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

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. 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. 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. 1 2 3
4 5 6
Typical activity in power-loom industry of India
Threading Spinning
Knitting Weaving Bleaching
Winding

5. 7 8 9
Dyeing Finishing – Trimming and Stitching
Typical Work Flow in Medium Power Loom Industry of India

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. .
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. RULA and REBA Score distribution over several body
parts

22. NMSQ Score distribution over several body parts

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. THANK YOU