This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University] On: 27 February 2015, At: 02:37 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ergonomics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

A survey of anthropometry of rural agricultural workers in Enugu State, south-eastern Nigeria a

a

Okey Francis Obi , Boniface O. Ugwuishiwu & Busayo S. Adeboye

b

a

Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria b

Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Osun State College of Technology, Esa Oke, Nigeria Published online: 15 Jan 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Okey Francis Obi, Boniface O. Ugwuishiwu & Busayo S. Adeboye (2015): A survey of anthropometry of rural agricultural workers in Enugu State, south-eastern Nigeria, Ergonomics, DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2014.1001446 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.1001446

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Ergonomics, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.1001446

A survey of anthropometry of rural agricultural workers in Enugu State, south-eastern Nigeria Okey Francis Obia*, Boniface O. Ugwuishiwua and Busayo S. Adeboyeb a

Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria; bMechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Osun State College of Technology, Esa Oke, Nigeria

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

(Received 29 April 2014; accepted 17 December 2014) In developed countries, large amount of anthropometric data are available for reference purposes; however, anthropometric data of Nigerian populace are lacking. As a result, most agricultural machines and equipment used are designed using anthropometric data from other populations of the world. A total of 377 rural agricultural workers within the age limit of 18 – 45 years, who are involved in different agricultural activities, were selected from six rural agriculture-based communities in Enugu state. Thirty-six anthropometric body dimensions were measured including age and body weight. A comparison between the male and female data indicated that data obtained from male agricultural workers were higher than that obtained from their female counterparts in all body dimensions except chest (bust) depth, abdominal breadth and hip breadth (sitting). In terms of design parameters, it was observed that the data from Nigerian agricultural workers were different from that obtained from agricultural workers in north-eastern India. Practitioner Summary. Anthropometric data of Nigeria populace are lacking. As a result, most agricultural machines and equipment used are designed using anthropometric data from other populations of the world. It was observed that the data from Nigerian agricultural workers were different from that obtained from agricultural workers in north-eastern India. Keywords: anthropometric data; equipment design; rural agricultural workers; Nigeria

1.

Introduction

Nigeria, with a population of over 120 million people, is the most populous nation in Africa with the majority of its rural populace involved in agriculture. Over 80% of the country’s food needs are produced by peasant agricultural workers cultivating, in many cases, less than two hectares of land as was reported by Yisa (2005). The production methods, tools and equipment used all impact on the quality, quantity, price of the produce and, more significantly, on the health and comfort of the workers. According to Khidiya and Bhardwaj (2010), the main economic characteristic of agriculture in most developing countries is the low level of manual productivity. The work environment is poor and the tools and equipment are mainly basic. These tools are the leading cause of musculoskeletal injuries to subsistence agricultural workers. In a survey of occupational disorders among Ghanaian subsistence farmers by McNeil and O’Neill (1998), it was reported that the immediate cost of musculoskeletal injuries caused by the use of poorly designed hand tools to the farmers, both in terms of lost work and the financial burden of treatment, can be considerable. The present need in the use of agricultural machines and equipment in achieving agricultural mechanisation requires the knowledge and proper design of such machines and equipment with special consideration given to efficiency, safety and comfort of the users. In south-eastern Nigeria, local tools and equipment are utilised in performing agricultural operations. Despite the application of modern technology in agricultural machinery and equipment design, a lot of human drudgery in farm operations has not yet been arrested to its minimal level in Nigeria, especially in the south-eastern part of the country. The application of the knowledge of anthropometry could be used to alleviate these problems. Anthropometry is the science of measurement and the art of application that establishes the physical geometry, mass properties and strength capabilities of the human body (Prado-Lu 2007). As was noted by Singh et al. (2013), it involves the systematic measurement of the physical properties of the human body, primarily dimensional descriptors of body size, mass and shape. The knowledge of body dimensions is essential for designers of equipment, tools and work places for agricultural operations such as sowing, transplanting, weeding, harvesting, threshing and post-harvest operations such as shelling, cleaning, grading and processing, as they are important for improved health, comfort and productivity of the workers.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] q 2015 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

2

O.F. Obi et al.

