ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100

www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Anthropometric data of female farm workers from north eastern India

and design of hand tools of the hilly region
K.N. Dewangana,, C. Owarya, R.K. Dattab
a
Department of Agricultural Engineering, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli 791 109, Arunachal Pradesh, India
b
Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302,West Bengal, India
Received 15 June 2005; received in revised form 12 August 2007; accepted 24 September 2007
Available online 13 November 2007

Abstract

An anthropometric survey was carried out for female agricultural workers of two north eastern (NE) hill states of India, namely
Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. For this three tribes from Arunachal Pradesh, viz. Adi, Apatani and Nishi and one Mizo tribe from
Mizoram were selected. The age group of subjects ranged 18–60 years. Altogether 400 subjects were selected and 76 body dimensions as
identified by All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Human Engineering and Safety in Agriculture (HESA) were precisely
measured and recorded from each subject. Data so collected were statistically analysed and also compared with those of American,
British, Chinese, Egyptian, Japanese, Korean, Mexican and Taiwanese female workers. From these data, it appears that values of body
dimensions of tribal female workers from two NE states of India are lesser than those of eight other countries mentioned above. In
stature, Indian women are shorter by 9.27 cm as compared to American women.
The data as obtained are intended to be used for the design/design modifications of agricultural hand tools/implements/machinery
with a view to reduce drudgery and at the same time increase efficiency, safety and comfort of operators in hill agriculture. Hence an
attempt was made to illustrate the relevance of these data in the design of a handle of hand tools from ergonomic considerations.
Relevance to industry

In India female agricultural workers constitute 50.2% of the total agricultural work force. But not much of information is available
regarding their anthropometric data. Therefore, a study was undertaken to collect anthropometric data to be used in the design and/or
design modification of agricultural tools, machinery and equipment to be operated by female workers in the hilly region of the country.
r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Anthropometric survey; Female agricultural workers; North eastern hill states; Hand tools and implements

1. Introduction prevalent. In this region, modernization of hill agriculture

In India, it is estimated that 88% of rural women
working population is engaged in the agricultural sector.
This is nearly 50.2% of the total agricultural labour force
(Reddy et al., 1994). Traditionally, Indian farmers of the
hilly region use mainly hand tools and some selected
indigenous animal drawn implements for different agricul-
tural operations. This is especially true for north eastern
(NE) hill region, where Jhum (shifting) cultivation is still
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 3222 283153; fax: +91 3222 282244.
E-mail address: kndewangan2001@yahoo.co.in (K.N. Dewangan).
is getting increasing attention along with development of
infrastructure. Presently, it has been observed that some
hand tools and machinery are developed and fabricated for
some selected farm operations. However, locations of these
manufacturing units are normally in far away places. This
causes a communication gap between the users and
designer, resulting in an inadvertent neglect of ergonomic
principles in the design. This, in turn, is likely to reduce
efficiency of operation and cause problems of safety and
discomfort of the operator (Gite and Singh, 1997). The
proper matching of machine requirements with the human
capabilities is basically necessary for optimum performance

0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.09.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100
of man–machine system. For efficient design/design refine-
ment of machinery/equipment, it is necessary to follow
the guidelines and principles of ergonomics, which provide
an orientation towards physiological and psychological
needs of operators. The design of an equipment is always
a compromise between the operator’s biological needs,
which are determined by the ergonomics guidelines,
and physical requirements of the machinery/equipment
(Das and Grady, 1983; Das and Sengupta, 1996). In this
regard, the basic information required is the anthro-
pometric body dimensions of the users of tools and
equipments.
Literature specially relating to anthropometric data of
male agricultural workers of India is available to a limited
extent (Sen, 1964; Sen et al., 1977; Gupta et al., 1983; Gite
and Yadav, 1989; Yadav et al., 1997; Victor et al., 2002;
Dewangan et al., 2005). As far as the female workers are
concerned available information suggests that steps have
been initiated only in the recent past (Philip and Tewari,
2000; Tewari and Ailavadi, 2002). In the first study only 22
body dimensions are considered while in the second 74
dimensions are taken. But the fact remains that there is a
paucity of anthropometric data of female agricultural
workers of India in general and NE India in particular. As
a result, anthropometric data of male workers are
extrapolated to define women at work whenever necessary.
Such an approach is likely to be inaccurate due to obvious
anthropometric, physiological and biomechanical differ-
ences between male and female subjects (Roozbazar et al.,
1979; Cox et al., 1984). The body dimensions vary with age,
sex and different ethnic groups (Sanders and McCormick,
1992). Similarly, there is considerable difference between
the anthropometric data of Indian and western population
(Gite and Singh, 1997). In many countries efforts are made
and being made to establish an anthropometric database
for different population groups such as civilians, military
personnels, students and workers (Bolstad et al., 2001;
Wang et al., 2002). Several researchers have emphasized
the need of generating anthropometric database for women
workers (Moustafa et al., 1987; Gite and Singh, 1997). The
urgent need of this database, especially in the case of vast
women labour force engaged in the agricultural sector in
developing countries in tropics has been duly emphasized
(Rogan, 1992).
Since women are the most important source of work
force in the NE hilly region, their anthropometric data are
essential in the design/design modification of hand tools
and implements from ergonomic considerations. Keeping
these factors in view, a study has been undertaken to
generate anthropometric data of women agricultural
workers belonging to four different hill tribes from two
NE states of India—bordering China and Myanmar. The
data so collected will be the first of its kind in the NE
region. These data can be compared with those of other
regions of the country as well as with other countries, from
the consideration of ergonomic design of agricultural hand
tools and implements.
91
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
An anthropometric survey was carried out in two of the
NE states of India, namely, Arunachal Pradesh and
Mizoram. For the collection of data, survey was carried
out in all the districts of the two states. Further, from each
district four to six villages were selected depending on the
size of population. While selecting a village ethnic and
socio-economic distribution of the agricultural workers
were also considered. The subjects were selected among
self-farming category based on their origin and racial strain
criteria for ensuring that the samples were the true
representatives of their respective tribes. Anthropometric
data were collected from three major tribes of Arunachal
Pradesh, namely Adi, Apatani and Nishi and one major
tribe, namely Mizo of Mizoram. As per the recommenda-
tion of All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP)
on Human Engineering and Safety in Agriculture (HESA),
India (Gite and Chatterjee, 1999), in total 400 subjects in
the age group 18–60 years of age were randomly chosen
from two states. Distributions of subjects among ethnic
groups were based on the population in the region,
whereas distributions of subjects among different age
groups were based on the population of the agricultural
workers in the selected village. Thus in terms of tribes, the
subjects’ distribution corresponded to that of the target
population. All village heads were taken into confidence
for the survey and the workers who volunteered to make
themselves available were accepted as subjects. They were
compensated for their loss of work during the survey.
Personal information was also collected as per the standard
practice.
2.2. Body dimensions
Seventy-six body dimensions, including age and body
weight as recommended by the AICRP on HESA, India
(Gite and Chatterjee, 1999) were included for this study.
Standard terminologies as given in the Anthropometric
Source Book (NASA, 1978) have been used here. Due
attention has been given to ISO 7250 (1996) and the
recommendations of the conference on standardization of
anthropometric techniques and terminologies (Hertzberg,
1968). In the standing position, there are 43 measurements.
These include 10 heights, 6 breadths, 5 circumferences, 1
depth, 9 reaches and 12 other dimensions. In the sitting
posture there are 16 measurements namely 7 heights, 3
breadths, 1 depth and 5 reaches. In sitting/standing
postures the number is 17, namely, 7 feet, 7 hands and 3
heads. In addition, 2 other anthropometric indices were
calculated. These are relative sitting height (RSH) and
body surface area (BSA). The landmarks of the dimensions
measured in standing, sitting and standing/sitting postures
are shown in Figs. 1–3, respectively.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
92 K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100

