Drudgery reducing farm equipment and technique to assess MSDs in agricultural work

Shiv Pratap Singh

Principal Scientist (FMP)
Division of Agricultural Engineering, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi- 110012,
E-mail: singhsp65@gmail.com
1. INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the only source of livelihood for most of the population resided in over
638000 Indian villages (Census, 2011). In addition to other agricultural inputs, farm
mechanization also played pivotal role in increasing production and productivity through
timeliness of field operations and by enabling proper & efficient uses of critical inputs. The
mechanization of farming activities helps in improving the quality of life and respect in
society with reduced drudgery. The Indian agriculture was powered by human beings (12.17
million kW), draft animals (20.01 million kW), tractors (102.18 million kW), power tillers
(1.439 million kW), diesel engines (47.35 million kW) and electric motors (61.68 million
kW) (Singh et al, 2011). About 9 lakh pump sets, 4.5 lakh sprayers & dusters and a large
number of different types of agricultural farm tools & machinery are introduced annually
(Anonymous, 2006) whereas adoption level of improved farm tools and equipment by the
farm women was observed to be 4.87 per cent in Madhya Pradesh (Singh et al, 2006). In
agriculture, both men and women perform the farm operations but still role of women
workers are passive in the use of machines as development of most of equipment was
centred on men workers, even for those operations, which were traditionally performed by
farm women and as result these equipment are not found suitable by them. The share of farm
women in total agricultural workers is increasing and the farm women being a vast resource
for agriculture production are primarily dependent on manual methods. The traditional
methods provide discomfort to workers in agriculture. EASHW (2014) reported that
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a particular problem in agriculture. Almost 60% of
workers in agriculture and fishing are exposed to painful positions at work half the time or
more, the highest of any sector. Nearly 50% of workers in agriculture and fishing carry
heavy loads half the time or more. Over 50% of workers in agriculture and fishing are
exposed to repetitive hand movements half the time or more. Workers in the agriculture and
construction sectors are most at risk to lower back disorders, and those in agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries face the greatest risk of work related upper limb disorders. The UKs
self-reported work-related illness survey of 2001/02 revealed that people who had worked in

agriculture in the last 8 years had, at 38 per 1000, the highest incidence rate of
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) of any industry. In the Netherlands, Agriculture has the
highest prevalence of repetitive strain injuries, and in France a 1994 study indicated that
workers in agriculture and fishing are at the highest risk of RSI. In this lecture note,
drudgery reducing farm equipment and techniques to assess the MSDs in agriculture are
discussed.
2. Drudgery reducing farm equipment
Tedious, menial, or unpleasant work can be termed as drudgery. Drudgery is generally
conceived as physical and mental strain, agony, fatigue, monotony and hardship experienced
by human being, while all these result in decline in performance of men and women alike. A
continuous work in awkward posture and without proper rest-pause affects adversely workers
mental and physical well-being. The farm equipment available for various unit farm
operations do not suit to women workers due to different ergonomical characteristics of farm
women than men workers. Ergonomics (or human factor) is the scientific discipline concerned
with the understanding of limitations among humans and other elements of a system, and the
profession that as applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize
human well being and overall system performance (Anonymous, 2012a). The term
environment includes his tools and materials, his method of work, ambient conditions and
physical environment of work, and also the organization of work. The application of
ergonomics can help in agriculture for increasing the efficiency and thereby productivity of
the workers without jeopardizing their health and safety. The ergonomical issues that affect
farm workers (particularly women) in using the already existing farm tools and equipment are
grouped under the following sub-headings:

Anthropometry

Muscular strength

Aerobic capacity

Posture

Load carrying capabilities

The women friendly farm tools and equipment were refined/ modified/ assessed/
developed by different research organizations using ergonomics and mechanical
consideration. Of which, twenty one manual operated improved farm tools and implements
have been found suitable for operation by farm women based on ergonomical (Singh et al,
2007 & Srinath and Singh, 2009). The improved tools and implements with brief description

are given Annexure-1. The women friendly equipment is found suitable for various farm
operations like, ridge/ furrow making, seed treatment, granular fertilizer broadcasting, sowing
in lines, weeding in lines, rice transplanting in line, crop harvesting, fruit harvesting, paddy
threshing, paddy winnowing, cleaning/ grading the grains, maize dehusking-shelling, maize
shelling, groundnut pods stripping, groundnut decortications, stripping of sugarcane leaves,
uprooting of cotton stalks, etc. These farm equipment need to be assessed amongst users
(farm women) under their limitations and management. Of this, there are about seven women
friendly farm equipment (Seed treatment drum, Belly mounted Fertilizer broadcaster, four
row-paddy drum seeder, Groundnut stripper, Groundnut decorticator, Maize dehusker-sheller
and Paddy winnower) which are suitable for custom hiring purpose and introduction of such
farm equipment will increase their income and ultimately improvement in livelihood. The
results of the study conducted on women friendly farm tools and equipment revealed that the
drudgery (physiological workload per unit output) of farm women can be reduced from 6 to
86 per cent as compared to traditional method in addition to the safety & improvement in
working postures.
3. Drudgery Assessment
Drudgery can be assessed by measuring physiological cost of activities/ task either by
traditional/ improved methods performed by farm women/ workers. The common parameters
related to physical strain experienced by the worker while carrying agricultural activities, can
be used which are given below,