Anthropometric data of both male and female agricultural workers are important for the rationalisation of the design of agricultural tools and equipment since the ergonomic characteristics of female workers are different from that of male workers (Philip and Tewari 2000; Singh, Gite, and Agrawal 2006). Agricultural tools, equipments and machines could increase workload and occupational disorders if not fit for the target users. The use of anthropometric data can help in the proper design of equipment for better efficiency and improved human comfort. In developed countries, large amount of anthropometric data are available for reference for the design of machines, tools and equipment; however, anthropometric data of Nigeria populace are lacking. As a result of this, agricultural machines and equipment imported into Nigeria are usually designed using anthropometric data from other populations of the world, while those designed by local fabricators have no consideration for ergonomic principles, in general. Most of these agricultural machines and equipment create discomfort and at times break down easily due to various discrepancies in anthropometric data with respect to Nigerian agricultural workers using them. The lack of properly designed machines and equipment may lead to lower work performance and higher incidence of work-related injuries (Chandna, Deswal, and Chandra 2010). Compilation of relevant data on anthropometric dimensions of the user populations may help alleviate such problems. It is a common practice in Nigeria, particularly within the south-eastern part of country, for young men and women in the prime of their youth to leave agricultural work in the rural areas for the city. This trend has been attributed to the risks and discomforts associated with agricultural activities particularly with the use of poorly designed agricultural tools and post-harvest equipment and machines (Obi and Nwakaire 2011). The status of agricultural mechanisation in the south-eastern part of Nigeria, particularly in Enugu state could be said to be semi-mechanised. Hand tools are used for cultivation and harvesting, while tractors and the accompany implements are used for land clearing and preparation. Post-harvest machines and equipment are semi-mechanised; examples are melon sheller, rice thresher, palm nut fibre separator. The use of these tools and machines has been observed to cause musculoskeletal disorders among the users over time (Obi and Nwakaire 2011). Various factors such as gender, age, race, nutritional status, body dimensions and nature of work vary widely across regions, states and countries (Agrawal, Singh, and Satapathy 2010; Yadav, Tewari, and Prasad 1997). This implies that there could be considerable difference in anthropometric data of Nigerians and other nationalities as well as among regions and states within a country. Chan and Jiao (1996) noted that anthropometric mismatch in dimensions has been postulated to be one of the main causes of work-related fatigue and occupational illness, and steps must be taken to gather anthropometric data that can aid in the formulation of ergonomic interventions in workplaces. Some agricultural operations in south-eastern Nigeria are equally shared by both genders and as such anthropometric limitations of both genders have to be taken into consideration in the design of tools, equipment and machines. Anthropometric data can be used to identify the physical dimensions of equipment, furniture, clothing and workstations, the lack of which impacts negatively on the users’ health (Mirmohammadia et al. 2013). This study aims at providing anthropometric data of rural agricultural workers in Enugu state as a reference for ergonomic designs and modifications of agricultural equipment and machines suitable for use by Nigerian workers. The specific objectives of the study were to provide some anthropometric data of the male and female rural agricultural workers in Enugu state and to compare the data with that of Indian population through their applications in equipment design. The importance of a study as this cannot be overemphasised as has been demonstrated in a number of researches in the field of anthropometry and in ergonomics, in general. Garneau and Parkinson (2013) noted that configuring products or environments for the size of their human users requires the consideration of several characteristics of the target user population, including anthropometry and the preferred interaction. Hsiao et al. (2005) investigated farm-worker anthropometry and determined the critical anthropometric measures and three-dimensional feature envelopes of body landmarks for the design of tractor operator enclosures for improved human –tractor interface designs, such as well-accommodated operator enclosures (i.e. cabs and protection frames) which could enhance operator productivity, comfort and safety. Fernandez and Uppugonduri (1992) investigated the anthropometry of south Indian electronic industry workmen with the aim of modifying work stations that utilised equipment imported from other countries. Lee et al. (2013) analysed the anthropometric data of Korean male helicopter pilots for helicopter cockpit design layout, while Chung and Wong (2007) carried out an anthropometric survey to determine whether the design of furniture in schools was appropriate for children’s anthropometry since musculoskeletal symptoms have been observed among schoolchildren in Hong Kong. Williamson and Shorrock (2014) in their study of what human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) professionals value in research publications revealed that HF/E practitioners consider researches with practical significance more important than theoretical studies. HF/F researchers and practitioners stated that such research with practical applications make more impact on real world practice than theoretical studies. Furthermore, research in the field of anthropometry furthers the goal of efficiently accommodating the desired percentage of user populations through its application and modelling of human variability (Nadadur and Parkinson 2013).

Ergonomics

3

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

2. Methodology 2.1. Subjects For the purpose of the study, six major agriculture-based rural communities were selected from four local government areas (LGAs) in Enugu state. Two communities (Adani and Opanda) from Uzo-Uwani LGA, one community (Obollo-Afor) from Udenu LGA, one community (Ibagwa) from Igbo-Eze south LGA and two communities (Ngwuru and Ede-Oballa) from Nsukka LGA. The bulk of the population in these communities is involved in one agricultural activity or the other and data were collected from both male and female workers who were currently involved in agricultural production. A total of 377 agricultural workers (male and female) were surveyed in these rural communities with their age ranging from 18 to 45 years. Out of the 377 subjects, 284 were male and 93 were female agricultural workers (Table 1). Subjects were selected on the basis of their availability and willingness to participate without payment or any other kind of reward as was suggested by Mandahawi et al. (2008). All the subjects were in good health, as was ascertained from selfreport via interviews. The measurement of anthropometric dimensions was observed to be a sensitive issue to some people, and hence many refused to be measured particularly the female agricultural workers. This affected the number of female subjects available for the study, hence the 93 female subjects. As earlier stated, data were taken from both male and female subjects within the age bracket of 18– 45 years which is within the productive years of agricultural workers in south-eastern Nigeria. 2.2.

Body dimensions

For the anthropometric data, the body weight and 36 anthropometric measurements or dimensions were measured which were considered useful in agricultural tools/equipment design. All measurements were taken in the afternoon and the subjects were barefooted, wearing t-shirts or shirts, and shorts or pants, while the measurements were taken. The landmarks of body dimensions are shown in Figures 1 –3. The body dimensions and measurement were adapted from the study by Chuan, Hartono, and Kumar (2010). 2.3. Equipment used Traditional anthropometric tools (measuring tape/metre scale) were used rather than a more sophisticated and high-tech equipment such as a three-dimensional scanner. They are simple, portable, inexpensive and as reliable and accurate as those obtained by high-tech anthropometric tools (Al-Ansari and Mokdad 2009). A weighing scale and small stools were used also. All the equipment used were calibrated against standard/rules such as centimetres (cm), kilograms (kg). 2.4. Measurement procedure In carrying out the measurement, the assistance of one male and two female postgraduate students of the Department of Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering, University of Nigeria, were employed. The students were given diagrams showing the required measurements of body dimensions as well as the body landmarks. After thorough study and explanation of the measurements, they were asked to measure the body dimensions of 10 volunteers, which perfected their skill in taking body measurements. The subjects were asked to change into light-fitted wears prior to body measurements. For each body dimension, the body landmark was identified with the diagram serving as a guide and the required body measurement taken one after another. For measurements requiring the subjects to be in sitting position, a short stool with no back and armrest was used. Measurements were taken for not more than three hours each day to prevent fatigue and tiredness from setting in which could affect the accuracy of the measurements. Measurements for the study were taken over a period of about two months. Table 1.

