See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269039794

Postural Analysis of Harvesting and Handling Oil Palm Fresh Fruit Bunches
Using OWAS

Conference Paper · May 2013

CITATION READS

1 1,263

5 authors, including:

Ezrin Hani Sukadarin Ahmad Rasdan Ismail

Universiti Malaysia Pahang University Malaysia Kelantan Bachok
51 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS    187 PUBLICATIONS   1,244 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shamsul Bahri Md Tamrin

Universiti Putra Malaysia
167 PUBLICATIONS   1,546 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Online Makerspace Learning View project

Metal Dust Exposure and Respiratory Health Among Steel Workers : Risk Assessment and Health Profile View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ezrin Hani Sukadarin on 03 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Postural Analysis of Harvesting and Handling Oil Palm Fresh Fruit Bunches Using OWAS
1
Sukadarin, E.H., 1Deros, B.M., 1Ghani, J.A., 2Ismail, A.R. and 3Tamrin, S.B.M.
1
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
26600 Pekan, Pahang Darul Makmur,
Malaysia
3
Department Community Health,
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
Universiti Putra Malaysia,
43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Corresponding author: Tel.: +6 0389216117; fax: +60389259659

E-mail address: ezrinhani@gmail.com

Abstract
In their daily work, oil palm fruit harvesters perform various types of manual work activities and
work postures, which can exposed them to many different types of muscular skeletal disorders
(MSDs). In this study, postural analysis was conducted to identify and understand the physical
loads faced by manual oil palm fruit harvesters. Their activities and postures while performing
harvesting and collecting fresh fruit bunches (FFB) activities were video recorded. Later, their
body postures were assessed using Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS) method. It
was found oil palm fruit harvesters were exposed to many awkward postures while performing
harvesting and manual handling of FFB activities. The authors found it very difficult to quantify
the actual load faced by the oil palm fruit harvesters, while they are performing each hazardous
posture due to the unavailability of certain parameters such as: posture duration and repetitive
work in OWAS. In addition, OWAS was not capable of quantify separately the workload of
upper extremities. In essence, it can be concluded that OWAS method due to its limitations was
not suitable for conducting postural analysis during harvesting and collecting of FFB.

Keywords: Posture analysis, OWAS method, manual work, oil palm industry

1. Background

Agricultural work and farming are considered as high risk occupations for musculoskeletal
disorders. Examples of ergonomics risk factors are heavy lifting, pushing and pulling, awkward
posture and repetitive movements. Human has the tendency to suffer from musculoskeletal
problems as a result of exposure to ergonomics risk factors (Jaffar et al., 2011). In agricultural
setting, manual work is a norm. Some activities, such as mechanized systems are difficult to be
introduced due to land surface condition, surrounding environment, resistance by farmers to
accept new technology. This might be due to their negative perception towards new technology,
which will cause them to lose their job. The workplace injury is common due to performing
hazardous job manually (Davies et al., 2003 ; Khanzode et al., 2012).
In oil palm plantation, manual works are unavoidable during harvesting oil palm fresh fruit
bunches (FFB) and pruning fronds. The oil palm tree starts to produce fruit in compact bunches
after about 24 to 30 months old. The FFBs need to be harvested effectively to ensure the quality
of harvested fruits are maintained (Jelani et al., 2008). The two methods for manual harvesting of
FFB are either by using a chisel/sickle or using mechanized machine to harvest the FFB. Manual
cutting of FFB is a tough job and harvester must skillful and physically fit in order to perform
successful cutting operation (Jelani et al., 2003). Harvested fruits can be collected manually,
using a wheelbarrow, or mechanically by using a tractor-mounted grabber (Ishak et al., 1997).