2.3. Equipments used

18 19

16 Body dimensions were measured with an imported

15 22 commercially available anthropometer (SiberHegner and
3 21
20 14 Co., Switzerland) as well as with an integrated composite
5 25
2 23 anthropometer (ICA), designed and developed at the
4 34
35 24 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, India
6
(Dewangan et al., 2005). The ICA was recommended by
11 9 AICRP on HESA. A portable weighing scale (0–125 kg)
8
7 10 was used for body weight. A vernier caliper with least
13 12
count of 0.1 mm was used to measure hand and foot
1
dimensions. A wooden cone was used to measure internal
36 17 grip diameter and a plastic hole template of 38 different
32
33 sizes (10–27 mm) was used to measure the diameter of
27
index finger. Anthropometers were calibrated periodically
28
before use. Similarly, the weighing scale was calibrated
37 against standard weights of 10–100 kg. The sensitivity of
29 the anthropometer was 1 mm, which was used to measure
30 26 most of the body dimensions like, height, length, width and
circumference. Vernier caliper was used to measure the
31 hand and foot dimensions with a sensitivity of 0.1 mm.
Body mass was measured to the nearest 500 g. Sensitivity of
the anthropometric instruments was within the recom-
Fig. 1. Anthropometric measurement in standing posture. mended limit of ISO 15535 (2003).

39

38 46 51
40
41
45 44 48 52
53
43
47 42
49

50

Fig. 2. Anthropometric measurement in sitting posture.

Fig. 3. Anthropometric measurement in standing/sitting posture.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100
2.4. Procedure
For the anthropometric survey of female agricultural
workers, initially two states of NE India were selected.
These were Arunachal Pradesh bordering China and
Mizoram bordering Myanmar. The distance by road from
Arunachal Pradesh to Mizoram will be in the order of
1000–1200 km. Both these states were inhabited by hilly
tribes.
Prior to carrying out the in-field measurements, two staff
members were initially sent for training at the AICRP on
HESA, Bhopal. There they were familiarized with the
measuring techniques, location of land marks and use of
anthropometers. They measured 74 recommended body
dimensions of some selected subjects. After the initial
training at Bhopal, they were sent to the IIT, Kharagpur,
India for further training. There the two members of staff
precisely measured all the 74 body dimensions of 10
subjects twice. To investigate the consistency, accuracy and
reliability of the measurement, average error was calculated
and it was observed to be less than 71%. This was in
agreement with the recommendation of ISO 15535. In-field
measurement of 74 body dimensions was also carried out at
Arunachal Pradesh, with 25 subjects. The data were sent to
AICRP on HESA, Bhopal for verification of its accuracy.
After their final approval collection of anthropometric data
was started.
For conducting survey the survey team was sent to a
predetermined location. The village head was approached
and his consent/approval was taken. Similarly, the
volunteers were provisionally selected. These volunteers
were thoroughly screened to ascertain that they were in
normal health; and not physically handicapped. Workers
who appeared to be not normal like dwarfs or giants were
not considered as a subject for this survey. Before taking
measurements, the subjects were advised to be barefooted
and to wear light clothes so as to reduce the margin of
errors during measurement.
While taking measurement in standing posture the
subjects were asked to stand on a flat surface with their
feet closed and body erected while heels, buttocks and
shoulders touched the same vertical plane. The anthrop-
ometer was adjusted according to the height of the subject.
Similarly for measurement in sitting postures, subjects were
asked to sit with their body vertically erected, while their
shoulders and heads touched the same vertical plane.
During the process of taking data on body dimensions
instruments were handled such that excessive compression
of underlying tissues were avoided as far as possible. In
order to achieve greater uniformity, measurements were
carried out on the right hand side of subjects and data were
noted to the nearest millimetre. Further, most of the
measurements were taken in the morning. Data so collected
were recorded in a standard proforma supplied by AICRP
on HESA Bhopal, India.
During the process of taking data by field staff,
periodical inspection at site was made to ensure accuracy
93
in taking measurements and in recording the data. Average
time taken for one subject to complete all the measure-
ments was calculated to be 75 min. The whole survey took
about one complete year, as it involved lots of travel on
foot in hilly terrains in addition to road transport.
3. Results
From the raw data, the values of minimum, maximum,
mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of mean
(SEM), coefficient of variation (CV), 5th and 95th
percentile values of 74 body dimensions, age, weight and
anthropometric indices of BSA and RSH were evaluated.
These are presented in Table 1. From SEM results it can
be seen that stature, eye height, vertical reach, vertical
grip reach, span, chest circumference and waist circumfer-
ence have higher SEM values ranging 0.26–0.32 which
are rather high. However, SEM of other body dimensions
is generally small. The CV% of some body dimensions,
like wall to acromion distance, chest depth, wall to l
umbo sacral joint distance, abdominal extension to wall,
hand thickness at metacarpal-III, maximum grip length,
thigh clearance height, abdominal depth, knee–knee
breadth, medial malleolus height and lateral malleolus
height are relatively high. According to classification
of Pheasant (1998) the Indian women farm workers
are in between short and long legged (RSH ratio of
0.5239).
The values of mean and SD for three age groups of
female agricultural workers surveyed, namely o25 years,
25–35 years and 435 years, pertaining to 9 standing
measurements, 7 sitting measurements and 4 standing/
sitting measurements were calculated and are presented in
Table 2. The data show an increase in most body
dimensions in the middle age before declining with
increasing age. Body weight and dimensions related to
circumference are not significant. Significant variation in
elbow rest height (po0.01) is also observed between
subjects of o25 years and 25–35 years, and 25–35 years
and 435 years.
Similarly, values of mean and SD of 20 parameters for
four different tribes, namely Adi, Apatani, Nishi and Mizo
were evaluated. These are presented in Table 3. It can be
seen that variation in most of the body dimensions between
Adi tribe with Apatani, Nishi and Mizo tribes are
statistically significant. Arm reach from wall is higher for
Adi women as compared to other tribes and this is
statistically significant (po0.01). But they have minimum
(po0.01) chest circumference, waist circumference and
sitting height. Between Apatani tribe and Nishi tribe,
significant difference is found only in thigh clearance height
(po0.05). The Apatani women are observed to have high
body weight. The Nishi women are short in stature
(152.19 cm) but they have high circumferential dimensions
of chest and waist. The Mizo women are tall (153.25 cm)
and have higher vertical reach, eye height, acromial height
and thigh clearance.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
94 K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100