Heart rate during work

Increase in heart rate during work over rest
Oxygen consumption rate while working
Increase in oxygen consumption while working over rest
Energy expenditure rate
Increase in energy expenditure rate over rest
Overall discomfort rating
Body parts discomfort score

3.1 Physiological cost of operation

It is indirectly measured either with heart rate or oxygen consumption. Heart rate can
be measured easily with heart rate monitor in field. Protocol for ergonomical evaluation is
given in Annexure. Physiological cost of operation is influenced by the health of operators,
nutrition, basal metabolic rate and energy expended while working that can be indirectly
measured by measuring oxygen consumption and heart rate. In general, persons subjective
experience of a particular workload or rate of work is more closely related to heart rate than to

oxygen consumption during the performance of work, since the heart rate, in addition to the
actual workload, also reflects emotional factors, heat, the size of engaged muscle groups, etc.
The physiological cost of operation is indirectly measured by measuring oxygen consumption
and heart beat rate. Brouha (1960) states that by measuring one or more of the physiological
functions such as heart rate, breathing rate, oxygen consumption, blood pressure, pulmonary
ventilation, carbon dioxide production, body temperatures, perspiration rate and chemical
composition of urine and blood, it is possible to determine in what degree the working level
differs from the resting level. But any such variables need to be measured during the recovery
period, as well as during the work period itself. He himself used primarily the heart rate
recovery curve as a measure of physiological stress, this being the curve of the heart rate
measured at certain intervals after work, such as 1, 2 and 3 minutes. Pheasant (1991) also
concluded that the heart rate is a better index of the overall physiological demand of work
than energy expenditure and it has the additional advantage of being very much easier to
measure in the field. Oxygen uptake gives the absolute load but the heart rate gives the
relative load, which in many instances may be just as important or even more important.
3.1.1 Steps for measurement
1
2
3
4

Plan experiment statistically

Follow protocol.
Set parameters against which evaluation is to be conducted.
Develop test code using BIS/RNAM/FAO test codes.

3.1.2 Parameters for assessing the equipment ergonomically

Sl.

Parameters for Suitability

Details

Anthropometrical

5th and 95th percentile

Functional/ Machine Parameters

Crank speed, pedal stroke etc.

Safety provision

Available/ Not Available/ Not Required

Technical skill of worker & required

Low/Medium/High

Weight of equipment

For carrying- 30% of body wt.

Limit for design- 40% of body wt.
For occasional carrying- 50 % of body
wt. (5th percentile: 41 kg)

Acceptable physiological workload

HR : 40 bpm for continuous operation

with normal rest pause

7
8

Pull and push forces

Leg strength
9

Requirement of rest pause

Continuous- 30% of maximum force

Intermittent- 50 % of it
Same criteria
Normal/Intermittent/Frequent

10

No. of workers required

As per Wok load

11

Feedback of subject

Satisfied/Not Satisfied

12

Output

At par with original unit

13

Constraints, if any

w.r.t. comfort of the worker in operation

14

Recommendation

Suitable/Suitable with rest pause/ Needed

refinement/ Not suitable

Following formula can be used for calculating,

The lean body mass of the subjects was calculated using Humes (1966) formula
= (0.29569 x body weight, kg) + 0.41873 x body height, cm)- 43.2933
Body mass index of participated subjects was calculated using following formula:
Body mass index (BMI)= Weight (kg)/ Height (m)2
The rest pause to the subject was also calculated using following formula, as given by
Pheasant (1991):
r
-------t
Where, r
T
E
A
B

E-A
= -----------E-B
= resting time (min),
= total working time/ day (min),
= Energy expenditure during working task (kcal/min),
= Average level of energy expenditure considered acceptable,
= Energy expenditure during rest.

Following regression equations can be used for estimating oxygen consumption (y) at their
known heart rate (x) during agricultural operations to know energy consumption (Singh et al,
2008).
1. y = 0.0119 x 0.7665

For 25 to 35 year of age

2. y = 0.0106 x 0.5501

For 36 to 45 year of age

3. y = 0.0114 x 0.68

General equation

Physiological cost of any operation of equipment is expressed in terms of heart rate

and oxygen consumption rate. For an 8 h work period for women workers a work load
requiring oxygen consumption at a rate of 0.6 l/min is considered as the maximum acceptable
workload for continuous work. The heart rate for such workload will be about 110 beats per
min. For agricultural activities, up to 40% of the individuals aerobic capacity should be taken
a limit for longer period of work (Nag and Chatterjee, 1981, and Tewari, 1985). The work
pulse of 40 beats per min, as suggested by Saha et al (1979) and Brundke, (1984) may also be

considered as optimal criteria, for the quick appraisal of the state of activity that may be
continued for a longer period. As per rating of perceived exertion, workload (Varghese et al,
1994) can be assessed which is given below,
Type of
workload
Very light
Light
Moderately
heavy
Heavy
Very heavy

Physiological Variables for women

Energy Expenditure,
Heart rate, beats per
kJ/min
min
<5.0
<90
5.1-7.5
91-105
7.6-10.0
106-120
10.1-12.5
12.6-15.0

