Loading...

Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika

Testing and Evaluation of Peeling Tools

DOI: 10.18805/BKAP273    | Article Id: BKAP273 | Page : 62-67
Citation :- Testing and Evaluation of Peeling Tools.Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika.2021.(36):62-67
Promilakrishna Chahal, Kiran Singh promilakrishnachahal@hau.ac.in
Address : Department of Family Resource Management, COHS, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125004, Haryana, India.
Submitted Date : 11-05-2021
Accepted Date : 22-06-2021
First Online:

Abstract

Background: In different regions of the country, they use the only knife for cutting, peeling and chopping the vegetables. The knife caused some design related problems when it is used for peeling. The present study was undertaken to identify those problems and suggest appropriate tool for same purposes.
Methods: The performance of each tool (knife and peeler) was studied after a year of use by rural women for peeling purposes. Performance of peeling was analyzed on the basis of peeling efficient, peel thickness, peel weight proportion and capacity of each tool. A psychophysical study was done to compare the both tools based on women preferences. 
Conclusion: The capacity and peeling efficiency of the peeler (x=980.39±80.5 grams/min and respectively) were found to be higher than knife (x=440.26±38.9 grams/min. and). The wastage of fruits/vegetables in peel was also found less (9.0% with thickness of peel was (x=1.1±1.9mm) by using peeler. Peeler was found to be reducing the peeling time (35.29%) as well as making the peeling task easy (∑=3.54) for women. As well as use of peeler was significantly (p=0.05) reducing the problems of pain, stiffness, cuts in hands and was found highly accepted (∑=4.37) by women for peeling purposes.

Keywords

Capacity Knife Peeler Peeling efficiency Peeling tools

References

  1. Agrawal, Y.C. (1987). Ginger peeling machine parameters. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia. Africa and Latin America. 18(2): 59-62.
  2. Baber, C. (2003). Cognition and Tool Use – Forms of Engagement in Human and Animal Use of Tools. London and Bristol: Taylor and Francis. 
  3. Balami, A.A., Mohammed, I.A., Adebayo, S.E., Adgidzi, D. and Adelemi, A.A. (2012). The relevance of some engineering properties of cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta) in the design of post- harvest processing machinery. Academic Research International. 2(3): 53- 59.
  4. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). American Time Use Survey. United States Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/tus/#tables.
  5. Dhara, C. Dhara, De, S., Sengupta, P., Maity, P. and Pal, A. (2015). An ergonomic approach for designing Indian traditional vegetable cutter, Work 50 (2015) 177–186. DOI 10.3233/WOR-131721 IOS Press
  6. Dhesi, J.K. (1973). Functional design of household equipment cited by Dhesi proceedings of Seminar-cum-workshop of household equipment held from 9-11 January. 1973. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
  7. Ebe, K. and Griffin, M.J. (2001). Factors affecting static seat cushion comfort. Ergon. 44: 901.
  8. Gaodi, A.M., Datey, P.A., Pariyal, G.S., Nakhate, A., Burnure, S. and Wadode, G.G. (2017). Design and Fabrication of Potato Peeling Machine. IJARIIE. 3(2): 1713-1715.
  9. Gustafsson, K., Andersson, J., Andersson, I., Nydahl, M., Sjoden, P.O. and Sidenvall, B. (2002). Associations between perceived cooking ability, dietary intake and meal patterns among older women. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition. 46(1): 31-39.
  10. Kreifeldt, G.J., Hill, H.P. (1975). Toward a Theory of Man-Tool System Design Applications to the Consumer Product Area. Proceedings. Human Factors Society.
  11. Kuijt-Evers and Lottie F.M. The Design of Artisans’ Hand Tools: Users’ Perceived Comfort and Discomfort; International Handbook of Occupational Therapy Interventions. Part 2, New York: Springer; 2009. p. 167.
  12. Kumari, P., Kumar, A. and Dayal, R. (2017). Ergonomic Assessment of the Existing Design of Selected Kitchen Tools. TECHNOFAME- A Journal of Multidisciplinary Advance Research. 6(2): 35-40.
  13. Ritzel, K., and Donelson, T.H. (2001). Human Factors Gets Cooking. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications. 9(1): 15-19. http://doi.org/10.1177/1064 80460100900104.
  14. Singh, K.V. (2017). Testing and evaluation of Pedal operated potato peeler. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering.10(2): 465-467. DOI: 10.15740/HAS/IJAE/10.2/465-467
  15. Stone, T. R., Janusz M.O. and chnieders, T. (2018). Ergonomic Analysis of Modern Day Kitchen Knives. Conference Paper in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annua Meeting. DOI: 10.1177/1541931218621306.
  16. Temam, M. (2017). Design, Construction and Performance Evaluation of Power Driven Potato Peeling Machine. International Journal of Engineering Research, Vol.5., Issue.6, 2017 Nov-Dec.

Global Footprints