Anthropometry and Agriculture Tools; Design Aspect: A Review

Rajender  Kumar#*,  Anil  Kumar*,Vijaya  Rani*,  Narender  Kumar*  

*
* College of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar,
Haryana,
INDIA
#rksingh1279@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT- A large proportion of the workforce in the world is involved in agriculture or related
occupations. In India, about 300 million workers are associated with farm work constituting one fifth of the
world's Agricultural work force. Hand tools have been in use for a very long time and have developed in an
almost evolutionary manner. It has been reported that an overall agricultural injury incidence rate is 1.25/1000
workers/year in Madhya Pradesh, India. An estimated 77.6% of all incidents were due to farm machinery,
11.8% were due to hand tools, and the remaining 10.6% were due to other factors. It has reviewed hand injury
statistics from literature and inferred that hand tools cause 9 of all reported disabling injuries, and 75 % are
because of manual tools. Hand tool constitutes significant number (58%) in farm injuries, involving a very high
number of female farm workers (65%). Design of a handle depends on many factors like mode of operation,
anthropometric data of user population, material of handle and shape of handle. Research has shown that there
are anthropometric differences between different populations in almost every part of the human body.
Anthropometric measurements regarding hand implements and manually operated equipments like screw driver,
hand saw, sickle, pliers, scrapers, shovel handle, Khurpi, weaving tools, weeder etc. were found to be
appropriate in the context of various studies based on material and size. The studies are based on modification in
tools in reference to descriptors associated with comfort, safety and functionality. The paper presents a review
of anthropometric studies conducted with regard to agricultural and hand implements. This review is an attempt
to discuss the design consideration and improvements in agricultural and hand implements exhibited by
anthropometry.

Keywords- agricultural hand implements, anthropometry, design considerations

1.0 INTRODUCTION recognized as the nation’s most hazardous

industry and is plays high rates of MSDs
Over the centuries, human have used tools to
with evidence in which the ergonomic risk
accomplish a variety of tasks, typically
factors are involved and be pointed out, there
related to agricultural jobs. Today, there is
is very little history of application of
growing demand among professional hand
ergonomic approaches in agricultural
tools users to have ergonomically designed
equipment design (Vyavahare et al., 2012).
product (Schmudtke, 1984; Snow, 1984).
Reliability of agricultural tools can be
India is an agriculture-based country. A large
greatly enhanced when designed with due
section of Indian population engages in
consideration to anthropometric dimensions
agriculture. Although agriculture is generally
1  

