Evaluation of employee positions by different ergonomic risk analysis methods in manual harvesting of hazelnuts

Abstract

In this study, working postures during the manual harvesting of hazelnuts were analyzed with four different ergonomic risk assessment methods, namely REBA, AWBA, OWAS, and RULA, and the differences between them were revealed. The most appropriate method for manual harvesting activities was determined. Hand harvesting of hazelnuts; It consists of three main workstations: shaking the branches by hand, collecting them manually from the branches, and containing them manually from the ground. There are three different ways of sitting in the hand-harvesting of hazelnuts: standing on knees, bending over, or cross-legged. During the manual harvest, the workers' movements at all workstations were observed and recorded with a camera. Images were analyzed using the ErgoFellow 2.0 program. As a result of the analysis, working postures that may cause musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) were determined. According to the analysis results, shaking the hazelnut by hand and harvesting from the branch by hand were risky compared to the other three analysis methods, except for the Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS) method. In manual harvesting from the ground, high-risk scores were obtained in all working postures, Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA), Agricultural Whole-Body Assessment (AWBA), Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), and OWAS methods, and it was determined in the category of urgent action change. Among the ergonomic risk analysis methods, it can be said that AWBA is the analysis method that includes the closest positions of working postures in the manual harvest of hazelnuts.

Keywords

• Hazelnut
• manual harvest
• REBA
• OWAS
• AWBA
• Ergonomic risk

References

1. Akalp, H.G., Saklangıç, U. & Çırakoğlu, S. (2021). Zeytin Tarımında Çalışan İşçilerin Çalışma Duruşlarının REBA Yöntemi İle Analizi. Ergonomi, 4(2), 88-96. https://doi.org/10.33439/ergonomi.961369
2. Aygün, İ., Çakmak, B. & Alayunt, F. N. (2018). Narenciye hasadının ergonomik açıdan incelenmesi. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 6, 312-318. https://doi.org/10.21923/jesd.358270
3. Baş, H., Sönmez, H. A., Öztürk, H. & Yapıcı, F. (2018). Çalışma duruşunun kas-iskelet sistemi rahatsızlıklarına etkileri ve örnek uygulama. Ergonomi, 1(2), 103-107. https://doi.org/10.33439/ergonomi.481341
4. Beyhan, M. A., & Sauk H. (2018). Türkiye’de Fındık Tarımında Mekanizasyon Durumu. TÜRKTOB Dergisi, Sayı: 27 Sayfa: 22-27.
5. Das, B., & Gangopadhyay, S. (2015). Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and physiological stress among adult, male potato cultivators of West Bengal, India. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27(2), 1669-1682. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539511421808
6. İlkyaz, H. (1986). Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi’nde çay ve fındığın üretim girdi ve maliyetleri. Tarım Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Köy Hizmetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Genel Yayın, (38).
7. Kamble, R., Vinu Vimal, V.J. & Pandit, S. (2022). Ergonomic Study on Farmers Involved with Cotton Harvesting in Haryana. International Conference of The Indian Society of Ergonomics (pp. 889-896). Springer, Cham.
8. Kır, İ. (2015). Adana ve Mersin Bölgesinde Seracılık Sektöründe Çalışanların Karşılaştığı Ergonomik Risklerin Değerlendirilmesi. Ç. V. S. G. Bakanlığı, İçel İl Müdürlüğü. Adana.

9. Riemer, R., & Bechar, A. (2016). Investigation of productivity enhancement and biomechanical risks in greenhouse crops. Biosystems Engineering, 147, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.03.009
10. Schuman, S.H. (2002). Ergonomics in agriculture: Commentary and literature review. Journal of Agromedicine, 8(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J096v08n01_02
11. TUIK (2022). Bitkisel Üretim İstatistikleri, https://data.tuik.gov.tr (Erişim: Mayıs, 2022).
12. Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, Z., Li, D., Wu, Z., Bai, R., & Meng, G. (2019). Ergonomic and efficiency analysis of conventional apple harvest process. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 12(2), 210-217.