Loom Owning Households (%)
5. General discussion and conclusion of the overall thesis
5.5 Testing of hypothesis
The experimental hypothesis as assumed at the commencement of the research work has been thus fulfilled with the research findings.
It was hypothesized that prolonged exposure to high level of noise and low level of illumination (either solitary or a combined impact) would significantly affect the physiological and psychological health of the weavers engaged in handloom workstations in unorganized / semi-organized handloom sectors.
From the result, (refer Chapter-4, Section-4.1, Sub Section-4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and Table-4.1, 4.6, and 4.7) data depicted the variation of illumination across the months, seasons and yearly average level and it has been confirmed that illumination level was low on all the handloom workstations as compared to the International standards. There was the significant difference (p ≤ 0.001) in the value of illumination on one handloom to another at a particular time of the day while comparing one month to another month in most of the cases.
Table 5.1 Comparison of average observed value data (month wise, season wise and whole year) with standard illumination value (lux) measured at four locations during four times of the day on each handloom
Time Average Observed Value Data (Lux)
Standard Value (Lux)
Inference
Min Max
Month wise 56.23 ± 9.12
224.66 ± 60.23
BIS : 300 -700 ISO : 300 CIE : 300 IES : 400 -750
The existing illumination values were below the recommended standard values.
The findings were in agreement with the study conducted by Uttam, 2015 and Bhattacharya et al., 1989
Season wise 69.49 ± 13.19
206.93 ± 52.49 Whole year
(yearly average value)
66.77 ± 15.35
173.21 ± 46.68 Values are expressed as Mean ± SD.
The result (refer Chapter-4, Section-4.2, Sub Section-4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and Table-4.8, 4.13, 4.14) data depicted the variation of noise levels across the months, seasons and yearly average level.
Table 5.2 Comparison of EMAX (average observed value data) month wise, season-wise and of whole year with standard noise value (dBA) measured at two locations in the handloom workshed
Time EMAX (Average Observed Value Data)
Standard Value (dBA)
Inference
Min (dBA) Max (dBA)
Month wise 82.16 ± 3.31
88.87 ± 2.87
BIS – 45 to75 (Mean ± SD), for > 40 h in a week (> 8 h for
> 5 days)
During the whole year, on all the workstations, the maximum value of noise near the weaver’s right ear (EMAX) had the highest noise level and rationally higher than recommended levels [BIS (IS) – 45 dBA to 75 dBA]. 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 and Osibogun et al., 2000.
Season wise 84.34 ± 2.90
87.62 ± 2.36
Whole year
(yearly average value)
85.85 ± 2.21
Values are expressed as Mean ± SD; EMAX – Maximum value of noise near the weaver’s Right ear
It has been confirmed that noise levels were on higher side near the right-hand ear of the weaver on most of the handloom workstations as compared to International standards. There was significant difference (p ≤ 0.001) in the value of noise on one handloom to another and one month to another month in most of the cases. The data reflected that there was considerable variation in the noise level on as well as around the handloom workstation.
The table ((refer Chapter-4, Section-4.3, Sub Section-4.3.1, 4.3.2 and Table-4.15, 4.17) data represented the heart rate values (Mean ± SD) across the months, seasons and yearly average level and it was observed that the heart rate value for most of the weavers was on higher side than the standard value.
Table 5.3 Comparison of average observed value data (month wise, season-wise and whole year) with standard working heart rate (bpm) levels of the weavers on the handloom workstation
Heart Rate Average Observed Value Data (bpm)
Standard Value (bpm)
Inference
Min Max
Month wise 80.58 ± 10.33
84.23 ± 10.22
72
The existing heart rate values were very high than the recommended standard values.
Season wise 81.37 ± 10.31
83.99 ± 10.19 Whole year
(yearly average value)
82.99 ± 9.19
There was significant difference (p ≤ 0.001) in the heart rate value of one weaver to another and also varies from one month to another month in most of the cases.
A significant (p ≤ 0.001) difference of the heart rate was observed across all pairs of months, seasons as well as during the whole year.
Between groups analyses (See Chapter-4, section- 4.1, Sub Section-4.1.1, Table 4.2 - 4.5) of illumination level and (See Chapter-4, Section-4.2, Sub Section-4.2.1 and Table-4.9 - 4.12) of noise levels across the months reflected that in most of the cases there were significant (p ≤ 0.001) differences in the illumination and noise level values.
Moreover, it has been confirmed through the statistical analysis while comparing with
the International standards that there existed low level of illumination and the high level of noise in the handloom sectors.
Now the question surfaced whether the sufferings of the weavers were due to low illumination and high noise level conditions or any other environmental factor prevailing at the workstation. In order to confirm the effects of these factors on the physiological and psychological sufferings, the correlation tests were conducted.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient (r) matrix of the questions in the questionnaires has the impact of illumination and noise which revealed the considerable dependence of health and performance of the weavers on the illumination and noise conditions.