 
of target users. Agricultural workers play a
significant and crucial role in various
agricultural operations starting from land
preparation to post harvest operations where
they use different types of farm tools,
machinery and equipment. The efficient use
of Agricultural farm machines require a good
knowledge and proper design of equipment
capable of increasing work efficiency, safety
and safeguarding of the comfort of these
using the machines (Onuoha et al.,2013).
The availability of an anthropometric
database has unlimited applications. Western
countries, where ergonomic awareness is
much higher than in other areas of the world,
have created huge databases
anthropometric design reference (NASA,
1978; Syed, December,
Anthropometric and strength data of Indian
agricultural workers for equipment design: a
review Vol. 14, No.4 103 1993).
As per census 2011, Total world area is
133.94 Million sq. km in year 2001 and total
area (India) is 3.28 Million sq. km in year
2001.Population of the world is 6908.70
million in 2010 and Population of the India
is 1210.2 million in 2011.Density of
population (India) is 382 per sq km in 2011.
Out of this, Indian population, females are
586.5million in year 2011.Availability of
agricultural land per capita in rural areas is
0.267 hectares (2007-08).
As per the census 2001, The Indian
workforce is over 400 million strong, which
constitutes 39.1% of the total population of
the country. Distribution of main workers by
industrial category shows that agriculture
sector still employs largest number of
workers. The dependence on agriculture is
brought out by the fact that of the 313million
main workers in the country, 166 million
(56.6%) has been engaged in ‘Agricultural
and allied activities”. This is followed by
‘Manufacturing Industries’, which employed
about 42 million (13.4%). There are 31.1
million workers in the service sector forming
10% of the total main workers with similar
number engaged in wholesale retail trade and
for
repair work, hotel and restaurant. Majority of
female workers are from rural areas.
2012
In order to safeguard the workers against
accidents and ill health, a large number of
safety legislations exist in India. However,
the ergonomic factors concerning safety are
not adequately addressed in these
legislations. While environmental factors
such as noise, ventilation, illumination etc.
have been dealt with in detail, factors
relating to man-machine- interaction need
more emphasis in the legislation (Periyan
and Iqbal, 2009). Ergonomics can be used
as a tool for retaining employees and
increasing productivity. It is therefore
recommended that such tools could be used
2
to reduce turnover rates and increase
employee engagement. High rates of attrition
not only increase costs but signify poor
working conditions and low brand equity.
Ergonomic interventions are increasingly
used to reduce labour turnover rates, lower
costs, increase revenue and accomplish more
work with a little work force (Dempsey,
2007; Sen, 2009; Singh and Arora, 2010;
barghouei and Nasab, 2012). Gordon et al.,
1962 indicated that the rate of disabling
injuries among four villages in India was 116
per 1000 populations in 1959 as Compared
to 49 in 1976 in USA.
Design Implications towards Agricultural
Approach:
A large proportion of the workforce in the
world is involved in agriculture or related
occupations. In India, about 300 million
workers are associated with farm work
(Census 2001) constituting one fifth of the
world's Agricultural work force. It is
estimated that every year in three states of
northern India i.e. Haryana, Punjab and Uttar
Pradesh, there may be 5,000-10,000 deaths;
15,000 to 20,000 amputations and 150,000 to
200,000 serious injuries due to agricultural
related activities (Mohan and patel, 1992).
Tiwari et al., (2002) has reported an overall
agricultural injury incidence rate of
1.25/1000workers/year in Madya Pradesh,
India. An estimated 77.6% of all incidents
