The hand anthropometric data is the baseline for design of hand tools and equipment.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aimed to generate the hand anthropometric database of male and female agricultural workers and compare it with the hand anthropometric data of other regions of India. The use of collected data is illustrated to design hand tools and protective gear.
METHODS:
Hand anthropometric data were collected from 228 male and 198 female agricultural workers of northeast India. A total of 35 hand dimensions, stature and body mass from different tribes in the age group of 18–60 years were precisely measured. Measured data were statistically analysed to study the effects of gender, ethnicity, and age on hand dimensions. Correlation coefficients were determined among hand dimensions and linear regression equations were developed between highly correlated dimensions.
RESULTS:
The results show that all hand dimensions of the male and female subjects are significantly different (p < 0.01). Most of the hand dimensions were significantly different (p < 0.05) among different tribes for the male subjects. However, less number of hand dimensions were significantly different among tribes for the female subjects. Age of the subjects has significant effects (p < 0.01) on dimensions related to thickness, depth and circumference of fingers. The use of these data in the ergonomic design of hand tools and personal protective gear is illustrated to increase safety and comfort as well as efficiency of operators.
CONCLUSION:
There is a difference in the hand dimensions of different tribes of northeast India. This needs to be considered when designing agricultural hand tools and equipment.
GrandjeanE. Fitting the Task to the Man. Taylor and Francis, London; 1988.
2.
AghazadehF, MitalA. Injuries due to hand tools: Results of a questionnaire. Appl Ergon. 1987;18(4):273–8.
3.
KumarA, SinghJK, MohanD, VargheseM. Farm hand tools injuries: A case study from northern India. Safety Sc. 2008;46(1):54–65.
4.
HsiaoH, WhitestoneJ, KauTY, HildrethB. Firefighter hand anthropometry and structural glove sizing: a new perspective. Hum. Factors. 2015;57(8):1359–77.
5.
AnemaJR, CuelenaereB, Van Der BeekAJ, KnolDL, De VetHC, Van MechelenW. The effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on return-to-work after low back pain; a prospective two year cohort study in six countries on low back pain patients sicklisted for 3– 4 months. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(4):289–94.
6.
García-CáceresRG, FelknorS, CórdobaJE, CaballeroJP, BarreroLH. Hand anthropometry of the Colombian floriculture workers of the Bogota plateau. Int J Ind Ergon. 2012;42(2):183–98.
7.
ObiOF. Hand anthropometry survey of rural farm workers in south-eastern Nigeria. Ergon. 2016;59(4):603–11.
8.
DaviesBT, AbadaA, BensonK, CourtneyA, MintoI. A comparison of hand anthropometry of females in three ethnic groups. Ergon. 1980;23(2):179–82.
9.
ShahriarMM, ParvezMS, LutfiM. A survey of hand anthropometry of Bangladeshi agricultural farm workers. Int J Ind Ergon. 2020;78:102978.
10.
ImrhanSN, SarderMD, MandahawiN. Hand anthropometry in Bangladeshis living in America and comparisons with other populations. Ergon. 2009;52(8):987–98.
11.
CourtneyAJ, NgMK. Hong Kong female hand dimensions and machine guarding. Ergon. 1984;27(2):187–93.
12.
CourtneyAJ. Hand anthropometry of Hong Kong Chinese females compared to other ethnic groups. Ergon. 1984;27(11):1169–80.
MandahawiN, ImrhanS, Al-ShobakiS, SarderB. Hand anthropometry survey for the Jordanian population. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38:966–76.
15.
JeeSoo-chan, YunMH. An anthropometric survey of Korean hand and hand shape types. Int J Ind Ergon. 2016;53:10–8.
16.
OkunribidoOO. A survey of hand anthropometry of female rural farm workers in Ibadan, Western Nigeria. Ergon. 2000;43:282–92.
17.
VergaraM, AgostM-J, BayarriV. Anthropometric characterisation of palm and finger shapes to complement current glove-sizing systems. Int J Ind Ergon. 2019;74:102836.
18.
SaengchayaN, BunterngchitY. Hand anthropometry of Thai female industrial workers. J KMITNB.. 2004;14(1):16–9.
19.
CakitE, DurgunB, CetikO, YoldasO. A survey of hand anthropometry and biomechanical measurements of dentistry students in Turkey. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2014;24:739–53.
20.
GarrettJW. The adult human hand: Some anthropometric and biomechanical considerations. Hum Factors. 1971;13(2):117–31.
21.
ImrhanSN, NguyenM, NguyenN. Hand anthropometry of Americans of Vietnamese origin. Int J Ind Ergon. 1993;12(4):281–7.
22.
DewanganKN, OwaryC, DattaRK. Anthropometry of male agricultural workers of north-eastern India and its use in design of agricultural tools and equipment. Int J Ind Ergon. 2010;40:560–73.
23.
BhattacharjyaBR, KakotySK. A survey of the anthropometric data relating to five ethnic groups in Assam considering gender and ethnic diversity: Application of the data in designing an improvised pedal-operated Chaak. Int Ind Ergon. 2020;76:102927.