121-135
136-150

3. 2. Discomfort Assessment
Discomfort is the body pain arising as a result of the working posture and/or the
excessive stress on muscles due to the effort involved in the activity. Sometimes, it is also
called as overall discomfort or simply, discomfort. Any awkward posture will lead to body
discomfort, or even pain, as will any excessive stress on the muscles due to the effort required
to complete the activity. In some of the situation, works may be well within the physiological
limit or tolerance but the musculoskeletal discomfort may restrict the duration of work.
A good posture is one which can sustain a minimum of static effort and which allows
the subject to perform the given task more effectively and with least muscular discomfort.
Nag et al (1980) observed that weeding either in squatting or bending posture didnt cause a
marked difference in energy expenditure (11.2 kJ/min) and 12.18 kJ/min, respectively). But
the drudgery caused due to bending is reflected in terms of postural discomfort experienced
by the workers. Considering this aspect, they suggested that when work can be done in
sitting/standing posture, it should be done in bending posture of the operator during work.
Assessment of postural discomfort may include overall discomfort rating (ODR) and
body part discomfort score. For the assessment of overall discomfort rating a ten point
psychophysical rating scale ( 0 = no discomfort, 10 extreme discomfort) may be used, which
is an adaptation of Corlett and Bishop (1976) technique. Prior to the assessment of postural
discomfort the subject should be anchored to the psychophysical rating scale. This anchoring
may be carried on tread mill at forward speeds which are likely to be obtained during the test
under actual field conditions. A scale of 70 cm length should be fabricated having 0 to 10
digits marked on it equidistantly. A movable pointer should be provided to indicate the rating.

Trial of 2 h duration should be conducted and at the end of 2 h trial period the subject should
be asked to indicate his overall discomfort rating on the scale.
3.2.1 Overall discomfort rating (ODR)
A ten point psychophysical rating scale ( 0 = no discomfort, 10 extreme discomfort)
may be used (Fig. 1), which is an adaptation of Corlett and Bishop (1976) technique.

Fig 1. Visual Analogue Discomfort Scale (Legg and Mohanti, 1985)

3.2.3 Body parts discomfort score
To measure localized discomfort, Corlett and Bishop
(1976) technique is used. In this technique the subjects
body is divided into several regions (Fig. 2) and the subject
is asked to indicate the regions which are most painful.
Having noted these, the next most painful areas are asked
for to indicate the regions, which are most painful and so on
until no further areas are reported. It is considered that
when No discomfort is reported, this is the common
baseline for all the subjects. The number of different groups
of body parts which are identified before No discomfort is
reported represent the number of intensity level of pain experienced. Each separately
reported group could be seen as being separated by a recognizable difference in the level of
discomfort. The data are collected at the end of 2 h work period. The overall discomfort rating
given by each of the five subjects are added and averaged to get the mean rating. For
assessing localized discomfort, scores are allotted to different regions as per Corlett and
Bishop (1976) technique and total score for the subject is calculated. The body discomfort
score for all the subjects is added and averaged to get mean total score.
4. Musculoskeletal disorders in agriculture

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) cover a broad range of health problems. The main
groups are back pain and injuries, and Work Related Upper Limb Disorders, commonly
known as repetitive strain injuries (RSI). Lower limbs can also be affected. Health problems
range from discomfort, minor aches and pains to more serious medical conditions requiring
time off work, medical and hospital treatment. In more chronic cases, treatment and recovery
are often unsatisfactory, and the result can be permanent disability, with loss of job.
Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD) are injuries affecting muscles, tendons, ligaments and
nerves. They are sometimes called Repetitive Strain Injuries (RSI), Cumulative Trauma
Disorders (CTD) and Repetitive Motion Injuries (RMI). MSD develop due to the effects of
repetitive, forceful or awkward movements on joints, ligaments and other soft tissues. Some
MSD injuries include Low Back Strain, Neck Strain, Tendonitis, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
(CTS), Rotator Cuff Syndrome, and Tennis Elbow.
4.1 Causes of Musculoskeletal disorders
Causes of MSD may be physical, organization of work. Physical causes of MSD
include manual handling, loads, poor posture and awkward movements, highly repetitive
movements, forceful hand applications, direct mechanical pressure on body tissues,
vibrations, and very hot and cold work environments. Causes due to the organisation of work
include pace of work, repetitive work, time patterns, payment systems, monotonous work, and
also psychosocial work factors.
The Risk Factors for MSDs are force, vibration, repetition, extreme temperatures,
awkward postures, work stress, static postures etc.
4.2 Assessing the risks of musculoskeletal disorders to workers
To prevent musculoskeletal disorders effectively, the risk factors in the workplace
must be identified and then practical measures taken to prevent or reduce the risks. This is
called risk assessment. Questions to ask when looking at the risk are:

What are the causes?

What are the problems?

What needs to be done?

To find an effective solution to a musculoskeletal problem it is very important to

carefully observe the real situation in the workplace, as many factors vary between jobs and

every workplace is different. Attention should be paid to all the possible risk factors,
especially as a combination of factors may be creating a risk. The workers should be
consulted.
When considering what may be increasing the risk of MSDs, consider The load, The
workplace, The worker and The task.
The load

Is the load heavy?

