Loom Owning Households (%)
5. General discussion and conclusion of the overall thesis
5.2 Research findings
technology in the handlooms is very well in place (Garg et al., 2012), leading to the development of physical, physiological and psychological problems among the weavers’
fraternity. Frijns and Vliet (1999), as well as Chen et al. (1999) stated that having the immense importance in diverse socio-economic aspects and sustainable development, the small scale and cottage industries should deviate from the traditional approach to advance technology.
5.1.4 Need for research initiatives in Indian Handloom sector from occupational health perspectives
In anticipation of the enhanced growth of handloom sector in India and particularly in the Eastern part of India, there is a strong thought that it is the decisive time to conduct exploration from environmental and occupation health point of view in the existing handloom industries. This idea will facilitate to pinpoint the difficulties encountered and uncover the issues and problems through appropriate research methodologies. The result of which in future shall compound the benefit of the weavers in long run for improving the occupational work environment and will upshot the morale of weavers in terms of enhanced work satisfaction, quality and better yield.
failure. It was also observed that due to wrong placement of the lighting source on and around the handloom workstations compounded the poor visibility conditions. As observed most of the weavers were using the traditional source of illumination i.e. the incandescent lamps such as bulb and that too without canopy or shed caused the glaring effect on the eyesight of the weavers resulted in psycho-physiological discomforts.
Odisha, amongst the Indian states and union territories, have the benefit of maximum handloom owning household outside the north-east region which is also over and above the national average (Handloom Census of India, 2009 – 2010). Bargarh district being ‘A’ category handloom cluster (Handloom Clusters, 2017), located in the western part of Odisha, produced maximum tie and dye cotton sarees in terms of quality and quantity, having the infinite number of motif and designs labelled under special titles. Being commercial production hub for the tie and dye cotton sarees, this place was preferred for conducting the present research. 480 weavers were selected using purposive stratified sampling from 10 clusters. Data was collected for subjective and objective assessments using questionnaire, scales and tools (Appendix A). Measurement of illumination and noise was carried out in the daytime, while the handlooms were in operation at the workstations.
The outcome from this study signified the adverse effects of environmental factors on workers' satisfaction, job performance, health and safety which clearly indicate that the workers might have been exposed to various environmental conditions.
It had also been documented that the perceived responses to the environmental factors depend on individual acuity as well as on a number of factors including physical, physiological and psychological (Parsons, 2000). Thus, it is necessary to conduct studies in each working environment that is under the prevailing illumination and noise level conditions in order to find out how these factors would affect the weavers while working at the handloom workstation.
The average levels of illumination (See Chapter-4, Sub Section-4.1.1, and Table- 4.1) on the handloom workstations were observed to be on the lower side as compared to the Bureau of Indian Standards (1966) IS 3646-2 as well as of IES (Illuminating Engineering Society, 1973) and ISO 8995-1:2002 standards. The ratio of minimum to the average illumination (the diversity factor) was found to be 0.56 against the recommended value of ≥ 0.80 which revealed that a number of locations of the handloom workstations were having poor illumination level. The process of weaving was carried out indoors on
all handloom workstations and during the daytime most of the
weavers were using artificial light beside the natural daylight. The variation of illumination value on the handloom was mainly attributed by various factors prevailing on and around the handloom workstation such as a) type of roof and ceiling; b) location and number of doors and window in the workshed; c) location of the handloom with respect to the doors and window of the workshed; d) location and positioning of illuminating source on the handloom; e) direction of sunlight during the day time with respect to the location of handloom;f) frequency of power failure and low voltage supply of electricity; g) usage of the type of illuminant and h) use of canopy / shed or cover during weaving.
The data revealed that, across the entire year (See Chapter-4, Section-4.1, Sub Section-4.1.1, and Table-4.1), the illumination value on all the positions at different time period in a month varied considerably and it was lowest at 1900 h in the month of December and highest at 1200 h in the month of April, which was found to be far below the recommended Indian Standard (IS: 6665-1972) and IES (1973) standards.