Table 5.4 Correlation coefficient (r) between illumination value and the corresponding subjective responses as mentioned in the questionnaire.
Parameter Variable Correlation coefficient (r)
Inference
Physiological Headache -0.63 ≥ r ≥ -0.73 The result reflected that most of the physiological parameters have inverse correlation with the prevailing illumination levels on the handloom which inferred that due to poor illumination conditions the value of discomfort factors such as headache, fatigue due to light, eye irritation, redness of eyes, water falling from eye, neck pain, lower back pain, thigh pain, waist pain, ankle/ feet pain was on higher side and there was severity of neck pain, thigh pain, and ankle/ feet pain. Positive correlation of illumination was observed with the factors such as shoulder pain, sensation of light on loom, sensation of light around loom, illumination satisfaction level on loom, effect of light on job performance which may be due decrease in weaving speed or efficiency of the weavers which resulted in Fatigue due to light -0.73 ≥ r ≥ -0.83
Eye irritation -0.68 ≥ r ≥ -0.78
Redness of Eyes -0.66 ≥ r ≥ -0.77
Water falling from eye -0.78 ≥ r ≥ -0.86
Neck Pain -0.93 ≥ r ≥ -0.97
Lower Back Pain -0.87 ≥ r ≥ -0.92
Thigh Pain -0.93 ≥ r ≥ -0.98
Waist Pain -0.85 ≥ r ≥ -0.91
Ankle/ Feet Pain -0.86 ≥ r ≥ -0.95
Shoulder Pain +0.81 ≥ r ≥
+0.90
Sensation of light on loom
+0.74 ≥ r ≥ +0.85
Sensation of light around loom
+0.56 ≥ r ≥ +0.66
Illumination satisfaction level on loom
+0.72 ≥ r ≥ +0.81
Effect of light on job performance
+0.83 ≥ r ≥ +0.86
high effect on the job performance.
Psychological Effect on Work
Efficiency
-0.64 ≥ r ≥ -0.68 Inverse correlation was noticed on higher side between illumination and effect on work efficiency, rate of perceived exertion (RPE) due to illumination as well as with all the cognitive work load demands because of poor visibility at the workstation and there was severity of all the workload factors due to poor visibility.
There was direct correlation of visual environment at work station and discomfort due to glare with low level of illumination which confirms that visual environment at work station was in conformity with the poor illumination conditions and there was severity of discomfort due to glare.
Visual Environment at work station
+0.28 ≥ r ≥ +0.33
Discomfort due to glare +0.87 ≥ r ≥ +0.92
RPE due to illumination -0.63 ≥ r ≥ -0.74
Mental Demand -0.88 ≥ r ≥ -0.93
Physical Demand -0.97 ≥ r ≥ -0.98
Temporal Demand -0.86 ≥ r ≥ -0.95
Performance -0.72 ≥ r ≥ -0.80
Effort -0.97 ≥ r ≥ -0.98
Frustration -0.80 ≥ r ≥ -0.98
‘r’ represents spearman’s correlation coefficient.
Table 5.5 Correlation coefficient (r) between noise value and the corresponding subjective responses as mentioned in the questionnaire.
Parameter Variable Correlation coefficient (r)
Inference
physiological Perception of Noise level +0.72 ≥ r ≥ +0.89 Due to high noise level conditions on the handloom workstations, all the physiological as well psychological discomfort factors reflected the direct correlation. The severity of the impact was on higher side on nausea, pain in ear, hearing
Headache +0.74 ≥ r ≥ +0.91
Fatigue due to noise +0.73 ≥ r ≥ +0.91
Nausea due to noise +0.86 ≥ r ≥ +0.91
Pain in ear due to noise +0.80 ≥ r ≥ +0.95
Hearing problem (Threshold shift)
+0.82 ≥ r ≥ +0.94
RPE due to noise +0.72 ≥ r ≥ +0.86
Impact of noise on weaver +0.56 ≥ r ≥ +0.85 Psychological Satisfaction level with
conditions on loom
+0.47 ≥ r ≥ +0.72
Degree of impact of noise on working efficiency
+0.56 ≥ r ≥ +0.83 problem and cognitive demand.
Mental Demand +0.89 ≥ r ≥ +0.96
Physical Demand +0.74 ≥ r ≥ +0.87
Temporal Demand +0.81 ≥ r ≥ +0.94
Performance +0.89 ≥ r ≥ +0.96
Effort +0.76 ≥ r ≥ +0.90
Frustration +0.76 ≥ r ≥ +0.89
‘r’ represents spearman’s correlation coefficient.
Symptoms of physical, physiological and psychological ailments due to terrible illumination and noise conditions which led to awkward working posture on the workstation were exacerbated in prolonged working hours. Recommendation of optimal illumination and noise level conditions that would not affect weavers’ health in long run is crucial for humanizing working conditions at the handloom workstation.
Present research work established that unfavourable high noise level and poor illumination conditions were prevalent at the handloom workstations. Thus, the hypothesis of the research work is accepted.