Table 1
Anthropometric data of female agricultural workers from two north eastern states of India

Sl. no. (1) Dimensions (2) Min. (3) Max. (4) Mean (5) SD (6) SEM (7) CV (%) (8) Percentile

5th (9) 95th (10)

Standing measurement
1 Weight (kg) 41.00 58.00 48.01 4.38 0.22 9.12 42.00 55.25
2 Stature 140.80 169.10 153.25 5.50 0.28 3.59 145.48 165.13
3 Vertical reach 176.70 206.80 190.24 6.44 0.32 3.39 180.50 202.45
4 Vertical grip reach 168.40 201.00 184.38 6.41 0.32 3.48 175.15 198.80
5 Eye height. 129.40 154.30 141.76 5.16 0.26 3.64 134.00 152.80
6 Acromial height 117.70 138.40 127.09 4.27 0.21 3.36 121.10 135.55
7 Elbow height 86.80 107.70 96.18 4.22 0.21 4.39 90.20 104.60
8 Olecranon height 80.60 104.10 94.11 3.98 0.20 4.23 87.95 100.53
9 Iliocrystale height 72.20 99.20 89.54 3.94 0.20 4.40 84.15 96.83
10 Iliospinale height 74.40 95.20 82.90 3.86 0.19 4.66 77.20 90.20
11 Trochanteric height 67.40 84.70 74.73 3.35 0.17 4.49 70.88 82.25
12 Metacarpal III height 59.50 74.30 66.38 3.05 0.15 4.60 61.50 72.50
13 Knee height 36.20 46.80 41.21 2.43 0.12 5.89 37.80 45.60
14 Waist back length 34.70 51.30 42.01 3.64 0.18 8.66 37.00 48.03
15 Scapula to waist back length 40.60 62.50 51.20 4.47 0.22 8.73 44.28 58.60
16 Wall to acromion distance 9.40 14.20 11.77 1.17 0.06 9.94 9.90 13.60
17 Arm reach from the wall 64.90 82.40 73.12 3.05 0.15 4.17 68.50 77.60
18 Biacromial breadth 29.60 38.90 33.49 1.85 0.09 5.52 30.08 36.63
19 Bideltoid breadth 31.50 41.30 36.52 2.19 0.11 5.98 32.60 40.20
20 Chest breadth 23.20 31.80 27.12 1.79 0.09 6.61 24.68 30.60
21 Chest depth 16.10 24.80 20.27 1.93 0.10 9.51 17.48 23.55
22 Interscye breadth 23.50 34.30 29.60 2.14 0.11 7.22 26.18 33.15
23 Waist breadth 21.00 29.50 24.85 1.99 0.10 8.01 21.80 28.83
24 Hip breadth 23.30 36.10 29.89 2.02 0.10 6.74 26.50 33.13
25 Wall to lumbo sacral joint distance 2.80 4.20 3.49 0.33 0.02 9.48 2.90 4.10
26 Abdominal extension to wall 17.00 25.80 21.05 2.09 0.10 9.94 17.68 24.50
27 Chest circumference 74.00 99.00 85.02 6.37 0.32 7.49 76.20 97.33
28 Wrist circumference 12.80 16.60 14.71 0.80 0.04 5.46 13.40 16.20
29 Waist circumference 62.70 90.20 75.48 6.11 0.31 8.09 66.98 86.13
30 Thigh circumference 36.20 51.20 43.62 3.70 0.19 8.49 37.00 49.70
31 Calf circumference 23.00 39.70 31.64 2.77 0.14 8.75 27.38 35.60
32 Thump tip reach 59.00 76.90 68.68 3.18 0.16 4.63 64.03 74.03
33 Shoulder grip length 60.00 73.60 66.64 3.00 0.15 4.50 61.48 71.00
34 Elbow grip length 28.80 38.30 32.83 1.78 0.09 5.42 30.20 35.70
35 Forearm hand length 34.50 45.60 40.70 1.71 0.09 4.20 38.58 43.63
36 Span 139.60 166.20 153.06 5.96 0.30 3.89 145.15 163.10
37 Span akimbo 69.00 86.90 78.35 3.35 0.17 4.28 73.00 84.50
Sitting measurement
38 Height 73.60 88.30 80.28 3.44 0.17 4.28 74.88 86.60
39 Vertical grip reach 99.20 119.80 111.00 4.20 0.21 3.78 104.80 118.23
40 Eye height 60.60 77.00 68.74 2.78 0.14 4.04 64.68 72.93
41 Acromial height 47.90 60.70 54.61 3.13 0.16 5.73 49.20 60.03
42 Popliteal height 30.90 42.90 35.31 1.86 0.09 5.27 33.10 39.50
43 Knee height. 40.60 51.40 45.29 2.41 0.12 5.32 41.78 50.00
44 Thigh clearance height 11.50 17.70 14.26 1.37 0.07 9.57 12.28 16.83
45 Elbow rest height 19.20 29.00 23.39 2.29 0.11 9.81 20.10 27.63
46 Coronoid fossa to hand length 30.30 40.50 34.30 1.95 0.10 5.67 31.45 37.73
47 Abdominal depth 17.00 25.90 21.44 2.03 0.10 9.46 18.40 24.70
48 Buttock knee length 42.40 57.80 50.51 2.59 0.13 5.14 47.18 56.30
49 Buttock popliteal length 32.00 46.10 38.16 2.98 0.15 7.80 33.80 44.13
50 Hip breadth 25.60 37.20 31.12 2.04 0.10 6.57 28.30 35.05
51 Elbow–elbow breadth 28.90 44.00 37.59 2.98 0.15 7.93 33.50 42.85
52 Knee–knee breadth 14.40 24.20 19.12 1.87 0.09 9.79 16.28 22.70
53 Functional leg length 80.60 100.60 90.02 4.04 0.20 4.49 83.58 98.50
Sitting/standing
54 Grip diameter (inside) 3.52 5.26 4.35 0.28 0.01 6.32 3.82 4.80
55 Grip diameter (outside) 6.45 8.90 7.37 0.43 0.02 5.82 6.70 8.10
56 Middle finger palm grip diameter 1.60 2.35 1.99 0.17 0.01 8.67 1.70 2.20
57 Grip span 8.10 10.20 9.10 0.48 0.02 5.32 8.30 10.00
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100 95

