Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0

Share

Download to read offline

Kolgiri ph d _mech_engg

Download to read offline

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED MODEL
FOR ASSESSING ERGONOMIC FACTORS FOR THE POWER
LOOM SECTOR OF SOLAPUR CITY

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Kolgiri ph d _mech_engg

  1. 1. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED MODEL FOR ASSESSING ERGONOMIC FACTORS FOR THE POWER LOOM SECTOR OF SOLAPUR CITY Defence Seminar By Somnath Kolgiri Under the Guidance of Dr. Rahul B Hiremath Mechanical Engineering, Under the Faculty of Engineering Walchand Institute of Technology PA H Solapur University, Solapur 21, September, 2019
  2. 2. Presentation Outline • Problems in Power-loom industry (Chapter-1) • Review of Literature (Chapter-2) • Objective and Scope (Chapter-1) • Research Framework (Chapter-2) • Chapter-3: Agreement between NMSQ, RULA, and REBA • Chapter-4:Research Methodology to Validate Designed Questionnaire by Finding Statistical Agreement with RULA/ REBA and NMSQ • Chapter-5: Mathematical Model for WMSDs, ERPs, and LDs, Case Study, Interventions, and Suggestions • Chapter-6: Summary of Findings, Results and Conclusions and Future Scope of Work • Contribution • List of References • List of Publications
  3. 3. Why Manual Work Required in Power-Loom Sector? •Unavoidable •Simple to adopt •Traditional practice •Less expensive •Substitution: not necessary •Manual labour may outperform mechanization or automation (Nag et al. 2012; Saha et al. 2010; Dalal and Acharya 2009) Why Manualness in Power-Loom Sector? •Existing Power-Loom Industry jobs are difficult to automate, if not impossible •Mechanization may be expensive affecting private economy •Varieties of Manual tasks are unavoidable (Scheider and Susi, 1994; Chang et al., 2009; Wu and Chang, 2010; Hsaio and Stanevich, 2011; Aneziris, et al., 2012; ILO, 1995; Ofori, 1990; Abbe, et al., 2011, Aneziris, et al., 2012; Surry, 1968; Tallberg et al, 1993; Jeong, 1998; (Snook, 1982; Albers and Estill, 2007; Hsu, 2008; Pinto, et al., 2011) National Scenario •The textile sector in India employs nearly 35 million people and after agriculture. •The power looms plays a vital role in Indian textile industry and providing 4.86 million employment •Solapur city is an important district head quarter in western Maharashtra, about 25,000 power looms today employing about 100,000 workers.. •India has the Work related lung ailments occur 30% and up to 51% of operators revealed over 10 years, FEV1 was below 60%. •372 out of 631 workers had MSDs from small and medium scaled companies situated in Delhi (Joshi et al. 2001;Chaari et al ;Shaikh et al., 2013; Kamalesh et al 2013;) International Scenario •In Iranian hand woven carpet factories represents 82 per cent of the weavers were experiencing certain class of musculoskeletal signs —more than any other sector •In the European country, a sample of 123 subjects participated, including 62 low back patients and 61 controls asymptomatic workers. •In Egypt showed that the operators of picking and blending sections, spinning and carding sections, and twisting and combing sections hurt from, chest pain, and dyspnea. (Choobineh et al. 2004; Ferguson et al. 2005; Jannet, 2006 )
  4. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Typical activity in power-loom industry of India Threading Spinning Knitting Weaving Bleaching Winding
  5. 5. 7 8 9 Dyeing Finishing – Trimming and Stitching Typical Work Flow in Medium Power Loom Industry of India
  6. 6. Ergonomic Problems in Power-Loom Sector • Pain in back, shoulders and wrists • Strain and sprain injuries • MSDs • Visual distress • Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease • Severe fatigue and loss of energy • Safety gadgets (PPE) and mechanical aids are impractical and unsafe to use (Scheider and Susi, 1994; Chang et al., 2009; Wu and Chang, 2010; Hsaio and Stanevich, 2011; Aneziris, et al., 2012; Chang et al., 2009; Pinto et al., 2011) Why Ergonomic Study of Power-Loom Sector Jobs India? • Occupational hazard to biomechanical factors, humidity, temperature, ventilation, illumination, and cotton dust • Occurrence of accidents and injuries • Prevailing MSDs, ERPs and LDs • Unknown work-load limits • Absence of appropriate guidelines in Indian situations • Limited research Ergonomic study deals with one or more of these issues
  7. 7. . 1. Theoretical background 2. Risk factors for causing MSDs, Eye and Eyesight Problems, and Lung Problems 3. Research review The review of literature is presented under the following major heads
  8. 8. Ergonomic Problems Identification of critical jobs Ergonomic Evaluation •Biomechanical •Physiological •Physical •Psychophysical Evaluation of MSDs, eye and eyesight problems, and lung problems (the models of musculoskeletal disorders ) Occupational Risk Factors Literature Review Literature Review
  9. 9. Occupational Risk Factors References Awkward Body Posture •Static positioning •Constrained body posture •Lumbar flexion •Pelvic tilting Chaffin and Andersson, 1984; Keyserling et al., 1988; Punnett and Fine, 1988; Putz-Anderson, 1988; Bernard, 1997; Silverstein et al., 1986; Rosecrane et al., 1996; Nordin and Frankel, 2001; Esola et al., 1996; Porter and Wilkinson, 1997; Holmstrom and Ahlborg, 2005; Jung and Jung, 2008; Chaffin and Andersson, 1991; Keyserling, 1986; Ayoub and Mital, 1989; Reid, et al., 2010; Pinto et al., 2011 Repetitive Motion •Wrist extension •Un linar deviation of wrist Silverstein, 1987; Huorinka and Forcier, 1995; Hales and Bernard, 1996; NIOSH, 1997; Bernard, 1997; Forciert and Kuorinka, 2001; Kumar, 2001; Jung and Jung, 2008; Sauni, et al., 2009 Force on Muscles •Forceful exertion •Impulsive loading Edwards, 1981; Huorinka and Forcier, 1995; Hales and Bernard, 1996; NIOSH, 1997; Veddar and Carrey, 2005; Jung and Jung, 2008; Gandevia, 2001; Kumar, 2001; Missenard et al., 2008 Literature Review: Occupational Risk Factors
  10. 10. Occupational Risk Factors References Studies related to occupational lung disease in cotton and textile industries Jeron et al., 1995 Furlow, 2011 Sangeetha et al., 2013 Paudyal et al., 2011 Cherie et al., 2007 Chaari et al., 2009 Burge and Christine, 2000 WHO, 2002 Kamalesh et al (2013 Studies related to eye and eyesight problems in textile industries Anjuma et al, 2009 Studies related to musculoskeletal system and degenerations Rizzo, 2007, Black et al., 2001, Kurppa et al., 1979, Adams, 2010, Armstrong et al., 1993, Butler, 1985 Studies related musculoskeletal disorder and work related musculoskeletal disorder Woolf, 2000, Hagberg et al. (1995), Kilbom, 1994 WHO, 1985, Sjogaard, 1990 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2005 Studies related to the models of musculoskeletal disorders WHO, 1985 Contd…
  11. 11. References Dose response model- Cox and Ferguson occupational health model- OERC model - National Research Council model- NRICM model- Aptel and Cnockaert model- International Classification of Functioning (ICF) model- Wahlstorm model- Gustafsson model- Armstrong et al. (1993 Cox and Ferguson in 1994Office Ergonomics Research Committee (OERC, 1996) National Research Council (1998) National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (NRICM, 2001) Aptel and Cnockaert (2002) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (2003) Wahlstorm (2005) Gustafsson (2009), which was altered from Sauter and Swanson model (Sauter and Swanson, 1996). Literature Review: Musculoskeletal Disorders Models
