The horizontal multiplier indicates the severity of a possible
far reach; vertical, distance and asymmetry multipliers show the negative influence of a twisted or bent
trunk.
C.1.3 Repetitive lifting tasks
C.1.3.1 Assumptions
The recommended limits are derived from a model assuming that:

— they are only valid for smooth lifting with no sudden acceleration effects (i.e. jerking);
— they cannot be used for tasks where the worker is partly supported (e.g. one foot not on the floor);
— the width of the object 0,75 m or less;
— they are only valid for unrestricted lifting postures;
— they are only valid when good coupling exists (i.e. hand holds are secure and shoe or floor slip
potential is low);
— they are only valid under favourable conditions (see Table 4 for details).
C.1.3.2 Primary task variables
The primary task variables include the following information (see also Table C.1):
— RML;
— object mass, m, in kilograms;

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
— horizontal distance, h, in metres, measured from the mid-point of the line joining the ankles to the
centre of gravity of the object grasped.
NOTE The location of the centre of mass of the object is approximately the vertical projection of the
midpoint of the line between the hands at the grasping location in a two-handed operation or by the vertical
projection of the hand grasping the object in a one-handed operation. The location of the centre of the mass
of the worker is approximately the midpoint of the line between the inner points of the ankles.
— vertical location, v, in metres, determined by measuring the distance from the floor to the point at
which the hands grasp the object;
— vertical travel displacement, d, in metres, from origin to destination of lift;
— frequency of lifting, f, expressed as average number of lifts per minute;
— duration of lifting, in hours or, alternatively, in minutes;
— angle of asymmetry, α, in degrees;
— quality of gripping, c;
— one-handed operation, o;
— two-persons operation, p;
— extended (more than 8 h) manual handling time, e, in hours.
C.1.3.3 Recommended mass limit formula and multipliers
The first step towards the assessment of the acceptability (safety) of a lifting task is to compare the
mass of the object being handled, m, with the RML.
If m ≤ RML, it is a recommended condition.
If m > RML, it is not a recommended condition. In these cases, calculate an LI (Annex D), assess the level
of exposure and establish priorities according to Table D.1.
The RML is derived using Formula (C.1) which considers the impact of each task variable. These are
represented in the formula by “multipliers” (M) as follows:
RML = mref × hM × vM × dM × αM × f M × cM × [oM × pM × εM] (C.1)
where
m is the lifted object mass;
mref is the reference mass for the identified user population group (Tables B.1 and B.2);
hM is the horizontal distance multiplier, derived from Formula (C.2);
vM is the vertical location multiplier, derived from Formula (C.3);
dM is the vertical-displacement multiplier, derived from Formula (C.4);
αM is the asymmetry multiplier, derived from Formula (C.5) (see also Figure C.1);
fM is the frequency multiplier (see Table C.2);
cM is the coupling multiplier for the quality of gripping (see Table C.3);

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
oM is the one-handed operation additional multiplier, to be used for lifts performed with only
one hand; if true, oM = 0,6; otherwise, oM = 1,0 (see also C.1.4);
pM is the two or more person additional multiplier to be used when two or more persons perform
the same lift; if true, pM = 0,85; otherwise, pM = 1,0 (see also C.1.5);
eM is the extended time additional multiplier to be used when manual handling is performed for
more than 8 h per shift; if true, see C.1.6 and Table C.5; otherwise, eM = 1,0.
See Table C.1 for an illustration of the factors and multipliers.
The multipliers for Formula (C.1) are obtained from Formulae (C.2) to (C.5) and Tables C.2 to C.5. If a
multiplier in Formulae (C.2) to (C.5) exceeds a value of 1, its value should be taken as 1.
0, 25
hM = (C.2)
h
If h < 0,25, then hM = 1.
If h > 0,63, then hM = 0.
vM = 1 − 0 , 3 × 0 , 75 − v (C.3)
If v > 1,75, then vM = 0.

If v < 0, then vM = 0.
0,045
dM = 0,82 + (C.4)
d
If d > 1,75, then dM = 0.
If d < 0,25, then dM = 1.
α M = 1 − 0 , 003 2 × α (C.5)
If α > 135, then αM = 0.

Additional multipliers concerning frequency, one-handed lifting, team lifting and extended handling
time are provided in C1.4 to C1.6.
Table C.1 — Main task variables in the RML formula

Task Task variable Task variable description
variable
symbol
mref Reference mass Maximum recommended mass under reference con-
ditions for manual handling
vM Vertical multiplier Distance of the hands from the floor at the start or
end of lifting (A)
dM Distance multiplier Vertical distance of the load between the beginning

and the end of lifting (B)

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Task Task variable Task variable description

variable
symbol
hM Horizontal multiplier Maximum distance between the load and the body
during lifting (H)
αM Asymmetry multiplier Angular measure of displacement of the load from

the mid-sagittal plane (angle α)
cM Coupling multiplier Assessment of grip of the object (from Table C.3)

fM Frequency multiplier Frequency of lifts per minute and duration (from
Tables C.2 and C. 4)
oM One-hand multiplier Lifting by only one hand (from C.1.4)
pM Team lifting multiplier Lifting by two or more operators (from C.1.5)
eM Extended time multiplier Manual handling lasting more than 8 h per shift (from
C.1.6 and Table C.5)

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Key
1 vertical
2 mid-sagittal plane
3 asymmetry angle (α)
4 asymmetry line along the plane of asymmetry
5 projection from centre of gravity of load
6 mid-point between inner ankle bones
7 horizontal distance (from 6 to 5)
Figure C.1 — Angle of asymmetry

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
The RML formula needs to be calculated for the start-point of each task. If there is a definite precision
placement involved at the end then end-point calculations will possibly be necessary. In these cases,
the lower RML value (between the start and end points) should be used in the analysis and for the
computation of the LI (Annex D). If the item is thrown or dropped into place without undue stress on
the body in the extended position, then calculating the end-point value is not strictly necessary.
C.1.3.4 Asymmetry multiplier
To decide if an asymmetry multiplier < 1 should be assigned, observe the “primary” working position
of the worker both at the origin and the destination of the lift. If the mid-sagittal plane coincides with
the plane of asymmetry both at the origin and at the destination (the object is always in front of the
body in the primary position and the worker uses their feet to change the primary position from origin
to destination), then there is no asymmetry (αM = 1). If the worker cannot use their feet to change
the primary position (for lack of adequate space or for high frequencies), then consider the angle of
asymmetry both at origin and destination.
C.1.3.5 Frequency multiplier
The appropriate frequency multiplier, f M, is determined first by considering the continuous duration
of the repetitive lifting task and then considering the duration of the recovery period that immediately
follows the repetitive lifting task. The recovery period is defined as the duration of light physical work
following a period of continuous lifting. Examples of light work include activities such as sitting at a
desk, monitoring operations and light assembly work. Manual handling activities other than lifting (i.e.
whole body pushing and pulling) should not be considered as recovery periods.
The categories of continuous, repetitive lifting tasks, their durations and the required duration of the
recovery period that is to immediately follow the lifting task are provided in Table C.2.
It is critical to note that the combination of the work period and the recovery period shall be jointly
considered to be a work-recovery cycle, wherein the recovery period provides sufficient opportunity
for the worker to recover following a continuous period of lifting-related work. Accordingly, if two
successive work periods are separated by a recovery period of inadequate duration, then the worker
cannot adequately recover and the entire period (the two work periods plus the recovery period) shall
be treated as if it were a single, continuous work period. The impact of such circumstances is to make
the resultant work period substantially longer, resulting in the value for the frequency multiplier, f M,
being lowered.
The value of f M is then determined from Table C.3 The use of Table C.3 requires three components of
information:
— the frequency of lifting (number of lifts per minute);
— the duration, t L , of the continuous, repetitive lifting task (note that the determination of the
frequency multiplier is based on the three duration categories: <1 h, 1 h to 2 h and > 2 h);
— the vertical location, v, of the hands on the object to be lifted at the beginning of the lift.
C.1.3.6 Coupling multiplier
Coupling, or the quality of gripping (Table C.4), is defined as follows:

— Good: if the object can be grasped by wrapping the hand comfortably around the object or handles or
hand-hold cut-outs of the object, or the object itself, without significant deviations from the neutral
wrist posture. An optimal handle design has a diameter of 1,9 cm to 3,8 cm, a length of ≥ 11,5 cm, a
cylindrical shape and a smooth, non-slip surface[56].
— Fair: if the object has handles or cutouts that do not fulfil the criteria of good quality of gripping or
if the object itself can be grasped with a grip in which the hand can be flexed by about 90°.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
— Poor: if the criteria of good or fair quality of gripping are not fulfilled or the object is bulky, hard to
handle or has sharp edges.
Table C.2 — Continuous lifting tasks and their required recovery periods
Categories Duration, t Required recovery period
Short duration t≤1h 100 % of duration of the continuous, repetitive lifting task[51]
Medium duration 1h<t≤2h 30 % of duration of the continuous, repetitive lifting task
Long duration 2h<t≤8h No amount is specified; normal morning, afternoon and lunch
breaks are presumed
NOTE For respective frequency multipliers see Table C.3.
Table C.3 — Values of frequency multiplier, f M, of Formula (C.1)

Frequency of lifting Values of f M
Number of lifts per tL ≤ 1 h 1 h < tL ≤ 2 h 2 h < tL ≤ 8 h
minute v < 0,75 m v ≥ 0,75 m v < 0,75 m v ≥ 0,75 m v < 0,75 m v ≥ 0,75 m
≤ 0,2 1,00 1,00 0,95 0,95 0,85 0,85
0,5 0,97 0,97 0,92 0,92 0,81 0,81
1 0,94 0,94 0,88 0,88 0,75 0,75
2 0,91 0,91 0,84 0,84 0,65 0,65
3 0,88 0,88 0,79 0,79 0,55 0,55
4 0,84 0,84 0,72 0,72 0,45 0,45
5 0,80 0,80 0,60 0,60 0,35 0,35
6 0,75 0,75 0,50 0,50 0,27 0,27
7 0,70 0,70 0,42 0,42 0,22 0,22
8 0,60 0,60 0,35 0,35 0,18 0,18
9 0,52 0,52 0,30 0,30 0,00 0,15
10 0,45 0,45 0,26 0,26 0,00 0,13
11 0,41 0,41 0,00 0,23 0,00 0,00
12 0,37 0,37 0,00 0,21 0,00 0,00
13 0,00 0,34 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
14 0,00 0,31 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
15 0,00 0,28 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
> 15 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Table C.4 — Coupling multiplier (c M) for the quality of gripping

Values of cM
Quality of gripping
h < 0,75 m h ≥ 0,75 m
Good 1,00 1,00
Fair 0,95 1,00
Poor 0,90 0,90
C.1.4 Lifting one-handed

When the lifting is performed one-handed, add the one-hand multiplier (oM) to Formula (C.1) to
calculate the RML.
oM = 0,6[10],[14],[18],[28],[33],[36]

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
C.1.5 Lifting by two or three people

When the lifting action is performed by two or three people, the RML for each person should be derived
by using the true lifted mass, mA , dividing by two or three (according to the number of people lifting)
and adding the persons multiplier, pM, to Formula (C.1). Adding this multiplier allows the RML for each
person in a lifting team to be calculated.
pM = 0,85[10].
C.1.6 Handling for more than 8 h per shift

When manual handling activities are performed for more than 8 hours per shift, another multiplier, eM,
should be added to Formula (C.1) using the information provided in Table C.5.
Table C.5 — Extended time multiplier, eM, for manual handling tasks lasting more than 8 h per
shift[18],[43]
Hours (with MMH) in the shift ≤8 8 to 9 9 to 10 10 to 11 11 to 12
eM (extended time multiplier) 1 0,97 0,93 0,89 0,85
NOTE Only apply to RML calculation when the frequency is ≥ 0,2 lifts per minute and a long duration scenario is present
(from Table C.2).