Details of selected communities for the study. Subjects

S/No.

Local government areas

1 2 3 4

Uzo-Uwani Udenu Igbo-Eze South Nsukka Total

Rural communities

Male

Female

Total

Adani and Opanda Obollo-Afor Ibagwa Ngwuru and Ede-Oballa

100 50 50 84 284

28 20 20 25 93

128 70 70 109 377

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

4

O.F. Obi et al.

Figure 1.

Body measurement in standing position. Source: Chuan, Hartono, and Kumar (2010).

2.5. Data analysis The data obtain were analysed using SPSS statistical package (Version 12.0 for Windows) using descriptive analysis. The descriptive statistics used included the mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation and the percentiles. The outliers and unreasonable data, which may be as a result of mistake(s) during recording, were identified and carefully eliminated. 3. 3.1.

Results and discussions Anthropometric data

The anthropometric data of male agricultural workers obtained from Enugu state is shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 shows the mean, minimum, maximum and the standard deviations of the data obtained, while Table 3 shows the percentile values (1st, 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 95th and 99th) and the difference between the 5th and the 95th percentiles required for the design of adjustable equipment or tools. Tables 4 and 5 show the anthropometric data of female agricultural workers as obtained from Enugu state. Table 4 shows the mean, minimum, maximum and the standard deviation of the values, while Table 5 shows the percentile values (1st, 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 95th and 99th) as well as the difference between the 5th and the 95th percentiles. A total of 284 male subjects were surveyed, while 93 females were surveyed on the basis of the availability of the subjects. The male height ranged from 150 to 190 cm (SD ¼ 8.09) with a mean value of 173.84 cm, while the body weight ranged from 53.00 to 100.00 kg (SD ¼ 9.38) having a mean value of 72.28 kg. The age range of the male subjects was 18.00 to 45.00 years with a mean value of 31.00 years (SD ¼ 7.30). For the female subjects, the height ranged from 155.00 to 179.00 cm (SD ¼ 4.66) with a mean value of 161.20 cm, while the body weight ranged from 52.00 to 100 kg (SD ¼ 7.70) with a mean value of 63.50 kg. The age range was 18.00 to 45.00 years with a mean value of 31.00 years (SD ¼ 8.00). Dixit et al. (2014) reported that the height or stature of male agricultural workers of Ladakh region of India ranged from 151.9 to 166.8 cm with a mean value of 157.7 cm, which was lower than the mean value reported for the male agricultural workers of south-eastern Nigeria (173.84 cm). The weight of the male workers was reported to range from 45.0 to 70.0 with a mean value of 56.8 kg, which was lower than the mean value of 72.28 kg reported for the male agricultural workers of south-eastern Nigeria. For their female counterparts, Dixit et al. (2014) reported that the height of the female agricultural workers ranged from 140.1 to 155.0 cm with a mean value of 149.8 cm, while the body weight ranged from 43.0 to 77.0 kg with a mean value of 49.4 kg. The mean height and body weight reported by Dixit et al. (2014) for the female

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

Ergonomics

Figure 2.

Body measurement in sitting position. Source: Chuan, Hartono, and Kumar (2010).

Figure 3.

Body measurement in standing/sitting position. Source: Chuan, Hartono, and Kumar (2010).

5

agricultural workers in the Ladakh region of India were both lower than the mean height of 161.20 cm and weight of 63.50 kg reported for the female workers in south-eastern Nigeria. This shows that differences exist in anthropometric characteristics of different populations which are similar to the views expressed by Lin, Wang, and Wang (2004) and Liu, Sanchez-Monroy, and Parga (1999). The percentile value of the male and female agricultural workers are usually used as design limits in accommodating a wide majority of the user population. Also, the 5th and the 95th percentiles are used to accommodate at least 90th of the user

6 Table 2.

O.F. Obi et al. Anthropometric data of male agricultural workers (n ¼ 284).

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckle height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth (biacromial) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulder-elbow length Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach Body weight (kg) Age

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

SD

173.84 162.32 148.63 109.50 95.32 77.01 63.71 84.93 74.89 61.14 20.97 14.95 60.37 50.11 54.23 46.84 47.90 31.51 34.84 19.46 19.92 39.24 49.24 81.95 69.32 18.57 15.08 19.78 9.39 25.74 10.11 187.92 94.42 216.24 130.38 81.84 72.28 31.00

150.00 100.00 101.00 98.00 82.00 63.00 53.00 66.00 68.00 51.00 15.00 12.50 51.00 42.00 42.00 39.00 44.00 27.00 29.00 13.80 17.00 32.00 43.00 74.00 59.00 16.00 13.60 16.00 8.40 22.00 9.00 158.00 76.00 198.00 111.00 69.00 53.00 18.00

190.00 178.00 174.00 121.00 110.00 96.50 72.00 97.00 83.00 71.00 24.10 19.00 67.00 59.00 61.00 56.00 54.00 35.00 38.10 32.00 25.00 47.00 57.00 93.00 78.00 21.00 16.00 23.00 10.80 28.00 11.50 208.00 107.00 255.00 227.00 98.00 100.00 45.00