24.
BoriG, BhattacharyyaN, KalitaM. Anthropometric Considerations for Occupational Well-Being of Women Weavers Engaged in Commercial Handloom Weaving. In: Joint Conference of the Asian Council on Ergonomics and Design and the Southeast Asian Network of Ergonomics Societies. Springer, Cham. 2021. pp.47–562021.
25.
SinghSP, GiteLP, AgarwalN, MajumderJ. Women friendly improved farm tools and equipment. Technical Bulletin No. CIAE/2007/128. Bhopal: Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (CIAE). 2007.
26.
MajumderJ, MehtaCR, KhadatkarA. Anthropometric and strength data of Indian agricultural workers for farm equipment design. GiteLP, editor Bhopal, IndiaCentral Institute of Agricultural Engineering; 2009.
27.
NagA, NagPK, DesaiH. Hand anthropometry of Indian women. Indian J Med Res. 2003;117:260–9.
28.
KarSK, GhoshS, MannaI, BanerjeeS, DharaP. An investigation of hand anthropometry of agricultural workers. J Hum Ecol. 2003;14(1):57–62.
29.
ChandraA, ChandnaP, DeswalS. Hand anthropometric survey of male industrial workers of Haryana state (India). Int J Industrial and Systems Engg. 2011;9(2):163–82.
30.
DewanganKN, KumarGP, SujaPL, ChoudhuryMD. Anthropometric dimensions of farm youth of the north eastern region of India. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35(11):979–89.
31.
PatelT, SanjogJ, ChatterjeeA, KarmakarS. Statistical interpretation of collected anthropometric data of agricultural workers from Northeast India and comparison with national and international databases. IIE Trans. Occupational Ergon Hum Factors. 2016;4(4):197–210.
32.
DewanganKN, OwaryC, DattaRK. Anthropometric data of female farm workers from north eastern India and design of hand tools of the hilly region. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38(1):90–100.
33.
AliANMI, DasI. Tribal situation in north east India. Stud. Tribes and Tribals. 1993;1(2):141–8.
34.
British Standard BS EN ISO 15535:2003. General Requirements for Establishing Anthropometric Database. London British Standard Institutions; 2003.
35.
GiteLP, ChatterjeeD. All India anthropometric survey of agricultural workers-Proposed action plan. All India Coordinated Research Project on Human Engineering and Safety in Agriculture1999.
36.
Oviedo-TrespalaciosO, Martínez BuelvasL, HernándezJ, EscobarJ. Hand anthropometric study in northern Colombia. Int J Occup Safety Ergon. 2017;23(4):472–80.
37.
HeidarimoghadamR, ShabaniM, LotfiY, GhasemiF, MohammadiY. A study of hand anthropometry dimensional on middle-aged women and male in Hamadan. Iran J Ergon. 2018;6(2):46–54.
38.
FranssonC, WinkelJ. Hand strength: the influence of grip span and grip type. Ergon. 1991;34(7):881–92.
39.
RossiJ, BertonE, GrélotL, BarlaC, VigourouxL. Characterisation of forces exerted by the entire hand during the power grip: effect of the handle diameter. Ergon. 2012;55(6):682–92.
40.
GrantKA, HabesDJ, StewardLL. An analysis of handle designs for reducing manual effort: the influence of grip diameter. Int J Ind Ergon. 1992;10(3):199–206.
41.
DasBM. Ethnic Affinities of the Rabhas. Gauhati University, Guwahati; 1960.
42.
WangEM, ChaoW. In searching for constant body ratio benchmarks. Int J Ind Ergon. 2010;40:59–67.
43.
DewanganKN, KumarGV, DuttaRK. Scope of Mechanisation in Arunachal Pradesh-Part I Traditional Hand Tools of Shifting Cultivation. Agril Engg Today. 2004;28(3and4):60–7.
44.
HaokipT. India’s Northeast policy: Continuity and change. Man and Society: A J. North East Studies. 2010;7:86–99.
45.
BridgerRS. Introduction to Ergonomics. New York, CRC Press; 2003.
46.
KongYK, LoweBD. Optimal cylindrical handle diameter for grip force tasks. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35(6):495–507.
47.
DruryCG. Handles for manual materials handling. App Ergon. 1980;11(1):35–42.
48.
SeoNJ, ArmstrongTJ, Ashton-MillerJA, ChaffinDB. The effect of torque direction and cylindrical handle diameter on the coupling between the hand and a cylindrical handle. J Biomech. 2007;40(14):3236–43.
49.
KongY-K, LoweBD. Evaluation of handle diameter in maximum horizontal and vertical torque tasks. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2004.pp.1295–9.
50.
SeoNJ, ArmstrongTJ. Investigation of grip force, normal force, contact area, hand size, and handle size for cylindrical handles. Hum. Factors. 2008;50(5):734–44.
51.
ShimomuraY, MinowaK, KawahiraH, KatsuuraT. Ergonomic design and evaluation of the handle for an endoscopic dissector. Ergon. 2016;59(5):729–34.