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex D
(informative)
Lifting index
D.1 Calculating the lifting index and its derivatives

The LI is the ratio of the object mass (m) to the RML for a particular lifting condition [see Formula (D.1)].
It provides an indication of the level of exposure to overall physical demands for repetitive lifting
activities. It can be used to compare risks across different lifting tasks.
LI = m/RML (D.1)
If LI ≤ 1, it is an acceptable condition.
If LI > 1, assess the level of exposure and establish priorities (see Table D.1).
The above equation for the LI is derived to include three additional metrics: the composite lifting index
(CLI), the sequential lifting index (SLI) and the variable lifting index (VLI) (see Annex F for detailed
calculation methods).
D.2 Interpretation of the LI and its derivatives

The LI and its derivatives (CLI, SLI and VLI) indicate the level of exposure to overall physical demands
for repetitive lifting activities. Table D.1 provides information on exposure levels related to different
LI values, as well as their interpretation (based on current scientific literature) and some possible
recommended actions. See Annex I for a discussion on exposure and risk[61].
Depending on task specifics, the analyst can supplement the lifting analysis with additional analyses for
low back loading. This can be desirable where extreme postures or movements are used in the lifting
tasks, or for establishing metabolic demands of all of the tasks involved.
Table D.1 — Interpretation of LI (mA/RML) values

LI value Exposure Recommended actionsa
level/risk im-
plication
LI ≤ 1,0 Very low None in general for the healthy working
population.
1,0 < LI ≤ 1,5 Low In particular pay attention to low frequen-
cy/high load conditions and to extreme
or static postures. Include all factors in
redesigning tasks or workstations and
consider efforts to lower the LI values < 1,0.
1,5 < LI ≤ 2,0 Moderate Redesign tasks and workplaces according
to priorities to reduce the LI, followed by
analysis of results to confirm effectiveness.
2,0 < LI ≤ 3,0 High Changes to the task to reduce the LI are
a high priority.
a To be used in conjunction with considerations outlined in the Introduction and
Annex A regarding general use of ergonomics principles and approaches that should
be used at all workplaces.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table D.1 (continued)

LI value Exposure Recommended actionsa
level/risk im-
plication
LI > 3,0 Very high Changes to the task to reduce the LI are
needed immediately.
For any level of Identify any workers who have special needs or vulner-
risk or exposure abilities in lifting tasks and assign or design the work
accordingly. Training workers on safe manual handling
methods and recognizing material handling hazards is
beneficial. Limiting the weight to be lifted to less than the
reference mass may also be considered.
a To be used in conjunction with considerations outlined in the Introduction and
Annex A regarding general use of ergonomics principles and approaches that should
be used at all workplaces.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex E
(informative)
Simplified model for RML and LI calculation
E.1 Simplified model for calculating recommended mass limit and lifting index
The RML and LI can be calculated using a simplified approach (pen and paper) without manually
calculating the main multipliers with Formulae (C.1) to (C.5), but by deriving them from tables instead.
For this simplified risk evaluation, the procedure shown in Figure E.1 provides the quantitative
values for each influencing factor, next to the relative multiplier. When the numerical value does not
correspond to the one indicated in Figure E.1, use the closest number and corresponding multiplier.
Alternatively, find the closest interpolation. By applying the procedure in Figure E.1 to all the factors
(and multipliers) considered, it is possible to determine the RML for each job.
The next step is to enter the weight actually lifted (numerator) versus the RML (denominator) to obtain
the LI.
The LI is obtained by calculating the RML first [i.e. entering the appropriate reference mass (25 kg,
23 kg, 20 kg or 15 kg) and the various multipliers]. The actual weight of the object being lifted is then
divided by the RML, thereby showing the LI.
NOTE See Table C.5 for discount factors for working durations of over 8,0 h.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Figure E.1 — Simple model for the RML and LI evaluation in single lifting tasks

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex F
(informative)
Multi-task manual lifting
F.1 General aspects

Jobs which involve single-task lifting are different from multi-task lifting jobs. The task variables in
single-task lifting jobs do not vary significantly from task to task or from lift to lift, whereas in multi-
task lifting jobs they do.
Multi-task lifting jobs are more difficult to analyse than single task jobs, as each task needs to be analysed
separately and as a group. The method used to study tasks as a group shall avoid averaging out good
and bad task variables and other potential inaccuracies. There are additional analysis complications if
the multi-task job involves the lifting of a large variety of objects or if there is a sequential handling of
objects due to job rotation or other variations in work patterns.
The following criteria are to be used when defining task characteristics for the purpose of analysing
lifting tasks:
— Single (or mono) tasks are defined as tasks involving the lifting of only one kind of object (with
the same load) using always the same postures (body geometry) in the same layout at origin and
destination. In this case, or if only one lift is of interest, the traditional LI calculation can be used
(Annex D). Although this type of lifting task is not common, it is the basis for the calculations and
procedures used for more complicated and variable lifting or lowering tasks.
— Multiple composite tasks are defined as tasks involving lifting objects (generally of the same kind
and mass) and collecting and positioning them from or to various different heights, depths or both.
Object location is one of the variables considered in the analysis of a lifting task. Practically each
individual location of the object’s placement is a new task variant and is considered to be a subtask
in this type of analysis. In this case, the composite lifting index (CLI) calculation is applied[56]. No
more than 10 subtasks should be used in this calculation (Figure F.2). The variable lifting index
(VLI) is suggested for assessing jobs with more than 10 subtasks.
— Multiple variable tasks are defined as lifting tasks in which both the locations and load mass vary
in different lifts performed by the worker(s) within (or during) the same period of time (Figure F.3).
The VLI is suggested for assessing these complex types of lifting tasks[18],[55].
— A sequential task (Figure F.4, Table F.1) is defined as a job in which the worker rotates between two
or more mono tasks, composite tasks and/or variable tasks during a work shift (each task lasting
no less than 30 min consecutively). For these work scenarios, the sequential lifting index (SLI)
calculation can be used[18],[53].
Figure F.1 gives criteria for the use of the different approaches outlined here when analysing different
handling tasks.
NOTE The interpretation criteria for LI reported in Table D.1 are also valid for interpreting CLI, VLI and SLI
results.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Figure F.1 — Different types of lifting tasks and consequent computation approaches

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
a) Single task
b) Composite task
Key
x origin
y destination
Figure F.2 — Single and composite tasks

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Key
x origin
y destination
Figure F.3 — Variable task

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
a) Single task b) Composite task
c) Variable task
Key
x origin
y destination
Figure F.4 — Sequential task as a combination of a single, composite and variable task
Table F.1 — Sequential task: example of duration and distribution of tasks of Figure F.4 in a
480-min shift
Single Compos- Compos- Variable Variable Compos- Single
Break Lunch Break
task ite task ite task task task ite task task
45 min 75 min 10 min 45 min 65 min 65 min 125 min 10 min 60 min 45 min

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
F.2 Composite lifting tasks and CLI

Where composite lifting tasks are performed, i.e. tasks where the weights are the same but they are
moved to several different locations (e.g. height, depth) (Figure F.2) or where few different weights are
moved over a variety of heights, depths or both, every variant of location is defined as a subtask.
In such cases, it is recommended that the CLI[52] is calculated using Formula (F.1), which represents the
collective demand for that task or job. It is equal to the sum of the largest single (sub)task lifting index
(STLI) and the incremental increase in the CLI as each subsequent subtask is added. The incremental
increase in the CLI for a specific subtask is defined as the difference between the STLI of that subtask
at the cumulative frequency for all the subtasks and the STLI of the same subtask at its own actual
frequency.
CLI = LI1 + ∑ Δ LIn (F.1)
where
1 1
∑ ∆LIn = ( FILI2 X ( FM1,2 - FM1 ))
1 1
+ ( FILI 3 X ( - ))
FM1 ,2 ,3 FM1 ,2
1 1
+ ( FILI 4 X ( - ))
FM1 ,2 ,3 ,4 FM1 ,2 ,3
1 1
+ ( FILIn X ( - ))
FM1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,…,n FM1 ,2 ,3 ,,(n-1)
NOTE 1 The numbers in subscript refer to the new LI task in order of relevance.
NOTE 2 The FM values are determined from the frequency Table C.3.
Steps for the CLI calculation:

— Calculate the frequency-independent recommended mass limit (FIRML), i.e. the RML without
considering the frequency/duration multiplier, and the single task recommended mass limit
(STRML) for each subtask as in single task analysis.
— Calculate consequently the frequency-independent lift index (FILI) and single task lift index (STLI)
for each subtask.
— Renumber the subtasks in order of decreasing STLI values.
— Calculate the composite lifting index (CLI) for the overall lifting task or job.
Subtasks are defined in relation to variants of weight and geometries (e.g. vertical height, horizontal
distance). Consider a task where a worker removes objects of the same weight from three shelves
of different heights and places them on a conveyer belt of constant height. At each of the three
shelf heights, there are two different distances from the body. Therefore, there are six subtasks
(three heights × two horizontal distances) which are treated like six single tasks. Each single task shall
first be evaluated separately and then the CLI is estimated.
To accurately calculate the CLI, there shall not be more than 10 subtasks, since the overall frequency
has to be divided by the number of subtasks. If there are more than 10 subtasks, the final result can
be unreliable[47],[48]. In cases where the number of subtasks exceeds 10, it is recommended that the
simplified procedures of the variable lifting task are used to calculate the VLI.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
F.3 Variable lifting tasks and VLI

