OPERATOR EFFORT ON THE OPERATION OF THE KNAPSACK SPRAYER PUMPING LEVER

Several equipments are used in the application of agrochemicals by small scale farmers, with emphasis on the knapsack hand sprayer due to the low cost of acquisition and viability of use in different operating conditions. Although it is an equipment widely used, few studies have been developed in order to ascertain its functional characteristics. This study has the objective of presenting a methodology to measure the effort to which the operator is subjected in the activation of the pumping lever of knapsack hand sprayer verifying if these machines fit within the limitations foreseen by the Brazilian laws and international regulations. The methodology used was adequate to measure the operator’s required efforts for the activation of knapsack hand sprayer. All sprayers tested with water have achieved satisfactory results by national standards, but only two by international regulations.


INTRODUCTION
The applications of pesticides are made by means of spraying, that is, by the generation and emission of liquid particles, in order to control pests and help to increase the productivity of the crops, being part of the world agricultural production (Silva et al., 2015).
Several equip ments are used in the application of agrochemicals, and in the family properties the knapsack hand sprayer is highlighted due to the low cost of acquisition and variability of use in different operating conditions (Lopes et al., 2011) and technologies, as it can incorporate even the electrostatic charging of the spray liquid (Mamidi et al., 2013).
The standard ISO 19932-1: 2013 (Crop Protection Equip ment -Knapsack sprayer Part 1: Requirements and test methods) specifies the min imu m requirements, test methods and performance limits for the knapsack sprayer in order to ensure safety.
According to Souza & Santana (2011) workers, when using heavy equipment are subject to fatigue and development of musculoskeletal problems.The authors recommend the adoption of posture training, workout gymnastics and the adoption of scheduled breaks to mitigate the risks involved due to the sprayer weight.This recommendation is hardly followed by the users of knapsack sprayers.Sasaki et al. (2014) indirectly measured the physical effort to work with knapsack hand sprayers (cardiac frequency and O 2 consumption), classifying this activity as "moderately heavy".
According to Freitas (2006) knapsack sprayer work requires the operator to constantly move the left upper limb (arm) when it act ivates the tank pressure lever, moving the upper right limb, d irecting the nozzle by means of the boom sprayer and a constant walk with the sprayer being carried on his back.When it is called the left or right upper limb, the right becomes the predominant member and the left is the non-predominant member, thus characterizing right or left-handed people.These requirements call into question two important aspects: the effort required by a knapsack sprayer operator on the repetitive movement of the arm which act ivates the pumping lever, and the consequence of this to the operator during the execution of the wo rk.According to the author repetitive effort can develop muscular fatigue, a fact that has not been researched for knapsack sprayers.The knowledge of this characteristic has also led to the development of alternative equipment based on the knapsack hand sprayer using the tractor as a power source (França et al., 2015).
There is litt le informat ion that provides parameters of maximu m effort applied in upper limbs, particularly the shoulder, arm and forearm of a worker.Ho wever, Phadke et al. (1992)  The NR-17 in its item 17.2 (Regulatory Standard No. 17 of the Ministry of Labor of Brazil) wh ich describes about the overview, transport and individual discharge of materials, there is no reference to maximu m weights.The most indicated value was the NASA-STD-3000B (Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS)), wh ich reports that th e maximu m effort (at worst) of an operator with the arm at 60° (Figure 1a) is 53.6 N for the left arm in ascending motion (Figure 1d) and 60.8 N in descending motion (Figure 1e).For the right arm, the maximu m effo rt is 71.2 N, both for the ascending movement (Figure 1d) and descending (Figure 1e).The NASA-STD-3000B also reveals that tests on young men, 80% (5th percentile group) with ample working space, 95% of these can lift weights at the follo wing heights: 180 N at a height of 1.5 m, 280 N at a height of 0.9 m, 590 N at a height of 0.6 m and 680 N at a height of 0.3 m.Therefore, this study has the objective of presenting a methodology to measure the effort to which the operator is subjected in the activation of the knapsack sprayers pumping lever verifying if these machines fit within the limitat ions foreseen by the Brazilian laws and international regulations.