Table 1 (continued )

Sl. no. (1) Dimensions (2) Min. (3) Max. (4) Mean (5) SD (6) SEM (7) CV (%) (8) Percentile

5th (9) 95th (10)

58 Maximum grip length 4.95 7.70 5.93 0.57 0.03 9.67 5.28 7.20
59 Hand length 15.20 18.00 16.53 0.73 0.04 4.39 15.40 17.70
60 Hand breadth at metacarpal-III 5.70 7.60 6.49 0.30 0.02 4.69 6.00 7.00
61 Hand breadth across thumb 7.60 10.00 8.78 0.51 0.03 5.83 8.00 9.80
62 Hand thickness at metacarpal-III 2.20 3.20 2.68 0.24 0.01 9.08 2.30 3.13
63 First phalanx digit III length 5.00 6.30 5.65 0.31 0.02 5.57 5.20 6.10
64 Palm length 8.10 10.20 9.11 0.43 0.02 4.67 8.50 9.81
65 Index finger diameter 1.20 1.60 1.36 0.09 0.00 6.75 1.20 1.50
66 Foot length 18.90 24.50 22.70 0.96 0.05 4.23 21.08 24.00
67 Instep length 13.80 19.90 16.61 1.31 0.07 7.88 14.79 19.43
68 Foot breadth (ball of the foot) 7.30 10.50 8.88 0.60 0.03 6.75 7.98 9.93
69 Heel breadth 4.20 6.70 5.43 0.40 0.02 7.39 4.85 6.10
70 Medial malleolus height 5.40 8.00 6.61 0.65 0.03 9.84 5.70 7.70
71 Lateral malleolus height 4.90 7.60 6.00 0.59 0.03 9.76 5.20 7.00
72 Bimalleolar breadth 5.20 6.90 6.04 0.38 0.02 6.22 5.40 6.70
73 Head length 16.80 20.00 18.52 0.65 0.03 3.49 17.20 19.50
74 Head breadth 12.30 16.90 14.79 0.77 0.04 5.22 13.90 16.50
75 Menton to top of the head 20.40 26.80 24.06 1.42 0.07 5.90 21.30 26.00
76 Age (years) 18.00 54.00 30.65 7.11 0.36 23.20 18.00 42.00
Indices
77 RSH 0.465 0.617 0.524 0.022 0.001 4.23 0.484 0.559
78 BSA (m2) 1.28 1.65 1.44 0.04 0.002 2.78 1.32 1.60

Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified.

Min. ¼ minimum, Max. ¼ maximum, SD ¼ standard deviation, SEM ¼ standard error of mean, CV ¼ coefficient of variation.

Table 2
The mean, SD values and z-test between data of different age groups of female agricultural workers from two north eastern states of India

Particular Age groups

o25 years 25–35 years 435 years o25 years vs o25 years vs 4 25–35 years vs
(n ¼ 136) (n ¼ 140) (n ¼ 124) 25–35 years 35 years 435 years
Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)

Weight (kg) 47.32(4.36) 47.97(4.30) 48.81(4.75) 0.40 0.38 0.77

Stature 153.25(5.46) 153.35(5.66) 153.13(5.25) 0.30 0.25 0.04
Vertical reach 190.00(6.94) 190.93(6.17) 189.72(5.13) 1.57 2.88* 1.41
Eye height. 141.76(5.41) 141.88(4.79) 141.63(5.45) 0.17 0.21 0.04
Acromial height 126.99(4.31) 127.43(4.47) 126.81(3.29) 0.60 1.02 1.60
Elbow height 96.12(4.20) 96.39(4.41) 96.00(3.56) 0.40 0.87 1.26
Arm reach from the wall 73.10(3.29) 73.28(2.96) 72.95(2.20) 1.04 1.60 0.60
Chest circumference 84.20(5.71) 85.20(6.92) 85.73(6.71) 1.63 2.32** 0.79
Waist circumference 74.85(6.08) 75.50(6.18) 76.13(5.66) 0.31 0.01 0.29
Sitting height 80.30(3.26) 80.90(3.57) 79.56(3.15) 0.70 0.16 0.84
Popliteal height 35.36(1.81) 35.60(1.96) 34.94(1.64) 1.94 3.14* 1.32
Knee height. 45.30(2.42) 45.35(2.31) 45.20(2.75) 0.46 1.07 1.52
Thigh clearance height 14.24(1.60) 14.42(1.04) 14.10(1.23) 1.73 1.56 0.13
Elbow rest height 23.34(2.38) 23.63(2.20) 23.19(2.13) 0.02 5.27* 5.29*
Buttock knee length 50.66(2.71) 50.84(2.58) 49.98(1.95) 0.77 1.33 2.08**
Buttock popliteal length 38.26(2.93) 38.44(3.01) 37.72(2.99) 1.30 1.27 0.00
Hand length 16.64(0.74) 16.49(0.72) 16.45(0.71) 4.36* 9.50* 7.87*
Hand breadth across thumb 8.84(0.56) 8.76(0.45) 8.75(0.44) 1.87 3.84* 2.15**
Foot length 22.77(0.90) 22.67(1.03) 22.65(0.93) 4.64* 10.44* 9.51*
Foot breadth (ball of the foot) 8.89(0.52) 8.87(0.64) 8.87(0.77) 3.62* 5.94* 2.93*
**
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. Significant (po0.05). *Significant (po0.01).