F.3.1 General
A variable task is defined as a lifting task in which both the geometry and load mass vary in different
lifts performed by the worker(s) during the same period of time[18],[55].
Examples of this category of task can include lifting in warehouse operations, baggage handling and
small lot material delivery in assembly line manufacturing operations.
The variables that increase the number of subtasks in composite or variable tasks can be large and lead
to long analysis times and errors. The original formula for composite lifting tasks discourages the use
of more than 10 variables (subtasks). Hence, simplifications are needed for allowing analysis of such
complex lifting tasks.
The concept for the VLI is similar to that of the composite lift index (CLI). However, in the VLI calculation,
individual lifting tasks (subtasks) are grouped together into defined frequency-independent lift index
(FILI) categories. These FILI categories are then treated as if they were individual lifts in the CLI
calculation. Although as many as nine FILI categories can be used, it is suggested that six categories be
used for ease of use.
F.3.2 Calculating VLI

The following general procedure for calculating VLI is suggested.
Whatever the number of potential individual lifting tasks in the job, compress them into a structure
that considers up to a maximum of 30 subtasks (and corresponding FILI and STLI) for different loads
(weight categories) and geometries using the following approach:
— Aggregate up to five object (weight) categories.
— Classify the vertical location into two categories (good; bad).
— Classify the horizontal location into up to three categories (near; medium; far).
— Assess the presence or absence of asymmetry for each weight category (by threshold value for all
the lifts in the category).
— Classify the daily duration of lifting as in Table C.2.
— Determine or estimate the frequency of lifts for each subtask and FILI. Determine the frequency
multipliers ( f M) as in Table C.3.
— Consider both vertical displacement (DM) and coupling (CM) as a constant.
In the end it is possible to calculate individual FILI and STLI for up to 30 subtasks.
The resulting FILIs are then fitted into six FILI categories.
The average values for each FILI category and the corresponding frequency of lifts in each category are
then used as input into the CLI to obtain the VLI for a variable lifting task. The procedure maintains the
original criteria reported in Annex C via simplifications in data collection.
F.3.3 Calculating CLI (for a composite task with more than 10 subtasks) and VLI for
variable tasks
The procedure is based on a systematic assessment of the job using existing job and task data (for
durations, weights, workstation design and overall and partial frequencies) or probability distribution
data (for geometries and sub partial frequencies). The assessment requires knowledge of the total
duration of the lifting tasks during the work shift, number and weight of the different objects lifted,

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
number of workers who do the lifting, total and partial frequency of lifts and the work/recovery pattern
for the job.
a) Identify the mass (from 3 kg up to maximum, by increments of 1 kg) and the number of objects
lifted in a shift. The recorded weight of the masses is aggregated into a maximum of five weight
categories by dividing the span of weight values (i.e. maximum value – minimum value) by five to
determine the minimum and maximum for each category. A representative average (by frequency)
mass is selected for each category.
From the data collected (e.g. number of workers involved in the task(s), net duration of lifting in the
shift, total number of objects lifted during a shift, number of objects within each mass category lifted
during a shift), one can determine the net manual handling duration, the overall lifting frequency (per
worker) and the lifting frequency per each mass category.
b) Simplify the geometry variables according to these criteria:
— Vertical location (height of hands at lifting origin or destination). This variable is reduced to 2 areas:
— ideal area (good): hands are between 51 cm and 125 cm vertical height. The vertical multiplier,
vM, is equal to 1;
— non-ideal areas (low or high): hands are at or below 50 cm or above 125 cm (up to 175 cm)
vertical height. The vertical multiplier, vM, is equal to 0,78.
In cases where the vertical height exceeds the maximum recommended vertical height (>175 cm),
the lift is considered unsafe.
— Horizontal location (maximum hand grasp point away from the body during lifting). The horizontal
distances are simplified into 3 areas:
— near: horizontal distance is within 25 cm to 40 cm. The representative horizontal multiplier, hM,
is equal to 0,71 (for a representative value of 35 cm);
— mid: horizontal distance is within 41 cm to 50 cm. The representative horizontal multiplier, hM,
is equal to 0,56 (for a representative value of 45 cm);
— far: horizontal distance is within 51 cm to 63 cm. The representative horizontal multiplier, hM,
is equal to 0,40 (for a representative value of 63 cm).
In cases where the horizontal distances exceed the maximum recommended value (>63 cm), the
lifts are considered unsafe (no calculation is possible).
— Asymmetry (angular displacement of loads off to the side of the body): asymmetry is considered
collectively for each weight category. An asymmetry multiplier, αM, of 0,81 is assigned to all the
subtasks in a weight category if asymmetry of 45° or more is observed for over 50 % of lifting
actions in that category. Otherwise, the asymmetry multiplier is set to 1.
— Vertical travel distance (vertical distance between the height of hands at origin and at destination):
the contribution of this factor has been considered as non-influent. The corresponding multiplier,
dM, has thus been taken as a constant, equal to 1. Even if the vertical distance multiplier, dM, is set
as a constant, the height of the hands at both the origin and destination of the lift should always be
measured and considered.
— Coupling (quality or type of grip): the contribution of this factor has also been defined as constant.
Experience has taught that ideal couplings are very rare, so the corresponding multiplier, cM, is
defined as a constant equal to 0,90.
By adopting these simplifications and procedures, it is possible to analyse a variable lifting task scenario
and produce up to (and no more than) 30 sets of FILI and STLI values, one for each of 30 different
subtasks (five weight categories × two vertical location × three horizontal areas × one asymmetry
condition) (Figure F.5).

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
For each of these subtasks, an individual frequency of lifting is calculated or estimated by a statistical
approach and the subsequent frequency multiplier, f M, is derived from Table C.3.
Figure F.5 — The result of the adopted simplifications: a maximum of 30 potential subtasks
c) Aggregate the resulting LI and calculate the final VLI (or CLI with more than 10 subtasks).
30 subtasks with corresponding FILI and STLI is still too many. For correctly applying the variable
task analysis, it is necessary to further reduce and group the number of subtasks to six LI categories
(each with a representative FILI and STLI value) and then to apply the traditional CLI formula.
To this end:
— the entire set of FILI values are assigned into six LI categories;
— the LI categories are defined by assigning the FILI values according to “sextiles” of the corresponding
FILI distribution (16,66th, 33,33th, 50th, 66,66th and 83,33th percentiles values);
— consequently, the cumulative frequency of lifting for each of those six LI categories is also determined;
— once the LI categories have been aggregated, a representative FILI and STLI value is chosen within
each category and the categories are reordered (mean value for categories 2 to 6; highest value for
the first category).
The final VLI can then be calculated using Formula (F.2), similar to the traditional CLI formula applied
to the six LI categories.
VLI = STLI1 + ∑∆LIn (F.2)

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
where
1 1
∑ ∆LI = ( FILI2 X ( FM1,2 - FM1 ))
1 1
+ ( FILI 3 X ( - ))
FM1 ,2 ,3 FM1 ,2
1 1
+ ( FILI 4 X ( - ))
FM1 ,2 ,3 ,4 FM1 ,2 ,3
1 1
+ ( FILI 5 X ( - ))
FM1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 FM1 ,2 ,3 ,4
1 1
+ ( FILI6 X ( - ))
FM1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5,6 FM1 ,2 ,3 ,4,5
The VLI calculation is very difficult to complete manually and is best completed using dedicated
software. Free downloadable software is available at various websites[59].
F.4 Sequential lifting tasks and SLI

When a job is characterized by several different lifting tasks (mono, composite, variable) in a shift,
and workers rotate between a series of single or multiple lifting task rotation slots during a work
shift, a clear multitask job is presented. In this case, the recommended method to assess the risk is
the sequential lifting task technique[18],[51]. The SLI allows the calculation of the final LI for multitask
jobs, considering the sequence of lifting tasks, the different intrinsic duration of each task and the total
duration of exposure to manual handling during the shift.
The main steps for obtaining the SLI are:
a) Step 1: define the tasks present in the shift and their time sequence.
b) Step 2: define the duration and time distribution of the lifting tasks present in the shift.
c) Step 3: for each lifting task, as per the procedures previously given for CLI and VLI calculation,
describe the number of objects lifted and geometry of the objects per shift.
d) Step 4: for each task, calculate the respective STLI by considering both intrinsic duration (LI intr)
and total duration (all lifting tasks) (LI max) scenarios.
e) Step 5: use Formula (F.3) to obtain the SLI.
The SLI calculation is:
SLI = LI1intr + (LI1max – LI1intr) × K (F.3)
where
LI1intr is the STLI of the most stressful task considering its continuous duration;
LI1max is the STLI of the most stressful task considering overall duration of all lifting tasks;
K = Σ ((LI1max × FT1)+(LI2max × FT2)+….+ (LInmax × FTn))/ LI1max;
FTj is the time (in min) in task j during the shift/480 min (i.e. 60 min × 8 h)
The SLI approach can be used for analysing lifting tasks that vary along periods longer than a day (a
week, a month or also a year). In such cases, the approach should be properly adjusted considering the

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
effective and proportional duration of each rotating task within the whole considered period as well as
the duration of tasks not involving manual handling activities.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex G
(informative)
Examples of manual handling of objects
G.1 Review of steps for lifting risk evaluation

After performing the quick assessment procedure (step 2), if the lifting task is found to require a
full evaluation (Step 3: 4.2.2.4), this should be performed as described in Table G.1, beginning with
collecting the fundamental data required to calculate the RML and the LI.
Table G.1 — Steps for risk evaluation of lifting

A Identification of types of lifting tasks Simple (or composite or variable or
sequential) task
B Description of the workers involved in lifting tasks Number, gender, age
C Organization analysis – shift schedule Evaluation of lifting duration
D Identification of the number of objects lifted in a shift Evaluation of lifting frequency
E Analysis of geometries at the origin and destination of the lifted objects Study of the layout risk factors
G.2 Example 1: A simple lifting task performed by one worker lifting with two
hands
A worker has to lift boxes weighing 10,5 kg each from a conveyor belt to a shelf. He or she lifts 1 200
boxes in a shift but continuous periods of lifting last no more than 60 min systematically followed by
almost 60 min of light work. Practically, he or she devotes 240 min in the shift to lifting.
Figure G.1 sets out the data concerning the organization and layout of the task required to calculate the
risk associated with the given task
Lifting is performed using both arms. There is no trunk twisting during the lifts (no asymmetry). The
boxes have no handles, so the coupling is poor and there is significant control when placing the boxes at
the destination.
Figure G.1 shows two different distances from the body (horizontal locations): one at the origin (35 cm)
and the other at the destination (40 cm) of the lift. There are also two different heights of the hands
from the floor (vertical locations): one at the origin (100 cm) and the other at the destination (140 cm)
of the lift.
In general, but especially when there is significant control at the destination, the original RNLE (revised
NIOSH lifting equation) method proposes calculating an LI both at the origin and at the destination, with
the risk being represented by the worst of the two. In this example the worst condition is at destination.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Man- Man- Man- Man-