8.09 9.66 8.53 5.95 6.25 6.24 4.44 4.54 3.60 3.78 1.85 0.90 3.32 3.69 3.76 2.98 2.92 2.18 1.91 1.55 1.37 3.38 2.50 4.56 4.45 0.87 0.63 1.23 0.49 1.35 0.42 7.28 5.59 9.71 14.18 5.78 9.38 7.30

Note: All measurements are in centimetres unless otherwise specified.

population, and the difference between these percentiles are used in determining the adjustable limits in the design of adjustable equipments, machines and tools. For example, popliteal height (sitting) being a very important aspect of seat design (Victor, Nath, and Verma 2002) could have an adjustment of 9.00 and 5.00 cm for male and female users, respectively. It was assumed that clothing had no effect on body dimensions or weight. Therefore, these factors should be taken into account when applying the data. In comparison to the survey carried out by Dixit et al. (2014), using the popliteal height (sitting), the seat adjustment would be 9.9 cm for the male agricultural workers and 14.2 cm for the female workers. The result shows that a seat adjustment designed for the Nigeria agricultural workers may not be appropriate for the agricultural workers in the Ladakh region of India. Kar et al. (2003) reported a hand length of 17.51 cm and a hand breadth of 8.23 cm for male agricultural workers of Midnapore district, West Bengal state of eastern India, which were lower than the mean values reported in this study that were 19.78 and 9.39 cm for the hand length and hand breadth, respectively (Table 2). For the female agricultural workers, Kar et al. (2003) reported a hand length and breadth of 16.06 and 7.07 cm, respectively, while the corresponding values reported in this study which were 18.26 and 8.16 cm (Table 4), respectively, for the female agricultural workers in south-eastern Nigeria were higher. Many establishments and industries are yet to recognise the importance of ergonomics and anthropometry in designs as was noted by Ijadunola et al. (2003), thus promoting unnecessary physical efforts, decreasing efficiency and productivity of workers as a result of the occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. In the field of health, Ray and Chandra

Ergonomics Table 3.

7

Percentiles of anthropometric data of male agricultural workers (n ¼ 284). Percentiles

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckel height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulder-elbow length Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach Body weight (kg) Age

1st

5th

25th

50th

75th

95th

99th

DIFF

156.64 138.00 134.00 99.66 82.00 65.00 54.30 73.47 68.00 53.00 16.00 13.00 52.83 42.92 45.00 39.86 44.00 27.00 30.00 17.00 17.80 33.00 43.83 74.00 59.00 16.00 14.00 16.92 8.40 23.00 9.00 175.00 85.00 200.00 111.00 70.00 54.00 19.00

160.00 147.03 135.00 100.38 86.00 67.00 56.12 77.00 70.00 54.05 18.00 13.80 55.00 44.00 48.00 43.00 44.00 27.00 31.00 18.00 18.00 34.00 46.00 75.00 61.00 17.00 14.00 18.00 8.60 23.00 9.50 176.92 86.00 201.15 120.00 74.00 58.00 21.00

169.00 158.00 144.00 103.00 90.00 72.00 60.00 83.00 72.88 59.00 20.00 14.38 59.00 47.00 52.00 45.00 45.00 30.00 34.00 19.00 19.00 37.00 47.00 78.00 66.00 18.00 15.00 19.00 9.00 25.00 9.90 184.00 90.00 208.00 125.00 78.00 66.00 24.00

174.00 164.00 150.00 110.00 96.50 78.00 64.90 85.00 74.00 61.00 21.00 15.00 61.00 50.00 55.00 47.00 48.00 32.80 35.00 19.10 20.00 39.00 50.00 82.00 70.00 19.00 15.00 20.00 9.30 26.00 10.00 188.00 94.00 217.00 128.00 81.00 71.00 30.00

180.00 168.25 155.00 114.00 98.00 82.00 67.00 88.00 77.00 63.00 22.00 15.30 63.00 53.00 57.00 48.33 49.00 33.00 36.00 20.00 20.58 42.00 51.00 85.00 73.00 19.00 15.50 20.00 9.80 27.00 10.30 192.00 98.00 221.00 132.00 85.25 78.00 37.00

186.00 175.00 160.00 119.00 107.00 83.00 70.00 94.00 82.00 69.00 24.00 16.10 65.00 55.00 59.00 52.00 53.00 34.00 38.00 21.00 22.00 45.00 54.00 89.50 76.00 20.00 16.00 22.00 10.20 28.00 10.90 204.00 105.00 234.85 143.00 92.00 87.00 43.00

189.17 178.00 164.00 121.00 108.17 95.00 72.00 94.17 83.00 71.00 24.10 18.00 67.00 59.00 61.00 56.00 54.00 35.00 38.00 22.17 24.83 47.00 55.00 93.00 78.00 20.10 16.00 23.00 10.55 28.00 11.50 207.00 107.00 240.89 216.02 95.00 100.00 44.00

26.00 28.00 25.00 18.62 21.00 16.00 13.88 17.00 12.00 14.95 6.00 2.30 10.00 11.00 11.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 4.00 11.00 8.00 14.50 15.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 1.60 5.00 1.40 27.08 19.00 33.70 23.00 18.00 29.00 22.00

Note: All measurements are in cm unless otherwise specified. DIFF, difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles.

(2013) noted that malnutrition can be assessed anthropometrically using height of the subject since malnutrition impairs growth and changes body composition leading to abnormal changes in body dimensions. 3.2.