  12. 12. References Studies related to individual factors causing MSDs in textile sector Saha et al. (2010) Nag et al. (2003) Studies related to individual factors causing MSDs in non-textile sector •Heredity – •Age- •Anthropometry- •Hygiene and habits - Donald & Mutti (2002). Sreeraman (2008) Saw et al. (2001) Morken et al. (2000) Zeytingolu et al. (2000) Eriksen (2003) Holmstrom and Engholm (2003) Guo et al. (2004) Peele et al. (2005) Alexpoulus et al. (2006) Briggs and Green (1989) (Westgaard et al. 1993). Morken et al. (2000) (Chaiwanichsiri et al., 2007). Miranda et al. (2008) . Sethi et al. (2011) Sadeghi et al. (2012) Guo et al., 1995; Bernard, 1997 Savinainen et al., 2004 Cassou, et al., 2002 Contd…
  13. 13. References Studies related to WMSD due to activity in job •Posture and movements- •Exertion of force- •Work speed - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1997 Anghel et al., 2007 Banerjee and Gangopadhyay, 2003 OSHA, 2000 Varmazyar et al., 2009 European Agency for Safety and Health at work, 2010 Pourmahabadian and Azam, 2006 Banerjee and Gangopadhyay, 2003 Kreighbaum and Barthels, 1981 NIOSH, 1996 Kreighbaum and Barthels, 1981 Albers and Estill, 2007 Choobineh et al., 2004 Roy and Dasgupta, 2008 Waddell and Burton (2001) Silverstein and Kalat (1998) Choobineh et al., 2004 Varmazyar et al., 2009 Studies related to ambience risk factors causing musculoskeletal disorders •Temperature in factory ambience Magnavita et al., 2011 Geigle, 2009 •Vibration of machines Albers and Estill, 2007 Sadeghi et al., 2012 Massaccesi et al., 2003 Geigle, 2009 •Light illumination- Shweta (2002) and Snehlatha (2007) •Workplace layout- Choobineh et al. (2007) Saha et al. (2010) Contd…
  14. 14. References Studies related to WMSDs due to organizational factors •Duration of employment •Extended work hours Kaergaard and Andersen (2000) Morken et al. (2000) Roy and Dasgupta (2008) Saha et al. (2010) Studies related to WMSDs due to psychosocial factors Schierhout et al. (1995) (Kroemer, 1989). Bongers et al. (1993) Kaergaard and Andersen (2000) Gonge et al. (2002) Morken et al. (2000) Obelenis and Gedgaudiene (2003) Kinman and Jones (2005) Puriene (2007) Joshi et al. (2001) studied Nag et al. (2012) Studies on ergonomic interventions to reduce MSDs •Job Performance, • Workplace Design • Work Pose, • Safety Climate, • Job Contentment, • Job Environment, • Operation (Mustafa et al., 2009). Dempsey et al., 2004 Das and Grady, 1983 De Croon et al., 2005 De Lange et al., 2002: Sluiter et al., 2003 Das and Grady, 1983 Parsons, 2000 Fisk and Rosenfeld, 1997 NIOSH, 2015 Contd…
  15. 15. Problem Identification • The majority of workers in power-loom industry involved in repetitive tasks, unnoticed and suffering from acute repetitive strain injuries, it was felt essential to explore the prevalence of MSDs, ERPs and LDs. • The role of individual anthropometry and psychosocial factors, along with the work- related factors in developing MSDs, ERPs, and LDs was found unexplored. • These industries neither following ergonomic principles nor ergonomic interventions to control or prevent MSDs, respiratory diseases (RDs) and ERPs. • The rationale of the study musculoskeletal disorders, eye disease, and lung disease being the serious occupational health hazard affecting the health of workers in particular needs to be focused as workers are the key factors in the very basic unit of the society, the family. Aim To explore the personal and environmental variables that contribute towards developing WMSDs, ERPs, and LDs while designing a statistically based mathematical (Ergonomic integrated) model of job activities for power-loom industry which assess the risk of workers for WMSDs, ERPs, and LDs.
  16. 16. Objectives and Scope I. To develop a scale and measure the extent of the prevalence of WMSDs, ERPs, and LDs among workers engaged in job activities of power-loom industries. II. To find out the interrelationships that exist between the extents of the prevalence of WMSDs, ERPs and LDs and variables of personal and work environment III. To evaluate the weights of the sigmoid function and coefficients of regression in developing a model or a tool to assess the risk for musculoskeletal disabilities, eye problems, and lung disease. Scope • Workers having experience of more than one year involved in job activities of power-loom industry are aged 21 and above with maximum of 60 years in Solapur. • The measuring discomfort of physical functioning in terms of the difficulty experienced to carry out the normal activities that involve upper limb, neck, shoulders, body, back and lower limb by assessing video or image using REBA and RULA tool of NexGen Ergonomics. • Measuring selected anthropometric measurements viz. height, weight, age, and sex.
  17. 17. Development of a Graphical User Interface for the Prediction Models and Interventions -Videography of Power-Loom Industry Tasks -Use of Ergomaster Software to determine RULA and REBA Score -Develop Integrated Model to determine WMSDs, ERPs, and LDs -Compare the DQ, RULA+REBA and NMSQ individual Critical Task Assessment of Occupational Risk Factors Preliminary Study of the Power- Loom Industry Worksystem Evaluation-related Detailed Data Collection (Primary and Secondary Data) Identification of Critical Risk Factors and Critical Working Tasks Postural (Biomechanical) and Environmental Evaluation of Selected Job activities Ergonomic Evaluation of Postures for Power-Loom Idustry Tasks -Types of activities against a type of work -Types of ongoing textile industry jobs -Types of tools or equipments, mechanical aids and other handling tools used -Types of safety gadgets as recommended and used for textile jobs -List of problems as observed and reported -Work postures and body movements for different activities -Pilot Survey -Design of Questionnaire -Administration of the Questionnaire -Analysis of the Responses (Descriptive Statistics, Regression) A Generic Framework for Ergonomic Evaluation of Power-Loom Industry Tasks Objective-1 Objective-2 Objective-3
  18. 18. Objective-1: To Develop a Scale and Measure the Occupational Risk Factors in Power-Loom Industry i. Step-1: Selection of a Power-Loom industries ii. Step-2: Preliminary Survey iii. Step-3: Identification of Issues to be Surveyed iv. Step-4: NMSQ and RULA/REBA scores v. Step-5: Data Collection vi. Step-6: Analysis of Responses • Results • Conclusions
  19. 19. Selection of a Power-Loom Industries 30 textile industries age spanning from 21to 60 (Age=32.24 ±4.03) were selected. : Project requires All kinds of power-loom industry work tasks Preliminary Survey Discussion with concerned persons, reference to past records and data, and direct observations Study Risk Factors (Types of Issues Considered) •Pilot Survey (visit, discussions, brain storming, feedback) • Characteristics of Job Tasks (Issue-1) • Features of Working Environment (Issue-2) • Anthropometric Measurements (Issue-3) • Characteristics of Personal Factors (Issue-4) • Types of M/c, Tools and Equipment used (Issue-5) • Types of Occupational Health Problem including MSDs (Issue-6) • Appling Three Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools, i.e. RULA, REBA and NMSQ checklist and Data Collection