Height of oil palm trees will determine whether the harvester needs to use a chisel or sickle for
harvesting the FFB. For short palms less than 3 meters high, a chisel is normally used to harvest
the FFB. A chisel is aimed at the bunch stalk or frond base and manual force is exerted for cutting
the FFB. To ensure that bunches is totally cut-off from the bunch stalk, a large force at very high
speed from chisel is required. In some cases, the FFB needs to be cut-off without cutting their leaf
below. In that case, the chisel need to be located between the stem and the lead, high and strong
force is needed to push the chisel. Harvesting the FFB from palms more than 3 meters high
required a different approach and technique. In tall palms, the FFB were cut using a specially
designed sickle, which can easily get access to the fronds and the bunch stalks. Using a sickle is
the most effective way of harvesting FFB from tall palms (Jelani et al., 2003). In tall palms, the
sickle needs to be connected at the end of long pole. In each harvesting activity, the FFB
harvester needs to lift the pole upright prior to start cutting the frond or FFB. The harvester need
to be skillful in handling the sickle and high force are required to perform the cutting process for
frond or FFB (Jelani et al., 2008).

Jelani et al. (2008) had introduced a motorized cutter namely CantasTM to improve productivity of
harvesting FFB in oil palms plantation and solve problems and risks of using sickle. The
motorized cutter was designed to suit middle height palms, which are lower than 6 m high. The
mechanical harvesters can be used for harvesting FFB from palms in the range between 6 to 12
meters high (Jelani et al., 2008). It is difficult and costly to change cutting tools for different palm
heights, which resulted in poor acceptance of this new innovation by palm harvesters in
plantations.

After cutting the FBB from palm tree, all cut FFB and loose fruits were collected. It is normal for
the harvester to perform stooping and squatting posture while collecting the cut FFB and the
loose fruits. As described by Fathallah et al., (2004), although stooping and squatting posture are
normal in agricultural work, however, these postures have been neglected and overlooked in past
studies. Lifting FFB from ground into the wheelbarrow also requires a lot of efforts. Another
issue that can be investigated is pushing a fully loaded wheelbarrow with FFB to designated area
for ease of collection. In general, the weight of each FFB is about 10 – 20 kg. Normally, there are
more than one FFB that need to be lifted and transferred. In total more than 100 kg of FFB need
to be lifted and transferred daily. For example Yoon et al. (2012) found that lifting is related to
back injury suffered by many manual material handlers. The same scenario will happen to the
manual FFB handlers working in the oil palm plantation. In short, they are also facing the risk of
having musculoskeletal injury due to the their work.

Manual FFB handlers working in oil palm plantations perform many types of activities, which
involved many different postures and movements. Therefore, it is very beneficial to perform
physical load assesesment among manual FFB handlers. Janowitz et al. (2006) found that posture
analysis is one of the available methods that can be used to identify physical load. In this study,
the authors had applied the Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS) to understand the
working postures issues faced by oil palm harvesters while performing their everyday work.
2. Method

2.1 Observation and posture data collection (video camera)

Harvesting and collecting FFB activities in oil palm plantation was recorded using a video
camera. This was done to capture the actual of FFB harvesters’ daily activities and postures so
that they can be properly assessed in the laboratory. In addition, typical problematic postures
performed by the FFB harvesters can be easily analyzed and addressed.

2.2 Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS)

OWAS is a method that can be used to evaluate postural load faced by human worker during
performing his/her work (Karhu et al., 1977). The OWAS method can be used to collect simple
observational information on the worker’s (4 back, 3 arm, 7 leg) and loads (3 loads) according to
a classification of work tasks (Jongkol & Chatmuangpak, 2012). OWAS analyzing system is
shown in the Table 1.

Table 1 OWAS analyzing system

Back Posture
1) upright
2) leaning forward
3) flexuous
4) leaning forward and flexuous
Forearms posture
1) both below elbow joint
2) one below elbow joint
3) both above elbow joint
Legs work
1) sitting position
2) standing with legs upright
3) standing with one leg upright
4) standing with legs bent
5) standing with one leg bent
6) kneeling on one or both knees
7) walking
External load volume for men [kg]
1) below 10
2) within the range 10-20
3) above 20

To determine body position code using OWAS method, each code of each targeted posture need
to be inserted in the table as shown in Figure 1. The 4 digits code (back posture, forearms, legs
work and external force) are then standardized to get the category in order to determine required
action as shown in Table 1.
 [Back Posture Code [Forearms Posture Code [Legs Work Code [External Volume Code
place here] place here] place here] place here]

Figure 1 Body position code and the scoring table

Table 1 Posture category and action needed

Category Description Action needed

Class 1 Body position is regular and natural. Load is acceptable Change not required
Class 2 Involves potentially hazardous postures. Static load is Change required in the near
practically acceptable. future
Class 3 Points out a clearly hazardous influence of body Change required as soon as
posture, while static load is fairly large. possible
Class 4 Postures and worker’s body position which are defined Change required immediately
as being considerably hazardous. Static load is also
quite large.

