International Journal of Agricultural

Science and Research (IJASR)

ISSN(P): 2250-0057; ISSN(E): 2321-0087
Vol. 6, Issue 1, Feb 2016, 221-226
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF HEAD LOAD MANAGER TO AN

ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO CARRY LOADS BY RURAL WOMEN
A. MRUNALINI
Professor and University Head, Department of Resource Management and Consumer Sciences,
Faculty of Home Science, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Andhra Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
Head loading method of manually carrying fodder and fuel, crops, vegetables, water, sand and other building
material etc., is one of the several issues of gender and material handling in developing countries like India especially in
rural life. The significant implications of this method are musculoskeletal pains and fatigue. Families at the subsistence
level do not have an alternative method or means of carrying these loads and therefore it is a common sight in all aspects
of working in rural areas. A scope for integrating participatory intervention approach to fabricate, evaluate and modify
the Head Load Manager for rural women was identified based on the concept of Head harness introduced by kumar et
al. (2004). Accordingly a head load manager was fabricated with features easy to wear; straps provided to fix the frame

perceived exertion, and satisfaction were the parameters in this study. The study was conducted at the farm yards, market
yards and construction sites and 30 users equally represented by women and men were consisted of the sample. The
salient subjective responses indicated the need for head load manager revision for reducing its weight and improving
stability. Therefore, in the second phase, the head load manager -2 was fabricated and evaluated. The head load
manager-2 showed a reduction in physiological load, improvement in postures while carrying loads, reduction in

Original Article

in place and were evaluated. The users semantics and visual expression on its design, physiological load, Rating on

musculo skeletal problems.

KEYWORDS: Manual Load Handling Method , Head Load Manager , Rural Women Carrying Loads

Received: Dec 28, 2015; Accepted: Jan 06, 2016; Published: Jan 29, 2016; Paper Id.: IJASRFEB201632

INTRODUCTION
Manual material handling tasks associated with transporting manure, seeds etc., to the field, harvested
grains, vegetables, fodder and biomass fuel from the field, handling of sand and cement at the domestic
construction sites are a common sight cutting across the working and living aspects of rural and semi urban areas in
developing countries. The mode of carrying loads mostly comprise of carrying on heads, followed by carrying on
one side of waist or shoulder or carrying by stooping their backs. It was identified through a bench mark survey
conducted by All India Coordinated Research project on Home Science in five operational villages of Rangareddy
district of Hyderabad, Andhra radish, that head loading method of transporting farm products was one of the
drudgery prone tasks needing technological solution.
A study conducted by kumar et al. (2004) in two villages of Delhi revealed that 44 per cent of farmers
have been suffering from general back pain symptoms while 29 percent reported regular back ache which was
attributed to their carrying approximately 40 to 50 kg weight on their heads in the form of seeds, fertilizer etc.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

222

A. Mrunalini

Also, the study brought that the vertebral column, is susceptible to spondylosis due to head loading.
Jumah and Nyame (1994) pointed out that carrying loads on head loading may lead to degenerative changes of
the cervical spine. Therefore, an intervention in the form of an alternative technology for relieving drudgery of men and
women was felt necessary.
Narayana and Rudolh (1993) reported that the high incidence of upper limb and low back musculoskeletal
disorders experienced by workers in medical device assembly plant got dramatically reduced with ergonomic
improvements and in the process of analyzing the problems and redesigning work station, the participatory approach was
found beneficial. As participatory ergonomic intervention was considered as proactive approach to help head loaders find
solutions to their problems, a study was conducted with the following objectives.

To identify the drudgery perceptions, body discomfort and potential risks involved in material handling by head
load method

To develop alternative technology by involving users using participatory intervention approach

To assess the ergonomic implications of the technology designed after its use

METHODOLOGY
Thirty subjects equally divided by gender and who are regular head loaders were selected for the study.

Identification of Drudgery: Drudgery was operationally defined as self reported perceptions on six variables
such as work demand on time, feeling of exhaustion, difficulty of postures, manual loads operative by them as per
capacity to bear it, perceived difficulty in working and perceived overall work load. Each variable was quantified
using a 5 point rating scale and the scores were summated to evaluate the task before and after the use of
technology designed for the purpose.

Identification of Body Discomfort: Body map was used to measure the localized discomfort and intensity of
pain arising out of body discomfort on a 5 point rating scale of Corlett and Bishop (1976).

Potential Risk Factors: Users opinions were elicited using a check list on potential risk factors such as slips,
accidents, lose of stability of load and need for adjustments of load, posture etc.