  20. 20. Samples Collected from Power-Loom Industry (Random Sampling) Sl. No. Occupations Total Number of Workers Number of Workers Interviewed / Surveyed 1 Thread formation 190 60 2 Spinning 215 84 3 Weaving 300 90 4 Knitting 200 96 5 Bleaching 164 72 6 Dyeing 125 54 7 Printing 121 48 8 Finishing 125 36 Total 1440 540
  21. 21. RULA and REBA Score distribution over several body parts
  22. 22. NMSQ Score distribution over several body parts
  23. 23. Depicts the significance of RULA /REBA score and NMSQ score Methods Parameter Thread Formation formation Spinning Weaving Knitting Bleaching Dyeing Printing Finishing Pearson’s Coefficient 0.8464 0.8763 0.8637 0.7952 0.9036 0.9032 0.87446 0.8443 P Value 0.0126 0.0110 0.013 0.0293 0.00675 0.00610 0.01846 0.01784 Spearman’ s Rho 0.88545 0.92763 0.811679 0.94286 0.92582 0.92342 0.91645 0.90546 P -2 tailed 0.00387 0.00767 0.04986 0.0048 0.00805 0.00602 0.00544 0.00446 Student’s T T value -6.4413 -5.23008 -7.92671 -7.71925 -6.42625 -6.5345 -6.35646 -6.85464 P value 0.000178 0.000192 <0.0000 1 <0.00001 0.000038 0.00002 <0.00001 <0.00001 Regression Equation 14.32R-10.54 19.68R- 13.74 15.27R- 2.638 13.69+ 10.78R 8.084+ 13.52R 8.073+ 12.24R 10.464+ 11.64R 18.54R- 12.564 Goodness of Fit R-Square 0.6456 0.7680 0.7460 0.6323 0.8164 0.8042 0.7946 0.7754 S y-x 7.787 9.877 6.504 6.417 6.417 6.417 6.504 2.753 The p-value is too turned to be p<0.05 which indicates that the association Between RULA/REBA and Nordic questionnaire have statistical significance.
  24. 24. Identification of work system characteristics: Descriptive Statistics, Identification of critical risk factors for power-loom workers using RULA /REBA, and NMSQ score : •Identification of critical risk factors for power-loom workers and various departments : MSD in the lower back (30.4 &34.6), shoulders (26.5&28.5) and upper arm (29&27.7) •The body weight and active stress directed in pain generation in the knee, therefore 14% of workers had attended the clinic. •Thread Formation workers are highly affected Lower Back, Shoulder and Upper Arm because of the nature of their tasks which are highly repetitive and strenuous
  25. 25. Results Assessment of Level of Agreement between the Tools : •The p-value is too turned to be p<0.05 which indicates that the association between RULA and Nordic questionnaire have statistical significance. •The Kappa value between RULA/REBA i.e. 0.7875 •The Kappa value between RULA and Nordic questionnaire is 0.349 •The Kappa value between REBA and Nordic questionnaire is 0.274 Kappa value and its relationship •<0 Less than chance agreement •0.01 to 0.20 Slight agreement • 0.21 to 0.40 Fair agreement Conclusions •By looking the values of correlation coefficients, there is no big difference to perform video analysis for evaluation of RULA and REBA or administer Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire for finding pain in body regions. • The Kappa value is coming highest between RULA/REBA i.e. because of very much similarity between the methods RULA only measures score is leg supported or not and does not emphasize on the angle of the leg, whereas REBA gives an importance of angle in the leg and adds a score in the leg too. •0.41 to 0.60 Moderate agreement •0.61 to 0.80 Substantial agreement •0.81 to 1 Almost agreement
  26. 26. Objective-2: Design Questionnaire for the Prevalence of WMSDs, ERPs and LDs and Variables of Personal and Work Environment i. Step-1: Selection of Tasks ii. Step-2: Design Questionnaire iii. Step-3: Data Collection for WMSDs, ERPs, and LDs Evaluation iv. Step-4: Data Analysis • Design Questionnaire of a Select Power-Loom Industry Job • Results • Conclusions
  27. 27. Selection of a Power-Loom Industries • From 102 firms communicated, only 30 industries reacted with individuals 540 responded to the questionnaires • The number of respondents in gender wise belong 3 major age groups (between 21 and 40, and between 41 and 50, and 51and 60) for all departments. Study Risk Factors •Decision of input variables for model of WMSDs •Statistical Analysis of ANOVA was performed to find significance between variables of anthropometry and job details to the departments. • Verification of fitness of data for analysis: Cronbach’s Coefficient: Conducted for data reliability which is 0.841 >0.5 significant  Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test were performed :The measured value of KMO for sampling sufficiency to perform factor analysis is 0.791 which is above 0.5 and level of significance Bartlett’s sphericity test: Conducted for data fitness which is 0.02 <0.05 significant • Measure the Occupational Risk Factors Using Design Questionnaire
  28. 28. Methods Parameter Thread formation Spinning Weaving Knitting Bleaching Dyeing Printing Finishing Pearson’s Coefficient 0.8023 0.7463 0.7725 0.8464 0.8965 0.8978 08464 08654 P Value 0.00522 0.0145 0.0132 0.0213 0.0364 0.0564 0.0234 0.0368 Spearman’s Rho 0.91452 0.93684 0.9169 0.8237 0.9714 0.9884 0.8976 0.8798 P -2 tailed 0.00822 0.036 0.0431 0.04986 0.0621 0.0354 0.0544 0.04534 Student’s T T value -5.1654 -7.87466 -5.3168 -7.81346 -13.1654 -10.541 -5.4641 -4.5564 P value 0.000026 <0.00001 0.00021 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00022 <0.00001 <0.00001 Regression Equation 9.046+ 12.78R 12.47+ 11.868R 18.56R-12.94 14.63R-2.764 7.146R+ 16.64 7.461R+ 15.34 15.64R-5.34 5.4654R+ 17.153 Goodness of Fit R-Square 0.765589 0.67879 0.7564 0.7646 0.8864 0.8974 0.8646 0.868 S y-x 6.534 8.9446 9.7646 6.8431 2.8784 3.6542 4.3153 5.4526 Depicts the significance between DQ and RULA /REBA Methods Parameter Thread formation Spinning Weaving Knitting Bleaching Dyeing Printing Finishing Pearson’s Coefficient 0.79464 0.7353 0.7844 0.8655 0.8846 0.8456 0.7654 0.7874 P Value 0.00466 0.0187 0.0165 0.0246 0.03565 0.02464 .01256 0.00253 Spearman’s Rho 0.92646 0.94127 0.9145 0.8329 0.9656 0.9844 0.9545 0.9764 P -2 tailed 0.00865 0.03621 0.0442 0.04894 0.0638 0.04531 0.03788 0.05878 Student’s T T value -5.1589 -7.84646 -5.3265 -7.8246 -13.1549 -10.464 -9.5456 -8.345 P value 0.000022 <0.00001 0.00018 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 Regression Equation 9.156+ 12.29R 12.31+ 11.754R 18.23R- 12.72 14.37R- 2.832 7.19R+ 16.45 6.29E+ 15.46 11.85R- 2.89 7.43R+ 14.35 Goodness of Fit R-Square 0.787665 0.66446 0.7444 0.75544 0.8965 .8841 0.7646 0.6687 S y-x 6.6482 8.8545 9.7452 6.8153 2.8876 6.8741 5.632 7.2545 Depicts the significance between DQ and NMSQ scores The p-value is p<0.05 which indicates that there is no big difference to perform analysis for evaluation using DQ or RULA and REBA and NMSQ in finding pain in body Validation of DQ