Comparison of male and female anthropometric data

The male and female anthropometric data were compared as shown in Table 6. The mean data recorded for the male agricultural workers were higher compared to the mean values for the female agricultural workers except for the hip breadth (male, 34.84 cm [SD ¼ 1.91]; female, 41.29 cm [SD ¼ 1.98]), chest (bust) depth (male, 19.46 cm [SD ¼ 1.55]; female, 24.95 cm [SD ¼ 1.70]) and the abdominal depth (male, 19.92 cm [SD ¼ 1.37]; female, 24.71 cm [SD ¼ 1.53]). This trend of higher mean values for male workers was also reported by Prado-Lu (2007) for Filipino manufacturing workers. These results suggest that it is essential to incorporate accurate anthropometry in the design of agricultural tools and machines for male and female workers as well as in the application of biomechanical models. Furthermore, the data obtained from the study are important in designing for sustainability (DfS). As Nadadur and Parkinson (2013) stated, DfS allows for the concept of anthropometry to be leveraged in the broader context of designing to minimise negative impacts on the users and the environment. They proposed that the application of anthropometric data is relevant to DfS as it brings about reduction in raw material consumption, increases usage lifetime and ethical human resource consideration.

8

O.F. Obi et al.

Table 4.

Anthropometric data of female agricultural workers (n ¼ 93).

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckle height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth (biacromial) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulder-elbow length Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach Body weight (kg) Age

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

SD

161.20 149.84 135.40 99.35 92.19 69.83 58.10 78.33 67.65 56.09 18.04 14.39 59.22 48.82 49.19 42.05 47.36 23.79 41.29 24.95 24.71 35.06 45.84 74.89 66.97 16.37 14.38 18.26 8.16 23.50 9.01 171.70 87.24 195.01 113.70 73.93 63.50 31.00

155.00 142.00 128.00 91.70 88.00 67.00 55.00 72.00 62.80 52.00 14.50 12.20 56.00 45.00 46.00 39.00 42.80 20.00 37.00 22.00 21.50 32.00 44.30 70.00 64.00 14.80 13.20 17.00 7.40 23.00 8.20 165.00 80.50 185.80 102.00 71.00 52.00 18.00

179.00 167.00 153.00 112.00 98.00 78.00 68.00 86.00 75.10 66.00 25.00 19.50 69.00 59.60 56.00 46.00 54.00 27.00 47.00 33.00 32.00 42.00 51.00 85.00 75.60 19.00 15.70 20.60 9.10 26.30 12.00 188.50 97.00 219.00 129.00 82.00 100.00 45.00

4.66 5.32 4.93 3.00 2.36 2.35 2.60 3.51 3.31 2.02 2.39 0.95 1.82 2.17 2.26 1.53 2.72 2.04 1.98 1.70 1.53 2.04 1.18 2.77 2.04 0.99 0.49 0.63 0.35 0.59 0.46 5.74 4.33 8.55 6.40 2.02 7.70 8.00

Note: All measurements are in cm unless otherwise specified.

It is generally accepted that a mismatch between workers, their tools and equipment could cause musculoskeletal discomfort and disorder, thereby lowering their efficiency and productivity. Most technology transfers are carried out on the assumption that the technologies are either gender-neutral or that the male agricultural workers are the main users and decision-makers (Singh et al. 2007). This is often incorrect because females have quite different technological needs than males due to their different anthropometric and physiological characteristics (Dewangan, Owary, and Datta 2010). Therefore, many of the equipment and machines designed with anthropometric considerations for female agricultural workers may not be suitable for male agricultural workers and vice versa. Thus, there is need to design hand tools and equipment separately for male and female agricultural workers as observed by Dewangan, Owary, and Datta (2010) and where possible, adjustment should be incorporated to accommodate both the male and female workers. 4.

Comparison with data from north-eastern India

Some studies have revealed that gender, age, occupation and ethnicity could influence the anthropometric dimensions of a population. Lee et al. (2013) compared the anthropometric dimensions of Korean helicopter pilots with that of Korean male civilians and US army personnel. They stated that the anthropometric comparison revealed that the Korean helicopter pilots were larger (ratio of means ¼ 1.01 –1.08) and less dispersed (ratio of standard deviations ¼ 0.71 –0.93) than the Korean

Ergonomics Table 5.

9

Percentiles of anthropometric data of female agricultural workers (n ¼ 93). Percentiles

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckel height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth (biacromial) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulder-elbow length Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach Body weight (kg) Age

1st

5th

25th

50th

75th

95th

99th

DIFF

155.40 142.92 128.92 93.82 88.00 67.00 55.00 72.00 62.80 52.00 14.50 12.75 56.00 45.00 46.00 39.00 42.80 20.00 37.46 22.00 22.42 32.00 44.94 70.00 64.00 14.80 13.48 17.00 7.49 23.00 8.20 165.00 80.50 185.80 102.90 71.00 52.00 18.00

156.00 143.60 130.00 95.00 88.10 67.50 55.00 73.60 63.60 52.60 15.10 13.00 57.00 46.00 47.00 40.00 44.00 20.46 38.60 23.00 22.50 32.30 45.00 71.00 64.60 15.00 13.80 17.50 7.60 23.00 8.30 166.00 81.60 186.80 104.00 72.00 55.00 19.00

158.00 147.00 133.00 98.00 91.00 68.00 56.00 76.00 66.00 55.50 16.00 14.00 58.00 47.00 48.00 41.00 45.70 22.00 40.00 24.00 24.00 33.00 45.00 72.50 65.00 15.60 14.00 18.00 8.00 23.00 8.90 167.00 84.00 190.00 110.00 73.00 58.50 24.00

