Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 6, Issue 3 ( Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2018)
Iran J Ergon 2018, 6(3): 11-20 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Marzban A, Hayati A. Ergonomic Evaluation of Traditional Date Fruit Harvesting. Iran J Ergon 2018; 6 (3) :11-20
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-575-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-575-en.html
1- Faculty Member, Department of Agricultural Machinery and Mechanization Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran , afshinmarzban@hotmail.com
2- PhD Student in Agricultural Mechanization Engineering, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran
2- PhD Student in Agricultural Mechanization Engineering, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran
Abstract: (10744 Views)
Background and Objectives: Fruit harvesting operation, one of the most important operations related to date palm production, is performed manually. Manual date palm harvest suffers from frequent occupational risk factors due to excessive need of physical work resulting in work related illness and productivity reduction.
Methods: Present study was undertaken with recruiting twenty three harvest workers to evaluate and compare upper-trunk (consisting of work tasks: climbing, cutting the bunch, and descending) and bottom-trunk operations regarding physiological (heart rate and heart rate ratio) and physical (body pain) strains to identify onerous critical operations to address with simple and inexpensive interventions by future attempts.
Results: Upper trunk operation posed a more physiological strain as heart rate (29.4%) and heart rate ratio (177.8%) higher than bottom trunk operation. Body pain was self-reported by the upper trunk workers in low back and sole, and by lower trunk workers in low back.
Conclusion: The upper trunk operation was the onerous critical operation in manual date palm harvest, and climbing was the most critical work task in upper trunk operation. Climbing causes the highest physiological strain because workers moved in converse of gravity force, whereas descending led to lowest one because of moving in the similar direction with gravity.
Methods: Present study was undertaken with recruiting twenty three harvest workers to evaluate and compare upper-trunk (consisting of work tasks: climbing, cutting the bunch, and descending) and bottom-trunk operations regarding physiological (heart rate and heart rate ratio) and physical (body pain) strains to identify onerous critical operations to address with simple and inexpensive interventions by future attempts.
Results: Upper trunk operation posed a more physiological strain as heart rate (29.4%) and heart rate ratio (177.8%) higher than bottom trunk operation. Body pain was self-reported by the upper trunk workers in low back and sole, and by lower trunk workers in low back.
Conclusion: The upper trunk operation was the onerous critical operation in manual date palm harvest, and climbing was the most critical work task in upper trunk operation. Climbing causes the highest physiological strain because workers moved in converse of gravity force, whereas descending led to lowest one because of moving in the similar direction with gravity.
Keywords: Agricultural mechanization, Occupational health, Ergonomic evaluation, Traditional date palm fruit harvesting
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2018/09/15 | Accepted: 2018/11/20 | ePublished: 2018/12/25
Received: 2018/09/15 | Accepted: 2018/11/20 | ePublished: 2018/12/25
References
1. Barreveld WH. Date palm products. FAO; 1993. [Google Scholar]
2. Marzban A, Khademolhosseini N, Mostaan A. Investigation of cutting properties of date palm leaf midrib in relation to pruning mechanization. Forth National Agricultural Machinery Engineering and Mechanization of Iran. Tabriz University. 2006. [Google Scholar]
3. Abdelouahhab Z, Arias-Jimenez EJ. Date palm cultivation. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); 1999. [Google Scholar]
4. Al-Shahib W, Marshall RJ. The fruit of the date palm: its possible use as the best food for the future?. International journal of food sciences and nutrition. 2003 Jan 1;54(4):247-59.https://doi.org/10.1080/09637480120091982 PMID:12850886 [Google Scholar]
5. Ashraf Z, Hamidi-Esfahani Z. Date and date processing: a review. Food reviews international. 2011 Feb 28;27(2):101-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2010.535231 [Google Scholar]
6. Sawaya WN. Proposal for the establishment of a regional network for date-palm in the Near East and North Africa. A draft for discussion, FAO/RNE. 2000. [Google Scholar]
7. Albozahar (Mostaan) A. An analytic view on date production mechanization. Date Palm & Tropical Fruits Research Institute of Iran. P. 22. 2002.
8. Nourani A, Pegna FG. Proposed harvester model for palm date fruit. Journal of Agricultural Technology. 2014;10(4):817-22. [Article]
9. Kirkhorn SR, Earle-Richardson G, Banks RJ. Ergonomic risks and musculoskeletal disorders in production agriculture: recommendations for effective research to practice. Journal of agromedicine. 2010 Jul 15;15(3):281-99. PMID:20665313 [Article] [DOI]
10. Fathallah FA. Musculoskeletal disorders in labor-intensive agriculture. Applied ergonomics. 2010 Oct 1;41(6):738-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.03.003 PMID:20398891 [DOI]
11. Mohamed M. Heat stress in date-palm workplacesd A study in the Algerian oases. African newsletter on occupational health and safety. 2004 Aug;14(2):34-6. [Article]
12. International Labour Office. The effect of work on children’s health: report of research on ten occupational sectors in Pakistan. International Labour Office (ILO), Geneva. 2013.