  29. 29. Results Conducted Inter rate reliability between DQ, RULA+REBA, and NMSQ •IRR Value for Threading 0.91 •IRR Value for Spinning 0.99 •IRR Value for Weaving 0.94 •IRR Value for Knitting 0.90 •IRR Value for Bleaching 0.92 •IRR Value for Dyeing 1.04 •IRR Value for Printing 0.95 •IRR Value for Finishing 1.00 Kappa coefficient is applied in SPSS software to find the level of agreement between the DQ, RULA+REBA, and NMSQ •The Kappa value is coming highest between DQ and RULA + REBA i.e. 0.687 •Between DQ and NMSQ i.e. 0.675 Conclusions •Depict the inter rate reliability of designed questionnaire with other tools RULA+REBA and NMSQ for various departments. • In all the cases, the IRR values are greater than 0.79 and so it can be inferred that designed questionnaire is good statistical agreement with other 2 tools. •The value of Kappa is 0.687 and 0.675, it shows designed questionnaire is nearly perfect agreement with both general techniques •Hence these tools can be used interchangeably in power-loom industry i.e. if one tool has applied no need to apply another tool as both will give synonymous results in power-loom industry.
  30. 30. Objective-3: Design of Integrated Model and Interventions for Improve Performance Power-Loom Industry work System i. Step-1: Selection of Task Variables ii. Step-2: Integrated Model Design and Ergonomic Interventions iii. Step-3: Collection of Data iv. Step-4: Data Analysis • Results • Conclusions
  31. 31. Experience Age Department Gender Exp a b c a b c Threading Male Less5 0.25 -0.28 5.6 0.25 -0.39 16.6 Great5 0.25 -0.18 4.6 0.25 -0.43 18.3 Spinning Male Less5 0.25 -0.58 14.6 0.25 -0.37 15.7 Great5 0.25 -0.3 6 0.25 -0.45 19.1 Weaving Male Less5 0.25 -0.55 14.9 0.25 -0.35 16.2 Great5 0.25 -0.12 3.2 0.25 -0.48 22.5 Knitting Male Less5 0.25 -0.55 14.8 0.25 -0.35 16.9 Great5 0.25 -0.09 3.8 0.25 -0.46 24.6 Bleaching Male Less5 0.25 -0.66 13.8 0.25 -0.38 18.2 Great5 0.25 -0.12 3.8 0.25 -0.37 18.8 Dyeing Male Less5 0.25 -0.48 11.1 0.25 -0.34 16.5 Great5 0.25 0 0 0.25 -0.47 22.5 Printing Male Less5 0.25 -0.48 11.1 0.25 -0.4 19.0 Great5 0.25 0 0 0.25 -0.47 22.3 Finishing Male Less5 0.25 -0.58 16.3 0.25 -0.37 17 Great5 0.25 0 0 0.25 -0.47 22.3 Experience Age Department Gender Exp a b c a b c Threading Female Less5 0.25 -0.43 6.6 0.25 -0.61 23.9 Great5 0.25 -0.26 5.2 0.25 -0.57 24.2 Spinning Female Less5 0.25 -0.73 14.6 0.25 -0.63 24.8 Great5 0.25 -0.28 7 0.25 -0.55 23.4 Weaving Female Less5 0.25 -0.59 11.8 0.25 -0.65 27.6 Great5 0.25 -0.13 2.6 0.25 -0.5 21.3 Knitting Female Less5 0.25 -0.63 12.6 0.25 -0.65 27.6 Great5 0.25 -0.13 2.6 0.25 -0.54 22.9 Bleaching Female Less5 0.25 -0.78 11.8 0.25 -0.62 26.4 Great5 0.25 -0.17 3.4 0.25 -0.5 21.3 Dyeing Female Less5 0.25 -0.5 10 0.25 -0.66 28.1 Great5 0.25 0 0 0.25 -0.5 21.3 Printing Female Less5 0.25 -0.5 10 0.25 -0.6 25.5 Great5 0.25 0 0 0.25 -0.5 21.3 Finishing Female Less5 0.25 -0.75 15 0.25 -0.63 26.8 Great5 0.25 0 0 0.25 -0.5 21.3 Logistic Model of Pain in body regions with Experience of Male and Female Workers of various Depts.
  32. 32. Male Experience Age Department Gender Exp. b C a b c a Threading Male Less5 -0.43 8.6 0.25 -0.61 25.92 0.25 Great5 -0.28 5.6 0.25 -0.57 24.22 0.25 Spinning Male Less5 -0.73 14.6 0.25 -0.63 26.77 0.25 Great5 -0.3 6 0.25 -0.55 23.38 0.25 Weaving Male Less5 -0.59 11.8 0.25 -0.65 27.63 0.25 Great5 -0.13 2.6 0.25 -0.5 21.25 0.25 Knitting Male Less5 -0.63 12.6 0.25 -0.65 27.63 0.25 Great5 -0.13 2.6 0.25 -0.54 22.95 0.25 Bleaching Male Less5 -0.78 11.8 0.25 -0.62 26.35 0.25 Great5 -0.17 3.4 0.25 -0.5 21.25 0.25 Dyeing Male Less5 -0.5 10 0.25 -0.66 28.05 0.25 Great5 0 0 0.25 -0.50 21.25 0.25 Printing Male Less5 -0.5 10 0.25 -0.6 25.5 0.25 Great5 0 0 0.25 -0.50 21.25 0.25 Finishing Male Less5 -0.75 1.5 0.25 -0.63 26.78 0.25 Great5 0 0 0.25 -0.50 21.25 0.25 Experience Age Department Gender Exp. b C a b c a Threading Female Less5 -0.43 8.6 0.25 -0.39 16.58 0.25 Great5 -0.28 5.6 0.25 -0.43 18.23 0.25 Spinning Female Less5 -0.73 14.6 0.25 -0.37 15.73 0.25 Great5 -0.3 6 0.25 -0.45 19.12 0.25 Weaving Female Less5 -0.59 11.8 0.25 -0.35 11. 8 0.25 Great5 -0.13 2.6 0.25 -0.5 11.25 0.25 Knitting Female Less5 -0.63 12.6 0.25 -0.35 14.88 0.25 Great5 -0.13 2.6 0.25 -0.46 19.55 0.25 Bleaching Female Less5 -0.78 11.8 0.25 -0.38 16.15 0.25 Great5 -0.17 3.4 0.25 -0.5 11.25 0.25 Dyeing Female Less5 -0.5 10 0.25 -0.34 14.45 0.25 Great5 0 0 0.25 -0.50 11.25 0.25 Printing Female Less5 -0.5 10 0.25 -0.4 17 0.25 Great5 0 0 0.25 -0.50 11.25 0.25 Finishing Female Less5 -0.75 1.5 0.25 -0.37 11.72 0.25 Great 5 0 0 0.2 5 -0.50 11.25 0.2 5 Logistic Model of eye problems with age and experience of Male and Female Workers of various Departments
  33. 33. Experience Less5 Great 5 Department Weight Weight Const Height Weigh Age Const Height Weigh Age Threading Male UW 492 -3.87 9.96 -2.13 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW 2584 -9.58 -5.34 -6.05 1441 -6.58 3.02 -4.1 OW -2039 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Spinning Male UW -4542 38.64 -32.11 -4.12 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW -125 5.61 -8.4 -0.25 3676 27.41 -10.26 -1.87 OW -2039 25.94 -25.23 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Weaving Male UW 2168 -15.35 12.91 2 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW -2684 18.2 -0.25 -3.49 1672 -2.22 -12.81 -7.12 OW -2039 25.94 -25.23 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Knitting Male UW 3558 -25.73 24.95 -2 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW -2022 16.5 -8.13 -0.59 -2686 18.8 -3.43 -2.04 OW -2039 25.94 -25.23 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Bleaching Male UW 2578 -15.7 18.6 -12.7 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW -1526 14.2 -6.55 -4.84 2588 -8.44 -6.29 -8.07 OW -2039 25.94 -25.23 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Dyeing Male UW 2307 -26.24 51.91 -6.91 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW 1425 -5.92 3.84 -7.88 2588 -8.44 -6.29 -8.07 OW -2039 25.94 -25.23 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Printing Male UW 2307 -26.24 51.91 -6.91 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW -1136 10.48 -3.47 -4.97 2588 -8.44 -6.29 -8.07 OW -2039 25.94 -25.23 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Finishing Male UW 84.35 20.89 -53.11 -10.95 -4778 33.3 -9.21 -6.63 NW 176.2 2.96 -1.1 -6.83 2588 -8.44 -6.29 -8.07 OW -2039 25.94 -25.23 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Experience Less5 Great 5 Department Weight Weight Const Height Weigh Age Const Height Weigh Age Threading Female UW -3026 2.32 77.5 - 19.57 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW 1392 -6.99 6.24 7.51 5988 -38.18 17.39 -10.1 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Spinning Female UW 117.8 9.43 -21.2 -8.87 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW 901.6 -6.83 14.5 -7.45 809.6 0.01 -6.1 -4.26 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Weaving Female UW 4059 -32.44 34.41 -3.34 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW 11.46 3.63 -2.95 -3.28 -2283 15.24 3.38 -3.44 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Knitting Female UW 4137 -23.6 3.38 -1.42 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW -586 7.47 -5.61 -0.86 -292 -3 16.25 1.33 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Bleaching Female UW 1197 -10.03 17.61 -3.53 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW 369 -2.89 9.89 -4.83 1733 -10.28 5.13 -0.24 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Dyeing Female UW 1197 -10.03 17.61 -3.53 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW 2101 -10.94 3.91 -5.31 1733 -10.28 5.13 -0.24 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Printing Female UW 1197 -10.03 -12.45 -8.36 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW -2360 22.8 -3.47 -4.97 1733 -10.28 5.13 -0.24 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Finishing Female UW 1197 -10.03 -12.45 -8.36 8821 -75.85 84.2 -4.39 NW 3305 -21.88 14.86 -5.48 1733 -10.28 5.13 -0.24 OW -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 -2800 25.94 -25.2 -1.86 Regression Model of lung disease with age, BMI and experience of Male and Female Workers of various Departments
