Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Surface electromyographic study of transplanting activity using hand hand-held seedling transplanter

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8816
Submitted
11 April 2025
Published
05-11-2025

Abstract

A surface electromyographic study of transplanting activity using a handheld seedling transplanter was conducted to determine the extent of muscle involvement in this activity. Seven healthy subjects in the age range of 20 to 22 years were selected for the study. The following muscles namely right abductor (RA), right extensor (RE), right biceps (RB), right triceps (RT), right deltoid (RD) and right trapezius (RTZ), left abductor (LA) and left extensor (LE) were assessed in a simulated environment using surface electromyography (Biometrics Ltd, UK) with data logger. Task analysis of transplanting activity highlights the muscle involvement for each task. Lifting indicates that RB (30.2 %) has the highest involvement, while Piercing involves the RD (41.6 %) and dropping seedlings is carried out by RB (17.9 %) and pressing the lever and planting is done by RE (40.5 %). It can be observed that there is a significant difference between the subjects and their muscle activity. The extent of muscle activity in the RA indicates that its usage was highest during the initial phase, lasting 20 to 40 seconds. Among the four muscles, RD (46 % of MVC) was found to have the highest activity, followed by RB (40.3 %), RT (40.2 %) and RTZ (38. 2 %) during transplanting. The study's findings will help in designing ergonomically comfortable and user-friendly farm implements to minimise the occupational stress of women farmers. The extent of use of the various muscles will help designers develop ergonomically safe hand tools to increase productivity.

References

  1. 1. Enoka RM, Duchateau J. Muscle fatigue: what, why and how it influences muscle function. J Physiol. 2007;586(1):11–23. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.139477
  2. 2. Luttmann A, Jakger M, Laurig W. Electromyographical indication of muscular fatigue in occupational field studies. Int J Ind Ergon. 2000;25:645–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00053-0
  3. 3. Choi C, Kwon S, Park W, Lee H, Kim J. Real-time pinch force estimation by surface electromyography using an artificial neural network. Med Eng Phys. 2010;32:429–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.04.004
  4. 4. Huang Z, Cui J, Wang Y, Yu S. Improving wheelchair user sitting posture to alleviate lumbar fatigue: a study utilizing sEMG and pressure sensors. Front Neurosci. 2024;18:1380150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1380150
  5. 5. Hoozemans MJM, van Dieën JH. Prediction of handgrip forces using surface EMG of forearm muscles. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2005;15:358–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2004.09.001
  6. 6. Mobasser F, Eklund JM, Zaad HK. Estimation of elbow-induced wrist force with EMG signals using fast orthogonal search. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007;54:683–93. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2006.889190
  7. 7. Cavallaro EE, Rosen J, Perry JC, Burns S. Real-time myo processors for a neural-controlled powered exoskeleton arm. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006;53:2387–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2006.880883
  8. 8. Wang L, Buchanan ST. Prediction of joint moments using a neural network model of muscle activations from EMG signals. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002;10:30–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2002.1021584
  9. 9. Koike Y, Kawato M. Estimation of dynamic joint torques and trajectory formation from surface electromyography signals using a neural network model. Biol Cybern. 1995;73:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00199465
  10. 10. Luh JJ, Chang GC, Cheng CK, Lai JS, Kuo TS. Isokinetic elbow joint torques estimation from surface EMG and joint kinematic data: using an artificial neural network model. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1999;9:173–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1050-6411(98)00030-3
  11. 11. Lloyd DG, Besier TF. An EMG-driven musculoskeletal model to estimate muscle forces and knee joint moments in vivo. J Biomech. 2003;36:765–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00010-1
  12. 12. Park KH, Park S. Electromyographic analysis of upper- and lower-extremity muscles in adults during agro-healing activities. HortTechnology. 2024;34(3):252–64. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05347-23
  13. 13. Finneran A, Sullivan L. Effects of grip type and wrist posture on forearm EMG activity, endurance time and movement accuracy. Int J Ind Ergon. 2013;43:91–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.11.012
  14. 14. Kumari S, Tewari VK, Kumar S. Effect of load on upper extremity muscles of agricultural workers of West Bengal. Int J Occup Saf Health. 2023;13(3):470–83. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijosh.v13i4.52917
  15. 15. Hoozemans MJ, Kuijer PPF, Kingma I, Dieën JH, Vries WH, Der Woude LH, et al. Mechanical loading of the lower back and shoulders during pushing and pulling activities. Ergonomics. 2004;47(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130310001593577

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.