Other Other P u s h Other Other P u s h Other Other P u s h Other Other
u a l u a l u a l u a l
task or task or pulling task or task or pulling task or task or pulling task or task or
lifting lifting lifting lifting
breaks breaks task breaks breaks task breaks breaks task breaks breaks
task task task task
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Short duration
Shift duration: min. 480

MMH duration (including transport): min. 240
Total number of lifted objects 1 200
Lifting frequency: actions per min. 5
Key
x origin
y destination
Figure G.1 — Example 1: Data concerning the organization and layout required to calculate the
LI in a simple task
According to data in Figure G.1, one can derive the multipliers from tables or calculate them using
Formulae (C.1) to (C.5).
In this example, the reference mass was set to 25 kg.
By applying the simplified procedure in Annex E, the model in Figure G.2 can be used for the worst
condition at destination. The resulting LI is 1,23.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Figure G.2 — Example 1 — Calculation of RML and LI by a simplified procedure at destination of

the lift
Otherwise, always considering destination, the RML can be calculated with Formula (C.1) with:
mref = 25

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
hM = 0,25/0,40 = 0,625
vM = 1 − 0,3 × (0,75 − 1,40) = 0,805
dM = 0,82 + (0,045/0,40) = 0,932 5
αM = 1 − 0,003 2 × 0 = 1
f M = 0,8 (from table)
cM = 0,9 (from table)
It gives: RML = 25 × 0,625 × 0,805 × 0,932 5 × 1 × 0,80 × 0,9 = 8,44.

Since the mass actually lifted is 10,5 kg, the resulting LI can be calculated using Formula (D.1).
It gives: LI = 10,5/8,44 = 1,24.
The mass actually lifted is higher than the corresponding recommended mass and the resulting LI is
calculated to be 1,24. Based on Table D.1, this corresponds to a low level of exposure.
G.3 Example 2: Analysis of a variable lifting task

In a metal-working plant, workers load and unload plastic containers of in-process materials to and from
assembly lines for processing. The task is organized in cycles. During each cycle, the worker handles
various containers in different body postures due to different heights (of the hands) at the origin and
destination and different horizontal distances. The shift lasts 480 min (from 8 am to 5 pm). Work starts
at 08:00. There is a 10-min break at 10:00. Lunchtime is at 12:10 (it lasts 60 min, out of official working
time). In the afternoon, the activity is the same as in the morning with a 10-min break at 03:10 and the
last 40 min are devoted to light work (no manual handling). Hence, the total manual handling duration
during the shift is 420 net minutes.
Table G.2 shows the sequence of lifting tasks, breaks and light work during the shift.
Table G.2 — Sequence and duration of lifting tasks, light work and breaks for the case study in
an 8 h shift
Other Other Other Other
Lifting light Lifting light Lifting light Lifting light
task task or task task or task task or task task or
break break break break
Minutes 120 10 120 60 120 10 60 40
Start: End:
Shift starts/ends at
08:00 17:00
Notes Break Lunch Break
0 8 : 0 0 – 10:00 – 10 :10 – 12:10 – 13:10 – 15:10 – 1 5 : 2 0 – 16:20 –
Time in the shift
10:00 10:10 12:10 13:10 15:10 15:20 16:20 17:00
The containers have three different weights (6 kg, 8 kg and 13 kg.); the respective number of pieces
lifted during the shift is shown in Table G.3.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table G.3 — Type of weights and number of cartons lifted by the worker during an 8 h shift and
consequent lifting frequency per type of weight
No. of containers Weight Frequency of lifts per minute
494 6 kg 1,18
1 235 8 kg 2,94
123 13 kg 0,29
1 852 All containers 4,41
Since 1 852 containers are lifted during a 420-min period, the overall lifting frequency is 4,41 lifts per
minute. The partial lifting frequencies for each type (weight) of container are as follows: 1,18 lifts per
minute for 6 kg containers, 2,94 lifts per minute for 8 kg containers and 0,29 lifts per minute for 13 kg
containers.
The duration for the job is categorized as long duration (continuous period of manual handling of
120 min + a break of only 10 minutes + 120 min of manual handling).
The lifting activities are performed at different heights (of the hands) at the origin and destination and
different horizontal distances. There is minimal lift asymmetry for all lifts (i.e. all objects are lifted in
front of the body resulting in an asymmetry multiplier of 1,0), and the hand-to-object coupling is poor
for all lifts (the coupling multiplier is 0,9). A significant control is present for almost all lifting actions.
Data regarding the geometry characteristics at the origin and destination of the lifts, by weight
category, is shown in Table G.4.
Table G.4 — Data regarding load and geometry characteristics

Load characteristics Origin Destination Number of
Vertical height Horizontal Vertical height Horizontal potential sub-
Number Weight tasks derived
above floor distance above floor distance
8 levels from 35 cm, 45 cm,
494 6 kg 80 cm 30 cm 24
14 cm to 84 cm 55 cm
4 levels from 8 levels from 35 cm, 45 cm,
1 235 8 kg 30 cm 96
80 cm to 110 cm 14 cm to 84 cm 55 cm
2 levels, at 30 cm
123 13 kg 35 cm 80 cm 30 cm 2
and 50 cm
In this scenario, it is not possible to use the traditional multitask CLI approach since there would be up
to 50 different individual FILI values (or about 122 if one considers both origin and destination). Also,
the mean frequency of each type of lift would be very low (about 0,030 to 0,036 lifts per minute).
Since the traditional CLI approach cannot work, the proposed VLI approach (see F.3), using weight and
geometries simplifications, should be used to assess the task.
The reference mass for this example was set to 23 kg.
In the presented example we have only three weight categories (6 kg, 8 kg and 13 kg). Each of them can
have two simplified variants for height of hands (good; bad) at the origin or destination. In turn, each
of them can have one, two or three simplified variants for horizontal distance (near; mid; far). Since
different horizontal distances per weight category are clearly identified at origin and at destination,
this results in a total of 14 individual subtasks, as shown in Table G.5. Table G.5 also displays the
corresponding weights, geometries, partial frequency and frequency multipliers, FILI and STLI values
for each of the 14 identified subtasks.
For determining partial frequencies of individual subtasks, a special procedure has been adopted
that takes into account, for each weight category, how many times the height of hands starts or ends
respectively in a good or bad area, considering small height intervals of 10 cm and then considering
how many times each height of hands (good; bad) at the origin or destination corresponds to different
variants for horizontal distance (near; mid; far) at both origin and destination.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
The resulting frequencies of lifts for the various combinations of vertical height and horizontal reaches
(14 in this example) are reported in Table G.5.
Since 14 subtasks is still too many to use in the CLI formula, it is advisable to use the VLI concept and
approach.
To apply the VLI approach, subtasks and corresponding data (FILI, frequencies and STLI) are distributed
into six LI categories. These six categories are determined according to the distribution of the
individual FILI values (in this case 14 values) using preferentially the sextile distributions as key points
for grouping (in other terms, the values corresponding to the 16,6th, 33,3rd, 50th, 66,6th, and 83,3rd
percentile of the resulting FILI distribution). As a simpler alternative, six key points can be obtained
by dividing the range of FILI values (i.e. maximum FILI − minimum FILI) divided by six. However, this
simpler option has some disadvantages (i.e. some LI categories can be empty, the distribution of FILI
values can be not well represented).
In any case, the original frequencies of individual subtasks (14 in this case) are grouped into the six LI
categories. Single (category) LI values can consequently be calculated and used for reordering (from
highest to lowest) within the six LI categories.
Within each resulting LI category, a representative FILI value is chosen. In category 1 (the highest LI
category), the representative value chosen shall be the highest FILI in that category. The representative
values in each of the other five LI categories are the average FILI values. This ensures that the worst-
case (least-safe) scenario is included in the analysis.
Tables G.6 and G.7 display details of this procedure according to the previous example.

Table G.5 — Data regarding the 14 resulting subtasks (and corresponding FILI and STLI) by applying the simplifications and the frequency
48
estimation procedures
Fre-
Type of
quen-
Vertical height classifi- Vertical dislocation Horizontal distance clas- grasp Duration scenario
Asimmetry FIRML FILI cy STLI
and FM
Subtask Weight (kg)
cation and vM (dM = 1, constant) sification and hM (cM = 0,9,
(round-
constant)
ed)
1 6 L/H 0,78 G 1,00 N 0,71 A 1,00 P 0,90 11,5 0,523 0,17 LD 0,850 0,62
ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
2 6 L/H 0,78 G 1,00 M 0,56 A 1,00 P 0,90 9,0 0,664 0,17 LD 0,850 0,78
3 6 L/H 0,78 G 1,00 F 0,40 A 1,00 P 0,90 6,5 0,929 0,17 LD 0,850 1,09
4 6 G 1,00 G 1,00 N 0,71 A 1,00 P 0,90 14,7 0,408 0,33 LD 0,833 0,49
5 6 G 1,00 G 1,00 M 0,56 A 1,00 P 0,90 11,6 0,518 0,16 LD 0,850 0,61
6 6 G 1,00 G 1,00 F 0,40 A 1,00 P 0,90 9,3 0,725 0,16 LD 0,850 0,85
7 8 L/H 0,78 G 1,00 N 0,71 A 1,00 P 0,90 11,5 0,698 0,33 LD 0,833 0,84
8 8 L/H 0,78 G 1,00 M 0,56 A 1,00 P 0,90 9,0 0,885 0,33 LD 0,833 1,06
8 8 L/H 0,78 G 1,00 F 0,40 A 1,00 P 0,90 6,5 1,239 0,33 LD 0,833 1,49
10 8 G 1,00 G 1,00 N 0,71 A 1,00 P 0,90 14,7 0,544 0,98 LD 0,752 0,72

Key
11 8 G 1,00 G 1,00 M 0,56 A 1,00 P 0,90 11,6 0,690 0,49 LD 0,811 0,85
A absent
CM coupling multiplier
DM distance multiplier
F far
FILI frequency independent lift index
FIRML frequency independent recommended mass limit
FM frequency multiplier
G good
HM horizontal multiplier
LD long duration
L/H low or high
M medium
N near
P poor
STLI single task lifting index
© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

VM vertical multiplier

Table G.5 (continued)
Fre-
Type of
quen-
Vertical height classifi- Vertical dislocation Horizontal distance clas- grasp Duration scenario
Asimmetry FIRML FILI cy STLI
and FM
Subtask Weight (kg)
cation and vM (dM = 1, constant) sification and hM (cM = 0,9,
(round-
constant)
ed)
12 8 G 1,00 G 1,00 F 0,40 A 1,00 P 0,90 8,3 0,966 0,49 LD 0,811 1,19
13 13 L/H 0,78 G 1,00 N 0,71 A 1,00 P 0,90 11,5 1,134 0,20 LD 0,850 1,33
Key

