Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42483041›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Ergonomic risk assessment in municipal waste management: integrating standardized methods with real-world context.

Vincenzo Cianci, Daniela Sapienza, Simone De Sio, Hector Nieto, Gabriella Martino, Concetto Mario Giorgianni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Vincenzo Cianci *Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Daniela Sapienza *Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Simone De SioUnit Research of Occupational Medicine, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Hector NietoOccupational Medicine School, University of Business and Social Sciences (UCES), ABA, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Gabriella MartinoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Concetto Mario GiorgianniDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Manual handling of loads (MHL) represents a relevant occupational risk in the waste management sector, where lifting, pushing, and pulling are performed daily under variable and often complex operational conditions. This study aimed to assess ergonomic risk in a municipal waste management company through the application of standardized methods and to evaluate their utility for preventive decision-making in real-world contexts. Methods: This field-based ergonomic case study was conducted in a municipal waste management company. Ergonomic assessment worksheets were used to characterize two homogeneous door-to-door waste collection task scenarios: domestic collection and commercial collection. For lifting, worksheet-derived task duration, number of lifted objects, lifting frequency, load distribution, frequency/duration multipliers, and Lifting Index values were extracted and reported. Lifting indices were calculated according to the ISO 11228-1/ISO/TR 12295 framework using population-specific reference masses by sex and age group. Transport and towing components were assessed through worksheet-based indices derived from measured and recommended forces. Results: In the domestic collection scenario, two workers were involved: manual lifting lasted 180 min, with 182.5 objects lifted per worker and a lifting frequency of 1.014 lifts/min. Load distribution was mainly concentrated in the 5.5 kg category (82.2%), followed by 9.5 kg (16.4%) and 13.5 kg (1.4%). Lifting indices ranged from 0.746 in men aged 18-45 years to 1.243 in women aged >45 years. In the commercial collection scenario, one worker was involved: manual lifting lasted 120 min, with 60 objects lifted per worker, all in the 9.5 kg category, and a lifting frequency of 0.5 lifts/min. Lifting indices ranged from 0.442 in men aged 18-45 years to 0.737 in women aged >45 years. Towing indices remained below unity in both scenarios, with higher values for women during the maintenance phase. Discussion: Although most ergonomic indices remained within acceptable limits, the domestic collection scenario showed a subgroup-specific exceedance for women aged >45 years. Conclusion: Standardized ergonomic tools are useful for preventive planning in municipal waste management, provided that their results are interpreted in relation to actual task duration, load distribution, worker fitness for the task, and environmental variability. The findings support targeted preventive measures.

Indexed as

ErgonomicsLiftingWaste ManagementAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentWorking Conditionsergonomic risk assessmentmanual material handlingNIOSH lifting equationoccupational healthSnook–Ciriello tablessustainabilitywaste managementworkplace safety

Identifiers

PMID42483041
PMCPMC13385098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.