Data on mean and SD of 19 selected body dimensions of Japanese, Korean, Mexican and Taiwanese and are
Indian female agricultural workers surveyed were com- presented in Table 4. It can be seen that the Indian female
pared with those of American, British, Chinese, Egyptian, workers are smaller in stature, eye height, acromial height,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
96 K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100

Table 3
Values of mean, SD and z-test between data for some selected anthropometric data of female agricultural workers from three different tribes of Arunachal
Pradesh and one tribe from Mizoram

Name of the states Arunachal Pradesh Mizoram Adi vs Adi vs Adi vs Apa vs Apa vs Mizo vs
Apa Mizo Nishi Mizo Nishi Nishi
Name of the tribes Adi Apatani Nishi Mizo
Mean(SD) (Apa) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
Mean(SD)

Weight (kg) 46.77 (3.77) 48.16(3.78) 48.1(4.21) 48.01(4.38) 3.20* 3.59* 3.43* 0.14 0.17 0.04
Stature 152.23(1.75) 153.00(5.82) 152.19(5.81) 153.25(5.50) 0.81 6.58* 6.05* 0.20 0.31 0.14
Vertical reach 190.05(5.29) 190.10(6.05) 189.12(6.93) 190.24(6.44) 0.75 4.41* 2.13* 1.79 0.39 2.48**
Eye height. 140.47(2.66) 141.65(5.53) 140.71(5.60) 141.76(5.16) 1.15 4.78* 4.28* 0.11 0.36 0.30
Acromial height 126.40(1.47) 127.00(5.01) 126.24(5.00) 127.09(4.27) 0.75 6.09* 6.02* 1.02 0.48 0.65
Elbow height 95.25(1.19) 96.47(4.76) 95.53(4.48) 96.18(4.22) 1.58 6.45* 6.70* 1.58 0.34 1.53
Arm reach from the wall 74.43(3.05) 72.24(2.94) 72.63(2.99) 73.12(3.05) 3.96* 0.22 0.07 0.15 0.12 0.31
Chest circumference 82.42(4.62) 89.93(5.15) 86.67(5.76) 85.02(6.37) 8.16* 0.95 1.75 0.09 0.70 0.93
Waist circumference 74.20(5.46) 79.09(4.36) 76.91(5.67) 75.48(6.11) 4.96* 0.04 1.52 0.89 0.48 1.61
Sitting height 79.30(3.00) 81.37(3.29) 79.85(3.38) 80.28(3.44) 3.52* 0.02 0.93 0.80 0.07 1.04
Popliteal height 34.39(1.28) 35.66(1.65) 35.43(2.00) 35.31(1.86) 4.55* 4.98* 3.10* 3.22* 1.30 2.11**
Knee height. 44.36(1.49) 45.37(2.21) 44.85(2.28) 45.29(2.41) 2.47** 3.73* 2.68* 0.99 0.08 1.05
Thigh clearance height 14.23(1.55) 14.54(0.89) 14.01(1.14) 14.26(1.37) 3.50* 1.64 0.37 0.58 2.47** 2.18**
Elbow rest height 21.94(1.47) 24.83(2.05) 24.08(2.54) 23.39(2.29) 3.99* 3.10* 4.77* 2.06** 0.14 2.37**
Buttock knee length 50.32(1.70) 50.16(2.79) 50.53(3.01) 50.51(2.59) 0.32 3.88* 3.16* 0.72 0.16 0.64
Buttock popliteal length 35.42(1.65) 38.49(3.10) 38.92(3.15) 38.16(2.98) 6.31* 4.82* 3.81* 0.83 0.03 1.00
Hand length 16.64(0.75) 16.67(0.77) 16.43(0.65) 16.53(0.73) 0.42 8.84* 0.21 8.56* 0.79 8.82*
Hand breadth across thumb 8.99(0.39) 8.71(0.51) 8.71(0.48) 8.78(0.51) 3.44* 3.93* 2.86* 1.49 0.53 1.07
Foot length 23.00(0.63) 22.79(0.93) 22.59(1.07) 22.70(0.96) 1.32 9.57* 3.41* 9.30* 0.68 9.22*
Foot breadth (ball of the foot) 8.79(0.48) 9.22(0.63) 9.14(0.54) 8.88(0.60) 4.12* 8.15* 0.49 7.40* 1.13 8.03*
**
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. Significant (po0.05). *Significant (po0.01).

sitting height, arm reach from wall, forearm hand length,
buttock knee length, buttock popliteal length and hip
breadth than the American, British, Chinese, Egyptian,
Korean, Mexican and Taiwanese population. However,
Indian female workers have higher foot length, foot
breadth, hand length, hand breadth at thumb, thigh
clearance and elbow height as compared to the Mexican
farmers. The Indian female is 10.48 cm shorter than
American women in standing posture. On the other hand
Maxican female is 0.27 cm taller than an Indian female.
Elbow height, elbow rest height, thigh clearance and foot
length of the Indian female workers are more than those of
Egyptian female population. Acromial height and elbow
rest height of Indian female are also higher than those of
Korean female workers.
Ratio of sitting height to stature of female population
surveyed was computed. This value was compared with
those from 15 other countries and is presented in Table 5.
4. Discussion
It is generally accepted that a mismatch between workers
and their tools can cause musculoskeletal discomfort and
disorders and lower the productivity. This study provides a
wide range of the dimensions required for the design/design
modification of agricultural tools and machinery. Table 1
indicates that the spread among the mean values of stature,
eye height, vertical reach, vertical grip reach, span, chest
circumference and waist circumference is greater than the
other dimensions. Therefore, the design of equipment
where these dimensions are to be used should be carefully
selected, as generalization from the sample to the popula-
tion may be difficult. In order to reduce CV% values, one
has to increase the mean values or decrease the SD which
can be done by adding new observations to the sample
mean. It may also be noted that body measurements are
taken in static posture. Therefore, the anthropometric data
given in Table 1 should not be used directly for design and/
or design refinement of the tools, equipment and work
places. For this, functional body dimensions which are
more representative of human activities are required. In
order to use the data taken under static posture for design
of the equipment in the dynamic conditions, a guideline has
been provided (Kroemer, 1983). It is widely agreed that the
use of 5th, 50th or 95th percentile values is more logical in
design situations. However, whether to choose the 5th,
50th or 95th percentile value is a decision, to be taken by
the designer depending on his/her requirements. It is
desirable to use body dimensions of 95th percentile users
to establish minimum equipment dimensions involving
clearances so that the smaller user group will not be
adversely affected.
Body dimensions appear to vary with age groups
(Table 2). The data show that the peak body dimensions
are likely to be achieved by late 20s. They are heavier and
fatter as their weight and many body circumferences
indicate. The women in all the age groups tend to have
approximately the same body dimensions as proportional
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100 97

