Abstract
Conventional and improved methods of aonla pricking were evaluated ergonomically on an experiment conducted for 20 minute with women workers. The working heart rate, energy expenditure rate, total cardiac cost of work and physiological cost of work with conventional tools varied from 93-102 beats.min-1, 6-7.5 kJ.min-1, 285-470 beats, 14 -23 beats.min-1 while with machine varied from 96-105 beats.min-1, 6.5-8 kJ.min-1 , 336-540 beats, 16-27 beats.min-1 respectively. OWAS score for conventional method was 2 indicating corrective measures in near future while with machine was 1 indicating no corrective measures. Result of Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire revealed that subjects complaint of pain in back, neck, right shoulder and right hand due to unnatural body posture and repetitive movement with hand tool. Moreover pricking was carried out in improper lighting conditions (200-300 lux) resulting into finger injuries from sharp edges of hand tool, whereas with machine no such problems were observed. Output with machine increased thrice than hand pricking in a given time. Machine was found useful in terms of saving time, increased productivity, enhanced safety and comfort as involved improved posture, was easy to handle and operate, thus increasing efficiency of the worker leading to better quality of life.