14 13 G 1,00 G 1,00 N 0,71 A 1,00 P 0,90 14,7 0,885 0,10 LD 0,850 1,04
A absent
CM coupling multiplier
DM distance multiplier
F far
FIRML frequency independent recommended mass limit

G good
HM horizontal multiplier
LD long duration
L/H low or high
M medium
N near
P poor
VM vertical multiplier
49
ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table G.6 — Identification of key points by the sextile approach using the FILI data distribution
from Table G.5
First key Second key Third key Fourth key Fifth key Sixth key
point point point point point point
16,66th per- 33,33th per- 50th percen- 66,66th per- 83,33th per- Maximum
centile centile tile or median centile centile value
(FILImax)
Key value 0,527 0,672 0,711 0,885 0,960
1,239
LI category
0,408 to 0,526 0,527 to 0,671 0,672 to 0,710 0,711 to 0,884 0,855 to 0,959 0,960 to 1,239
range
Key
LI lifting index
Table G.7 — Relevant values for each FILI category using the key points from Table G.6 and the
consequent cumulated frequencies derived from Table G.5
FILI cate- FILI cate-
FILI category FILI category
FILI category gory gory FILI category
Category data (16,66th– (33,33th-
(<16,66th) (50th– (66,66th- (>83,33th)
33,33th) 50th)
66,66th) 83,33th)
Range of FILI 0,711 to 0,855 to
0,408 to 0,526 0,527 to 0,671 0,672 to 0,710 0,960 to 1,239
values 0,884 0,959
Representative
category FILI 0,483 0,604 0,694 0,805 0,907 1,239
value
Number of
subtask in each 3 2 2 2 2 3
category
Cumulative fre-
quency (lifts per
0,66 1,15 0,82 0,26 0,50 1,02
minute) within
the category
FM values
0,791 0,735 0,772 0,842 0,810 0,748
(long duration)
STLI (category)
0,611 0,822 0,899 0,956 1,12 1,656
value
Order by STLI
6 5 4 3 2 1
value
Key
Using these data, organized in six FILI categories, it is possible to calculate the VLI by means of the
traditional CLI formula.
Based on the data presented for this example, the relevant data for calculating the VLI [with
Formula (F.2)] are reported in Table G.8.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table G.8 — Relevant data for calculating final VLI derived from Table G.7
Connotation of Cumulative
Partial value
cumulative fre- frequencies of Corresponding FM
[(1/FMJ) – (1/ FILI STLI1 and ∆FILIJ
quencies by STLI categories (lifts (long duration)
FMJ-1)]
order per minute)
FM1 1,02 0,748 1,239 1,656
FM1,2 1,52 0,698 0,096 0,907 0,087
FM1,2,3 1,78 0,672 0,055 0,805 0,045
FM1,2,3,4 2,60 0,590 0,207 0,694 0,144
FM1,2,3,4,5 3,75 0,475 0,410 0,604 0,248
FM1,2,3,4,6 4,41 0,409 0,340 0,483 0,164
Key
VLI variable lifting index
Using data reported in Table G.8, the VLI for this job can be calculated with Formula (G.1):
VLI = STLI1 + ∑ ∆ LI (G.1)
STLI1 = 1,656
∆FILI2 = 0,907 × [(1/0,698) − (1/0,748)]) = 0,907 × (0,096) = 0,087
∆FILI3 = 0,805 × [(1/0,672) − (1/0,698)] = 0,805 × (0,055) = 0,045
∆FILI4 = 0,694 × [ (1/0,590) − (1/0,672)] = 0,694 × (0,207) = 0,144
∆FILI5 = 0,604 × [(1/0,475) − (1/0,590)] = 0,604 × (0,410) = 0,248
∆FILI6 = 0,483 × [(1/0,409) − (1/0,475)] = 0,483 × (0,340) = 0,164
VLI = STLI1 + ∆FILI2 + ∆FILI3 + ∆FILI4+ ∆FILI5 + ∆FILI6
VLI = 1,656 + 0,087 + 0,045 + 0,144 + 0,248 + 0,164 = 2,34
The final VLI value for the present example is 2,34 (considering a reference mass of 23 kg.).
The exposure level is considered as high.
NOTE The VLI calculation is very difficult to complete manually and is best completed using dedicated
software. Free downloadable software is available at various websites[59].

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex H
(informative)
Carrying
H.1 Reference conditions for carrying limits

The recommended limits for cumulative mass per day and cumulative mass related to distance (steps 4
and 5 in Figure 1 and 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2) assume reference conditions.
Reference conditions include the following:
— smooth, non-slippery walking surface in good repair;
— no stair steps or climbing;
— good coupling with the load;
— no obstructions to movement;
— good environmental conditions (temperature, humidity in moderate range);
— no obstructions to vision.
Worker safety should not be compromised. Acute hazards, such as trip or fall hazards, shall be
eliminated or controlled.
H.2 Correction ratios and multipliers for carrying conditions other than
reference conditions
When carrying tasks are performed in conditions other than reference conditions, the threshold values
supplied in Table 5 shall be reduced. Correction ratios and multipliers have been established for the
influencing factors below that are beyond the reference conditions. These make it possible to adjust the
threshold values supplied in Table 5 to non-reference conditions. These correction ratios are presented
as multipliers.
— Where there is more than one influencing factor, only the two most unfavourable multipliers (lowest
values) shall be used.
— Where carrying is performed with only one hand, the recommended limits for cumulative mass in
Table 5 shall first be multiplied by 0,6, and then two of the most unfavourable multipliers (lowest
numbers) shall be applied.
Regarding the carrying durations and the load limits in Table 5, the kg per time interval represents
the total amount of mass carried within that duration regardless of the number of trips. The amount of
mass carried per trip and the number of trips can vary. Given that, in most cases, a carry also involves a
lift, the lifted mass is subject to lifting or lowering assessment.
Consider the average or modal carrying distance and apply the multipliers in Table H.1 accordingly.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table H.1 — Carrying distance correction ratios or multipliers

Carrying distance CR or multiplier
1 m to 2 m 1
> 2 m to 5 m 0,8
> 5 m to 10 m 0,6
> 10 m to 20 m 0,2
Carrying distances > 20 m are considered to be unacceptable.

When carrying at low or high levels the recommended limits for cumulative mass for carrying in Table 5
shall be reduced according to Table H.2.
Table H.2 — Correction ratios or multipliers for the height at which the carrying (not lifting or
lowering) effort is applied (handhold height)
Vertical hand position during carrying CR or multiplier
Conditions with hand position: > 75 cm to 110 cm 1
Conditions with hand position: 0,8a
40 cm to 75 cm or > 110 cm to 140 cm
Exceptional conditions > 140 cm to < 40 cm 0,4a
a Does not apply to shoulder carries where the weight of the load is borne by the shoulder and not by the hands.
Pick-up, set-down or carrying with hands below 40 cm or beyond 175 cm is considered to be

unacceptable.
The conditions considered to be risk-generating are: an object without hand-grips or with unsuitable
hand-grips, twisting the trunk, having to reach in > 0,40 m (horizontally), or out of the reach span, one
or more postural or body position constraints, unstable object, visibility hindered by the object (see
Table H.3).
Table H.3 — Correction ratios or multipliers for conditions in which the tasks are performed
Conditions in which the tasks are performed CR or multiplier
No risk-generating factor 1
One risk-generating factor 0,8
Two or more risk-generating factors 0,7
The following additional risk factors should also be considered in the general assessment of the task:
— ambient noise, noisy conditions;
— poor atmospheric conditions such as dust, fumes or smoke in the air;
— poor or damaged walking surfaces;
— physical obstacles in the carry path;
— limited head room;
— limited or constrained manoeuvre room;
— strict task pacing;
— multiple tasks being performed;
— quality requirements.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
The information presented in this annex has been drawn from studies presented in the French standard
NF X35-109 and from German studies on carrying[11],[28],[36],[38].
H.3 Example — Carrying a part from a machine to a shipping container

The operation is performed once a minute using two hands where there are two good handles, 7 h per
day and the activity conditions are as follows:
— the part weighs 12 kg;
— machine-to-container distance is 10 m;
— the operative picks and carries the part up at a height of 1,15 m;
— the part is set down at an off-ground height of 0,45 m;
— the horizontal reach-in to set-down is 0,60 m.
In order to use Table 5, the kg per duration shall be calculated. Given that the mass is 12 kg, the work
time duration is 7 h per day and the operation is performed once per minute, the cumulative mass is:
12 kg × 1/min × 60 min/h × 7 h = 5 040 kg/7 h
Consider the correction multipliers from the tables above:
— carry distance is 10 m, from Table H.1 the correction multiplier is 0,6;
— carry height is 1,15 m, from Table H.2 the correction multiplier is 0,8;
— the reach-in or horizontal reach for the set down is 0,6 m, from Table H.3 the correction multiplier
is 0,8.
Among the multipliers, the two most severe multipliers are 0,6 and 0,8. Therefore, these two numbers
are used for calculation of the recommended limit for cumulative mass. The acceptable cumulative
mass for 7 h (from Table 5) is 6 000 kg. The resulting recommended cumulative mass for 7 h and with
the given conditions is:
6 000 kg × 0,6 × 0,8 = 2 880 kg
The task of carrying a total of 5 040 kg/7 h is not recommended since 2 880 kg is the maximum
cumulative mass acceptable in this condition. A number of job changes can eliminate the need for the
correction multipliers, such as reducing the carry distance to less than 2 m, changing the carry height
and reducing the horizontal reach-in distance. This can bring the acceptable weight to handle closer to
the actual weight being carried. However, there is a need to reconsider the job and task organization as
suggested in Annex A to reduce the weight to within an acceptable limit.
Consider the same carrying condition but with a reduced duration (e.g. a carry of 12 kg where the carry
is performed for 4 h).
In this example, the cumulative mass is:
12 kg × 1/min × 60 min/h × 4 h = 2 880 kg
This is below the limit of 5 000 kg/4 h in Table 5. With the multipliers added, the actual recommended
limit is: 5 000 kg × 0,6 × 0,8 kg = 2 400 kg.
The actual accumulated weight is only 480 kg greater than the recommended accumulated carrying
under these conditions. Modifications to the task itself (in order to reduce the conditions that can
increase risk of injury) eliminate or reduce the multipliers and change the weight recommendations for
the new conditions.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Annex I
(informative)
Exposure and risk: the basis for Table D.1
I.1 Exposure versus risk: the difference