Table 4
Comparison of mean and SD values of some selected body dimensions for female agricultural workers of North East India and eight other foreign
countries

Body dimensions Indian 1(2) Americana Britishb 1(2) Chinesec Egyptiand Japanesee Koreanf Mexicang Taiwaneseh
1(2) 1(2) 1(2) 1 1 1(2) 1(2)

Stature 153.23(5.54) 163.71(6.21) 162.45(5.50) 158.62(5.13) 160.60(7.18) 159.60 158.80 153.50(5.50) 156.32(5.32)
Eye height 141.93(5.50) – 148.03(7.60) 149.20(6.98) 144.80 148.80 142.80(5.60) 144.98(5.24)
Acromial height 127.21(4.63) 135.40(5.95) – 132.03(6.10) 130.6(5.99) 127.00 128.90 – 128.02(4.74)
Elbow height 96.18(4.22) 102.34(4.52) – – 95.50(4.35) 98.30 – 95.60(3.80) 97.33(3.71)
Arm reach from wall 73.12(3.05) – – 78.45(3.80) 81.40(5.03) – – – 75.44(3.50)
Sitting height 80.28(3.44) – – 84.85(3.16) 83.80(4.30) 85.00 86.60 – 84.48(3.00)
Sitting eye height 68.74(2.78) – 75.97(2.90) 74.30 74.30(4.06) 73.20 75.80 – 73.20(2.99)
Sitting acromial height 54.61(3.13) – 58.02(2.500) – 55.60(4.00) – – – –
Elbow rest height 22.99(3.20) – – 23.86(2.66) 19.70(1.16) – – – –
Thigh clearance 14.19(1.61) – 15.60(1.57) – 14.00(1.16) – – – –
Popliteal height 35.43(2.22) – – 38.27(2.08) – 36.20 38.40 – –
Forearm hand length 40.54(2.01) 45.05(3.18) 42.68(1.83) – 41.20(2.60) – – 41.50(1.90) –
Buttock knee length 50.40(2.89) – 60.09(2.70) 52.78(3.13) 56.50(3.99) 53.10 52.80 – 52.63(2.59)
Buttock popliteal 38.40(3.46) – – 43.18(3.03) 42.6(3.34) 43.70 44.90 – –
length
Hip breadth 31.18(2.35) – 36.40(2.69) – 36.6(2.51) – – – –
Hand length 17.00(3.40) – – – 17.1(1.24) – – 16.90(0.90) –
Hand width at thumb 8.70(0.65) – – – 9.3(0.77) – – 8.60(0.50) –
Foot length 23.71(7.47) – – – 23.10(1.80) – – 23.20(1.00) –
Foot breadth 9.07(1.50) – – – 10.40(0.83) – – 9.00(0.50) –

Measurements are in cm.

1 is mean, 2 is standard deviation.
a
Marras and Kim (1993).
b
Haslegrave (1980).
c
Shao and Zhou (1990).
d
Moustafa et al. (1987).
e
Research Institute of Human Engineering for Quality Life (1994).
f
Lee (2000).
g
Liu et al. (1999).
h
Wang et al. (1999).

Table 5 to stature. In the case of the various heights, a possible

Ratio of sitting height to stature for female population from different explanation for the trend observed could be attributed to
countries the spinal curvature, which is more notorious above 40
Ratio Source years of age (Pheasant, 1998).
The geographical locations have reflected their influence
Indian female (from NE 0.5239 Present study on body dimensions as shown in Table 3. There are also
India)
variations in most of the body dimensions among four
Australian female 0.5235 Moustafa et al. (1987)
(pilots) ethnic group surveyed. However, less variation in body
British female 0.5250 Redgrove (1979) dimensions between Apatani tribe and Nishi tribe may be
Bulgarian female 0.5280 Moustafa et al. (1987) due to the similar agro-climatic condition.
Chinese female 0.5349 Shao and Zhou (1990) Differences in anthropometric characteristics exist be-
Egyptian female 0.5217 Moustafa et al. (1987)
tween different populations (Liu et al., 1999). Similar view
French female 0.5241 Moustafa et al. (1987)
German female 0.5115 Moustafa et al. (1987) is expressed for four ethnic groups, namely Chinese,
Japanese female 0.5417 Research Institute of Human Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese (Lin et al., 2004). These
Engineering for Quality Life suggest that the morphological characteristics among the
(1994) four people in East Asia are dissimilar. Further, ethnic
Korean female 0.5453 Lee (2000)
differences in body shape are also affected by heredity,
Norwegian light 0.5263 Bolstad et al. (2001)
industry and office economic development, social environment, type of work
workers and labour structure (Lin et al., 2004). Differences in body
Portuguese female 0.5527 Barroso et al. (2005) dimensions have also been reported between female
Swedish female 0.5225 Moustafa et al. (1987) Colombians and the US civilian adult female population,
Taiwanese female 0.5404 Wang et al. (1999)
on nine out of ten common body dimensions (Resnick,
Thai female 0.5377 Malmansari and Salokhe (1996)
1995). Anthropometric dimensions appear to differ among
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
98 K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100

various nationalities as shown in Table 4. The selected

tribes in the present study belong to Mongoloid race and it
is observed that variation exists among the Mongoloid race
of Asian countries. The differences found in the anthro-
pometric dimensions of the different population groups
emphasize the usefulness of this study in the context of
design of agricultural hand tools and implements. Most of
the agricultural tools/machinery used in India are based on
body dimensions of foreign workers. Designs that once
suited the British population are followed in India
(Chakrabarti, 1997). This implies that the devices and
implements designed abroad should be suitably modified
before introducing these to the Indian farm workers.