were due to farm machinery, 11.8%were due
to hand tools, and the remaining 10.6%were
due to other factors. It has reviewed hand
injury statistics and inferred that hand tools
cause 9 of all reported disabling injuries, and
75 % are because of manual tools. The
magnitude of injuries is very high as there
are 1700 injuries related to hand tools per
hundred thousand farm workers in rural
India. Hand tool constitutes significant
number (58%) in farm injuries, involving a
very high number of female farm workers
(65%).Fifty three different hand tools
commonly used on farms were evaluated
(Mohan et al., 1992; Kumar et al., 2006).
The causation factors include slippages of
tool from hand because of sweat or paint etc
on handle, hitting a hard surface, in impact
type soil interactive tools (spade) bouncing
back of hand tool, unpredictable soil
conditions, improper handle diameter and
length of handle, improper texture and
material of handle, improper clearance for
hand in handles and mismatch of
anthropometric dimension and tool handles.
Productivity of farm workers is impaired
during recovery time for 24,000 days per
hundred thousand farm workers per year
because of injuries caused by hand tools on
farms (Kumar et al., 2006). According to
The longest finger should not touch the palm
while holding the handle and at the same
3
time it should not exceed the internal grip values of elbow height as 89.49 and 104.53
diameter (De Looze et al., 2003; Kumar et cm, respectively, and elbow grip length for
al., 2006). 5th and 95th percentile population as 30.95
and 36.05 cm resp, the optimum length of
For manually operated implements, the
the handle can be found out from the
handle is one of the most important
geometry adopted by the operator
components with which the operator controls
(Dewangan et al., 2008). For female
and guides the implements properly during
population, The optimum length of the
field operations. The elbow height (standing)
handle for the population ranged 102.73-
data are helpful for designing proper handle
120.00cm. Hence the handle of the weeder
height. Elbow height (standing) for the 5th
was modified as telescopic handle (Sam et
percentile female Indian is 96.33 cm in the
al., 2013; Harih et al.,2014).
study. In rice cultivation rotary weeder is
Design of a handle depends on many factors
commonly used by the female labourers in
like mode of operation, anthropometric data
study region. It works by the push pull action
of user population, material of handle and
and the weeds were uprooted and buried in
shape of handle. Anthropometrically, the
the field itself. The handle of the weeder
diameter of the handle should be such that
should be designed such that during
while an operator grips the handle, his
operation the operator stands erect as far as
longest finger should not touch the palm. it
possible to reduce musculoskeletal
had been found that to allow good grip on
discomfort (Dewangan et.al., 2008).
the handle, the diameter of the handle should
Grandjean, 1988 suggested that the elbow
be a little lesser than the inside grip diameter
flexion angle should be in the range of 85-
(Nag et al., 1988). The handles should vary
110° for maximum work efficiency. An
in size between the hand and finger sizes, as
angle in the range of 50-60° has been
the maximum voluntary finger contraction
suggested in between ground and handle
force is diameter-dependent. Shape of hand
(Pradhan et al., 1987). Elbow flexion angle
doing power grasp posture must be
as 100°; angle of operation as 45°. The
considered during the optimal power grasp
recommended diameters of the cylindrical
posture in order to evaluate the importance
handles therefore vary from 25 mm to 60
of the shape on perceived comfort and for
mm, and above (Harih et al., 2014).
optimizing the shapes of the handles across
Inclination of weeder handle with the
different populations (Harih et al., 2014).
horizontal as 55° and 5th and 95th percentile
The recommended diameter of handle is 30
4
 

