Agricultural mechanization has transformed global farming productivity, yet many developing nations like Iran continue to face significant ergonomic challenges. Traditional farming methods persist in key sectors (date palm, saffron, dairy, vegetables, and sesame), exposing workers to hazardous conditions. These issues are compounded by uneven mechanization adoption and socioeconomic barriers in rural communities.
Objective
This study aims to review ergonomic risks in Iran's labor-intensive agricultural operations, analyze the effectiveness of current mechanization solutions, and identify practical interventions to improve worker health without compromising productivity. The study focuses on five mentioned economically critical sectors.
Methods
We conducted a review of 27 peer-reviewed studies (2005–2024) from Iranian and international databases. Inclusion criteria prioritized field-based ergonomic assessments, mechanization trials, and intervention studies in English/Persian. Data were synthesized to compare risks across operations and evaluate solution efficacy.
Results
Three key patterns emerged: (1) Mechanization improved work speed (e.g., 0.96 ha/labor-hour for plowing vs. 0.002 ha/labor-hour manual harvesting) but often introduced new risks (e.g., static postures in milking parlors); (2) Simple interventions showed disproportionate benefits - modified climbing tools reduced fall risks in date orchards, while kneepads decreased musculoskeletal pain in saffron harvesting; (3) Crop-specific biological traits (e.g., saffron's ground clearance) limited mechanization more than socioeconomic factors alone.
Conclusions
We propose a three-tiered approach: (1) Immediate adoption of affordable ergonomic tools (harnesses, trolleys) in high-risk sectors; (2) Redesign of machinery to address crop-specific constraints; (3) Policy reforms to subsidize small-scale solutions. This balanced strategy could reduce injuries while maintaining Iran's agricultural output.
MauryaCMauryaN. Ancient Indian ergonomics wisdom and its contemporary significance. Theor Issues Ergon Sci2022; 23: 245–258.
2.
LucasRASkinnerBDArias-MongeE, et al.Targeting workload to ameliorate risk of heat stress in industrial sugarcane workers. Scand J Work Environ Health2023; 49: 43–52.
3.
HayatiA. Safety behavior of agricultural workers around face mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work2023; 74: 371–379.
4.
HayatiAMarzbanA. Ergonomic problems in agricultural farms: explainable relationship between awkward postures and body discomforts in Iranian leafy vegetable cultivation. Work2022; 71: 709–717.
5.
SinghANawaysehNSinghH, et al.Modelling and optimization of tractor ride conditions under water tanker operation. Theor Issues Ergon Sci2022; 23: 453–474.
6.
KarimiADianatIBarkhordariA, et al.A multicomponent ergonomic intervention involving individual and organisational changes for improving musculoskeletal outcomes and exposure risks among dairy workers. Appl Ergon2020; 88: 103159.
7.
HayatiAMarzbanARahnamaM. Occupational safety and health in traditional date palm works. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2021; 94: 1455–1473.
8.
MehmoodYArshadMMahmoodN, et al.Occupational hazards, health costs, and pesticide handling practices among vegetable growers in Pakistan. Environ Res2021; 200: 111340.
9.
KiaKKinclLChanA, et al.A fishermen-developed intervention reduced musculoskeletal load associated with commercial Dungeness crab harvesting. Appl Ergon2023; 110: 104016.
10.
VanderwalLRautiainenRRamirezM, et al.Participatory approach to identify interventions to improve the health, safety, and work productivity of smallholder women vegetable farmers in the Gambia. Int J Occup Med Environ Health2011; 24: 36–47.
11.
HayatiAMarzbanARahnamaM. Strategic analysis of ergonomic and safety problems in mechanization of date palm crown access operation with the sustainable agricultural development approach. Iran Occupational Health2020; 17: 1148–1163.
MasciFRosecranceJMixcoA, et al.Personal and occupational factors contributing to biomechanical risk of the distal upper limb among dairy workers in the Lombardy region of Italy. Appl Ergon2020; 83: 102796.
ILO. ILOSTAT: Fatal occupational injuries per 100000 workers by economic activity [Internet], https://www.ilo.org (2019, cited 2 March 2020).
18.