  34. 34. Before Entry of the details for WMSDs, and After entering of the details for WMSDs Before Entry of the details for Eye Problems and After Entry of the details for Eye Problems Development of a Graphical User Interface for the Prediction Models Using MATLAB (Threading Department Post Analysis)
  35. 35. Before Entry of the details for Lung disease and After entry of details for Lung disease Previous Workstation Specification Proposed Workstation Specification Work station height: 105 cm Work station height: 100 cm Upward Arm Reach: 235 cm Upward Arm Reach: 215 cm Forward Arm Reach: 75 cm Forward Arm Reach: 70 cm Viewing the task height & Angle: 115 cm &450 Viewing the task height & Angle: 125 cm &300 Hand rest: Not Available Hand rest: Provided (Height from floor 110cm) Comparison of previous and proposed workstation for Threading department Combined pain scores n=35 (Average of RULA, REBA and NMSQ) Body Parts Before Intervention After Intervention Body 4.78 4.72 Joints 4.83 4.81 Neck 6.67 5.8 Left Arm 4.17 3.42 Knee 6.23 5.83 Back 7.11 6.14 Elbow 6.35 4.76 Right Arm 5.13 3.94 Right Shoulder 4.79 3.23 Fingers 4.36 4.28 Leg 3.84 3.24
  36. 36. Conclusions It is observed that the pain scores improved on body parts especially Neck, Left Arm, Back, Elbow, Right Arm, Right Shoulder, Leg and Hip, more significantly Neck, Back and Elbow once modification done on work environment being the change in floor height and provision of hand rest
  37. 37. Chapter -6: Overall Thesis Results, Conclusions, Summary of Findings, Recommendations, and Scope for Future Work Results • The participant’s age spanned from 21 to 60 years and with a mean age of 39.23years, about 90% of the respondents were married having two children • More than two-thirds of the samples were having more than 5 years of work experience. • The majority of the respondents were working as temporary staff. 81% percent of the sample was involved in overtime work • The mean height of the respondents estimated to be 152.71cm. • The mean weight estimated was 52.46 which was the representative sample of 75th. • About 42 % of the respondents were categorized as having a good eye and lung fitness and 31 % were having a high average eye and lung fitness. • One-third of the workers involved in manufacturing activities scored a score of 7and the work posture needs to be changed immediately. • The majority of the respondents were feeling moderate comfortability in the workplace and estimated mean of the combined disorder scores was 5.41 indicating high-risk levels in the muscles, eye, and lung in the body.
  38. 38. Conclusions •As respondent’s age increased the MS, MSDs, ED and LD. • Younger (21-40) workers have rarely experienced musculoskeletal symptoms, eye and lung morbidities. The middle (41-50) and age-old (51-60) workers intermittently perceive the neck, upper extremity, shoulder, back, eye and lung morbidities and overall body symptoms. •The MSDs, ED and LD experienced by the younger (21-40) age group were found to be in early stage whereas the disorders experienced by middle (41-50) and old (51-60) age groups were found to be nearer to intermediate stage. •The experience of the participants depicted substantial correlation of positive value with musculoskeletal signs, ED and LD and significant negative correlation with MSDs, ED and LD for larger years of experience particularly more than 20 years. •Significant negative correlation is observed with musculoskeletal disorders in upper and lower extremities and the whole body and loss of physical functioning in the lower limb. •Perceived level of musculoskeletal symptoms, musculoskeletal disorders, and functional limitations decreased with increased work experience. •Eye problems and lung disease in respondents were found to be leading to musculoskeletal disorders among the study sample. •The workers with severe MSDs, ED and LD have frequently experienced physical discomfort and severe difficulty to carry out the activities.
  39. 39. Summary of Findings •The repetitive nature of work, work posture, many other psycho factors, and workplace factors were found to contribute towards developing MSD, eye disease, and lung disease •The rationale of the study musculoskeletal disorders, eye disease, and lung disease being the serious occupational health hazard affecting the health of workers in particular needs to be focused as workers are the key factors in the very basic unit of the society, the family. •Musculoskeletal disorders, eye disease and lung disease can be prevented or reduced by following ergonomic principles in carrying out the activities and redesigning the work process by applying ergonomic principles. Recommendations •Utilizing ergonomically schemed apparatuses •Workplace dimensions that are adaptable may assist every worker lodge such a way that is cozy for them to perform job effectively •Materials can be arranged fairly that the workers activity flow can be followed all through the daytime which can decrease the job time required for them to get ready for a fresh activity immediately the earlier task is finished Ergonomic Implementation for Threading Department to Reduce WMSDs: •Adjustable floor heights to reach work table •Hand rest to hold hands stable during work
  40. 40. Contributions •Extensive as well as intensive survey of occupational risk factors on a comprehensively-designed questionnaire addressing almost all the pertinent ergonomic issues is a novel approach •Questionnaire-based survey with the results obtained contribute significantly to choose the critical risk factors for Power-Loom Industry workers and similar such occupations in general •Graphical User Interface for the Prediction Model : This is a new approach to the power-loom industry tasks •The design alternative for power-loom industry tasks is very effective and unique type applied to work station Scope for Future Work •Other anthropometry measurements like height, shoulder breadth deltoid, shoulder, elbow length, upper limb length, hand length, span, forward grip reach and sitting height can be included in improving the accuracy of prediction. •Work stress can be explored in terms of work demands, performance demands, technology limitation, personal capabilities limitation and job insecurity. •The quality of physical environment assessment scale can be included by considering the six environmental parameters viz. air quality and ventilation, lighting, noise, vibration, thermal comfort, and cleanliness existing in the workplace.