 
mm with considering grip diameter (inside)
of female farm worker in concept of sickle.
The optimum value for grip length should be
such that the widest palm should
accommodate the handle.
The handles for two commonly used hand
tools, the chisel and pliers were designed
following ergonomic principles. Results
clearly showed that the ergonomically
designed handle allowed higher work
efficiency than existing handles (Lewis and
Narayan, 1993).
Based on the anthropometric considerations,
the length of handle should accommodate the
maximum dimension of hand breadth at
thumb. The 95th percentile value of the
length of handle is 9.8 cm, taking a clearance
0.5 cm on each side of the grip, the length of
the handle comes to 10.8 cm. The handle
diameter should be according to 5th
percentile value of the inside grip diameter to
accommodate the larger population group.
This value is 3.82 cm. Based on the studies
of men and women with reference to an
ergonomic evaluation of different hand tools
with household appliances (Nag et al.,1988),
the recommended handle diameter is 3.7 cm
(Dixit et al., 2012; Dewangan et.al., 2008).
The recommended length of sickle handle for
female worker works out to 117 mm
allowing a clearance of 5 mm on each side of
the grip (Grandjean, 1988). The handle of the
weeder should be designed such that during
operation the operator stands erect as far as
possible to reduce musculoskeletal
discomfort. Taking the elbow flexion value
of 100°, inclination of weeder handle with
the horizontal as 55°and 5th and 95th
percentile values of elbow height as 90.20
and 104.60 cm, respectively, and elbow grip
length for 5th and 95th percentile population
as 30.20 and 35.70 cm, respectively, the
optimum length of the handle can be found
out from the geometry adopted by the
operator. The handle length ranges 101.93–
118.44 cm in case of north eastern women
farmers (Devangan et al., 2008).
Gite,1991 recommended optimum handle
height for plough to be 1.15 of the
metacarpal III height considering heart rate
and oxygen uptake data, overall discomfort
rating, body parts discomfort scores, and
volume of soil handled per hour when the
mean depth of operation is 11.2 cm. The 5th
and 95th percentile values of Metacarpal III
height of male agricultural workers of NE
region have been found to be 62.2 and 76.1
cm respectively. Considering depth of
operation of about 11 cm, the optimum
handle height for an indigenous plough
works out to be between 71.5 and 87.5 cm.
preferably, the height should be adjustable
between this ranges. For a fixed type handle,
a height of 79.0 cm has been recommended.
Gite and Yadav, 1990 has recommended the
handle height to be within 0.7 and 0.8 of
5
shoulder height for minimum physiological
cost and muscular fatigue. The 5th and 95th
percentile values of shoulder height of male
agricultural workers of NE region have been
found to be 125.0 and 144.2 cm respectively.
Considering this range, a handle height of
100.0 cm is recommended for
agricultural workers of the north eastern
India (Kumar et al., 2006; Devangan et al.,
2010).
Nag et al., 1988 analyzed the effect of sickle
design on manual harvesting and the
harvester. The study was justified on the
basis that manual harvesting
moderately heavy task, which requires
agricultural workers to adopt
awkward postures. Hence handle height,
length of handle, handle inclination, etc of
hand held agricultural tools are the key
design elements to be considered so that
maximum force can be exerted to operate the
equipment with less effort comfort and work
output from the operator.
Grandjean, 1981 suggested that
comfortable range of elbow angle should be
100-110º. He measured the elbow heights
(standing) at this elbow angle for the 5 , 50
and 95th percentile male and
agricultural workers of Meghalaya. Tewari,
1985 showed that for push and pull operation
of a machine, the elbow flexion angle should
be about 90 degrees. Yadav et al., 1997
reported anthropometric data (n=29) of male
farm workers (n=134) of Eastern India as a
reference for the ergonomic design and
modifications of agricultural tools and
devices such as khurpi or power tiller.
Goel et al., 2008 developed a manually
male operated weeder for dry land crops and
evaluated its performance. It was compared
with other available weeders namely a wheel
finger weeder, a wheel hoe and conventional
weeding by using a trench hoe. The highest
performance index of 3689.74 was found
with developed weeder at 11.63% moisture
content. For maximum work efficiency, it
is a
was suggested that the elbow flexion angle
should be 85-110º (Grandjean, 1988). For
many
push-pull operation of a machine, the elbow
flexion angle would be 90º (Tewari, 1985)
and the optimum holding height for males is
630-677 mm and that of females is 534-630
mm (Tewari et al., 2007).
Yadav et al., 2000 carried out anthropometric
measurements useful for farm equipment
design on female workers from Gujarat,
a India. It was found that the mean stature of
West Indian female workers was 154.6 cm,
while those for male workers from eastern,
th th
southern, central, northern and western