The term exposure is defined as the extent to which a person is subject to a change or to specific
circumstances (e.g. task conditions including frequency, force, heights or depths reached, duration). The
amount of that exposure can be expressed in quantitative terms and can refer to the extent to which a
person is subjected to a hazard (potential source of harm) or combination of hazards. In this document,
exposure is referred to as the amount of the combined effect of all job-related physical lifting and
carrying hazards (i.e. all the variables used in the lifting formulae which can present a risk of harm).
Risk is defined as the combination of the probability of occurrence of harm (e.g. likelihood of having
an adverse health outcome such as back pain) and the severity of that harm. The probability can
vary depending on many personal factors. In this document, age and sex are included as overall risk
variables for a working population. Other individual factors that can affect the risk are not included,
such as obesity, prior history of back pain, depression and other psychosocial variables.
As a result of the many different individual factors among people, the same exposure to a hazard (e.g.
lifting) for different people does not necessarily present the same degree of risk. The exposure can
result in different responses among workers due to many personal factors. The exposure and risk
information in Table D.1 is based on the general working population accounting for most personal risk
factors.
In this document, the LI variables (LI, CLI, VLI and SLI) are considered to be indicators of the level of
exposure to the hazards which are associated with the physical demands of lifting jobs.
I.2 Summary of research on the relationship between LI and low back pain
(LBP) risk
I.2.1 Studies on generic LBP
A number of epidemiological studies (Table I.1) have been conducted to investigate the level and
strength of the association between LI values and adverse health effects, primarily low-back-pain-
related health outcomes in various working populations. In this subclause, some brief remarks on the
main results of these studies are synthesized to suggest to what extent the LI can be considered for
prevention of various LBP health outcomes.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table I.1 — Epidemiological studies investigating the relationship between various types of LI
and LBP outcomes (in reverse chronological order)
Study Sample Age Study design Industry LI/CLI/ % reporting Main finding
size sector VLI values LBP/symptoms
Battevi, 3 402 Mean = 43,5 Cross-section- Manufacturing, VLI N/A VLI shows an
Pandolfi, al pharmaceuti- exposure-re-
Cortinovis cal and food sponse rela-
(2016) tionship when
VLI is greater
than 1,0
Pandalai, 138 18 to 64 Prospective Manufacturing Bayes 15 % reported A risk of LBP
Wheeler, factors for LBP during one- associated
Lu (2016) max and year follow-up with CLI
min CLIs values > 1,5
exists in the
study sample.
Garg et al. 258 19 to 65 Prospective Manufacturing Mean 48 % had Peak LI and
(2014) and WRTa peak task self-reported CLI are useful
CLI = 2,8 LBP during 4,5- metrics for
year follow-up estimating
risk of self-re-
ported LBP
Garg et al. 258 19 to 65 Prospective Manufacturing Mean 9 % reported Peak LI and
(2014) and WRTa peak task seeking care for CLI are useful
CLI = 2,8 LBP during 4,5- metrics for
year follow-up estimating
risk of sick-
ness absence
due to LBP
Kapel- 258 19 to 65 Prospective Manufacturing Mean 14 % reported Peak LI and
lusch et al. and WRTa peak task use of medi- CLI are useful
(2014) CLI = 2,8 cation for LBP metrics for
during 4,5-year estimating
follow-up medication
use for LBP
Lu, Waters, 78 Mean = 40 Prospective Manufacturing Mean 32 % reported The CLI > 2,0
Krieg and CLI = 1,5 LBP during one- can be useful
Werren year follow-up for predicting
(2014) LBP
Waters, Lu, 677 Mean = 36 Cross-section- Manufacturing 0 to 9,37 20 % Within a
Piacitelli, (19 to 68) al range of LI
Wer- from 1,0 to
ren and 3,0, there is
Deddens an expo-
(2011) sure-response
relationship
between the
LI values and
LBP
Key
— Categorical LI data were used
N/A Not available
a The number is for jobs not persons.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table I.1 (continued)

Study Sample Age Study design Industry LI/CLI/ % reporting Main finding
size sector VLI values LBP/symptoms
Kucera, 105 Mean = 46 Prospective Fishing Range 0 to 61 % The LI > 3,0
Loomis, 5,4 is associated
Lipscomb, with LBP
Marshall,
Mirka and
Daniels
(2009)
Xiao, 69 Mean = 41 Cross-section- Manufacturing 1,9 to 2,4 64 % Lifting re-
Dempsey, al (median petitiveness
Lei, Ma value) and work age
and Liang contributed
(2004) to the occur-
rence of LBP
Yeung, 217 Mean = 39 Cross- Section- WRTa N/A N/A Workers’ per-
Genaidy, al ceived effort
Deddens is significant-
and Leung ly associated
(2003) with RNLE
task varia-
bles and MSD
symptoms
Marras, 353a N/A Cross-section- Manufacturing — N/A RNLE identi-
Fine, al fies high risk
Ferguson jobs well but
and Waters not low risk
(1999) jobs
Schneider, 19 21 to 46 Cross-section- Manufacturing Range 3,9 47 % High preva-
Grant, al to 8,2 lence of back
Habes and pain is related
Bertsche to high LI
(1997) values
Sesek, 182a N/A Retrospective Manufacturing — N/A OR for back
Gilkey, injury were
Drinkaus, found to be
Bloswick 2,1 and 4,0 for
and Herron LI values and
(2003) 1,0 and 3,0
respectively
Wang, 97 17 to 62 Retrospective Eight industry — 90 % The LI is
Garg, sectors a reliable
Chang, measure for
Shih, Yeh assessing
and Lee discomfort
(1998) rating due to
LBP
Waters et 308 Mean = 46 Cross-section- Manufacturing — 30 % OR for
al. (1999) al LBP 2,45 for
2 < LI < 3
Key
— Categorical LI data were used
N/A Not available
a The number is for jobs not persons.
In the early published studies on the validity of the NIOSH 1991 equation, Waters et al.[52],[56] found
that the increase in risk of reported low back injury was statistically significant with LIs greater than

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
2,0. The study[56] was conducted at an automotive manufacturing plant. Subsequent and expanded
published research utilizing larger worker samples across various industries have used LI and CLI as the
only exposure metric and have largely supported the earlier findings of an increase in low back injury
for LIs or CLIs over 2,0[40],[54]. The study[54] showed that on the basis of prevalence proportion ratios (a
way to take account of the various confounding factors in a cross-sectional study) for the categories of
LI ranges, the risk of low back injury in the LI or CLI ranges of 0 to 1 and 1 to 2 were virtually identical.
This can be indicative that there is very little difference in the risk associated with an LI or CLI between
0,0 and 2,0 for a variety of lifting tasks.
While the risks associated with the range of LI and CLI have not been unequivocal, a number of studies
have identified usable risk “thresholds” for the interpretation of the LI and CLI. In a study looking
at the incidence of work-related LBP as related to the LI and CLI of jobs for 750 material handling
workers[15], Boda et al. concluded that the LI/CLI design ideal of 1,0 would need to be increased by at
least 20 % to reflect the design intent of the original NIOSH publication[57]. In the most comprehensive
comparison to date[44], Potvin compared the NIOSH recommended weight limit (RWL, also RML) in
216 lift conditions to the specific biomechanical, physiological and psychophysical criteria used in the
development of the NIOSH equation. Potvin found that the RWL (RML) was found to be much more
conservative than expected with the average RWL (RML) actually being acceptable to more than 95 %
of the female population across a range of moderate lift frequency. This finding was consistent with
earlier research. Potvin concluded that, on average, the RWL (RML) would have to be multiplied by
1,68 (a 68 % increase) in order to produce a value that reflects the biomechanical, physiological and
psychophysical design criteria overall defined by the original NIOSH publication[57]. Taken together,
this suggests that a usable risk threshold between low and intermediate or high risk of LBP would fall
somewhere intermediate between CLI of 1,0 and 2,0. Pandalai et al., in a study[43] using prospective
data from 138 manufacturing workers and analysing CLI using a Bayesian random threshold approach
to estimate the probability of an increase in LBP as a threshold step function, found that a CLI of > 1,5
was associated with the risk of LBP.
I.2.2 2016 Italian study on CLI/VLI and acute low back pain (LBP) outcomes
In a large study performed in Italy by Battevi et al.[14], the health effect variable considered was acute
LBP episodes occurred in the previous 12 months. The variable was defined as presence of lumbar
pain with or without irradiation, obliging the patient to remain immobile for at least 2 days, or 1 day if
medication was taken. These types of episodes involved sick leave from work and served to differentiate
chronic LBP from acute LBP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the LI (mainly VLI) in
predicting the risk of one or more acute LBP episodes in the past 12 months.
A sample of 3 402 study participants from 16 companies in different industrial sectors was analysed.
Of the participants, 2 374 were in the risk exposure group involving manual materials handling (MMH)
and 1 028 were in the reference group without MMH. The LI was calculated for each participant in the
exposure group. Occupational physicians at the study sites collected LBP information. In particular, a
subject was assessed as positive if she or he reported at least one episode of acute LBP in the last year
(12 months).
The risk of acute LBP was estimated by calculating the odds ratio (OR) between levels of the risk
exposure and the reference group using a logistic regression analysis. Both crude and adjusted ORs for
body mass index, gender and age were analysed.
Both crude and adjusted ORs showed a dose-response relationship. As the levels of LI increased, the
risk of acute LBP increased. This risk relationship existed when LI was greater than 1. In particular,
when considering adjusted ORs and using LI computed starting from a reference mass of 23 kg, the
results obtained are summarized in Table I.2 and Figure I.1.