160.00 149.00 135.00 99.00 92.00 69.00 57.80 77.00 67.00 56.00 17.00 14.20 59.00 49.00 49.00 42.00 47.00 24.00 41.00 25.00 25.00 35.00 45.00 75.00 67.00 16.50 14.20 18.10 8.10 23.50 9.00 170.00 86.00 192.00 114.00 74.00 61.00 31.00

161.50 150.50 136.00 100.00 93.00 71.00 60.00 80.00 68.00 57.00 20.00 15.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 43.00 48.00 26.00 43.00 26.00 25.00 36.00 46.00 77.00 68.00 17.00 14.80 18.50 8.40 24.00 9.20 173.00 90.50 196.00 116.00 74.50 67.00 38.00

172.00 162.00 147.00 105.00 96.40 74.00 62.00 85.08 75.00 59.00 22.00 15.90 61.30 52.00 53.40 45.00 52.40 26.00 45.00 28.00 27.00 38.50 48.00 78.20 70.20 18.00 15.20 19.60 8.90 24.00 9.38 184.00 95.80 216.00 128.00 78.80 76.10 43.00

173.50 163.32 147.48 108.30 97.08 96.16 63.40 85.63 75.10 59.65 24.08 17.20 64.40 54.45 54.16 46.00 53.08 26.08 45.16 28.40 28.32 38.78 50.08 85.00 74.13 18.54 15.52 19.68 19.01 25.40 10.34 187.60 97.00 217.62 129.00 81.08 81.60 45.00

16.00 18.40 17.00 10.00 8.30 6.50 7.00 11.48 11.40 6.40 6.90 2.90 4.30 6.00 6.40 5.00 8.40 5.54 6.40 5.00 4.50 6.20 3.00 7.20 5.60 3.00 1.40 2.10 1.30 1.00 1.08 18.00 14.20 29.20 24.00 6.80 21.10 24.00

Note: All measurements are in cm unless otherwise specified. DIFF, difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles.

male civilians; and that they were shorter in stature (0.99), had shorter upper (0.89 – 0.96) and lower limbs (0.93 – 0.97), but were taller on sitting height, sitting eye height and acromial height (1.01 –1.03); and less dispersed (0.68 – 0.97) than the US Army personnel. Mirmohammadia et al. (2013) measured and compared some static anthropometric dimensions of 12,731 Iranian children from different ethnicities aged 7 – 11 years. The study showed significant differences in a set of 22 anthropometric dimensions with regard to gender, age and ethnicity. They concluded that differences between genders and among different ethnicities should be taken into account by designers and manufacturers. The data obtained from Enugu were compared with those obtained by Dewangan, Owary, and Datta (2010) from northeastern India in terms of the design parameters for a seat and the handle height of a weeder. It should be noted that majority of agricultural machines and equipment imported into Nigeria are from India.

4.1.

Tractor seat design

Operator’s seat is provided in tractors and in most mechanical driven equipment. It is also provided in bullock-operated equipment like disc harrow, puddler, seed drill and planter. The dimensions of the tractor seat, i.e. width, depth and height are important parameters in which anthropometric data can be very useful.

10 Table 6.

O.F. Obi et al. Comparison of male and female anthropometric data.

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckel height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth (biacromial) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulder-elbow length Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach Body weight (kg) Age

Mean (male)

SD

Mean (female)

SD

173.84 162.32 148.63 109.50 95.32 77.01 63.71 84.93 74.89 61.14 20.97 14.95 60.37 50.11 54.23 46.84 47.90 31.51 34.84 19.46 19.92 39.24 49.24 81.95 69.32 18.57 15.08 19.78 9.39 25.74 10.11 187.92 94.42 216.24 130.38 81.84 72.28 31.00

8.09 9.66 8.53 5.95 6.25 6.24 4.44 4.54 3.60 3.78 1.85 0.90 3.32 3.69 3.76 2.98 2.92 2.18 1.91 1.55 1.37 3.38 2.50 4.56 4.45 0.87 0.63 1.23 0.49 1.35 0.42 7.28 5.59 9.71 14.18 5.78 9.38 7.30

161.20 149.84 135.40 99.35 92.19 69.83 58.10 78.33 67.65 56.09 18.04 14.39 59.22 48.82 49.19 42.05 47.36 23.79 41.29 24.95 24.71 35.06 45.84 74.89 66.97 16.37 14.38 18.26 8.16 23.50 9.01 171.70 87.24 195.01 113.70 73.93 63.50 31.00

4.66 5.32 4.93 3.00 2.36 2.35 2.60 3.51 3.31 2.02 2.39 0.95 1.82 2.17 2.26 1.53 2.72 2.04 1.98 1.70 1.53 2.04 1.18 2.77 2.04 0.99 0.49 0.63 0.35 0.59 0.46 5.74 4.33 8.55 6.40 2.02 7.70 8.00

Note: All measurements are in cm unless otherwise specified.

4.1.1. Tractor seat height The height of a tractor seat should be little below the popliteal height of its user (Dewangan, Owary, and Datta 2010). The 5th and 95th percentile values of popliteal height of the male agricultural workers from this study were found to be 43.00 and 52.00 cm, respectively. Assuming the optimal height of a seat to be 4 cm less the popliteal height as suggested by Dewangan, Owary, and Datta (2010), the height range of the recommended seat height would be between 39 and 48 cm. For the female agricultural workers, the 5th and 95th popliteal heights were 40.00 and 45.00 cm, respectively. Thus, the tractor seat height recommended for the female workers should be between 36 and 41 cm. Provision should thus be made to raise and lower the seat height within the recommended ranges. 4.1.2.