female regions were 162.1, 160.7, 162.0, 168.5 and
164.4 cm, respectively.
Hand tools and manually operated
equipments are extensively used for digging,
weeding and harvesting operations in
6
agriculture. Weeding is one of the most
important farm operations in crop production
system. The most commonly used hand tools
and equipments by the farmers for manual
operations are spade, weeders, threshers,
sprayers, ploughs, sickle, paddy puller, straw
puller, hoe, hand power tiller etc. Manual
weeding requires a huge labour force and
accounts for about 25% of the total labour
requirement (Nag and Datt, 1979). So
manually operated weeders are remained
first priority of the researchers. The most
common methods of weed control are
mechanical, chemical, biological and cultural
methods. Out of these four methods,
mechanical weeding either by hand tools or
weeders are most effective in both dry land
and wet land (Nag and Datt, 1979; Gite and
Yadav, 1985; 1990; Vyavahare et al., 2012).
Kuijt-Evers et al.,2004 considered six factors
(functionality, posture and muscles, irritation
and pain of hand and fingers, irritation of
hand surface, handle characteristics,
aesthetics) which determine comfort/
discomfort in using hand tools according to
users. These six factors classified into three
meaningful groups: functionality, physical
interaction and appearance. The results of the
study showed that functionality is most
related to comfort in using hand tools,
followed by physical interaction and
appearance.
Khidiya and Bhardwaj, 2010 prepared a
modified design of hand operated spade
(phawra) using principles of ergonomics and
software such as CATIA and ANSYS. The
comfort level has been improved by 44.2%
due to the modified design and could offer
an improved working environment and a
reduction in workplace injuries.
The mean stature and weight of Indian
agricultural workers worked out are 163.3
cm and 54.7 kg for male workers and 151.5
cm and 46.3 kg for female workers. The
mean values for strength data in pushing and
pulling by both hands in standing posture are
224 N and 218 N for male workers and 143
N and 158 N for female workers,
respectively (Gite and Majumder, 2007). The
study was made to measure the isometric
strength and investigate the effects of
different handle heights and elbow angles on
the pushing and pulling strengths of young
men (n=8) at University of Windsor, Canada.
Both the highest and the lowest isometric
strengths for pulling were found at shoulder
height (Mean = 60.29 lb., SD = 16.78 lb.)
and elbow height (Mean = 33.06 lb., SD =
6.56 lb.) respectively (Badi and Boushaala,
2008).
DISCUSSION:
Ergonomics can be defined as the application
of knowledge of human’s characteristics to
the design of systems (Chander et al.,2009)
7
In order to safeguard the workers against
accidents and ill health, a large number of
safety legislations exist in India. However,
the ergonomic factors concerning safety are
not adequately addressed in these
legislations. While environmental factors
such as noise, ventilation, illumination etc.
have been dealt with in detail, factors
relating to man-machine- interaction need
more emphasis in the legislation (Periyan
and Iqbal, 2009). Ergonomics can be used
as a tool for retaining employees and
increasing productivity. It is therefore
recommended that such tools could be used
to reduce turnover rates and increase
employee engagement. High rates of attrition
not only increase costs but signify poor
working conditions and low brand equity.
Ergonomic interventions are increasingly
used to reduce labour turnover rates, lower
costs, increase revenue and accomplish more
work with a little work force (Dempsey,
2007; Sen, 2009; Singh and Arora, 2010;
Abarghouei and Nasab, 2012; Vyavahare et
al.,2012).
The percentile values may be used for
designing common agricultural hand tools
like, weed spade, sickle, paddy pullar, straw
pullar, hoe, hand power tiller etc. for Indian
workers particularly for Eastern India. (Kar
et al., 2003).
CONCLUSION:
A significant part of manual work is still
done with hand-tools, despite the automation
in many industries. Badly-designed hand
tools can induce upper-extremity
musculoskeletal disorders; such as blister,
carpal tunnel syndrome, hand-arm vibration
syndrome (HAVS), tendonitis, acute trauma
disorders (ATD) etc. (Kumar et al.,2014)The
government, engineers, designers and
related agencies should give end-users of
machines the opportunity to be involved in
various stages of design and as well take the
findings of this study as a reference. By
doing this, repetitive hand injuries in many
workplaces will be reduced and healthier
farm workers and safer work environment
assured (Onuoha et al.,2013). The equipment
will have to be designed keeping in view the
anthropometric data of the farm workers in
consideration. It will help to make the
equipment farm workers friendly and safe
for operation. A large sample size can
proposed for statistical significance for more
accurate results and can be explored to
market. Generalized measurements
procedure may be adopted with help of
anthropometric database with respect to race
and region.
8
 References

