Ergonomic assessment of wheel hoe and design compliance for women farm worker


698 / 354

Authors

  • JAYA SINHA Research Scholar, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
  • J K SINGH Principal Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012
  • ADARSH KUMAR Principal Scientist, Division of Agricultural Engineering, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v88i3.78528

Keywords:

India, Manual weeder, Physiological parameters, Women farm workers

Abstract

Weeding is carried out by women farm workers with hand tools and most of these tools are operated in squatting or bending posture. These tools are essentially designed for male farm workers. One of the common hand tool used for weeding is wheel hoe. Therefore, ergonomic assessments of an existing wheel hoe and design modification were done to make it compatible for women workers. The wheel hoe was ergonomically evaluated for physiological and postural parameters. Mismatches were observed between required energy and sustainable energy output and between tool dimensions and anthropometric measurements of female operators. Based on the ergonomic evaluation the hoe was modified with two blade sizes and three handle widths .The modified wheel hoes were re-evaluated. Working with an existing wheel hoe was categorized as “heavy work†with “higher†overall discomfort. Heart rate, oxygen consumption and energy expenditure were lowest for modified weeder (10%-440mm) and the work classification improved to “moderate categoryâ€. The resting period with the modified hoe reduced from 33.4 min to 20.7 min for one hour work cycle. With change in handle dimensions shoulder, elbow and wrist deviation were close to the natural range of motion. The body part discomfort score and overall discomfort score also reduced from 31 and 2.5 respectively to 18 and 1.5 for modified weeder (10%-440mm). Women workers found the modified hoe with 10% blade dimension and handle width 440mm, very comfortable to use. Modifications in the existing wheel hoe according to anthropometric parameters of female workers reduced energy consumption, body deviations and rest pause between work cycles and thus enhanced work output.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bridger R S, Baltimore M D and Williams W.1995. Introduction to Ergonomics, pp 205-10. McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York.

Chakrabarti D and Bhattachheriya N. 2012.Ergonomic design intervention strategy for work tools development for women agro based workers in Northeast India.Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation: 43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0319-1330

Chaffin D, Andersson G B J and Martin B.1999. Occupational Biomechanics, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.

Corlett E N and Bishop R P.1976. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19:175–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137608931530

Gangopadhyay S , Ghosh T, Das T, Ghoshal G and Das B.2010. Effect of working posture on occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders among the sand core making workers of West Bengal. Cent European Journal of Public Health 18: 38–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21101/cejph.a3503

Goel A K, Behera D, Behera B K, Mohanty S K and Nanda S K. 2008. Development and ergonomic evaluation of manually operated weeder for dry land crops. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGRE journal 10.

Kroemer K H E and Grandjean E. 2000. Fitting the task to the human. (In) A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics, Fifth Edn. Taylor and Francis Ltd, UK.

Kumar A, Tandon S K and Saxena J P. 2002. Ergonomic evaluation of weeders. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 39: 17–22.

Murrell K F H.1965. Ergonomics: Man and His Working Environment. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Nag P K and Datt P. 1979. Effectiveness of some simple agricultural weeders with reference to physiological responses. Journal of Human Ecology 8: 13–21.

Naughton J G and Sevelluske B.1963. Physiologic responses of normal and pathologic subjects to a modified work capacity test. Journal of Sports Medicine 31: 201.

Remesan R, Roopesh M S, Remya N and Preman P S. 2007. Wet land paddy weeding –A comprehensive comparative study from South India. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGRE journal. 9.

Rodahl K.1989. The Physiology of Work. Taylor and Francis, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b12599

Shirahatti S S, Badiger M S and Prakash K V. 2009. Agricultural engineering interventions to increase the productivity of women in agriculture: some studies from India. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 20(2).

Singh S, Mathur P and Rathore M. 2007. Weeders for drudgery reduction of women farm workers in India. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 44: 33–8.

Singh S, Sinwal N and Rathore H.2012. Assessment of energy balance of Indian farm women in relation to their nutritional profile in lean and peak agricultural seasons. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 41.

Vyas H, Nag A and Nag P.2016. Ergonomics evaluation of user-hand tool interaction. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 53(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-162279

Downloads

Submitted

2018-04-03

Published

2023-03-15

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

SINHA, J., SINGH, J. K., & KUMAR, A. (2023). Ergonomic assessment of wheel hoe and design compliance for women farm worker. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 88(3), 447-452. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v88i3.78528
Citation