Group analyses (See Chapter-4, Section-4.1, Sub Section-4.1.1, Table 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5) revealed that, there was significant (p ≤ 0.001) difference in the values of illumination level across the months at different timings of the day except in few months where no significant difference between the values was observed at p > 0.05. The significant difference might be attributed by the variation of natural daylight in different months and consequent with the change in day to day indoor ambient environment across the whole year, as well as due to the voltage fluctuation of the illuminating source.
Drummond (1956) measured the natural illumination level month wise and concluded that during the month of December the solar elevation was reported maximum between 39º to 85º and endorsed that solar elevation is one of the factors which affect the variation of daylight on the earth. During the winter season, the intensity of the natural daylight was poor, which could be due to higher solar elevation as well as the distance of the sun from the earth. Moreover, the rays of the sun impinged with a tangential direction during morning and evening hours. The intensity of the natural light was observed maximum during the summer season (around the noon of the day) which caused the highest level of illumination, perhaps because of direct sunlight with the gradually decreasing trend towards the minimum level during the winter. Rotation of earth on its axis as well as around the sun and the ambience environmental conditions affect the intensity of natural illumination on the handloom workstation, apart from the artificial illumination.
Under various climatic seasons, the values of indoor illumination environment at different locations of the handloom workstations (See Chapter-4, Section-4.1, Sub Section-4.1.2 and Table 4.6) revealed very low illumination in comparison to the recommended standards. The value of illumination level was lowest during the winter season and highest during the summer season which was very low when compared to Indian and International standards; and was in consonance to the findings of Dianat et al (2013) and Kozaki et al (2012). Illumination values across the different seasons registered highly significant difference (p ≤ 0.001) for all pair of seasons viz. Summer vs. Monsoon, Summer vs. Winter and Monsoon vs. Winter; which might have occurred due to the variation of intensity of the natural daylight across the seasons and fluctuation of voltage (artificial electric illumination) confirmed that there was the considerable difference amongst the seasons of summer, monsoon and winter.
The average value across the whole year (See Chapter-4, Section-4.1, Sub Section-4.1.3 and Table 4.7) varied and was the lowest at 1900 h and highest at 1200 h throughout the year, which reflected that the existing illumination was evidently poor with significant deviation from the recommended illumination values. The findings were in agreement with the study conducted by Uttam (2015) and Bhattacharya et al. (1989).
Bhattacharya et al. (1989) substantiated that illumination level in the textile sector (i.e. in the power loom sector) was found to be on lower sides while comparing with the Indian as well as with the International standard illumination values. As most of the weavers had no visual comfort at their loom workstations and they expressed difficulties to impart optimal productivity.
The mean sound pressure levels (SPLs) / noise levels (dBA) at the different measurement locations on the handloom workstations observed every month across the year are presented in (See Chapter-4, Section-4.2, Sub Section-4.2.1) Table 4.8. The measurements were carried out in accordance with ISO 10534-2 using the sound level meter (IS-3932-1966). Assessment of noise exposure was done according to ISO 9612:
2009. Noise at the workstation is generally influenced by the factors like a) time of exposure; b) noise intensity; c) frequency and d) individual subject’s sensitivity. The SPLs were high near the weaver’s right ear (EMAX) on all the handloom workstations in every month throughout the year.
Although the maximal noise level near the right ear of the weaver (EMAX) was in the range of 82 dBA - 89 dBA which appears to be on the higher side when compared to the Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 9876 (45 dBA to 75 dBA for exposure of 8 h / day
and for 5 working days in a week). Even though the noise levels on the handloom workstations were not very high but the impact of the aforesaid noise level was significant as the weavers in the Indian scenario and especially of Bargarh district work at least for 11 h in a day for 6-7 days of the week. This extended duration of exposure to noise led to the detrimental impact on the occupational health of the weavers. Daily exposure of the weavers to SPL > 85 dBA for several hours in a day might lead to permanent hearing impairment (Ahmed et al., 2011). The Maximum value (EMAX) of noise near the weaver’s right ear on all the workstations had the highest SPLs due to the presence of main noise producing source in the vicinity of the handloom weavers. The findings were in agreement with the study conducted by Dianat et al., 2016; Ahmed et al., 2011; Gitau et al., 2004; Reinhold et al., 2007; Chavalitsakulchai et al., 1989;
Osibogun et al., 2000.