Abarghouei, N. S. and H. H. Nasab. 2012. An International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,

Ergonomic Evaluation and Intervention Model: 40(5): 560-573.
Macro ergonomic approach. International Journal Dixit, J., Namgial,D.,2012. Anthropometry of
of Scientific & Engineering Research. 3(2): 1-7. Farm Workers of Kashmir Region of India for
Badi, T. H. and A. A.Boushaala. 2008. Effect of Equipment Design, Journal of Agricultural
One-Handed Pushing and Puling Strength at Engineering Vol.49(2).
Different Handle Heights in Vertical Direction. Gite, L. P. 1991. Optimum handle height for
World Academy of Science, Engineering and animal-drawn mould board plough. Applied
Technology, 23: 425-428. Ergonomics,22(1): 21-28.
Census of India, 2001 & 2011. Regional General Gite, L. P. and B. G. Yadav. 1985.
and Census Commissioner, India. 2001 & 2011. Anthropometric data for farm equipment design.
Chander, A., Chandna, P., Deswal, S. and Proceedings of the silver Jubilee Convention of
Kumar, R.,2009. Ergonomics in the office Indian Society of Agricultural Engineering.29-31
Environment: A Review. Proceeding of October, Central Institute of Agricultural
international conference on energy and Engineering, Bhopal, India.
environment,913-919. Gite, L. P. and B. G. Yadav. 1990. Optimum
De Looze, M.P., de Kuijt-Evers, L.F.M., van handle height for a push-pull type manually
Die. en, J., 2003. Sitting comfort and discomfort operated dryland weeder. Ergonomics,33(12):
and the relationships with objective measures. 1487–1494.
Ergonomics 46 (10), 985–997. Gite, L. P. and J. Majumder. 2007.
Dempsey, P. G. 2007. Effectiveness of Anthropometric and Strength Data Bank of
ergonomics interventions to prevent Indian Agricultural Workers. In Developments in
musculoskeletal disorders: Beware of what you Agricultural and Industrial Ergonomics Vol-I:
ask. International Journal of Industrial General Studies, ed. L.P. Gite, Ch. 3, 19-26. New
Ergonomics.37(2): 169–173. Delhi: Allied Publishers.
Dewangan, K. N., C. Owaryand R.K. Datta. Gite, L. P. and N. Agrawal. 2000. Ergonomically
2008. Anthropometric data of female farm comparison of local and improved sickles for
workers from north eastern India and design of wheat harvesting by women workers.
hand tools of the hilly region. International Agricultural Engineering Today, 24(3): 7-12.
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(1): 90–100. Goel, A. K., D. Behera, B. K. Behera, S. K.
Dewangan, K. N., C. Owaryand R.K. Datta. Mohanty and S. K. Nanda. 2008. Development
2010. Anthropometry of male agricultural and Ergonomic Evaluation of Manually Operated
workers of north-eastern India and its use in Weeder for Dry Land Crops. Agricultural
design of agricultural tools and equipment. Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal.