3 Results and Analysis

3.1 Observation and posture data collection (video camera)

After recording the work method, seven typical postures that repeatedly seen were chosen from
the original video image and placed in frames. Figure 2 shows seven postures selected from the
original video.
 Posture 1 Posture 2 Posture 3

Posture 4 Posture 5 Posture 6

Posture 7

Figure 2 Seven postures selected from the original video image

3.1 OWAS analysis

Step by step OWAS was conducted. The seven selected working postures were analyzed. Table 2
shows the result of analysis of the selected working postures.
Table 2 Analysis of OWAS

Post OWAS Action

Figure Scenario Remarks
-ure code Cat.
1 Knees bent and body leaning forward Change required
Holding and swinging chisel strongly 2341 3 as soon as
possible
2 Body straight
Knees bent Change required
1341 2
Holding and swinging chisel strongly in the near future

3 Both hand above shoulder level

Holding and pushing long-armed Change not
sickle. 1321 required
1
Using upper body and back to perform
pushing

4 Pulling / pushing long-armed sickle

strongly. Change required
Usually more than one time in each 1141 2 in the near future
session.
5
3161 1
Stooping and squatting to collect loose Change not
fruits required
6

Carrying bunch from ground into 1173 1 Change not

wheelbarrow required

7 Change required
Pushing wheelbarrow containing FBB 2173 3 as soon as
possible

Table 3 Problems found in OWAS results

Posture Action needed Remarks

Change required as soon The duration of the specific posture is not been
1&7
as possible considered. The score might be over estimated
Posture involve repetitive actions, however there is no
Change required in the
2&4 repetitive consideration in the analysis. The score might
near future
be under estimated
Duration of posture and repetitive work are not been
3, 5 & 6 Change not required
considered at all. The score might be under estimated
4. Discussion

Findings from postural analysis using OWAS method show that posture 1 and posture 7 are
hazardous; therefore, interventions and corrections are needed to be done as soon as possible. In
this study, posture 2 and posture 4 are still considered acceptable and safe to be applied.
However, postural correction might be required in near future. Meanwhile, the rest postures (i.e.
posture 3, 5 and 6), OWAS analysis shows that postural change are not required.

OWAS is widely used and well documented (Takala et al., 2010), and many case studies of
ergonomic applications have been reported (e.g. Mattila et al., 1993; Ismail et al., 2009;
Gangopadhyay et al., 2010). OWAS is a simple method, which can be used by any individual
who are not specifically trained in ergonomics (Karhu et al., 1977) and it can perform postural
analysis very quickly (Keyserling, 1986).

However, after a few considerations such as: duration of each posture and posture repetition, the
results found are still questionable. These issues were also highlighted in Takala et al. (2010). The
limitations of OWAS in assessing heterogeneous jobs were mentioned in by Corlett et al. (1979).
In addition, based on postural observations, work load between different sides of the body were
also obvious. For example, for left and right hand, it can be seen that in a specific posture (e.g.
posture 1) right hand was used harder than left hand. However OWAS analysis can not
differentiate the load of those limbs (Takala et al., 2010). There were also no assessments
regarding neck, elbow and wrists in OWAS. For shoulder, OWAS could only perform basic
assessment with respect to the shoulders. Broadness of the posture categories is also a prominent
issue, which can lead to inaccuracy of the posture description (Keyserling, 1986).

5. Conclusion

Harvesters confront awkward postures in most of their working times. However, it is very
difficult to quantify the exact load of each hazardous posture using OWAS due to the
unavailability of certain parameter such as posture duration and repetitive works. The limitation
of splitting left and right upper extremities is also an important issue to be highlighted. It has to
be understood that OWAS method was developed in a steel industry to understand workloads that
involved in the process of overhauling of iron smelting ovens. In other words, exposures to
awkward postures in steel industry are totally different from agricultural industry. In addition,
different exposure will give different workload and risk factors. From the above consideration, it
can be concluded that OWAS method might be not the best method to study postural load in an
agricultural setting in specifically in the harvesting and collecting of FFB activities.