5. Application of anthropometry in the design of agricultural Fig. 4. Harvesting with sickle.

tools

For the scientific design of agricultural tools, an

anthropometric database is a prerequisite. The real value
of the database lies in its applications. However, from a
survey among the professional designers and engineers it
appears that many of the professionals are not familiar
with the use of anthropometric data in the design of
machinery (Wang et al., 1999). In order to illustrate the use
of anthropometric data two simple examples relating to the
design of handles of hand tools are given below.
5.1. Size of handle for hand tools
The marginal and small farmers of NE India extensively
use various hand tools like spade, khurpi (interculture
tool), dao (a knife) and sickle. These hand tools consist of a
functional part and a handle. Design of a handle depends
on factors like mode of operation, anthropometric data of
user population, material of handle and shape of handle.
For harvesting operation, a sickle is commonly used. Here,
the operator grasp the handle of sickle in one hand and a
bunch of about 10 plant stems by the other (Fig. 4). The
cutting of the crops is performed by pulling the handle
against the bunch of stems at a height of about 10 cm above
the ground level. The handle is grasped such that finger and
thumb flex around the handle. The length and diameter of
handle of the sickle used in the region varies in the range
9.0–15.0 cm and 2.5–3.2 cm, respectively (Dewangan et al.,
2004). 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 above dimension 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 and this value is recommended for the
length of the handle. For better grip the handle diameter
should not exceed the inside grip diameter of the operator.
Therefore, the handle diameter should be according to 5th
percentile value of the inside grip diameter to accommo-
date 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
10.8 cm
3.32 cm
Fig. 5. Modified dimensions of a sickle handle.
household appliances, it had been found that to allow good
grip on handle, the diameter of the handle should be a little
lesser than the inside grip diameter (Nag et al., 1988). Thus
the diameter of the handle recommended is 3.32 cm. Based
on the anthropometric considerations the modified dimen-
sions of the sickle handle is shown in Fig. 5.
5.2. Height of handle of a weeder
The Department of Agriculture is promoting wet-land
paddy weeder, wheel hoe, long handle hoe among margin-
al, small and medium farmers of the region. The wet-land
paddy weeder consists of a handle, side frame, star roller
and float. The farmer grasps the handle and operates it in
push–pull mode (Fig. 6). The float of the weeder displaces
the water during pushing operation and the star roller
uproots the weeds. The weeder is brought back by the pull
action. The handle of the weeder should be designed such
that during operation the operator stands erect as far as
possible to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort. For max-
imum work efficiency, it is suggested that the elbow flexion
angle should be in the range of 85–1101 (Grandjean, 1988).
For the angle between ground and handle a value in the
range of 50–601 has been suggested (Pradhan, et al., 1987;
Philip, 2000). Taking the elbow flexion value of 1001,
inclination of weeder handle with the horizontal as 551 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,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100
Fig. 6. Weeding operation with a wet land paddy weeder.
Y = elbow grip length
Z = handle length
θ = angle of handle with ground
β = elbow flexion angle Y
β
Z V.K. Tewari, Professor, Department of Agricultural and
Telescopic
Blade Handle
Rotor
θ providing training in anthropometers and anthropometric
Handle angle changing device
Fig. 7. Design of handle of a wet-land paddy weeder.
respectively, the optimum length of the handle can be
found out from the geometry adopted by the operator. For
the population under study, the handle length ranges
101.93–118.44 cm (Fig. 7). Either telescopic handle may be
designed or provision should be made to change the
inclination of the handle.
6. Conclusion
Four hundred healthy female agricultural workers were
selected as subjects for taking anthropometric data. They
belonged to three major hill tribes of Arunachal Pradesh and
one major hill tribe of Mizoram. They were in the age group
of 18–60 years. During the survey, all together 76 body
dimensions were precisely recorded from each subject. Of the
two NE states selected for the survey, one borders China and
the other Myanmar. The geographical locations reflected
their influence on the data. Mizo women are found to be
taller than three tribes of Arunachal Pradesh.
From the data it appears that most body dimensions are
higher in the middle age group and lower with higher age
groups. However, body weight is found to increase with
age. Same trend is observed for the data on body
circumferences and breadth dimensions. When compared
99
to American, British, Chinese, Egyptian, Korean, Mexican
and Taiwanese female workers it is noted that Indian tribal
female population are shorter in stature, eye height,
acromial height, sitting height, arms reach from wall,
forearm length, buttock knee length, buttock popliteal
length and heap breadth. In fact in standing and sitting
postures they are found to be shorter by 9.27 and 5.72 cm,
respectively, as against American subjects. However, most
of their body dimensions are comparable to those of
Mexican female population.
In the hilly region of NE India, hand tools are
extensively used in agriculture. These are mainly fabricated
by village artisans who do not have adequate knowledge/
training in ergonomics. Hence there is a great scope of
improving the agricultural tools based on scientific
application of anthropometric data of workers.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, New Delhi for their financial
support for this study. Authors are also thankful to Dr.
Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Khar-
agpur, India and Dr. L. P. Gite, Project Coordinator,
AICRP on HESA, CIAE, Bhopal, India for their help in
measurement of body dimensions. Sincere thanks are also
due to the Village Heads and subjects for their kind
cooperation at every stage of this survey.
References
Barroso, M.P., Arezes, P.M., Costa, L.G., Miguel, A.S., 2005. Anthro-
pometric study of Portuguese workers. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 35, 401–410.
Bolstad, G., Benum, B., Rokne, A., 2001. Anthropometry of Norwegian
light industry and office workers. Applied Ergonomics 32, 239–246.
Chakrabarti, D., 1997. Indian Anthropometric Dimensions for Ergo-
nomic Design Practice. National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad,