9  

 
Manuscript PM 08 009, Vol. X. September, Proceeding of international ergonomics
2008. conference on User Centered Design and
Gordonetal. (1962) Gordon,J. Occupational Wellbeing (HWWE), IIT Guwahati,
E.,Gulari,P.V.,Wayon,J.B.,1962.Traumatic December 3-5, 85-91.
accidents in rural tropical regions: An Lewis, W.G. and C.V. Narayan. 1993. Design
epidemiological field study in Punjab, India. and sizing of ergonomic handles for hand tools.
American1. Medical Sc L, 243, 158-178. Applied Ergonomics. 24(5): 351–356.
Grandjean, E. 1981. Fitting the Task to the man. Mohan, D. Patel R.1992.Design of safer
London: Taylor and Francis. agricultural equipment: Application of
Grandjean, E. 1988. Fitting the task to the man: ergonomics and epidemiolog. Int. J. Industrial
A textbook of occupational ergonomics. Ergonomics, 10,301-309
London: Taylor and Francis. Nag, P. K. and P. Datt. 1979. Effectiveness of
Harih, G., Dohsak,B., 2014.Comparison of some simple agricultural weeders with reference
subjective comfort ratings between anatomically to physiological responses. Journal of Human
shaped and cylindrical handles. Applied Ergology,8: 13-21.
Ergonomics, 45, 943-954. Nag, P.K., Goswami, A., Ashtekar, S.P.,
Kar, S., S. Ghosh, I. Manna, S. Banerjee and P. Pradhan, C.K., 1988. Ergonomics in sickle
Dhara. 2003.An Investigation of Hand operation. Applied Ergonomics. 19 (3), 233-239
Anthropometry of Agricultural Workers. Journal NASA. 1978. Anthropometric Source Book,
of Human Ecology, 14(1): 57-62. Vol. II. National Aeronautics and Space
Khidiya, M.S. and A. Bhardwaj. 2010. Design, Administration, Washington.
Development and Ergonomic Evaluation of a Onuoha,S.N., Ajayi,O.,Imanogor,P.A., 2013.
Hand Operated Spade (Phawra). HFESA Journal, Hand Anthropometry of Agricultural Workers In
Ergonomics Australia, 24(1): 15-30. Ebonyi State Central Zone Of Nigeria.
Kuijt-Evers, L.F.M., L. Groenesteijn, M. P. de International Journal of Engineering Research &
Looze and P. Vink. 2004. Identifying factors of Technology (IJERT), 2(4):500-508.
comfort in using hand tools. Applied Periyan, N. and R. Iqbal. 2009. Addressing
Ergonomics, 35(5): 453–458. ergonomic concerns through safety legislation –
Kumar, A., Singh, J.K., A gap analysis, In 6th International Ergonomics
Mohan,D.,Varghese,M.,2006. Ergonomic Conference on Humanizing Work and Work
evaluation of hand tools injuries among Indian Environment(HWWE), Kolkata, 17-19
farmers. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, December.
43(4):104-113. Pradhan,C.K.,Goswami,A.,Gosh,S.N. and
Kumar, R., Singh,V.K.,Bhardwaj,S., Gandhi,S. Nag,P.K.,1987. Ergonomic design and physical
and Chandra,A.,2014.Ergonomic design and evaluation of spade work.In: proceedings of the
evaluation of hand implements: A Review.
10  

 
inetrantional symposium on Ergonomics in Indian Agricultural Workers for Equipment
Developing Countries, Jakharta, Indonesia. Design. Agricultural Engineering International:
Sam, Bini, 2013. Anthropometry of kerala the CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript MES 05 004,
female agricultural workers and design of hand Vol. IX. August, 2007.
tools of the region. International J. Agric. Engg., Tiwari,P.S.,Gite,L.P.,Dubey,A.K.,Kot,L.S.,2002.
6(2):453-457. Agricultural injuries in Central India: nature,
Sen, A. 2009. Best practicesin human resource magnitude, and economic impact. J,Agric. Safety
management: Ergonomics as an employee Health, 8,95-111.
retention tool. In 6th International Ergonomics Vyavahare, R.T.,Kallurkar,S.P.,2012.
Conference on Humanizing Work and Work Anthropometric and strength data of Indian
Environment(HWWE), Kolkata, 17-19 agricultural workers for equipment design: a
December. review. Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 14(4):102-
Singh, S. and R. Arora. 2010.Ergonomic 114.
Intervention for Preventing Musculoskeletal Yadav, R., V. K. Tewari and N.Prasad. 1997.
Disorders among Farm Women. Journal of Agri. Anthropometric and data of Indian farm workers
Science,1(2): 61-71. - a module analysis. Applied Ergonomics, 28(1):
Syed, A. N. 1993. Need for anthropometric 69-71.
databases for developing countries. J. King Yadav, R., L. P. Gite, N. Kaurand J. Randhawa.
Saud University, Eng. Sci., 1(5): 153-154. 2000. An anthropometry of Indian female
Tewari, V. K. 1985. Development of weeder agricultural workers. Agricultural Mechanization
from engineering and ergonomic in Asia, Africa and Latin America.31(3): 56-60.
consideration.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
Agricultural and Food Engineering Dept., Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.
Tewari, V. K., R. Ailavadi, K. N. Dewangan and
S. Sharangi. 2007. Rationalized Database of

11