The variation in noise level around as well as at the centre of the handloom shed was due to variation in distance from the source of origin of the sound. The main source of noise emission as identified earlier was shuttle, jacquard or dobby movement, beating mechanism and leather buffer besides the street noise. Another reason for higher SPLs might be due to the use of old handlooms having poor maintenance with substandard accessories. The degree to which the SPL affects the weaver depends on its nature, intensity, duration, time of occurrence and also on the activity of the individual at the time of exposure. The direct application of other standards such as OSHA, IES, ISO, NIOSH regulations in the Indian handloom industries were not applicable (Habali, 1989;
Shaikh, 1999) as most of the handloom machines are being operated more than 5 working days per week for more than 8 h; which means the weavers were exposed to high SPLs for more than 40 h / week i.e. 12 h to 24 h on over time per week, over and above the normal working hours and estimating probably 25% - 80% per week higher than the recommended exposure time / week in USA or any other European country ( Singh et al., 2009 a). Lundh et al. (2011) reported that the impact of exposure to high level of noise was aggravated by the other factors such as heat, vibrations, humidity and awkward work postures and was found to be in consonance with those of Raman, 2006.
Group analyses revealed that (See Chapter-4, Section-4.2, Sub Section-4.2.1, Table 4.9, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12) there was significant (p ≤ 0.001) difference in the noise levels across the months at different measurement positions except in few months where no significant difference between the values was observed at (p > 0.05). The significant difference happened due to deviation in the ambient environment monthwise as well as
with the variation of the impact of force propelled upon and the noise originated from various accessories and mechanisms during operation of handloom.
Noise levels across the different seasons (See Chapter-4, Section-4.2, Sub Section-4.2.2 and Table 4.13) registered highly significant difference (p ≤ 0.001) for all pair of seasons viz. Summer vs. Winter, Monsoon vs. Winter and Summer vs. Monsoon for maximum value of noise near the weaver’s right ear (EMAX); minimum value of noise near the weaver’s right ear (EMIN); maximum value of noise in the centre of the shed (CMAX) and minimum value of noise in the centre of the shed (CMIN) except for CMAX
during Summer vs. Monsoon (p ≤ 0.05). Maximum annual average exposure value (See Chapter-4, Section-4.2, Sub Section-4.2.3 and Table 4.14) was observed near the weaver’s right ear (EMAX) for > 40 h in a week (> 8 h for > 5 days) which was rationally higher than recommended levels [ISO (W) – 85 to 90 dBA, 5 days/ week for 8 h; ISO (Dev) – 88 dBA for 6 days / week; OSHA – 85 dBA; NIOSH – 85 dBA and BIS (IS) – 45 to 75 dBA]
Data revealed (See Chapter-4, Section-4.3, Sub Section-4.3.1 and Table 4.15) that the heart rate values were observed to be minimum in the month of January and maximum during May. The study substantiated that about 32% of the weavers were having heart rate more than 86 bpm and about 46% weavers’ heart rate between 76 bpm to 85 bpm. Over and above, more than half of the weavers implicit that due to inapt environmental conditions in their working area have upshot the health-related issues which were further exaggerated by the prevailing environmental conditions including illumination and noisewhich were not being met as per the recommended standards. The heart rate fluctuation depends on various physical, physiological and psychological parameters as well as of individuals’ food habit, life-style and working habits at the workstation.Regarding the health and safety consequences of the environmental factors, most of the weavers responded that the illumination and noise at their respective workstations have caused considerable physiological and psychological problems, which were in agreement with the previous researches (Parsons, 2000; Dianat et al., 2016).
Group analyses (See Chapter-4, Section-4.3, Sub Section-4.3.1 and Table 4.16) revealed that there was significant (p ≤ 0.001) difference in the values of heartbeat across the months, except in few cases where no significant difference between the values was observed. The significant difference might be due to the variation of indoor ambient environment conditions during the whole year viz. illumination and noise across the different months.
The heart rate revealed a declining trend from summer season via monsoon to the winter season. The values across the different seasons (See Chapter-4, Section-4.3, Sub Section-4.3.2 and Table 4.17) registered highly significant difference (p ≤ 0.001) for all pair of seasons viz. Summer vs. Monsoon, Summer vs. Winter and Monsoon vs. Winter which occurred possibly due to the variation of environmental factors including illumination and noise according to the seasons and due to working life-style.