India.
Cox, T., Thirlaway, M., Cox, S., 1984. Occupational well being: sex
difference at work. Ergonomics 27 (5), 499–510.
Das, B., Grady, R.M., 1983. Industrial workplace layout design: an
application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics 26 (5), 433–447.
Das, B., Sengupta, A.K., 1996. Industrial workstation design: a systematic
ergonomics approach. Applied Ergonomics 27 (3), 157–163.
Dewangan, K.N., Prasanna Kumar, G.V., Datta, R.K., 2004. Scope of
mechanisation in Arunachal Pradesh, India—Part–1: traditional hand
tools of shifting cultivation. Agricultural Engineering Today 28 (3-4),
60–67.
Dewangan, K.N., Prasanna Kumar, G.V., Suja, P.L., Choudhury, M.D.,
2005. Anthropometric dimensions of farm youth of the north eastern
region of India. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35,
979–989.
Gite, L.P., Chatterjee, D., 1999. All India anthropometric survey of
agricultural workers: proposed action plan. All India Coordinated
Research Project on Human Engineering and Safety in Agriculture,
Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, India.
Gite, L.P., Singh, G., 1997. Ergonomics in agriculture and allied activities
in India. Technical Bulletin No. CIAE/97/70, Bhopal, India.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
100 K.N. Dewangan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 90–100
Gite, L.P., Yadav, B.G., 1989. Anthropometric survey of agricultural
design: an Indian case study. Applied Ergonomics 20, 191–196.
Grandjean, E., 1988. Fitting the Task to the Man. Taylor and Francis,
London.
Gupta, P.K., Sharma, A.P., Gupta, M.L., 1983. Anthropometric survey of
Indian farm workers. Agricultural Mechanisation in Asia, Africa and
Latin America 16 (1), 27–30.
Haslegrave, C.M., 1980. Anthropometric profile of British car driver.
Ergonomics 23 (5), 437–467.
Hertzberg, H.T.E., 1968. The conference on standardization of anthro-
pometric techniques and terminology. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 28 (1), 1–16.
ISO 15535, 2003. General Requirements for Establishing an Anthropo-
metric Database. International Standard Organization, Genava.
ISO 7250, 1996. Basic Human Body Measurements for Technological
Design. International Standard Organization, Genava.
Kroemer, K.H.E., 1983. Engineering anthropometry: work, space and
equipment to fit the user. In: Oborne, D., Gruneberg, M. (Eds.), The
Physical Environment at Work. Wisley, London.
Lee, Y.S., 2000. Applied Korean Anthropometric Database for Product
Design: Clothing Design. Agency for Technology and Standards,
MOCIE, Korea.
Lin, Y.C., Wang, M.J., Wang, E.M., 2004. The comparisons of
anthropometric characteristics among four peoples in East Asia.
Applied Ergonomics 35, 173–178.
Liu, W.C.V., Sanchez-Monroy, D., Parga, G., 1999. Anthropometry of
female maquiladora workers. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 24, 273–280.
Malmansari, D.U., Salokhe, V.M., 1996. Static strength and physical
work capacity of agricultural labourers in the central plain of
Thailand. Applied Ergonomics 27 (1), 53–60.
Marras, W.S., Kim, J.Y., 1993. Anthropometry of industrial populations.
Ergonomics 37, 371–378.
Moustafa, A.W., Davis, B.T., Duch, M.S., Ibrahim, M.A., 1987. Anthro-
pometric study of Egyptian women. Ergonomics 30 (7), 1089–1098.
Nag, P.K., Goswami, A., Ashtekar, S.P., Pradhan, C.K., 1988.
Ergonomics in sickle operation. Applied Ergonomics 19 (3), 233–239.
NASA, 1978. Anthropometry for designer. In: Anthropometric Source
Book, vol. I, NASA Reference Publication 1024. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Washington.
Pheasant, S., 1998. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the
Design of Work, second ed. Taylor & Francis, London.
Philip, G.S., 2000. Ergonomic investigations on women agricultural
workers—a case study. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural and
Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India,
unpublished.
Philip, G.S., Tewari, V.K., 2000. Anthropometry of Indian female
agricultural workers and implication on tool design. Agricultural
Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 31 (1), 63–66.
Pradhan, C.K., Goswami, A., Gosh, S.N., Nag, P.K., 1987. Ergonomic
design and physical evaluation of spade work. In: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Ergonomics in Developing Countries,
Jakhartha, Indonesia.
Reddy, A.R., Reddy, Y.S., Reddy, P.M., 1994. Women and rural
development—a case study of DWCRA in Cuddapah district.
Kurushetra 9, 19–21.
Redgrove, J., 1979. Fitting the job to the women. Applied Ergonomics 10,
215–223.
Research Institute of Human Engineering for Quality Life, 1994. Japanese
Body Size Data. Human Engineering for Quality Life, Japan (in
Japanese).
Resnick, M., 1995. Estimating the anthropometry of international
populations using the scaling ratio method. In: Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39th Annual Meeting,
pp. 673–677.
Rogan, A., 1992. Ergonomic constraints on crop production in the
tropics. Overseas Divison Report OD/92/4, Roben’s Institute of
Health and Safety, Silsoe Research Institute, UK.
Roozbazar, A., Bosker, G.W., Richerson, M.E., 1979. A theoretical model
to estimate some ergonomic parameters from age, height and weight.
Ergonomics 22 (1), 43–58.
Sanders, M.S., McCormick, E.J., 1992. Human factors in engineering and
design, McGraw-Hill International ed. McGraw-Hill Inc., Singapore.
Sen, R.N., 1964. Some anthropometric studies on Indian in tropical
climate. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Environmental
Physiology and Psychology in Arid Conditions, UNESCO, Paris,
pp. 163–174.
Sen, R.N., Nag, P.K., Ray, G.G., 1977. Some anthropometry of the
people of eastern India. Journal of Indian Anthropological Society 12,
201–208.
Shao, W., Zhou, Y., 1990. Design principles of wheeled-tractor driver-seat
static comfort. Ergonomics 33 (7), 959–965.
Tewari, V.K., Ailavadi, R., 2002. Ergonomic database for engineering
design of agricultural machines. Final Report, Department of
Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, West Bengal, India.
Victor, V.M., Nath saswati, Verma, A., 2002. Anthropometric survey of
Indian farm workers to approach ergonomics in agricultural machin-
ery design. Applied Ergonomics 33, 579–581.
Wang, E.M., Wang, M., Yeh, W., Shih, Y., Lin, Y., 1999. Development of
anthropometric work environment for Taiwanese workers. Interna-
tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23, 3–8.
Wang, M.J., Wang, E.M.Y., Lin, Y.C., 2002. The anthropometric
database for children and young adults in Taiwan. Applied Ergo-
nomics 33, 583–585.
Yadav, R., Tewari, V.K., Prasad, N., 1997. Anthropometric data of
Indian farm workers—a module analysis. Applied Ergonomics 28 (1),
69–71.