  41. 41. References 1. Aggelogiannopoulos, D., Drosinos, E.H. and Athanasopoulos P. (2007). Implementation of a quality management system (QMS) according to the ISO 9000 family in a Greek small sized winery: A case study. Journal of Food Control, 18, 1077–1085. 2. Aghazadeh, L. H. A.(1996). Risk factors and their interactions in VDT workstation systems, In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting.Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 637-41. 3. Ahasan, M.R., Ahmad, S.A., Khan, T.P., (2000), “Occupational exposure and respiratory illness symptoms among textile industry workers in a developing country”, Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 15, 313-320. 4. Albers, T and Estill, F, (2007), “Simple solutions: Ergonomics for construction workers”, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Technology & Engineering, 20-60. 5. Alreck, P. L. and Settle, R. B. (1995).The Survey Research Handbook (2nd end.) Chicago: Richard D. Irwin Inc. 6. Amick III BC, Robertson MM, DeRango K, Bazzani L, Moore A, Rooney T, et al. 2003, Effect of office ergonomics intervention on reducing musculoskeletal symptoms. Spine, 28(24): 2706-2711. 7. Anghel, M., Argeanu, V., Talpo-Niculescu, C and Lungeanu, D, (2007), “Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) - Consequences of prolonged static postures”, Journal of Experimental Medical and Surgical Research, 14 (4): 167- 172. 8. Aptel, M and Cnockaert, J (2002),”Stress and work-related musculoskeletal disorders of upper extremities”, Trade Union Technical Bureau (TUTB) Newsletter no 19-20, http://www.etuc.org/tutb/uk/newslterr.html.of Human Ecology 32:17-22. 9. Arauz, R. and Suziki, H. (2004). ISO 9000 performance in Japanese industries. Journal of Total Quality Management, 15(1), 3–33. 10. Armstrong, T., Cao, C., Hallbeck, S., Radwin, R., Rempel, D., (2014), “Ergonomic aspects of clinical and surgical procedures - discussion panel proposal”, Hum. Fac. Erg. Soc. P 58, 924-928.
  42. 42. 11. Armstrong, T.J., Buckle, P., Fine, L.J., Hagberg, M., Johnson, B., Kilbom, A., Kournika, I.A.A., Silverstein, B.A, Sjogaard. G and Viikari-Juntura, E.R, (1993), “A conceptual model for work-related neck and upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders”, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, 19:73-84. 12. Arnetz BB, Sjögren B, Rydéhn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal- related absenteeism: a prospective controlled intervention study. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, (2003); 45(5):499-506. 13. Australian Government Comcare, (2008), “Office wise a guide to health and safety in the office”, Commonwealth of Australia Canberra (ACT 2601), Bacon. 14. Babbie, E. (1998) “The Practice of Social Research” (8th edn.) Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company. 15. Banerjee, P and Gangopadhyay, S, (2003), “A study on the prevalence of upper extremity repetitive strain injuries among the handloom Weavers of West Bengal”, Journal of Human Ecology, 32:17-22. 16. Bang, B.E., Aasmoe, L and Aardal, L, (2005), “Feeling cold at work increases the risk of symptoms from muscles, skin, and airways in seafood industry workers”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 47:65-71. 17. Barredo RDV, Mahon K, The effects of exercise and rest breaks on musculoskeletal discomfort during computer tasks: an evidence based perspective. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, (2007); 19(2):151. 18. Barua, M. and Dhar, U.R. (2006). Identification of factors for ISO 9000 certification: a study of industries in Assam. The CFAI Journal of Operations Management, 5(3), 17-21. 19. Basu, K., Chattopadhyay, S., Sahu, S and Paul, G. (2009). Worksite injuries in female construction labourers in unorganized Sectors: an ergonomic study International Ergonomics Conference. Humanizing Work and Work Environment December (17-19, 2009). Kolkata. 20. Bendix, T, (1987), “Adjustment of the seated work place with special reference to heights and inclinations of seat and table”, Danish Medical Bulletin, 34(3):125-139. 21. Bernard, B, Sauter, S and Fine, L, (1994), “Job task and psychosocial risk factors for work related disorders among newspaper employees”, Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 20:417-426.
  43. 43. 22. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J, (2005),” Statistics review 14: Logistic regression”, BioMed Central Ltd, Critical care (London, England) 9(1):112-118. 23. Black, J.M., Hawks, J.H and Keene, A.M. (2001). Medical surgical nursing. Clinical management for positive outcomes.551-627. 24. Blangsted AK, Søgaard K, Hansen EA, Hannerz H, Sjøgaard G. One-year randomized controlled trial with different physical-activity programs to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms in the neck and shoulders among office workers. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2008:55-65. 25. Blau P. Exchange and power in social life, New York, NY, USA: Wiley; (1964). 26. Bobhate S, Darne R, Bodhankar R, Hatewar S, (2007), “ To Know the Prevalence of Byssinosis in Cotton Mill Workers and to Know Changes in Lung Function in Patients of Byssinosis”, Indian Journal of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, 1(4):19–26. 27. Bongers, P. M., Kremer, A. M and Laak, J. T., (2002), “Are psychosocial factors risk factors for symptoms and signs of the shoulder, elbow or hand/wrist: “A review of the epidemiological literature”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41:315-342. 28. Bongers, P.M., Winter, C. R., Komper, M. A. J and Hildebrandt, V.H, (1993), “Psychosocial factors at work and musculoskeletal disease”, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health. 19: 297-312. 29. Borah, S, (2009), “Musculoskeletal disorder of women labor engaged in shelling activity of cashew nut factory”, International Ergonomics Conference, Humanizing Work and Work Environment, Kolkata. 30. Borg, A.V.G, (1988), “Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales”, United Graphics, USA. 31. Brief A, Weiss H. Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Ann Rev Psychol 2002; 53: 279–307. 32. Briggs, C.A and Green, R.A, (1989), “Effect of overuse injury and the importance of training on the use of adjustable work places by keyboard operators”, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 31(6):33-46. 33. Browne, C.D., Nolan, B.M and Faithfull, D.K.(1984), “Occupational Repetition Strain Injuries: Guidelines for diagnosis and management”, The Medical Journal of Australia, 140:329-332.