Is the load awkward to lift or move, restricting vision or being difficult to hold?

Is it a live load (e.g. an animal or a liquid moving in a container)

The workplace

Is the workplace untidy, with things to trip over?

Is there sufficient space to carry out the work?

Is the ground or floor uneven?

Is the floor slippery or the surface unstable?

Are the lighting conditions poor?

Is the work environment (e.g. temperature, humidity, wind going to affect the work)?

If the task is carried out in a sitting position, is suitable seating provided?

The worker

Does the worker physically able to carry out the task? Dont assume

Is the worker pregnant or have a particular health problem that may put them at risk?

Does the worker know what has to be done and how to do it safely?

Does the worker have any personal protective equipment or clothing that may impede
them in the task?

Is the worker exposed to vibration, pressure or stress that may increase his/her risk of
ill-health?

Does the worker have sufficient recovery time between tasks?

Is the worker fatigued when carrying out the task?

Is the worker in control of the pace of work?

The task

Does the task require repetitive movements?

Does it require awkward, forceful or twisting movements including squeezing,

hammering or pounding?

Does the task require handling loads at a distance from the trunk?

Does the job require an awkward posture such as stooping or reaching upwards?

Does the task require loads to be lifted or carried excessive distances?

Worker complaints or days off sick with back pain or aches and pains indicate a

problem. Consider if the work could be automated or reorganised to avoid the need for any
manual lifting. To identify all the risks the task, the working environment and capabilities of
the worker all need to be looked at. Include handling, carrying, pushing and pulling of loads
as well as lifting.
If the task cannot be eliminating, and is able to be carried out manually (i.e. with risks
reduced), training and information are an important part of the prevention plan.
4.3 Combating MSD Risks
If your general assessment identifies risks from manually handling loads, one should:

eliminate the job if it is reasonably practicable to do so;

assess the operations that cannot be avoided;

take steps to reduce the risk of injury.

Solving MSD problems will often involve a combination of actions, including:

Physical measures changing the workplace or load

Changing work methods

Information and training for the worker

Often the costs of these solutions are small and they are always tiny in comparison to

the costs of disabling and painful injuries. Reducing risks from manual handling will usually
improve the efficiency of the task, reduce labour costs and improve workers motivation.
4.4 Simple solutions
Physical solutions to manual handling problems are often low cost and easy to apply.
Levers
Simple leverage can be a very cheap and effective solution. Examples of situations
where you could use leverage include:

helping to make minor adjustments when hitching linkage-mounted machines or

hanging gates;

inching a heavy item, such as a water tank, horizontally;

using a spare post or crowbar when fencing for removing posts, tensioning wire etc;

purpose-made tools for lifting manhole covers;

long-handled wrenches or extension handles on some tools (taking care not to damage
or over-tighten bolts etc).

Platforms

Tables and platforms, including temporary ones, can help ensure you are working at
the best height. Consider:

a swing-out bench over the tractors front weight frame for maintenance work at a
remote site;

a trolley or swing-out mounting on a tractor to present a heavy toolbox at a convenient

height and avoid lifting;

a makeshift bench, eg of straw bales, to make livestock husbandry tasks easier;

storing tractor weights at the same height as the mounting frame, eg on pallets (if you
cannot handle them mechanically).

Counterbalances and stored energy

Using a counterbalance or stored energy to help

Consider applying a counterbalance weight to help when lifting loads. Remember not
to compromise child safety.

Fit and maintain effective tailgate assistors (counterbalances, springs etc) on livestock
transporters.
Methods to improve the task of linking equipment to tractors

Position equipment accurately, using any slope to your advantage.

Maintain and use the three-point linkage levelling box and the adjustment in a top
link.

Use quick attach/detach systems, eg with an A frame.

Consider auto-attach and demount weight blocks in place of individual front weights.

4.5 Assessment tool for MSDs

4.5.1. RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment):

This was developed earlier by McAtamney and Corlett, 1993, to provide a rapid
objective measure of musculoskeletal risk caused by mainly sedentary tasks where upper
body demands were high; where work related upper limb disorders are reported.
The RULA method evaluate the ergonomics risk factor by observation the posture of
workers while they working at their workstation directly. Postural and biomechanical loading
were assessing on the upper limbs by valid RULA method (Annexur-2).
4.5.2. OWAS (Ovako Working posture Assessment System):
OWAS was developed in Finland in a steel industry companly, Ovako Oy, in 1973 to
describe the workload in the overhauling of iron smelting ovens (Karhu et al., 1977). A
portable computer system for coding and analysis of OWAS has been developed (Kivi and &
Mattila, 1991). This method can be used to identify any possible correction in working
posture that leads to a better and less harmful posture. It identifies the most common work
postures for the back (4 postures), arms (3 postures) and legs (7 postures), and the weight of
the load handled (3 categories). Whole body posture is described by these body parts with a
four digit-code. These 252 postures have been classified to four action categories indicating
needs for ergonomic changes. The observations are made as "snapshots" and sampling has
usually been with constant time intervals (Annexure-3).
4.5.3. QEC (Quick Exposure Check)
Quick Exposure Check is developed in University of Surrey, UK between 1996 to
2003 as a tool for occupational safety and health (OSH) practitioners to assess exposures to
risks for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and to provide a basis for ergonomic
interventions (David 2005, David, 2008, Li and Buckle, 1999).
QEC has been designed to assess the changes in exposure to musculoskeletal risk
factors of the back, shoulders and arms, hands and wrists, and neck before and after an
ergonomic intervention; involve the practitioner (i.e. the observer) who conducts the
assessment, and the worker who has direct experience of the task; and indicate change in
exposure scores following an intervention.
An observational checklist is used on postures and other physical requirements. It is
aimed for rapid assessment of tasks with minimal training of observers. Postures of back,
shoulder/arm, wrist/hand, and neck are observed and rated with two to three step scales using
"fuzzy logic" (natural language without exact borders between the classes). The workers are
asked to rate the weights handled, daily time in the observed task, level of hand force, visual
demands, driving of vehicles, use of vibrating tools, and difficulties to keep up with the work