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Table I.2 — Association between LI (using a reference mass of 23 kg) and occurrence of acute
low-back pain in the previous year; mean odds ratio, upper and lower 95 % confidence limits,
adjusted for body mass index, gender and age
LI class Mean OR OR lower 95 % CL OR upper 95 % CL
LI = 0 1 = =
0 < LI ≤ 1 1,58 0,85 2,93
1 < LI ≤ 2 1,76 1,03 3,01
2 < LI ≤ 3 2,99 1,85 4,84
LI > 3 2,23 1,19 4,17
Key
mean
lower CL
upper CL
odds ratio trend
X LI range
Y odds ratio
Figure I.1 — Adjusted OR: LI vs acute LBP
These results and data show that, for a LI greater than 1 and up to 2, a mean OR of 1,76 exists and that
the corresponding lower CL (at 95 %) is slightly greater than 1, which stays for a significant difference
in the occurrence of acute LBP with respect to non-exposed. The OR is higher in the exposed to LI
between 2 and 3. When LI values exceed 3, the OR has a little decline with respect to the 2 > LI ≥ 3 class
(probably for a healthy worker effect) but is still high and significant considering the reference group.
These results confirm that, considering the health effect acute LBP, a LI of 1 is a good discriminatory
point between a still acceptable and a risky condition across all frequencies of lifting. However, when
just looking at frequencies of lift that are > 0,1 (greater than one lift per 10 min, the definition in this
document of repetitive lifting), the ORs for the LI is between 0 and 1 and between 1 and 2 show very
little difference and support a discriminating point between LI = 1 and LI = 2, such as 1,5.
I.2.3 Summary of German studies on spinal loading and lumbar disc-related injury
In a large two-step investigation performed in Germany, the so-called German Spine Study EPILIFT
and EPILIFT2[16],[46], the health effects considered were lumbar-disc herniation (prolapse) and lumbar-
disc space narrowing (chondrosis), accompanied by functional deficits, i.e. sensitive and/or motor radix

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
syndrome or local syndrome. The dose-response relation between occupational lifetime lumbar-spine
exposure to manual materials handling, intensive-load postures or both, on the one hand[31], and disc-
related degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, on the other, was analysed in a population-based
multi-centre case-control study on 915 case subjects with lumbar diseases and 901 control subjects.
Adjusted, gender-stratified odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals were determined applying
unconditional logistic regression analysis.
To address the problem of assessing an occupational-life risk induced by a wide variety of postures
and manual handling tasks (i.e. object mass, exerted force, action frequency and duration), each
potential overloading action was considered (≥5 kg object mass, ≥20 ° trunk inclination) via the induced
lumbosacral disc-compressive force. Besides this situational lumbar load, the cumulative lumbar load
was characterized by shift dose and lifetime dose as integrative measures. External exposure data (e.g.
object mass, postures, frequencies, durations) were gathered in comprehensive individual interviews.
In relation to lifetime doses which were categorized in tertiles, adjusted odds ratios were found up to
3,9 (CI 2,6-6,0) and 3,2 (CI 1,9-5,5) among the male prolapse or chondrosis case groups, whereas the
odds ratios amounts up to 2,5 (CI 1,6-3,8) and 3,0 (CI 1,3-6,8) were found among the female cases. In
total, positive dose-response relations were found for all four case groups, i.e. for males and females as
well as for disc herniation and disc-space narrowing. Specific lag-time analyses showed that even past
or early-in-life exposures contribute to the risk of developing lumbar disc-related diseases[45].
As cumulative lumbar-load dose models which are best-fitting the dose-response relations, the
following properties or thresholds were identified as best estimates to answer the questions:
— What is a too heavy object?
— What is a too disadvantageous posture?
— What work per day is too intensive?
— What actions are as hard as lifting and carrying?
A threshold value of 3,2 kN among men and 2,5 kN among women with respect to the disc compressive
force, 45° of trunk forward inclination for both genders, shift-dose thresholds of 2,0 kNh among men
and 0,5 kNh among women and, referring to lifetime doses doubling the risk, about 7 MNh among men
and 3 MNh among women. Push and pull activities were included[34],[46],[47].

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
Bibliography
[1] CAN/CSA-Z1003-13/BNQ 9700-803/2013 Psychological health and safety in the workplace -

prevention, promotion, and guidance to staged implementation. Toronto, Canada: CSA.
[2] ISO 7250-3, Basic human body measurements for technological design — Part 3: Worldwide and
regional design ranges for use in product standards
[3] ISO 7730, Moderate thermal environments — Determination of the PMV and PPD indices and
specification of the conditions for thermal comfort
[4] ISO 11226, Ergonomics — Evaluation of static working postures
[5] ISO/IEC Guide 51, Safety aspects — Guidelines for their inclusion in standards
[6] ISO Guide 73:2009, Risk management — Vocabulary
[7] 90/269/EEC, Council Directive of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety requirements for
the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (fourth
individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
[8] EN 614-1, Safety of machinery — Ergonomic design principles — Part 1: Terminology and general
principles
[9] EN 614-2, Safety of machinery — Ergonomic design principles — Part 2: Interactions between the
design of machinery and work tasks
[10] EN 1005-2, Safety of machinery — Human physical performance — Part 2: Manual handling of
machinery and component parts of machinery
[11] NF X35-106, Ergonomie — Limites d’efforts recommandées pour le travail et la manutention au
poste de travail (Norme Française), AFNOR, Paris
[12] NF X35-109, Ergonomie — Limites acceptables de port manuel de charges par une personne (Norme
Française), AFNOR, Paris
[13] Andersson G.B.J. Point of View: Evaluation of the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation, A Cross-
Sectional Epidemiologic Study. Spine. February 1999, 24(4), p. 395
[14] Battevi N., Pandolfi M., Cortinovis I. Variable Lifting Index for Manual-Lifting Risk
Assessment: A Preliminary Validation Study. Human Factors, August 2016, Vol. 58, No.5, pp. 712-
725
[15] Boda S.V., Bhoyar P., Garg A. “Validation of the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation and 3D SSPP
Model to Predict Risk of Work-Related Low Back Pain,” appearing in the 2010 Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, Industrial Ergonomics, pp. 1185-1189
[16] Bolm-Audorff U., Ditchen D., Ellegast R., Elsner G., Geiss O., Grifka J., Haerting J.,
Hofmann G., Jäger M., Linhardt O., Luttmann A., Michaelis M., Nübling M., Petereit-
Haack G., Schumann B., Seidler A., Epidemiologische Fall-Kontroll-Studie zur Untersuchung
von Dosis-Wirkungs-Beziehungen bei der Berufskrankheit 2108 (Deutsche Wirbelsäulenstudie).
Sankt Augustin, HVBG, 2007
[17] Bongwald O., Luttmann A., Laurig W. Leitfaden für die Beurteilung von Hebe- und
Tragetätigkeiten. Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften (HVBG) (Hrsg.).
Sankt Augustin, 1995
[18] Colombini, D., Occhipinti, E., Alvarez-Casado, E., Waters, T. Manual Lifting: A Guide to the
Study of Simple and Complex Lifting Tasks. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, 2013

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
[19] Colombini D., Occhipinti E., Menoni O., Bonaiuti D., Cantoni S., Molteni G., Grieco A.
Patologie del rachide dorso-lombare e movimentazione manuale di carichi: orientamenti per la
formulazione di giudizi di idoneità. La Medicina del Lavoro. 1993, 84, 373–378
[20] Fritsch W., Enderlein G., Aurich I., Kurschwitz S. Einfluß beruflicher Faktoren auf die
gynäkologische Mobilität und Tauglichkeit. Z. ges. Hyg. 1975, 21, p. 825
[21] Garg A. An Evaluation of the NIOSH Guidelines for Manual Lifting, with Special Reference to
Horizontal Distance. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1989, 50(3), pp.157-164
[22] Garg A., Chaffin D., Herrin G.D. Prediction of metabolic rates for manual materials handling
jobs. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1978, 39, No. 8, pp. 661-674
[23] Genaidy A.M., Ashfour S.S. Review and evaluation of physiological cost prediction models for
manual materials handling. Human factors. 1987, 29 No. 4, pp. 465-476
[24] Grieco A., Molteni G., De Vito G., Colombini D., Occhipinti E Exposure Assessment of Low
Back Disorders: Criteria for Health Surveillance'. In International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and
Human Factors (2nd Edition). Editor W. Karwowski. Boca Raton, Taylor and Francis, 2006
[25] Grieco A., Occhipinti E., Colombini D., Molteni G. Manual handling of loads: the point of
view of experts involved in the application of EC Directive 90/269. Ergonomics. 1997, 40 (10), pp.
1035-1056
[26] HSE (UK), 2014. Manual handling assessment charts (the MAC tool). Available from: www.hse
.gov.uk/pubns/indg383.htm
[27] HSE (UK) 2016. Manual handling. Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (4th edition).
ISBN:9780717666539. Available from: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l23.htm
[28] HVBG, Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften (ed): BK-Report 2/03,
Wirbelsäulenerkrankungen. Sankt Augustin (Germany), 2004
[29] Hafez H., Jäger M. Lumbar load associated with symmetrical holding of asymmetrical
loads'. In: P. Seppälä, T. Luopajärvi, C.-H. Nygård, M. Mattila (Eds.). Musculoskeletal Disorders,
Rehabilitation, Vol. 4, pp. 506-508. Finnish Inst. of Occup. Health, Helsinki, 1997
[30] Hettinger T. Heben und Tragen von Lasten. Gutachten über Gewichtsgrenzen für Männer, Frauen
und Jugendliche. Bonn, Der Bundesminister für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, 1981
[31] Hettinger T., Müller B.H., Gebhardt H. Ermittlung des Arbeitsenergieumsatzes bei dynamisch
muskulärer Arbeit. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz (Hrsg.), Fa 22, Wirtschaftsverlag NW,
Bremerhaven, 1989
[32] Jäger M. Extended compilation of autopsy-material measurements on lumbar ultimate
compressive strength for deriving reference values in ergonomic work design: The Revised
Dortmund Recommendations. EXCLI J. 17 (2018) 362–385
[33] Jäger M., Bergmann A., Bolm-Audorff U., Ellegast R., Grifka J., Hofmann F., Michaelis
M., Seidler A., Voss J., Luttmann A., Occupational low-back exposure of persons with
or without lumbar disc-related diseases – Selected results of the German Spine Study
EPILIFT'. In: R. Grieshaber, M. Stadeler, H.-C. Scholle (Hrsg.). Prävention von arbeitsbedingten
Gesundheitsgefahren und Erkrankungen - 17. Erfurter Tage, S. 341-365. Jena, Verlag Bussert &
Stadeler, 2011
[34] Jäger M., Jordan C., Theilmeier A., Göllner R., Luttmann A., Belastung der Lendenwirbelsäule
bei branchenübergreifend auftretenden Arbeitssituationen mit Lastenhandhabung'. In: J.
Konietzko, H. Dupuis, St. Letzel (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Arbeitsmedizin. Kap. IV.-3.1, S. 1-28.
Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft, 36. Erg.-Lfg., Landsberg/Lech 2004
[35] Jäger M., Jordan C., Voss J., Bergmann A., Bolm-Audorff U., Ditchen D., Ellegast R.,
Haerting J., Haufe E., Kuss O., Morfeld P., Schäfer K., Seidler A., Luttmann A., Extended