13. Hayati A, Marzban A, Asoodar MA. Evaluation of performance and cost of hand and mechanized cow milking methods. Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering. 2018 Mar 21;49(1):27-34. [Google Scholar]
14. Hayati A, Marzban A, Asoodar MA. Ergonomic assessment of hand cow milking operations in Khuzestan province of Iran. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 2015 Jun 1;17(2):140-5. [Article] [Google Scholar]
15. Hayati A, Marzban A, Asoodar MA. Ergonomic evaluation of hand and mechanized milking in dairy farms. Journal of Ergonomics. 2015 Dec 15;3(3):65-75. [Article] [Google Scholar]
16. Almassi M, Kiani S, Loveimi N. Principles of agricultural mechanization. Tehran, Iran. Gofteman-e-Andishe-e-Mo’aser. 2014.
17. Al-Suhaibani SA, Babeir AS, Kilgour J, Flynn JC. The design of a date palm service machine. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 1988 Jun 1;40(2):143-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(88)90111-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18. Fadel MA. Development of a tractor-mounted date palm tree service machine. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture. 2005:30-40. [Google Scholar]
19. Date Palm & Tropical Fruits Research Institute of Iran. Introduction of the Institute. 2018. Available at: http://khorma.areeo.ac.ir
20. Manickavasagan A, Essa MM, Sukumar E. Dates: production, processing, food, and medicinal values. CRC Press; 2012. [Google Book]
21. Jurca R, Jackson AS, LaMonte MJ, Morrow Jr JR, Blair SN, Wareham NJ, et al. Assessing cardiorespiratory fitness without performing exercise testing. American journal of preventive medicine. 2005 Oct 1;29(3):185-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.004 PMID:16168867 [DOI]
22. Inbar O, Oren A, Scheinowitz M, Rotstein A, Dlin R, Casaburi R. Normal cardiopulmonary responses during incremental exercise in 20-to 70-yr-old men. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 1994 May 1;26(5):538–546. https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-199405000-00003 [Article] [Google Scholar]
23. Persson R, Ørbæk P, Ursin H, Kecklund G, Österberg K, Åkerstedt T. Effects of the implementation of an 84-hour workweek on neurobehavioral test performance and cortisol responsiveness during testing. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 2003 Aug 1:261-9. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.730 PMID:12934719 [Article] [Google Scholar]
24. Baeyer CL, Lin V, Seidman LC, Tsao JC, Zeltzer LK. Pain charts (body maps or manikins) in assessment of the location of pediatric pain. Pain management. 2011 Jan;1(1):61-8. https://doi.org/10.2217/pmt.10.2 PMID:21572558 [DOI]
25. Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad L, Breivik Hals EK, et al. Assessment of pain. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2008 Jul 1;101(1):17-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aen103 PMID:18487245 [Google Scholar]
26. World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. World Health Organization; 2000. [Google Book]
27. Li G, Buckle P. Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics. 1999 May 1;42(5):674-95. PMID:10327891 [Article] [DOI]
28. Åstrand PO, Rodahl K. Textbook of work physiology: physiological bases of exercise. McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1986. [Google Book]
29. Aura O, Komi PV. The mechanical efficiency of locomotion in men and women with special emphasis on stretch-shortening cycle exercises. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology. 1986 Apr 1;55(1):37-43.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422890 PMID:3698985 [DOI]
30. Brubaker CE, McLAURIN CA, McCLAY IS. Effects of side slope on wheelchair performance. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1986 Apr;23(2):55-8. PMID:3723426 [Article]
31. Abe D, Muraki S, Yasukouchi A. Ergonomic effects of load carriage on energy cost of gradient walking. Applied ergonomics. 2008 Mar 1;39(2):144-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2007.06.001 PMID:17767912 [Article] [DOI]
32. Minetti AE, Ardigo LP, Saibene F. Mechanical determinants of gradient walking energetics in man. The Journal of physiology. 1993 Dec 1;472(1):725-35. [Article] [DOI]
33. Minetti AE, Moia C, Roi GS, Susta D, Ferretti G. Energy cost of walking and running at extreme uphill and downhill slopes. Journal of applied physiology. 2002 Sep 1;93(3):1039-46. [Article] [DOI]
34. Lessenger JE. Agricultural medicine. Springer Science+ Business Media, Incorporated; 2006. [Book] [Google Scholar]
35. Davis KG, Kotowski SE. Understanding the ergonomic risk for musculoskeletal disorders in the United States agricultural sector. American journal of industrial medicine. 2007 Jul;50(7):501-11.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20479 PMID:17506508 [Article] [DOI]
36. David GC. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational medicine. 2005 May 1;55(3):190-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqi082 PMID:15857898 [Google Scholar]
37. Plantation AH. Effectiveness of a participatory action oriented training intervention approach among harvesters in oil palm plantation. American Journal of Applied Sciences. 2014;11(4):681-93. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2014.681.693 [Google Scholar]
38. Govindarajo NS, Kumar D, Ramulu SS. Identifying, Categorizing and setting variables on ergonomics issues in oil palm plantations. Asian Social Science. 2014 Jul 24;10(16):113. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n16p113 [Article]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