as well as stressfullness of this work. The ratings are weighted to scores and added to
summary scores for body parts and other items (driving, vibration, work pace and stress).
Based on these scores, priority levels for intervention have been proposed to provide a basis
for decision-making and communication within organisations (Annexure-3).
4.5.4. Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
REBA was proposed by Hignett and McAtamney as a means to assess posture for risk
of work related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs). This ergonomic assessment tool uses
a systematic process to evaluate whole body postural MSD and risks associated with job
tasks. A single page worksheet is used to evaluate required or selected body posture, forceful
exertions, type of movement or action, repetition, and coupling. After the data for each region
is collected and scored, tables on the form are then used to compile the risk factor variables,
generating a single score that represents the level of MSD risk (Sue and McAtamney, 2000) :

4.5.5. Strain Index (SI)

SI was developed, because previous exposure assessment methods were subjective,
lacked standardization, and did not involve examination of risk factors' interaction. This was
developed in US and described in literature in 1995 (Moore and Garg, 1995). Strain index is a
semi-quantitative job analysis methodology that results in a numerical score, which is
believed to correlate with the risk of developing distal upper extremity disorders. Six task
variables describing hand exertions are observed and scored with five levels: intensity of
exertion, duration of exertion, exertions per minute, hand/wrist posture, speed of work (how
fast), and duration per day.
Each score is then weighted based on physiological (endurance, fatigue, recovery),
biomechanical (internal forces, nonlinear relationship between strain and intensity of effort)

and epidemiological principles. Multiplying the weighted scores gives a single figure of
Strain Index (Annexure-4). Surface EMG recordings have been used to assess the effort level
in case observational assessment is difficult (Cabecas 2007).
4.6 Occupational health hazard
A work activity may affect health of the worker in a number of ways (Pheasant, 1991).
Summarized it briefly as follows:
i)

The work may involve over-exertion or cumulative over-use of musculoskeletal or

other bodily structures.

ii)

The working environment may involve exposure of the worker to hazardous

chemicals, dust and other stress agents such as noise, vibration and adverse thermal
conditions.

iii)

The work may be psychologically stressful leading to mental ill health.

iv)

The work may entail a high risk of accidental injury.

v)

The work may promote an unhealthy lifestyle.

Occupational health hazard may be due to vibrations, noise, dust, illumination level at
workplace, exhaust gas emission etc. While studying the self-propelled reaper with farm
women, vibration received in her hand restricted its appropriateness to them. An occupational
health hazard index was developed using overlay and index method based on numerical
ratings to assess the extent of hazard in household, farm and animal rearing activities (Nayak,
et al, 2012).