Tractor seat width

As expected, the width of a tractor seat should be adequate for the largest user, i.e. the hip breadth (sitting) of the 95th percentile. The 95th percentile value of hip breadth (sitting) for the male subjects was 38.00 cm. Adding 1 cm for clothing material; the recommended seat width would be 39.00 cm. For the female workers, the 95th percentile of hip breadth (sitting) was 45.16 cm. Thus, the recommended tractor seat width is 46 cm making correction for clothing.

Ergonomics Table 7.

Ergonomically designed seat dimensions. Present study

Seat dimension Height (cm) Width (cm) Depth (cm)

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

4.1.3.

11

Dewangan, Owary, and Datta (2010)

Male

Female

Male

39 – 48 39 33

36 –41 46 34.50

30 – 41 37 27

Tractor seat depth

The seat depth should be such that it supports the buttocks but the lower leg should not touch the seat (Dewangan, Owary, and Datta 2010). For seat depth, three quarters of buttock – popliteal length is used as a general guide (Shao and Zhou 1990). Therefore, considering the 5th percentile of user population for the male and female subjects, the recommended seat depth is 33.00 cm and 34.50 cm for the male and female workers, respectively. A comparison of the seat dimensions with that reported by Dewangan, Owary, and Datta (2010) for male agricultural workers of north-eastern India shows a marked difference in the dimensions of the ergonomically designed seat (Table 7). This goes to show that variation in agro-climatic conditions, geographical location and socio-economic condition might influence various body dimensions. It was reported by Roberts (1975) that anthropometric variations may be caused by regional differences.

4.2.

Handle height for a weeder

The long handled weeder is recommended for weeding operations being one of the most labour intensive operations in crop production. The operation of long handled weeder is a push – pull mode. The handle of the weeder should be designed such that during operation the operator stands erect to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort (Dewangan, Owary, and Datta 2010). Gite and Yadav (1990), who investigated the optimum handle height for a push – pull weeder using male subjects, recommended that the handle height should be within 0.7 and 0.8 of shoulder height for minimum physiological cost and muscular fatigue. The 5th and 95th percentile values of shoulder height of the male agricultural workers were 135 and 160.00 cm (Table 3), respectively. Using the 95th percentile value, the recommended handle height for the male workers was 112.00 cm. Dewangan, Owary, and Datta (2010) reported a recommended value of 100.00 cm for male agricultural workers, the value which is lower than 112.00 cm recommended for male agricultural workers in Nigeria. This buttresses the point that designing and importing agricultural machines and equipment without giving consideration to the anthropometry of the end users could cause a mismatch with all its accompanying negative effects on productivity.

5.

Conclusion

Anthropometric data for male and female rural agricultural workers from Enugu state, aged 18 –45 years, were collected and summarised. A total of 36 anthropometric data were obtained, including age and body weight. The comparison between the populations from the male and female rural agricultural workers indicated that the data recorded for the male workers were generally higher than that reported for the female workers. It was observed that the data obtained from Nigerian agricultural workers were different from that obtained from north-eastern India, which was reflected in the design parameters of common agricultural equipment. The results suggest that it is essential to incorporate accurate anthropometry in the design process, as well as in the application of biomechanical models. Hand tools and equipment are extensively used in agriculture in Nigeria, and hence there is great opportunity at improving agricultural hand tools and equipment, based on scientific application of anthropometric data of agricultural workers. The anthropometric measurements gathered in this study can be applied in the improvement of manual agricultural operations, materials handling, posture and interface designs and workstation layout, among many others. It is hoped that this information will be used in the improvement of local working conditions as well as in the design of agricultural tools and machineries by local and foreign manufacturers in order to minimise ergonomic problems and the related injuries and illnesses.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

12

O.F. Obi et al.