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
evaluation of the German Spine Study. Background and methodology of the EPILIFT Exposure
Criteria Study'. (in German: Erweiterte Auswertung der Deutschen Wirbelsäulenstudie.
Hintergrund und Vorgehensweise der DWS-Richtwertestudie). Zbl Arbeitsmed 64 (2014) 151-
168
[36] Jäger M., Luttmann A., Bolm-Audorff U., Schäfer K., Hartung E., Kuhn S.;, Paul R.,
Francks H.-P, Mainz-Dortmunder Dosismodell (MDD) zur Beurteilung der Belastung der
Lendenwirbelsäule durch Heben oder Tragen schwerer Lasten oder durch Tätigkeiten in
extremer Rumpfbeugehaltung bei Verdacht auf Berufskrankheit Nr. 2108. Teil 1: Retrospektive
Belastungsermittlung für risikobehaftete Tätigkeitsfelder. Arbeitsmed. Sozialmed. Umweltmed.
34 (1999) 101-111
[37] Jäger M., Luttmann A., Laurig W. Lumbar load during one-handed bricklaying. Int. J. Indust.
Ergon. 1991, 8, 261-277
[38] Jordan C., Jäger M., Theilmeier A, Luttmann A. Wirbelsäulenbelastung bei
ausgewählten Tragetätigkeiten. Z. Arbeitswiss. 2001, 55, 145-153
[39] Junghanns, H. Die Wirbelsäule in der Arbeitsmedizin. I: Biomechanische und biochemische
Probleme der Wirbelsäulenbelastung. Stuttgart, Hippokrates, 1979 (Die Wirbelsäule in Forschung
und Praxis, Bd. 78)
[40] Keyserling W. Analysis of Manual Lifting Tasks: A Qualitative Alternative to the NIOSH Work
Practices Guide. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1989, 50(3), pp.165-173
[41] Lu M., Waters T.R., Krieg E., Werren D. Efficacy of the revised NIOSH lifting equation to
predict low-back pain associated with manual lifting: a one-year prospective study. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2013, 56:73-85
[42] Mental Health Commission of Canada Psychological health and safety - An action guide for
employers. (Santé et sécurité psychologiques – Guide de l’employeur), 2013
[43] Mital A., Nicholson A.S., Ayoub M.M. A guide to manual materials handling, 2nd edition, Taylor
& Francis, 1997
[44] Pandalai S.P., Wheeler M.W., Lu M.L. Non-chemical Risk Assessment for Lifting and Low Back
Pain Based on Bayesian Threshold Models. Safety and Health at Work. 2016, 1-6.
[45] Potvin J.R. Comparing the revised NIOSH lifting equation to the psychophysical, biomechanical
and physiological criteria used in its development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.
2014, vol. 44, Issue 2, pp. 246-252
[46] Seidler A., Bergmann A., Jäger M., Ellegast R., Ditchen D., Elsner G., Grifka J., Haerting
J., Hofmann F., Linhardt O., Luttmann A., Michaelis M., Petereit-Haack G., Schumann B.,
Bolm-Audorff U. Cumulative occupational lumbar load and lumbar disc disease – results of a
German multi-center case-control study (EPILIFT). BMC Musculoskel. Disord. 2009, 10, 48
[47] Seidler A., Bergmann A., Bolm-Audorff U., Ditchen D., Ellegast R., Euler U., Haerting
J., Haufe E., Jordan C., Kersten N., Kuss O., Lundershausen N., Luttmann A., Morfeld
P., Petereit-Haack G., Schäfer K., Jäger M. Erweiterte Auswertung der Deutschen
Wirbelsäulenstudie mit dem Ziel der Ableitung geeigneter Richtwerte. Deutsche Gesetzliche
Unfallversicherung. (DGUV), Sankt Augustin, 2013
[48] Seidler A., Bergmann A., Bolm-Audorff U., Ditchen D., Ellegast R., Euler U., Haerting
J., Haufe E., Jordan C., Kersten N., Kuss O., Luttmann A., Morfeld P., Schäfer K., Jäger
M. Dose-response relationship between physical exposure and lumbar spine disease. Results
of the EPILIFT Exposure Criteria Study. (in German: Dosis-Wirkung-Zusammenhang zwischen
physischen Belastungen und lumbalen Bandscheibenerkrankungen. Ergebnisse der DWS-
Richtwertestudie). Zbl Arbeitsmed. 2014, 64, 239-257
[49] Snook S.H. The design of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics. 1978, 21, pp. 963-985

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
[50] Snook S.H., Ciriello V.M. The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum
acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics. 1991, 34(9), pp. 1197-1213
[51] Snook S.H., Irvine C.H., Bass S.F. Maximum weights and work loads acceptable to male, industrial
workers. A study of lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying and walking tasks. Waters TR,
Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Chapter in: The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook: Second
Edition, Fundamentals and Assessment Tools For Occupational Ergonomics. Edited by Marras W.
and Karwowski W. pp 46-1 to 46-28. 2006, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida
[52] Waters T.R., Baron S.L., Piacitelli L.A., Andersen V.P., Skov T., Haring-Sweeney M., Wall
D.K., Fine, L.J. Evaluation of the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Spine. February 1999, 24(4),
pp. 386-394
[53] Waters T.R., Lu M.L., Occhipinti E. New Procedure for Assessing Sequential Lifting Tasks
Using the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Ergonomics. 2007, 50(11): 1761-1770
[54] Waters T.R., Lu M-L., Piacitelli L.A., Werren D., Deddens J.A. Efficacy of the revised NIOSH
lifting equation to predict risk of low back pain due to manual lifting: expanded cross-sectional
analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2011, 9: 1061-1067
[55] Waters T., Occhipinti E., Colombini D., Alvarez-Casado E., Fox R. Variable Lifting Index
(VLI): A New Method for Evaluating Variable Lifting Tasks. Human Factors. August, 2016, Vol. 58,
No.5, pp. 695-711
[56] Waters T.R., Piacitelli L. Evaluation of the revised NIOSH lifting equation at the General
Motors-Saginaw Metal Casting Operation: A Joint GM-UAW-NIOSH Ergonomics Research Project.
Report submitted to the General Motors Research and Development Center and the United Auto
Workers, NIOSH, June 1997
[57] Waters T.R., Putz-Anderson V., Garg A. Applications manual for the revised NIOSH lifting
equation. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 94-110. 1994, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[58] Waters T.R., Putz-Anderson V., Garg A., Fine L.J. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and
evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics. 1993, 36, No. 7, pp. 749-776
[59] International Ergonomics School. www.epmresearch.org
[60] Fox R.R., Lu M-L., Occhipinti E., Jaeger M. Understanding outcome metrics of the revised
NIOSH Lifting Equation. Applied Ergonomics. November 2019, 81, Article 102897
[61] Ferguson S.A., Marras W.S., Burr D. Workplace design guidelines for asymptomatic vs. low-
back-injured workers. Applied Ergonomics. 2005, 36, pp. 85-95
[62] Lombardia R. Indirizzi per la sorveglianza sanitaria dei soggetti esposti al rischio da sovraccarico
biomeccanico (Guidelines for the health surveillance of workers exposed to biomechanical
overload). Decreto N. 16750 21/12/2017. Available at: https://w ww.regione.lombardia.it/w ps/
portal/istituzionale/HP/servizi-e-informazioni/enti-e-operatori/sistema-welfare/normativa-e
-documenti-welfare.
[63] Yu S., Lu M. L., Gu G., Zhou W., He L.,, Wang S. Association between psychosocial job
characteristics and sickness absence due to low back symptoms using combined DCS and ERI models,
Work 51. 2015, IOS Press, pp. 411-421, DOI: 10.2-3233/WOR-141881
[64] Buruck G., Tomaschek A., Wendsche J., Ochsmann E., Dorfel D. Psychosocial areas of
worklife and chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal
Disorders. 2019, 20:480, pp 1-16
[65] Macfarlane G.J., Pallewatte N., Paudyal P., Blyth F.M., Coggon D., Crombez G., Linton
S., Leino-Arjas P., Silman A.J., Smeets R.J., van der Windt D. Evaluation of work-related
psychosocial factors and regional musculoskeletal pain: results from a EULAR task force. Ann
Rheum Dis. 2009, 68, pp. 885-891

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
[66] Thiese M., Lu M., Merryweather A., Tang R., Ferguson S., Malloy E., Marras W.,
Hegmann K., Kapellusch J. Psychosocial factors and low back pain outcomes in a pooled
analysis of low back pain studies. J of Occu Env Med. 2020, 62(10), pp. 810-815, DOI: 10.1097/
JOM.0000000000001941
[67] ISO/TR 12296, Ergonomics — Manual handling of people in the healthcare sector

ISO 11228-1:2021(E)
ICS 13.180
Price based on 65 pages


Iso+11228 1 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iso+11228 1 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iso+11228 1 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL ISO

Ergonomics — Manual handling —

COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT

ii ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ iii

iv ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ v

vi ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

Ergonomics — Manual handling —

3 Terms and definitions

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 1

2 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

4 Risk reduction for manual lifting or carrying tasks

4.2 Risk assessment (step model)

4.2.1 Using the step model

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 3

4 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

Figure 1 — Step model

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 5

4.2.2 Recommended limit for manual lifting, lowering and carrying

4.2.2.1 Weight of the object

4.2.2.2 (Step 1) Initial screening

4.2.2.3 (Step 2) Quick assessment of repetitive lifting and carrying

Table 1 — Lifting and lowering — Quick assessment — Acceptable condition

6 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

Table 2 — Carrying — Quick assessment — Acceptable condition

Table 3 — Lifting or carrying— Quick Assessment — Critical condition

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 7

Table 4 — Lifting and carrying — Additional factors to be considered

8 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

4.2.3 Cumulative mass of carrying

4.2.3.2 (Step 4) Recommended limit for cumulative mass per day

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 9

4.3 Risk reduction

4.4 Additional considerations

10 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

Ergonomics approach to the design of lifting and carrying tasks

A.2 Design of the work: task, workplace and work organization

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 11

A.2.3 Work organization

A.3 Design of the object

12 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

A.4 Design of the working environment

A.5 Individual considerations

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 13

14 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

Table A.1 — Classification of moderate and severe spinal pathologies[19],[25],[61],[62]

A.6 Information and training

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 15

16 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

Reference mass determination

B.1 Reference mass determination (step 1)

Table B.1 — Reference mass, mref, for different populations

B.2 Special considerations

B.3 Age and gender considerations

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved ﻿ 17

18 ﻿ © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

Assessment method for recommended limits for mass, frequency

C.1.2 Non-repetitive lifting tasks

ii © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved iii

iv © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved v

vi © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 1

2 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 3

4 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 5

6 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 7

8 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 9

10 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 11

12 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 13

14 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 15

16 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 17

18 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 19

20 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 21

22 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 23

24 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 25

26 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 27

28 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 29

30 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 31

32 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 33

34 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 35

36 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 37

38 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 39

40 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved

© ISO 2021 – All rights reserved 41

G.1 Review of steps for lifting risk evaluation

42 © ISO 2021 – All rights reserved