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous. 2003. Annual Report 2002-2003. NRCWA, Bhubaneswar, p41.
2. Anonymous. 2006. Vision-2025, CIAE Perspective plan. CIAE, Bhopal.
3. Anonymous. 2012a. Human factors and ergonomics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Human _ factors _ and_ergonomics [visited on 17.08.2012 at 11.40 a.m].
4. Anonymous. 2012b. Safety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety [visited on 17.08.2012 at
11.40 a.m].
5. Astrand, I., Astrand, P O., Hallback, I., Kilbom, A., 1973. Reduction in maximal oxygen
intake with age. J. Appl. Physiol., 35: 64.
6. Astrand, P O., Ridahl, K., 1986. Text Book of Work Physiology. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
7. Brouha, L. 1960. Physiology in Industry. Pergamon Press, New York, 3p.
8. Brundke, J. 1984. Langzeitmessungen der pulsfrequenz and moglichkeiten der aussage
uber die arbeits beansprunchung. I Pulsfrequenz und Arbeitsun chungen, Schriftenreihe
Arbeitswissen schaft und Praxis, Band 28, Berlin, Beuth-vertrieb.
9. Cabecas, J M. 2007. The risk of distal upper limb disorder in cleaners: A modified
application of the Strain Index method. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.
37(6):563-71.
10. Corlett, E N and Bishop, R P. 1976. A technique for assessing postural discomfort.
Ergonomics, 19 (2): 175-182.
11. David G & al. 2005. Further development of the usability and validity of the Quick
Exposure Check. Research Report: RR211/2005 Sudbury, Suffolk.: HSE Books.
12. David G & al. 2008. The development of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) for assessing
exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Applied Ergonomics.
39(1):57-69.
13. EASHW.2014.
European Agency for Safety and health at work from
https://osha.europa.eu/ en/sector/agriculture/msds
14. Gite, L P and Singh, G. 1997. Ergonomics in Agriculture and Allied Activities in India.
Technical Bulletin No. 70. Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (CIAE),
Bhopal, 9 pp.
15. Gite, L P., Majumder, J., Mehta, C R and Khadatkar, A. 2009. Anthropometric and
Strength Data of Indian Agricultural Workers for Farm Equipment Design. Book No. 4.
Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal.
16. Hume, R .1966. Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight. Journal of Clinical
Pathology, 19 (4): 38991.
17. Karhu, O &al. 1977. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for
analysis. Applied Ergonomics. 8(4):199-201.
18. Kivi, P and Mattila, M. 1991. Analysis and improvement of work postures in the
building industry: application of the computerised OWAS method. Appl Ergon. 22(1):438.
19. Legg, S J and Mahanty, A. 1985. Comparison of five modes of carrying load close to the
trunk. Ergonomics, 28 (12): 1653-1660.
20. Li G & Buckle P. 1999. Evaluating change in exposure to risk for musculoskeletal
disordersA practical tool. Sudbury, Suffolk; Report No.: 251/1999. Available from:
http://www.hse.gov.uk /research/crr_pdf/1999/crr99251.pdf
21. McAtamney, L. and Corlett. E. N.1993. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 24, 91-99.
22. Moore, J S & Garg, A. 1995. The Strain Index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for
risk of distal upper extremity disorders. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 56(5):443-58.

23. Nag, P K and Chatterjee, S K. 1981. Physiological reactions of female workers in Indian
agricultural work. Human Factors, 23(5):607-614.
24. Nayak, J., Singh, S P and Moharana, G. 2012. Occupational health hazards of farm
women at their workplace in Bhopal district. Final Report. DRWA, Bhubaneswar.
25. Pheasant, S T. 1991. Ergonomics, Work and Health. McMillan, London.
26. Saha, P N., Datta, S R., Banerjee, P K and Narayane, G G. 1979. An acceptable workload
for Indian workers. Ergonomics, 22: 1059-1071.
27. Sen, R N. 1969. Tentative classification of strains in different type of jobs according to
the physiological responses of young Indian (male & female) workers in comfortable
climates. ICMR Report. Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi.
28. Singh, S P. 2005. Ergonomical evaluation of manually- operated cleaner-graders,
fertilizer broadcaster, seed drill and ridger with farm women. Final Report. NRCWA
(DRWA) Sub Centre, CIAE, Bhopal.
29. Singh, S P. 2011. Ergonomical interventions in developing hand operated maize
dehusker-sheller for farm women. Final Report. DRWA, Bhubaneswar.
30. Singh, S P., Kumar, N., Gite, L P and Agarwal, N. 2006. Involvement of farm Women in
Madhya Pradesh Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 125. NRCWA (Bhopal Sub-centre),
CIAE, Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal, 1-16.
31. Singh, S.P., Gite, L.P., Agarwal, N and Majumder, J. 2007. Women Friendly Improved
Farm Tools and Equipment. Technical Bulletin No. 128. NRCWA (Bhopal Sub-centre),
Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal.
32. Singh, S P., Gite, L P., Majumder, J and Agarwal, N. 2008. Aerobic capacity of Indian
farm women using sub-maximal exercise technique on tread mill. Agricultural
Engineering International: The CIGR E-Journal, X.
33. Singh, S P., R S Singh and Surendra Singh. 2011. Sale trend of tractors & farm power
availability in India. Agricultural Engineering Today, 35 (2), 25-35.
34. Singh, S P., Singh, Surendra and Singh, Pratap. 2010. Biomechanical parameters while
operating maize dehusker-sheller. In Lead Papers, National Symposium on Engineering
Agriculture for Evergreen Revolution, 24-25 September. Indian Society of Agricultural
Engineers, A. P. Chapter, Hyderabad: 285-290.
35. Singh, S P., Singh, Surendra and Singh, Pratap. 2012. Ergonomics in developing hand
operated maize dehusker-sheller for farm women. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 792-198.
36. Sue, Hignett and Lynn, McAtamney, 2000. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA);
Applied
a. Ergonomics. 31:201-205.
37. Srinath, K and Singh, S P. 2009. Drudgery Reducing Technologies for Farmwomen.
Technical Bulletin. Directorate of Research on Women in Agriculture, Bhubaneswar.
38. Tewari, V K. 1985. Development of Weeder from Engineering and Ergonomic
Considerations, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural Engineering Department, IIT,
Kharagpur.
39. van Wely, P. 1970. Design and disease. Applied Ergonomics, 1, 262-269. (As coated by
E. Grandjean, 1982, in his book entitled Fitting the task to the Man-An ergonomic
approach, Taylor & Francis Ltd, London at page no. 29.
40. Varghese, M A., Saha, P N and Atreya, N. 1994. A rapid appraisal of occupational
workload from a modified scale of perceived exertion. Ergonomics, 37 (3): 485-491.