MokdadMBouhafsMLahceneB, et al.Ergonomic practices in Africa: date palm work in Algeria as an example. Work2019; 62: 657–665.
19.
MarzbanAHayatiA. Ergonomic evaluation of traditional date fruit harvesting. Iranian J Ergon2018; 6: 11–20.
20.
KhaliliFMarzbanAGhaseminejadM, et al.Ergonomic Status of sugarcane harvester operators. J Health Saf Work2024; 14: 716–735.
21.
ShahidiF. Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products. Sixth Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.
22.
HayatiAMarzbanALeylizadehM. Discovering the physical onerous activities in manual sesame grain harvest using postural analysis. Agric Eng Int CIGR J2018; 20: 126–131.
23.
HayatiAMarzbanA. Linkage between machine power utilization and ergonomics, with reference to reducing exertions at work. Work2020; 67: 949–957.
HayatiAMarzbanAAsoodarMA. Ergonomic evaluation of hand and mechanized milking in dairy farms. Iran J Ergon2015; 3: 65–75.
26.
HayatiAMarzbanAAsoodarMA. Evaluation of performance and cost of hand and mechanized cow milking methods. Iran J Biosyst Eng2018; 49: 27–34.
27.
HayatiAMarzbanAAsoodarMA. Ergonomic assessment of hand cow milking operations in khuzestan province of Iran. Agric Eng Int CIGR J2015; 17: 140–145.
28.
Perkiö-MäkeläMHentiläH. Physical work strain of dairy farming in loose housing barns. Int J Ind Ergon2005; 35: 57–65.
29.
HwangJKongYKJungMC. Posture evaluations of tethering and loose-housing systems in dairy farms. Appl Ergon2010; 42: –8.
30.
PatilAGilkeyDRosecranceJ, et al.Risk exposure assessment of dairy parlor workers. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet2010; 54: 1916–1920.
31.
HayatiAMarzbanAAsoodarMA. Workplace and gravity: two mechanized cow milking systems compared for human physiological strains. J Agric Machinery2022; 12: 21–32.
32.
RasoulivalajooziMRasouliM. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and analysis of working postures by OWAS among saffron harvesters. Iran J Health Sci2020; 8: 28–36.
33.
SadeghiNEmkaniM. Comparison of ergonomic training and knee pad using effects on the saffron pickers musculoskeletal disorders. In: Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), 2019, pp.420–431.
34.
EmkaniMJafariMMafakheri LaleZ, et al.Evaluation of muscle fatigue and determination of risk factors of musculoskeletal disorders among saffron harvesters in gonabad in 2017. Intern Med Today2022; 28: 174–189.
35.
SadeghiNDelshadAFaniMJ. REBA Method posture analysis in saffron pickers in gonabad. Intern Med Today2010; 15: 47–53.
36.
BertettoAMGarauMRicciuR, et al.Human energy involved in manual and mechanically facilitated harvesting of saffron flowers. In: Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region, RAAD 2017, 2018, pp.931–938.
37.
BertettoAMGarauMRicciuR, et al.Human energy consumption during harvesting of saffron flowers. In: Advances in robot design and intelligent control: proceedings of the 25th Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region (RAAD16), 2017, pp.259–268.
38.
EstudilloJPKijimaYSonobeT. Agricultural Development in Asia and Africa: Essays in Honor of Keijiro Otsuka. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2023.
39.
IbrahimAA. Field performance evaluation of different types of mechanical pollination systems of date palm. J Agric Water Reso Res1988; 7: 61–82.
40.
AliTAkyurtM. Design of a hi-lift gripper for palm trees. Appl Eng Agric1998; 14: 215–221.
41.
NouraniAGarbati PegnaF. Proposed harvester model for palm date fruit. International J Agric Technol2014; 10: 817–822.
42.
FadelMA. Development of a tractor-mounted date palm tree service machine. Emir J Food Agric2005; 17: 30–40.
43.
AbounajmiM.Mechanization of dates fruit harvesting. In: 2004 ASAE Annual Meeting, 2004, p.6.
44.
Al SuhaibaniSABabierASKilgourJ, et al.Field tests of the KSU date palm machine. J Agric Eng Res1992; 51: 179–190.
45.