  44. 44. 34. Bureau of Labor Statistics News, United States Department of Labor,(2001), “Lost work time injuries and illnesses: Characteristics and resulting days away from work”, http:// www.bls.gov/iif/home.html. 35. Burge HA, Christine A, (2000), “Outdoor Allergens”, Environ Health Perspectives, (108): 653- 654. 36. Butler, D.A, (1985), “The patient with musculoskeletal injuries and disorders”, In W.J. Phipps, B.C. Long and N.F. Woods, “SHAFER’S Medical surgical nursing”, BI publications private, ltd, New Delhi, 1st Indian edition, 746-785. 37. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, (2005), “OSH Answers: Work related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs)”. 38. Canadian Women's Health Network, (2007), “A Call to Action, Women's Health at Work and Musculoskeletal Disorders”, cited on (2007) March Available from: http://www.cwhn.ca/resources/ workplace/msd/html. 39. Caspersen, C.J., Powell, K.E and Christenson, G.M, (1985), “Physical activity, exercise and physical fitness: definition and distinctions for health related research”, Public Health Report, 100(2): 126-131. 40. Cassou, B., Derriennic, F., Monfort, C., Norton, J and Touranchet, A, (2002), “Chronic neck and shoulder pain, age, and working conditions: Longitudinal results from a large random sample in France”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59:537-544. 41. Chaari N, Amri C, Khalfallah T, Alaya A, Abdallah B, Harzallah L, Henchi MA, Bchir N, Kamel A, Akrout M, (2009), “Rhinitis and Asthma Related to Cotton Dust Exposure in Apprentices in the Clothing Industry”, Rev Mal Respir. 9; 26(1):29-36. 42. Chaiwanichsiri, D. Jiamworakul, A and Jitapunkul, S, (2007), “Lumbar disc degeneration in Thai elderly: a population based study”, Journal of Medical Association of Thailand, 90:2477-2481. 43. Chattopadhyay, S., Basu, K., Sahu, S and Paul, G, (2009), “Ergonomic evaluation of postural stresses of male and female construction labourers employed in unorganized sectors in West Bengal”, International Ergonomics Conference Humanizing Work and Work Environment December 17-19, Kolkata. 44. Cherie Berry, Allen Mcneely, Kevin Beauregard and J. Edgar Geddie, (2007), “A Guide for Persons Employed in Cotton Dust Environment”, North Carolina Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Program.
  45. 45. 45. Chiasson, M. È., Imbeau, D., Aubry, K., & Delisle, A., (2012), “Comparing the results of eight methods used to evaluate risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(5), 478-488. 46. Choobineh, A., Hosseini, M., Lahmi, M., Jazani, R.K. and Shahnavaz, H, (2007), “Musculoskeletal problems in Iranian hand woven industry: Guidelines for work station design”, Applied Ergonomics.38: 617-624. 47. Choobineh, A., Tosian, R., Alhamdi, Z and Davarzanie, M, (2004),”Ergonomic intervention in carpet mending operation, Applied Ergonomics, 35:493-496. 48. Churchill, G. A. (1995). Marketing Research, Methodological Foundations (6th edition.) Orlando: the Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers 49. Cohen, J, (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 37-46. 50. Cox, T and Ferguson, E. (1994), Measurement of subjective work environment, Work Stress, 8(2):98-109. 51. Cui L, Gallagher LG, Ray RM, Li W, Gao D, Zhang Y, Vedal S, Thomas DB and Checkoway H, (2011), “Unexpected Excessive Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Mortality among Female Silk Textile Workers in Shanghai, China”, Occup. Environ. Med., (2011); (68): 883 - 887. 52. Czubaj, C.A., (2002). School indoor air quality, J, Instruct, Psychol., 29: 317- 321, http:// findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_4_ 29/ai_95148395/? tag=content;col1 53. Dalal, P and Acharya, M. (2009). Ergonomic assessment of beauticians’ occupational health & Safety at the work centre International Ergonomics Conference Humanizing Work and Work Environment. December (17- 19-2009). Kolkata. 54. Dane, F.C. (1990). Research Methods, Brooks Cole Publishing Company, California 55. Das R and Ghosh T, (2010), “Assessment of ergonomical and occupational health related problems among VDT workers of West Bengal”, India. Asian J Med Sci 1: 26-31. 56. Das, A and Chakrabarti, D, (2009), “Postural hazardousness analysis for cane crafts and brass metal Artisans of Assam, North-East India”, International Ergonomics Conference Humanizing Work and Work Environment, December (17-19, 2009). Kolkata.
  46. 46. 57. Xiao-Rong Wang, (2011), “Longitudinal Changes in Pulmonary Function Das, B. and R.M. Grady, (1983), Industrial workplace layout and engineering anthropometry, Ergon Workstat Des, 26: 433-447, DOI: 10.1080/00140138308963360 58. David, G.C., (2005), “Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders”, Occup Med-Oxford 55, 190-199. 59. De Croon, E., J. Sluiter, P.P. Kuijer and M. Frings- Dresen, (2005), The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A Systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48: 119-134. DOI: 10.1080/00140130512331319409 60. De Lange, A.H., T.W. Taris, M.A. Kompier, I.L. Houtman and P.M. Bongers, (2002), Effects of stable and changing demand-control histories on worker health, Scand. J. Work Environ Health, 28: 94-108, PMID: 12019593 61. Dempsey, P.G., R.W. McGorry and N.V. O’Brien, (2004), The effects of work height, work piece orientation, gender and screwdriver type on productivity and wrist deviation. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 33: 339-346. DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2003.10.006 62. Descatha A, Roquelaure Y, Chastang JF, Evanoff B, Melchior M, Mariot C, Ha C, Imbernon E, Goldberg M, Leclerc A, “Validity of Nordic-style questionnaires in the surveillance of upper-limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders”, Scand J Work Environ Health, 33(1):58-65. 63. Dey, M and Sahu, S. (2009). Ergonomic survey of leaf plate making activity of tribal women, International Ergonomics Conference, Humanizing Work and Work Environment, December (17-19- 2009), Kolkata. 64. Dezwart, B.C.H., Frings-Dresen, M.H.W and Kilbom, A, (2001),”International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health”74:21-30. 65. Dickinson, C.E., Campion, K., Foster, A.F., Newman, S.J., Rourke, A.M.T.O. and Thomas, P.G, (1992), “Questionnaire development: an examination of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire”, Applied Ergonomics, 23(3):197-201. 66. Dismukes S,(1996), “An Ergonomic Assessment Method for Non-Ergonomists”, In: Proceedings of the Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference and Exposition - ErgoCon'96, Palo Alto, California, Silicon Valley Ergonomics Institute, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA, p.106-17.
  47. 47. 67. Dockrell, S., O'Grady, E., Bennett, K., Mullarkey, C., Mc Connell, R., Ruddy, R & Flannery, C., (2012), “An investigation of the reliability of Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) as a method of assessment of children's computing posture”, Appl. Ergon., 43 (3), 632-636. 68. Donald O, Mutti G, Lynn Mitchell, Melvin L, Moeschberger, Lisa A and JonesKarla Zadnik, (2002), “Parental Myopia Near Work, School Achievement, and Children’s Refractive Error”, Asso. Res. Vision & Ophthalmology, Inc. 69. Dormann C, Zapf D. Job satisfaction: a meta-analysis of stabilities. J Organ Beh 2001; 22: 483-504. 70. Driscoll T, Mannetje A, Dryson E, Feyer A, Gander P, McCracken, (2004),”The Burden of Occupational Disease and Injury in New Zealand”, Technical Report NOHSAC: Wellington, (2004). 71. Dua, J.K., (1994). Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health and job satisfaction in a university, J. Educ. Admin., 32: 59-78, DOI: 10.1108/09578239410051853 72. Easterby-Smith, M., Thrope, R., and Lowe, A. (1996). Management Research, An Introduction, London: Sage Publications. 73. Engels, J. A., Vanderbeek, A. J and Vandergulden, J. W, (1998), “A LISREL analysis of work-related risk factors and health complaints in the nursing profession”, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 71:537-542, “Environmental discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders”, Occupational Medicine, 61:196–201 337 Ergonomic society of Australia. 74. Eriksen, W, (2003), “The prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in Norwegian nurses’ aides”, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 76(8): 625- 630. 75. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), (2010), European Risk Observatory Report- OSH in figures: Work related Musculoskeletal Disorders in the EU-Facts and Figures. 76. Farooq, M and Khan, A.A, (2009), “Risk of upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in small scale industries around Aligarh, International Ergonomics Conference Humanizing Work and Work Environment, Kolkata. 77. Feng B, Liang Q, Wang Y, Andersen L.L, Szeto.G, “Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal symptoms of the neck and upper extremity among dentists in China” BMJ Open 2014;4:e006451.