Annexure-1
Brief description of Women friendly farm equipment
S.
1

Improved Equipment
Summary of Data
Commercial available seed treatment drum

Benefits of Improved Equipment

was ergonomically evaluated with farm

with chemical is avoided in addition to avoiding

women.
Weight
Output
Mean heart rate
Mean work pulse
Cost (approx)
DRWA Hand ridger

bending posture & uniform mixing.

:
:
:
:
:

26.0 kg
200 kg/h
115 beats per min
27 beats per min
Rs. 2000.00
was modified and

ergonomically evaluated with farm women

Weight
: 3.0 kg
Area covered
: 333 m2/h
Mean heart rate
Pulling

: 127 beats per min

Guiding
Mean work pulse

to generate income.

About 67% saving in physiological cost with

equipment in addition to avoiding bending posture that
is adopted in traditional practice.
Productivity of worker doubles with the equipment
than traditional practice.

: 44 beats per min

Guiding
: 30 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 500.00
Commercial unit of fertilizer broadcaster was

About 6% saving in physiological cost with equipment

refined/modified

in addition to uniform application of fertilizer apart

for

farm

women

and

evaluated ergonomically with farm women

Weight
: 3.0 kg
Area covered
: 1.15 ha/h
Mean heart rate
: 134 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 49 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 1500.00
CIAE seed drill was refined/modified for

from their occupational safety.

farm women and evaluated ergonomically

equipment than traditional practice in addition to

with farm women.

Weight
Area covered
Mean heart rate

avoiding bending posture that is adopted in traditional

Pulling
Guiding
Mean work pulse
Pulling

The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also

: 115 beats/min

Pulling

Equipment provides safety to worker as direct contact

: 11.0 kg
: 430 m2/h
: 135 beats per min
: 119 beats per min
: 46 beats per min

Guiding
: 28 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 2000.00
PAU seed drill was refined/modified for farm
women and evaluated ergonomically with
farm women.
Weight
Area covered
Mean heart rate

: 13.0 kg
: 460 m2/h

The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also

to generate income.

About 87% saving in physiological cost with both the

practice.

Pulling
Guiding
Mean work pulse
Pulling

: 122 beats per min

: 127 beats per min
: 37 beats per min

Guiding
: 41 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 2000.00
TNAU four row paddy drum seeder was
ergonomically evaluated with farm women
Weight
: 8.0 kg
Area covered
: 917 m2/h
Mean heart rate
: 144 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 61 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 5000.00

CIAE naveen dibbler was ergonomically

evaluated with farm women.

Weight
: 4.0 kg
Area covered
: 150 m2/h
Mean heart rate
: 104 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 17 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 400.00
CRRI two row rice transplanter was

ergonomically evaluated with farm women

Weight
: 14.0 kg
Area covered
: 95 m2/h
Mean heart rate
: 138 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 64 beats per min
CRRI four row rice transplanter was
ergonomically evaluated with farm women
Weight
: 23.0 kg
Area covered
: 245 m2/h
Mean heart rate
: 148 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 62 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 7000.00

Being light in weight, easy to transport and handle.

Line sowing is done with the equipment that promotes
use of mechanical weeders thereby reducing drudgery
and cost during weeding operation.
The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also
to generate income
About 13% saving in physiological cost with
equipment in addition to avoiding bending posture that
is adopted in traditional practice.

In addition to avoiding bending posture that is adopted

in traditional practice, CRRI two and four row rice
transplanters save 39 % and 55% cardiac cost/ m 2,
respectively. But there is need to refine the float to
reduce the frictional load.
About 43% saving in physiological cost of worker per

10

CIAE twin wheel hoe was ergonomically

unit of output in addition to avoiding bending/

11

evaluated with farm women.

Weight
: 5.0 kg
Area covered
: 150 m2/h
Mean heart rate
: 127 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 41 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 500.00
CIAE IEP cono-weeder was ergonomically

posture.

12

evaluated with farm women.

Weight
: 9.0 kg
Area covered
: 165 m2/h
Mean heart rate
: 153 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 2000.00
Improved serrated sickles (Vaibhav, Naveen
and Gujarat Agro) were ergonomically

unit of output during wheat harvesting in addition to

evaluated with farm women for harvesting

the advantage of safety to workers as it does not slip.

wheat, paddy and soybean.

squatting postures.

It avoids bending posture as it is operated in standing

About 15% saving in physiological cost of worker per

13

Weight
: 0.2 kg
Area covered
: 151 m2/h in wheat
Mean heart rate
: 120 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 27 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 60.00
OUAT pedal operated paddy thresher was

threshing as bending posture is avoided and arms are

14

ergonomically evaluated with farm women.

Weight
: 39 kg
Output
: 77 kg crop/h
Mean heart rate
: 136 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 53 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 5000.00
Octagonal tubular maize sheller was

unit of output in addition to eliminating the chances of

15

ergonomically evaluated with farm women

Weight
: 0.22 kg
Output
: 27 kg cobs/h
Mean heart rate
: 93 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 16 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs. 60.00
Commercial available rotary maize sheller
was ergonomically evaluated with farm

unit of output in addition to eliminating the chances of

women.
Weight
: 80 kg
Output
: 73 kg cobs/h
Mean heart rate
: 114 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 36 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs.5000.00
DRWA Gender friendly hand operated maize

injury to fingers of worker with this.

dehusker-sheller

worker per unit output as compared to traditional

16

was

developed

using

ergonomics and mechanical considerations.