Al-SuhaibaniSABabeirASKilgourJ, et al.The design of a date palm service machine. J Agric Eng Res1988; 40: 143–157.
46.
MohankumarAPKrishnanDAKathirvelK. Development of ergo refined coconut tree climbing device. Afr J Agric Res2013; 8: 5530–5537.
47.
DasB. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in agriculture: ergonomics risk assessment and its prevention among Indian farmers. Work2023; 76: 225–241.
48.
TiwariPSPandeyMMGiteLP, et al.An ergonomic intervention in operation of a rotary maize sheller. Indian J Agric Sci2014; 84: 791–795.
49.
VanderwalLRautiainenRKuyeR, et al.Evaluation of long-and short-handled hand hoes for land preparation, developed in a participatory manner among women vegetable farmers in the Gambia. Appl Ergon2011; 42: 749–756.
50.
TewariVKShrivastavaAK.Design of a universal mounting fixture (UMF) for ROPS using finite element method. In: Advances in Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors: Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors, 2016, pp.377–383.
51.
BaračŽPlaščakIJurićT, et al.The impact of vibrations on the hand-arm system and body of agricultural tractor operators in relation to operational parameters, approach: analytical hierarchical process (AHP). AgriEngineering2025; 7: 56.
52.
SaeidiradMH. Mechanization of saffron production. Saffron2020: 187–204. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-818638-1.00011-3
53.
SadeghiNMoghaddamMARahdarHH. Effect of ergonomic training on saffron picker's postures. Occup Med Q J2012; 4: 1–7.
54.
Abbaspour-FardMHYousefzadehHAzhariA, et al.Ergonomic evaluation of conventional saffron harvesting versus using a trolley. Saffron Agron Technol2018; 6: 253–267.
55.
AbdullahFASamahBA. Factors impinging farmers’ use of agriculture technology. Asian Soc Sci2013; 9: 120–124.
56.
Keramat JahromiMMirashehRJafariA. Proposed lifting model for gripper date palm service machines. Agric Eng Int CIGR J2008; 10: 1–7.
57.
BenosLTsaopoulosDBochtisD. A review on ergonomics in agriculture. Part I: manual operations. Appl Sci2020; 10: 1905.
58.
Earle-RichardsonGFulmerSJenkinsP, et al.Ergonomic analysis of New York apple harvest work using a posture-activities-tools-handling (PATH) work sampling approach. J Agric Saf Health2004; 10: 63.
59.
Earle-RichardsonGJenkinsPFulmerS, et al.An ergonomic intervention to reduce back strain among apple harvest workers in New York state. Appl Ergon2005; 36: 327–334.
60.
ZhangZWangYZhangZ, et al.Ergonomic and efficiency analysis of conventional apple harvest process. Int J Agric Biol Eng2019; 12: 210–217.
61.
ChikeluPO. Model design and development of a telescopic palm fruit harvester. Modern Mech Eng2023; 13: 1–20.
62.
JakobMRosecranceJ. International perspectives on health and safety among dairy workers: challenges, solutions and the Future. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA, 2018.
63.
LashgariMArabMR. Investigation of relationship between noise annoyance and neurophysiological responses of drivers in exposure to tractor sound. Iran J Ergon2018; 6: 65–74.
64.
BenosLTsaopoulosDBochtisD. A review on ergonomics in agriculture. Part II: mechanized operations. Appl Sci2020; 10: 3484.
65.
KarGHedgeA. Effect of workstation configuration on musculoskeletal discomfort, productivity, postural risks, and perceived fatigue in a sit-stand-walk intervention for computer-based work. Appl Ergon2021; 90: 103211.
66.
BernardiBFalconeGStillitanoT, et al.Harvesting system sustainability in Mediterranean olive cultivation. Sci Total Environ2018; 625: 1446–1458.
67.
BodinTGarcía-TrabaninoRWeissI, et al.Intervention to reduce heat stress and improve efficiency among sugarcane workers in El Salvador: phase 1. Occup Environ Med2016; 73: 409–416.
68.
LuRZhangZPothulaAK. Innovative technology for apple harvest and in-field sorting. Fruit Qtly2017; 25: 11–14.