Design of Head Load Manager using Participatory Approach: Involving users and motivating them to find
solutions to the problems they faced through discussions. The active contributions from the participants were
regarded in the formulation of technology design

Ergonomic Implications of the Technology Designed: Technology was given among thirty sample and
designed was evaluated on the basis of users semantics and visual expression on the design, physiological cost of
work estimated as per heart rate method, Rating on drudgery perceptions, Rating on perceived satisfaction.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Users Demographic Characteristics: The users participated in the study were classified into 2 groups based on
gender. Mean age of men was 32 and for women it was 30. Stature was 162 and 152 cm for men and women
respectively.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Performance Evaluation of Head Load Manager to an

Alternative Means to Carry Loads By Rural Women

223

Drudgery Perceptions of Head Load Carrying: Perceptions of men and women involved in head load method
of carrying material indicated a score of 25 and 26 over 30 maximum score for both men and women respectively
indicating that weight borne for head loading are very heavy than their capacity, physiologically heavy,
exhaustive. An average load of 32kg was the load to be carried each time by men, while women carried 25 kg on
an average and experienced drudgery. This indicates that both men and women carried loads that are more than
their capacity to carry leading to drudgery associated perceptions in them.

Body Discomfort Associated with Head Loading: Head loading caused discomfort in the neck, shoulders, upper
back, lower back, legs and the discomfort was reported as intensity of pain rated as 13 and 14 for men and women
respectively.

Potential Risk Factors: Men and women reported more slips as potential risk factor due to loss of stability as the
loads were not uniform and compact to hold on head when fuel and fodder was carried. Accidents were also
reported by 1 per cent men.

Design of Head Load Manager: Following were the decisions arrived as consequence of the participatory
focused group discussions. The features were given below
o

Transfer of direct load from head to shoulder

Stress of weight to be supported by back muscles and thus relieving strain on shoulder, head and spinal
cord

Technology Development: Head Load Manager was made of three parts. Over head frame to contain load to be
held on shoulder, shoulder frame to hold the over head and facilitating straps to wear the shoulder frame so that
strain is distributed over shoulder and back muscles.

Figure 1: Prototypes of Head Load Manager (HLM)

Anthropometry and weight of the equipment were considered as important in the fabrication of head load
manager. The features and dimensions of determined as per anthropometry were given in Table 1.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

224

A. Mrunalini

Table 1: Technology Design Features

Features of Head Load Manager
Height of over head frame from shoulder frame
Width of the frame
Length of the back rest from shoulder
Length of the front extension from shoulder curve
Shoulder curvature
Straps (Sturdy Nylon material)
Material used for head load manager -1
Material used for head load manager -2

Value
mm
250-262
203
408
148

Dimensions of Head
Load Manager (mm)
256
203
408
148
50 degrees
Extendable to tie around waist in
an easy manner
GI sheet iron, Weight (kg) 2.5
Stainless steel, weight (kg) 1.8

Ergonomic implications of technology designed: The fabricated Head Load Manager as per dimensions was
evaluated by the users and the results were presented under Table 2.
As per the opinions, 75 per cent felt that head load manager -2 was light in weight and better in stability factor

compared to the former where as it was felt by users (65%) that head load manager 1 was easy to wear but heavy and
needs improvement due to low stability of the frame when load was placed on it.
As per semantics, 80 per cent of users were able to wear the head load manager with ease and the rest required
guidance.
Table 2: Ergonomic Implications of Technology Designed
Parameter

Convention
al Method

HLM -1
GI Sheet Iron

HLM-2
Stainless Steel

40

25+ 6.55

26 + 4.82

25

18+3.25

16+4.55

21.6

13+3.25

14+4.55

Physiological load
(b.min-1)
Drudgery
perception score
Body pain score

Conventional
Vs. HLM 1&2
1.75*
1.99*
1.52*
1.45*

Physiological Load: In Head load manager head load manager 1 and 2 found less physiological work load than
conventional method. There is a significant difference between the conventional and head load manager model for
physiological and body pain score.

Drudgery Perception Score: In Head load manager head load manager 1 and 2 found less drudgery perception
score than conventional method.

Body Pain Score: In Head load manager head load manager 1 and 2 found less body pain score than conventional
method.
Physiological and body pain scores given, both the head load manager were significantly better in reducing

drudgery compared to conventional method.

CONCLUSIONS
From the study, it was concluded that as per the physiological work load, drudgery perceptions and body pain
scores given both the Head load manager were significantly better in reducing the physiological stress compared to
conventional method

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.7987

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Performance Evaluation of Head Load Manager to an

Alternative Means to Carry Loads By Rural Women

225

REFERENCES
1.

Kumar, A., Mohan, D., Varghese, M and J.K. Singh. 2004. Musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic interventions: A study
from North India. Power Machinery systems and Ergonomics, safety and Health, Anamaya publishers. New Delhi. pp: 292297.

2.

Jumah, K.B and Nyame,.K. 1994. Relationships between load carrying on head and cervical spondylosis in Ghanians. West
African Journal of Medicine. 13(3): p p:181-182.

3.

Narayana, M and Rudoiph, L. 1993. Ergonomic improvements in a medical device assembly plant: A field study. In
proceedings of Human factor and ergonomic society. Pp: 812-816.

4.

Corlett, E.N and Bishop, R.P. 1976. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics. 19:175-182.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org