Weight
: 85 kg
Output
: 60 kg grain/h
Mean heart rate
: 142 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 42 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs.18000.00

It helps to reduce the drudgery involved in paddy

not raised above shoulder height.
The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also
to generate income.
About 15% saving in physiological cost of worker per
injury to fingers of worker with this.

About 32% saving in physiological cost of worker per

About 39 per cent saving in physiological cost of

method of dehusking and shelling. About 22 per cent
saving in physiological cost of worker per unit output
as compared to traditional method of dehusking and
shelling with tubular maize sheller. Equipment is
gender-friendly.
The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also

17

18

groundnut

to generate income.
About 79% saving in physiological cost of worker per

decorticator was refined/modified for women

unit of output with equipment in addition to

and

eliminating the chances of injury to fingers of worker.

DRWA refined
ergonomical

sitting

type

evaluated

with

farm

women.
Weight
: 10 kg
Output
: 30 kg pods/h
Mean heart rate
: 111 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 27 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs.1200.00
CIAE Standing type groundnut decorticator

The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also

was also ergonomically evaluated with farm

unit of output with equipment in addition to

women.
Weight
Output

eliminating the chances of injury to fingers of worker.

: 15 kg
: 33.1 kg pods/h

to generate income.

About 74% saving in physiological cost of worker per

: 122 beats per min

: 42 beats per min
: Rs.1500.00
Jaw type cotton stalk

The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also

puller was ergonomically evaluated with

chances of backache to workers in cotton stalk pulling

operation.

20

farm women.
Weight
Area covered
Mean work pulse
Cost (approx)
CRRI hand operated

which avoided the environment problems.

21.

ergonomically evaluated with farm women

Weight
: 36 kg
Output
: 242 kg /h
Mean heart rate
: 112 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 31 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs.7500.00
CIAE hanging type grain cleaner was
ergonomically evaluated with farm women
Weight
: 17 kg
Output
: 225 kg /h
Mean heart rate
: 103 beats per min
Mean work pulse
: 22 beats per min
Cost (approx)
: Rs.3500.00

productivity of worker increased more than four times

19

Mean heart rate

Mean work pulse
Cost (approx)
Commercial available

: 5.0 kg
: 46 m2/h
: 25 beats per min
: Rs. 500.00
paddy winnower was

to generate income.
Bending posture is avoided thus reducing drudgery and

Winnowing can be done at any time in enclosed area,

The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also
to generate income.

In addition to 63% saving in physiological cost, the

with equipment as compared to traditional practice.
The equipment can also be used on custom hiring also
to generate income.

Client:

Date/time:

Assessor:

Annexure-2

Right Side:

Right Lower Arm

Right Upper Arm

Shoulder is
raised
Upper arm is
abducted
Leaning or
supporting the
weight of the arm

Muscle Use

Wrist is bent
away from midline

hand sideForce & Load for

Right Wrist Twist

Right Wrist

Working across
the midline of the body
or out to the side

the Right SELECT ONLY ONE OF THESE:

No resistance less than 2kg intermittent load or force

210kg intermittent load or force
210kg static load 2-10kg repeated loads or forces 10kg or more intermittent
load or force
10kg static load 10kg repeated loads or forces Shock or forces with rapid
build-up
Posture is mainly static, e.g. held for longer than 1 minute or repeated more than 4 times per minute

Left Side:

Left Wrist

Left Lower Arm

Left Upper Arm

Shoulder is
raised
Upper arm
is abducted
Leaning or
supporting the
weight of the
Working across
the midline of the body
or out to the side

Wrist is bent
away from
midline

Right hand sideForce & Load for the

Left Wrist Twist

Legs

Side-bendTrunk

Trunk Twist

Trunk

Side-bendNeck

Neck Twist

Neck

Muscle Use

SELECT ONLY ONE OF THESE:

No resistance less than 2kg intermittent load or force
210kg intermittent load or force
210kg static load 2-10kg repeated loads or forces 10kg or more
intermittent load or force
10kg static load 10kg repeated loads or forces Shock or forces with rapid
build-up
Posture is mainly static, e.g. held for longer than 1 minute or repeated more than 4 times per minute

Force & Load for the neck,

trunk and legs
Muscle Use

Legs and feet are

well supported and
in an evenly
balanced posture.

Legs and feet are

NOT evenly
balanced and
supported.

SELECT ONLY ONE OF THESE:

No resistance less than 2kg intermittent load or force
210kg intermittent load or force
210kg static load 2-10kg repeated loads or forces 10kg or more intermittent load or force
10kg static load 10kg repeated loads or forces Shock or forces with rapid build-up
Posture is mainly static, e.g. held for longer than 1 minute or repeated more than 4 times per minute

Annexure-3
OWAS Assessment Techniques

Annexure-4
SI Assessment Techniques