Agricultural dust protective interventions for Indian farm workers

ASHUTOSH PANDIRWAR; ADARSH KUMAR; J K SINGH; INDRA MANI; S K JHA; RAMASUBRAMANIAN V

doi:10.56093/ijas.v84i1.37146

Authors

ASHUTOSH PANDIRWAR Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012 India
ADARSH KUMAR Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012 India
J K SINGH Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012 India
INDRA MANI Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012 India
S K JHA Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012 India
RAMASUBRAMANIAN V IASRI, New Delhi 110 012 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v84i1.37146

Keywords:

Breathing zone, Dust, Harvesting, Dust protector, Filter efficiency, Filter material, Pressure drop, Threshing, Threshold limits

Abstract

Magnitude of dust concentration in breathing zone in manual harvesting, and threshing operation of wheat crop were measured. The dust levels were 11.89, 4.67 and 3.20 mg/m3 for in-halable, thoracic and respirable dusts respectively. Dust concentration was highest in breathing zone of the workers feeding the crop into thresher as compared to the workers engaged in harvesting with sickle, workers supplying crop to feeder and workers collecting threshed grains. The analysis of particle size distribution of dust indicated relatively low mass proportion of particles smaller than 2.5 µm and high percentage of particles over 7 µm diameters. Three types of dust filters, i.e. cloth, foam and non-woven fabric were selected and evaluated for filtration efficiency and pressure drop. An experimental setup was developed to measure filtration efficiency and pressure drop with varying filter area and dust concentration. The filtration efficiency of dust filters ranged from 50.76 to 59.71% (cloth), 89.19 to 92.78 % (foam) and 96.50 to 98.70 % (non-woven fabric) and pressure drop ranged from 5 to 17.83 (cloth), 23.83 to 38.50 (foam) and 14.17 to 27.67 (non-woven fabric) mm of H₂O for three different filter areas and dust concentrations, respectively. The results of subjective evaluation of dust protectors with field workers showed that, non-woven fabric was most preferred because of higher filtration efficiency and lower pressure drop. It was concluded that, non-woven fabric based dust protector provides the highest dust protection with lowest breathing resistance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alsan S. 1998. Aerial dusts. Science and Technique, pp 68–70. Turkish Scientific and Technological Council Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181498X00231

Aybek A and Arslan S. 2007. Dust exposures in tractor and combine operations in eastern Mediterranean, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology 28 (4): 839–44.

Berberet L J, Buchan R and Beard M. 1998. Respirable dust and crystalline silica (quartz) exposure resulting from potato harvesting operations. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 5(1): 97–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.5703

BIS. 1980. Specification for filter type particulate matter respirators. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

BIS. 2008. Respiratory protective devices – definitions, classification and nomenclature of components. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Burton N C, Grinshpun S A and Reponen T. 2007. Physical collection efficiency of filter materials for bacteria and viruses. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 51(2): 143–51.

Chhuneja N K. 2009. Assessment of available dust protectors for protection to combine harvestor operators. Development in Agricultural and Industrial Ergonomics 1: 93–8.

Christensen H, Vinzents P, Nielsen B H, Finsen L, Pedersen M B and Sjogaard G. 1992. Occupational exposures and health among Danish farmers working in swine confinement buildings. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 10: 265–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(92)90093-F

Erkan N. 1989. Physiological stresses in workplace and ergonomics. Proceedings of the 2nd National Ergonomics Congress, Turkish National Productivity Center Publications 379, 28–38.

Lee K, Lawson R, Olenchock S, Vallyathan V, Southard R, Thorne P S, Saiki C and Schenker M B, 2004. Personal exposures to inorganic and organic dust in manual harvest of california citrus and table grapes. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 1 (8): 505 – 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620490471616

Matthews J and Knight A A.1971. Ergonomics in agricultural equipment design. National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe.

Morcos V H. 1996. Performance analysis of industrial bag filters to control particulate emissions. Energy 21 (1): 9–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(95)00087-9

Murphy D J. 2005. Personal protection from pesticides. Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, The Pennsylvania State University, E-35.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 2009. Central Pollution Control Board Notification. New Delhi.

Nieuwenhuijsen M J, Kruize H, Schenke M B. 1998. Exposure to dust and its particle size distribution in California agriculture. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 59 (1): 34 – 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15428119891010316

Reilly N M. 1981. Dust load and dust composition in workplaces in agriculture and load limits and dust protection measures derived there from (Translation, T.467). National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, MK45 4HS.

Schenkar M. 2000. Exposure and health effects from inorganic agricultural dusts. Environmental Health Perspectives 108: 661– 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108s4661

Smigielski K A. 2006. ‘Design and setup of a system for testing HEPA filter efficiency.’ Master of Science thesis in occupational health. The University of Toledo.

Sumi A and Araya K. 1996. Dust collection efficiency of an air filter for co-operative grain drying facilities. Journal of Japanese Society of Agricultural Machinery 58(3): 95-102.

Witney B. 1988. Choosing and Using Farm Machines. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.