Advertisement

Ergonomics Risk Factors Prevailing in Kota Doria Loom Weavers of India

  • Nabila RehmanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 820)

Abstract

Weaving of Kota Doria fabric has been a traditional activity of Ansari community of the Kota region. After abandoning this art by men in order to reach more stable and money yielding means of livelihood, women of the community have adopted this traditional activity in order to continue their culture and generate least minimum income. Weaving of Kota Doria fabric is carried on pit loom. 100 women weavers from Kaithoon area of Kota district participated in the study. In depth observation of the workplace followed by the subjective assessment of body discomfort and Workplace Ergonomic Risk Assessment (WERA) method was carried out.

On analysis of WERA, the leg score for WERA body part was >4 in 73% of weavers whereas discomfort in knees and legs were reported by 87% yielding a significant association between WERA body part score and self-reported pain (χ2 = 20.51; p = 0.000). The body part score for shoulder region during Kota Doria operation yielded a score of >4 in 68% and cause pain in 72% association being significant (χ2 = 23.86; p = 0.000). The neck region for WERA body part score was >4 in 80% of the weavers with 89% reporting pain or neck discomfort with significant association (χ2 = 5.96; p = 0.014). the back region score for WERA body part was >4 in 79% of weavers whilst discomfort reported by 97% with a significant association (χ2 = 4.20; p = 0.040).

Therefore it can be concluded that existing Kota Doria pit loom weavers depict significant prevalence of MSDs and need intervention for enhancing productivity and occupational wellbeing of the weavers.

Keywords

Kota doria pit loom Musculoskeltal disorders Ergonomic risk assessment Observation method 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Whole hearted cooperation of Kota Women’s Weaving Organizations, weavers and loom owners of Aman Self Help Group, Shehnaaz and Aamna are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Metgud DC, Khatri S, Mokashi MG, Saha PN (2008) An ergonomic study of women workers in a woolen textile factory for identification of health-related problems. Int J Occup Environ Med 12(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burdorf A, Naakrgeboren B, Post W (1998) Prognostic factor for musculoskeletal sickness absence and return to work among welders and metal workers. Occ Env Med 55:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choobinch AR, Shahnavaz H, Lahmi MA (2004) Major health risk factors in Iranian hand – woven carpet industry. Int J Occ Safety Ergon 10(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cole DC, Hudak PL (1996) Prognosis of non – specific work – related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper extremity. Am J Ind Med 29:657–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Motamedzade M, Choobineh A, Mououdi MA, Arghami S (2007) Ergonomic design of carpet weaving hand tools. Int J Ind Ergon 37:581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choobineh A, Hosseini M, Lahmi M, Jazani RK, Shahnavaz H (2007) Musculoskeletal problems in Iranian Hand-woven carpet industry: guidelines for workstation design. Appl Ergon 38:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choobineh AR, Shahnavaz H, Lahmi MA (2004) Major health risk factors in Iranian hand-woven carpet industry. Int J Occup Safety Ergon 10(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choobineh AR, Tosian R, Alhamdi Z, Davarzanie M (2004) Ergonomic intervention in carpet mending operation. Appl Ergon 35:493–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mukopadhyay PB (2008) Morbidity profile in handloom weavers of Hoogly district, West Bengal, India (Unpublished Master’s thesis) National Institute of epidemiology (ICMR), IndiaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goel A, Tyagi I (2012) Occupational health hazards related to weaving. Int J Appl Math Stat Sci 1(1):22–28Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pandit S, Kumar P, Chakrabarti DC (2013) Ergonomic problems prevalent in handloom units of North East India. Int J Sci Res Publ 3(1):1–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nag A, Vyas H, Nag PK (2010) Gender differences, work stressors and musculoskeletal disorders in weaving industries. Ind Health 48:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Corlett EN, Bishop RP (1976) A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19(2):175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tiwari RR, Pathak MC, Zodpey SP (2003) Low back pain among textile workers. Indian J Occup Environ Med 7(1):27–29Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pandit S, Kumar P, Chakrabarti DC (2015) Ergonomic risk assessment on women’s handloom weavers in assam with the introduction of Jacquard. In: ICoRD 2015 - Research in to design across boundaries, vol 1, pp 431–441. Springer, India.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2232-3_38
  16. 16.
    Motamedzade M, Moghimbeigi A (2012) Musculoskeletal disorders among female carpet weavers. Ergonomics 55(2):229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ayoub MA (1990) Ergonomic deficiencies: I. Pain at work. J Occ Med 32(1):52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ayoub MA (1990) Ergonomic deficiencies: II. Probable causes. J Occ Med 32(2):131–136Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    US Department of Labor (OSHA) (2004) Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Guidelines for Retail Grocery stores. OSHA Publications, 3192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Home ScienceBanasthali UniversityVanasthaliIndia

Personalised recommendations