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

References Agrawal, K. N., R. K. P. Singh, and K. K. Satapathy. 2010. “Anthropometric Considerations of Farm Tools/Machinery Design for Tribal Workers of Northern Indian.” Agriculture Engineering International: CIGR Journal 12 (1): 143– 150. Al-Ansari, M., and M. Mokdad. 2009. “Anthropometrics for the Design of Bahraini School Furniture.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39: 728– 735. Chan, H., and Y. Jiao. 1996. “Development of an Anthropometric Database for Hong Kong Chinese CAD Operators.” Journal of Human Ergology 25 (1): 38 – 43. Chandna, P., S. Deswal, and A. Chandra. 2010. “An Anthropometric Survey of Industrial Workers of the Northern Region of India.” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 6 (1): 110– 128. Chuan, T. K., M. Hartono, and N. Kumar. 2010. “Anthropometry of the Singaporean and Indonesian Populations.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40: 757– 766. Chung, J. W. Y., and T. K. S. Wong. 2007. “Anthropometric Evaluation for Primary School Furniture Design.” Ergonomics 50 (3): 323– 334. Dewangan, K. N., C. Owary, and R. K. Datta. 2010. “Anthropometry of Male Agricultural Workers of North-Eastern India and its Use in Design of Agricultural Tools and Equipment.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40: 560– 573. Dixit, J., D. Namgial, S. Sharma, S. K. Lohan, and D. Kumar. 2014. “Anthropometric Survey of Farm Workers of Ladakh Region of India and its Application in Equipment Design.” Agriculture Engineering International: CIGR Journal 16 (2): 80 – 88. Fernandez, J. E., and K. G. Uppugonduri. 1992. “Anthropometry of South Indian Industrial Workmen.” Ergonomics 35 (11): 1393– 1398. Garneau, C. J., and M. B. Parkinson. 2013. “Considering Just Noticeable Difference in Assessments of Physical Accommodation for Product Design.” Ergonomics 56 (11): 1777– 1788. Gite, L. P., and B. G. Yadav. 1990. “Optimum Handle Height for a Push-Pull Type Manually Operated Dry Land Weeder.” Ergonomics 33 (12): 1487– 1494. Hsiao, H., J. Whitestone, B. Bradtmiller, R. Whisler, J. Zwiener, C. Lafferty, T. -Y. Kau, and M. Gross. 2005. “Anthropometric Criteria for the Design of Tractor Cabs and Protection Frames.” Ergonomics 48 (4): 323– 353. Ijadunola, K., M. Ijadunola, A. Onayade, and T. Abiona. 2003. “Perceptions of Occupational Hazards amongst Office Workers at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.” Nigerian Journal of Medicine 12 (3): 134– 139. Kar, S. K., S. Ghosh, I. Manna, S. Banerjee, and P. Dhara. 2003. “An Investigation of Hand Anthropometry of Agricultural Workers.” J. Hum. Ecol. 14 (1): 57 – 62. Khidiya, M. S., and A. Bhardwaj. 2010. “Development and Ergonomics Evaluation of a Hand Operated Spade (Phawra).” HFESA Journal, Ergonomics Australia 24 (1): 15– 30. Lee, W., K. Jung, J. Jeong, J. Park, J. Cho, H. Kim, S. Park, and H. You. 2013. “An Anthropometric Analysis of Korean Male Helicopter Pilots for Helicopter Cockpit Design.” Ergonomics 56 (5): 879–887. Lin, Y. C., M. J. Wang, and E. M. Wang. 2004. “The Comparisons of Anthropometric Characteristics among Four People in East Asia.” Applied Ergonomics 35 (2): 173–178. Liu, W. C. V., D. Sanchez-Monroy, and G. Parga. 1999. “Anthropometry of Female Maquiladora Workers.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 24 (3): 273– 280. Mandahawi, N., S. Imrhan, S. Al-Shobaki, and B. Sarder. 2008. “Hand Anthropometry Survey for the Jordanian Population.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (11 – 12): 966– 976. McNeil, M., and D. O’Neil. 1998. “Occupational Disorder in Ghanaian Subsistence Farmers. Contemporary Ergonomics.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, 1 – 3 April 1998, M.A. Hanson (Ed.): 592– 597. Mirmohammadia, S. J., R. Hafezib, A. H. Mehrparvara, R. S. Gerdfaramarzia, M. Mostaghacia, R. J. Nodoushanb, and B. Rezaeianb. 2013. “An Epidemiologic Study on Anthropometric Dimensions of 7-11-Year-Old Iranian Children: Considering Ethnic Differences.” Ergonomics 56 (1): 90 – 102. Nadadur, G., and M. B. Parkinson. 2013. “The Role of Anthropometry in Designing for Sustainability.” Ergonomics 56 (3): 422– 439. Obi, O. F., and J. N. Nwakaire. 2011. “Sustainable Agricultural Development in Nigeria: The Role of Ergonomics.” Paper presented at the 11th International Conference and 32nd Annual General Meeting of the Nigerian Institution of Agricultural Engineers (NIAE Ilorin 2011), Ilorin, Nigeria, October 17 – 20, 32:143– 148. Philip, G. S., and V. K. Tewari. 2000. “Anthropometry of Indian Female Agricultural Workers and Implication on Tool Design.” Agricultural Mechanization in Asia Africa and Latin America 31: 63 – 66. Prado-Lu, D. J. L. 2007. “Anthropometric Measurement of Filipino Manufacturing Workers.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37: 497– 503. Ray, I., and A. K. Chandra. 2013. “An Anthropometric Study on the Children of Tripura: Nutritional and Health Coverage and Redefining WHO Percentile Cut-off Points.” International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 3 (5): 1 – 8. Roberts, D. F. 1975. “Population Differences in Dimensions, Their Genetic Basis and their Relevance to Practical Problems.” In Ethnic Variables in Human Engineering, edited by A. Chapanis. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Shao, W., and Y. Zhou. 1990. “Design Principles of Wheeled Tractor Driver-seat Static Comfort.” Ergonomics 33 (7): 959– 965. Singh, S, S. Ahlawat, S. Pandya, and B. Prafull. 2013. “Anthropometric Measurements and Body Composition Parameters of Farm Women in North Gujarat.” J Ergonomics 3: 114, doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000114 Singh, S. P., L. P. Gite, N. Agarwal, and J. Majumder. 2007. “Women Friendly Improved Farm Tools and Equipment.” Technical Bulletin No. CIAE/2007/128, Bhopal, India. Singh, S. P., L. P. Gite, and N. Agrawal. 2006. “Improved Farm Tools and Equipment for Women Workers for Increased Productivity and Reduced Drudgery.” Gender, Technology and Development 10: 229– 244.

Ergonomics

13

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 02:37 27 February 2015

Victor, V. M., S. Nath, and A. Verma. 2002. “Anthropometric Survey of Indian Farm Workers to Approach Ergonomics in Agricultural Machinery Design.” Applied Ergonomics 33: 579– 581. Williamson, A., and S. T. Shorrock. 2014. “What Do Human Factors and Ergonomics Professionals Value in Research Publications? ReExamining the Research-Practice Gap.” Ergonomics 57 (4): 490– 502. Yadav, R., V. K. Tewari, and N. Prasad. 1997. “Anthropometric Data of Indian Farm Workers – A Module Analysis.” Applied Ergonomics 28 (1): 69 – 71. Yisa, M. G. 2005. “Ergonomics in Small Scale Grain Mills in Nigeria.” Africa Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety 15: 7 – 10.