References

Corlett, E. N., Madeley†, S. J., & Manicica‡, I. (1979). Posture Targeting: A Technique for
Recording Working Postures. Ergonomics, 22(3), 357–366.
doi:10.1080/00140137908924619

Davies, J. C., Kemp, G. J., Frostick, S. P., & Dickinson, C. E. (2003). Manual handling injuries
and long term disability. Safety Science, 41, 611–625. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00016-4

Fathallah, F., Meyers, J., & Janowitz, I. (2004). Stooped and squatting postures in the workplace.
Stooped and Squatting Posture in the Workplace. San Francisco. Retrieved from
 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Stooped+and+Squatting+
Postures+in+the+Workplace#0

Gangopadhyay, S., Das, B., Das, T., Ghoshal, G., & Ghosh, T. (2010). An ergonomics study on
posture-related discomfort and occupational-related disorders among stonecutters of West
Bengal, India. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics : JOSE, 16(1),
69–79. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20331920

Ishak, W., Ismail, W., & Bardaie, M. Z. (1997). Sistem Pengautomatan Jentera Pemungut Tandan
Kelapa Sawit. Pertanika Journal Science & Technology, 5(2), 241–256.

Ismail, A. R., Yeo, M. L., Zulkifli, R., Deros, B. M., & Makhtar, N. K. (2009). Assessment of
Postural Loading among the Assembly Operators : A Case Study at Malaysian Automotive
Industry. European Journal of Scientific Research, 30(2), 224–235.

Jaffar, N., Abdul-Tharim, a. H., Mohd-Kamar, I. F., & Lop, N. S. (2011). A Literature Review of
Ergonomics Risk Factors in Construction Industry. Procedia Engineering, 20, 89–97.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.142

Janowitz, I. L., Gillen, M., Ryan, G., Rempel, D., Trupin, L., Swig, L., Mullen, K., et al. (2006).
Measuring the physical demands of work in hospital settings: design and implementation of
an ergonomics assessment. Applied Ergonomics, 37(5), 641–58.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.08.004

Jelani, A. R., Hitam, A., Jamak, J., Noor, M., Gono, Y., & Ariffin, O. (2008). Cantas TM – A tool
for the efficient harvesting of oil palm fresh fruit bunches. Journal of Oil Palm Research,
20, 548–558.

Jelani, A. R., Shuib, A. R., Hitam, A., Jamak, J., & Noor, M. M. (2003). Hand-held mechanical
cutter. MPOB Infomation Series No. 180, (JUNE), 1–2.

Jongkol, P., & Chatmuangpak, A. (2012). Evaluation of concrete work strain in buildings
construction. 2012 Southeast Asian Network of Ergonomics Societies Conference (SEANES)
(pp. 1–6). Langkawi, Malaysia: Ieee. doi:10.1109/SEANES.2012.6299564

Karhu, O., Kansi, P., & Kuorinka, I. (1977). Correcting working postures in industry: A practical
method for analysis. Applied ergonomics, 8(4), 199–201. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677243

Keyserling, W. M. (1986). Postural analysis of the trunk and shoulders in simulated real time.
Ergonomics, 29(4), 569–83. doi:10.1080/00140138608968292

Khanzode, V. V., Maiti, J., & Ray, P. K. (2012). Occupational injury and accident research: A
comprehensive review. Safety Science, 50(5), 1355–1367. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.015

Mattila, M., Karwowski, W., & Vilkki, M. (1993). Analysis of working postures in hammering
tasks on building construction sites using the computerized OWAS method. Applied
ergonomics, 24(6), 405–12. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15676938
 Takala, E.-P., Pehkonen, I., Forsman, M., Hansson, G.-Å., Mathiassen, S. E., Neumann, W. P.,
Sjøgaard, G., et al. (2010). Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing
biomechanical exposures at work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health,
36(1), 3–24. doi:10.5271/sjweh.2876

View publication stats