The weavers’ workload was also assessed using subjective measures in order to ascertain the psychological pressure they perceived while interacting with handloom machine and the material (Rubio et al., 2004). The subjective workload assessment for work activities was performed (See Chapter-4, Section-4.4 and Table 4.18) for handloom and allied activities inside the workstation. The ratings for various scale titles for the subjective workload assessments were significantly on the higher side. The mean weighted ratio (MWR) of the physical demand was rated very high by the weavers. It was observed that even though putting lots of mental, physical, temporal demands and efforts, the performance of the weavers was on dismal state, possibly because of high frustration which might be due to poor illumination and high noise conditions that prevailed inside the handloom workstations, which in turn alarmed various physical, physiological and cognitive complications. These findings were in agreement with the weavers’ perception and dissatisfaction with the illumination and noise conditions that existed at the handloom workstation and were also in accordance with the other researchers (Dianat et al., 2016; Vahedi and Dianat, 2013; Parsons, 2000).
The Mean Weighted Workload Score (See Chapter-4, Section-4.4 and Table 4.18) was arrived at (73.87 ± 12.32, Mean ± SD). The weavers put forth more efforts and were found to be successful in completing the tasks associated with their jobs, even though they encountered very daunting working conditions. Hence, it was evident that environmental conditions improved and the interventions should primarily be focused on reducing the perceived physical demand and efforts besides minimizing the frustration levels amongst the weavers. The overall mean weighted workload scores (MWWL) of the weavers working on the handlooms inside the work shed in the study were on the higher side as compared to the results of other studies (Sepehr, 1988; Haga et al., 2002).
For satisfaction, increasing productivity and overall well-being of the people, indoor environmental factors played the very vital role. In order to ascertain the illumination conditions at the handloom workstations, the weavers expressed their perceptions through the questionnaire.
Questionnaire on illumination (See Chapter-4, Section-4.5, Sub Section-4.5.1 and Table 4.19) was analysed for various discomfort parameters like the effect of illumination on weavers’ satisfaction level, perceived job performance, the perception of illumination, physiological and psychological parameters and evaluated to find the most appropriate methods of improvement to the working environment. It was also intended to compare the weavers' perceptions of the illumination levels with the actual physical measurements to determine how they were related to one another. The recommended illuminance levels were not met in 89.33% of the handloom workstations and the illumination levels were lower than required national and international standards. These findings were in agreement with the weaver’s perception of illumination level, and with low satisfaction level in respect of illumination conditions on the handlooms in the indoor work environment. Adverse effects of lighting conditions on the work efficiency, perception of illumination (on and around the handloom), discomfort due to glare, eye irritation, were reported by 91%, 51% and 26.5%, 29.5%, 100% of the weavers respectively. Moreover, the weavers reported that the visual environment at the workstation, discomfort due to glare and perceived poor level of illumination were adjudged between slightly to moderately uncomfortable.
The weavers' satisfaction with lighting (See Chapter-4, Section-4.5, Sub Section- 4.5.7 and Table 4.24) was also significantly inversely correlated as the Spearman’s correlation coefficient (r) was in the range of (-0.06 < r < -0.75; p < 0.001 ) in respect of physiological and psychological parameters except in the case of some physiological discomfort factors such as sensation of light on and around the handloom, illumination satisfaction level on loom and effect of light on the job performance where the impact on illumination revealed highly significant (+0.55 < r < +0.61; p < 0.001) direct correlation between illumination and these factors. The coefficient of determination (CD, r2) varied between 0.0037 to 0.5656 which indicate the differential level of dependence of various physiological and psychological discomfort factors on illumination.
Borg’s CR10 Scale evinced (See Chapter-4, Section-4.5, Sub Section-4.5.1 and Table 4.20) the discomfort/pain experienced by various parts of the body of the weavers due to the prevailing environmental conditions while working on the handloom. Weavers rated severe to excruciating discomfort levels on the Borg’s scale which revealed the rarity of illumination level on and around the handlooms.
Various discomfort parameters as mentioned in the questionnaire on noise (See Chapter-4, Section-4.5, Sub Section-4.5.2 and Table 4.21) were tabulated and analysed