  48. 48. 78. Ferguson, S.A., Marras, W.S and Burr, D, (2005), “Workplace design guidelines for asymptomatic vs. low back injured workers”, Applied Ergonomics, 36:85-95. 79. Fink A. (1995). The Survey Handbook, The Survey Kit Series, Book No. l, London: Sage Publications, Inc. 80. Fisk W.J. and A.H. Rosenfeld, (1997), Estimates of improved productivity and health from better indoor environments, Indoor Air, 7: 158-172, DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.1997.t01-1-00002.x 81. France J, Thornley JHM, (1984) book, “Mathematical models in agriculture: quantitative methods for the plant, animal and ecological sciences”, London: Butterworths. 82. Furlow B, (2011), “Occupational Lung Disease” Radiol. Technol, (82): 543-561. 83. Gangopadhyay, S., Ghosh, T., Das, T., Ghoshal, G and Das, B.B, (2007), “Prevalence of upper limb musculoskeletal disorders among brass metal workers in West Bengal, India”, Industrial Health, 45:365-370. 84. Gardner, B.T., Dale, A.M., VanDillen, L., Franzblau, A and Evanoff, B.A, (2008), “Predictors of upper extremity symptoms and functional impairment among workers employed for 6 months in a new job”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51:932-940. 85. Garrow, G.H. (1987), “Quetlets index as a measure of fitness”, International Journal of Obesity, 9: 147-153. 86. Gay, L.R, Mills, G.E and Airasian, P, (2006), “Educational Research competencies for analysis and applications”, PEARSON Education, Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Eighth edition. 87. Geigle, S, (2009), “Introduction to Ergonomics”, OSHA Academy course,711 study guide, Geigle Communications, Portland, Oregon, 19-30. 88. Ghasemkhani M, Firozbakhsh S, Azam K, Ghardashi F, (2006), “Cotton Dust Exposure, Respiratory Symptoms and PEFR in Textile Workers”, Journal of Medical Sciences, 6(3):458-462. 89. Ghauri, P., Gronhaug, K., and Kristianslund, I. (1995). Research Methods in Business Studies- A Practical Guide, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe 90. Ghosh, T., Das, B and Gangopadhyay, S, (2010), “Work related musculoskeletal disorders: An occupational disorder of the gold smiths in India”, Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 35(2):321-325. 91. GOI (Government of India), 2001, “Report of the working group on Environmental and Occupational Health for the Tenth Five Year Plan”, TYFP Working Group Sr.No.36.
  49. 49. 92. musculoskeletal disorders among brass metal workers in West Bengal, India”, Industrial Health, 45:365-370. 93. Gardner, B.T., Dale, A.M., VanDillen, L., Franzblau, A and Evanoff, B.A, (2008), “Predictors of upper extremity symptoms and functional impairment among workers employed for 6 months in a new job”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51:932-940. 94. Garrow, G.H. (1987), “Quetlets index as a measure of fitness”, International Journal of Obesity, 9: 147-153. 95. Gay, L.R, Mills, G.E and Airasian, P, (2006), “Educational Research competencies for analysis and applications”, PEARSON Education, Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Eighth edition. 96. Geigle, S, (2009), “Introduction to Ergonomics”, OSHA Academy course,711 study guide, Geigle Communications, Portland, Oregon, 19-30. 97. Ghasemkhani M, Firozbakhsh S, Azam K, Ghardashi F, (2006), “Cotton Dust Exposure, Respiratory Symptoms and PEFR in Textile Workers”, Journal of Medical Sciences, 6(3):458-462. 98. Guo, H. S and Tanaka, (1995), “Back pain among workers in the United States: National estimates and workers at risk”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28:591- 602. 99. Guo, H., Chang, Y., Yeh, W., Chen, C and Guo, Y.L, (2004), “Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among workers in Taiwan: A national study Journal of Occupational Health”, 46: 26-36. 100. Gustafsson, E, (2009), “Physical exposure, musculoskeletal symptoms and attitudes related to ICT use”, Intellecta DocuSys AB, Goteborg, Sweden, 80-98. 101. Hagberg, M., Silverstein, B.A., Wells, R.V., Smith, M.J., Hendrick, H.W., Carayon, P and Perusses, M. (1995),”Work related musculoskeletal disorder: a reference book for prevention”. Taylor and Francis Publishers, London. 102. Hagling et al., (1981), “Health and Safety Executive (HSE)”. Work-Related Respiratory Disease, www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/ Page 1 of 9. 103. Hair Jr., J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. (1998), “Multivariate Data Analysis”, fifth ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 104. Harrell WA (1990), “Perceived risk of occupational injury: control over pace of work and blue collar work”. Percp Mot Skills; 70:1351-1358. 105. Hasalkar, S., Shivalli, R and Budihal, R, (2007), “Musculoskeletal disorders of the farm women while performing the top dressing of fertilizer activity”, Journal of Human Ecology, 21(2): 109-112.
  50. 50. List of Publications 1. Kolgiri, S. G. and Hiremath, R. B. (2016), “Literature Review on Ergonomics Risk Aspects Association to the Power Loom Industry”. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp. 56-64 2. Kolgiri, S. G. and Hiremath, R. B. (2017), “A Literature Review on Work-Related Body-Part Discomfort with Respect of Postures And Movement.”, Journal for Advanced Research in Applied Sciences, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp. 329 - 33 3. Kolgiri, S. G. and Hiremath, R. B. (2017), “Occupational Health Assessment of Power-loom Industry Workers in Solapur City”, International Journal of Medical Science And Innovative Research , Volume 2, Issue 6, pp. 329 – 334 4. Kolgiri, S. G. and Hiremath, R. B. (2018), “Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Power-Loom Industry Women Workers from Solapur City, Maharashtra, India”, International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research ,Volume 5, Issue 3, pp.1002 – 1008 5. Kolgiri, S. G. and Hiremath, R. B. (2018), “Implementing Sustainable Ergonomics for Power- Loom Textile Workers”, International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Volume 10, Issue 6, pp.108 - 112 Working Papers 6. Kolgiri, S. G. and Hiremath, R. B. (2019), “Sustainable postural analysis for women workers from power-loom industry Solapur city, Maharashtra, India.”
  51. 51. THANK YOU

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED MODEL FOR ASSESSING ERGONOMIC FACTORS FOR THE POWER LOOM SECTOR OF SOLAPUR CITY

Views

Total views

215

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

2

Actions

Downloads

3

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×