MATERIAL AND MET HODS
The study was carried out in the facilities of the Nucleus of Innovation in Agricultural Machinery and Equip ment (NIM Eq) at Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL).
In order to carry out the tests, six models of sprayers were selected for being the most offered in the agricultural equip ment trade and in virtual stores of the national market.For the evaluation, the equipment were randomly labeled A, B, C, D, E and F, to evaluate their conformity with respect to the requirements, test methods and minimu m performance prescribed by the standard ISO 19932-1:2013.The sprayers studied were fro m brand Guarany, model: SE-20, Brudden, model: S-20, Macrotop, model: M PM-200, Eccofer, model: Eccofer 20l and Jacto, models: PJH 20l and XP 20l, but will not be identified in the results.Out of these, two do not have option of inversion activation on the right or left side.
The sprayers were individually adapted to a test rig (Figure 2a).In this, the sprayer pumping lever is activated by a device made by a crank rod system type Scotch Yoke Mechanism ® (Figure 2b), wh ich transforms uniform circular motion into alternating linear motion, provided by a "V" mobile roller mechanism (Figure 2c).In order to measure the effort exerted on the pumping lever (act ivation arm) of each sprayer, two pumping lever system was constructed in parallel, according to Figure 3a, where a dynamometer, commercially known as Digital Scale Hook WeiHeng, model 128, resolution of 0.010 kgf, capacity of 40 kgf (Figure 3b) which allowed the verification of the values on the applied efforts in different positions of the movement on the sprayers pumping levers.For data recording regarding to the reading of different applied loads in the different positions of the pumping lever, we used a digital camera, Oly mpus brand, model VR 320.The lower pu mping lever activation occurred by means of the crank rod mechanism.The dynamometer was fixed between the two levers by means of cables, obtaining measurements of the activation efforts when the upper lever of the sprayer was moved downwards by means of the activation mechanism, simu lating the activation movement of the operator.
The mechanism developed made it possible to perform the movements of the sprayer pumping lever with the necessary amplitude for each model, allo wing adjustment to the different course and length measures of the pumping levers, according to the constructive model of each of the tested equipment.
The activation speed was adjusted digitally by means of a frequency inverter, W EG b rand, model CFW 08, wh ich allowed the variation of the rotation between zero (0.00) and 999.9 rp m, thus allowing the control of the pump activation number per minute, that is, the number of the lever activations.The frequency of 650 Hz was used in this equipment providing rotation of 21 rp m, thus allowing the sprayers to reach the required working pressure, which was stabilized at 300 kPa, accord ing to the standard ISO 19932-1: 2013.The pressure was controlled by a COMAM pressure gauge with a scale from0 to 2.06 MPa.The spray tip used was Magno 11001-AD brand, made of ceramic and anti-drift type spray jet for all tests.This was chosen for being common ly sold with the equipment in question and working with the established standard pressure in the 300 kPa.
The readings of different applied loads in the different positions of the activation lever were filmed, allo wing the data collection to be stored in a spreadsheet for later analysis.First we tested the empty sprayers and later with water working with pressure of 300 kPa, being me asured finally the loads necessary to return the pumping lever to the superior position.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA ) was performed using the Tukey test at the 5% probability level and Shapiro-Wilk (W) test for the three studied conditions (return before reaching 300 kPa and after reach the pressure of 300 kPa), considering six levels for spray models (A, B, C, D, E and F).When the treatment data did not present significant normal d istribution (p <0.05) it performed a logarith mic transformation of the data.The sprayer was analyzed empty and with water flu id in order to obtain homogeneity for the measurement of applied efforts to the sprayer pumping levers.The average effort and number of activations (cycles) were analyzed to achieve a pressure of 300 kPa.When this pressure was reached, the effort was measured for a period of 30 seconds with the trigger triggered, as prescribed in the standard ISO 19932-1: 2013.Sprayer model was considered as treatment and number of cycles as repetitions in each test.The performed tests were: average return effort required to the operator, the effort and the quantities of cycles required reaching the 300 kPa pressure and the required cycles and amounts of cycles after reaching the pressure of 300 kPa to check pressure maintenance during work.The response variables were number of cycles, average activation effort (N), maximu m activation effort (N) and time (s) in each cycle (displacement of the pumping lever fro m top to bottom and its return to top).

RES ULTS AND DISCUSS ION
The normality test after the 300 kPa pressure showed normal d istribution by the Shapiro-Wilk test (W) and significant (p <0.05).However, the observation of the scatter chart for the means of return efforts (Figure 4) shows an asymmetry fo r the means of the determined efforts with CV lower than 22% (Table 1).Mean values of the return efforts, and to reach pressure of 300 kPa did not present a significant normal distribution (p <0.05).With the logarithmic t ransformat ion of the data it was observed that they adjusted satisfactorily to the normal and significant distribution (p> 0.5).The averages followed by the same letter do not differ from each other at a significance level of 5%.
When testing with the empty sprayers it was not possible to reach the working pressure of 300 kPa, this is due to the decrease in air volume inside the sprayer tank and the inability of the activation pump to be able to compress the air until reach the pressure of 300 kPa.
By analyzing the return efforts in the activation when water was used in the sprayer tank (Table 1 and Figure 4) it was verified that sprayer "D" was the one with the lowest value in this operation, being significantly different fro m the others.The average value obtained with this sprayer was 3.82 N with maximu m of 4.81 N. Sprayers "A" and "B" were the ones that provided the highest mean values of the activation effort, at the rate of 14.32 N and 14.10 N, respectively, almost four times greater than the value obtained with "D" sprayer, not having differed significantly fro m each other.The "E" and "F" sprayers did not differ fro m each other, in relation to the average activation effort presenting the second highest value, wh ich were 12.19 N and 12.52 N, respectively.On the other hand, the "C" sprayer differed fro m the others with a mean activation effort of 7.11 N, practically twice as great as the effort obtained with the "D" sprayer, which was the lowest.
The results demonstrate that the maximu m upward effort required by the sprayer pumping lever was 17.46 N (sprayer A).Co mparing the result with the value obtained by Phadke et al. (1992) wh ich was 18.70 N it verified that the results are very close, characterizing agreement of results.This fact can be attributed to the technology of the liquid pu mping, which was practically unchanged in these mach ines in the considered period.The CLT -Law no.6,514 pred icts as limit 147.1 N fo r the upper limbs, considering only one of the limbs.Yet the NASA-STD-3000B limits to 53.6 N. Therefore, the maximu m return effort of the pumping lever is below the limits foreseen by CLT and NASA.When analyzing the activation effort required reaching300 kPa pressure for the water fluid (Table 2), the "E" sprayer provided the lowest average effort, with a value of 10.10 N.However, it required 15 cycles to reach this pressure which was due to the fact that for this sprayer there was a need for increasing activation efforts at each cycle.Sprayer "A" was the one that provided the least number of act ivations (8 cycles) to reach the pressure of 300 kPa, demonstrating that it has a higher pressure capacity per cycle when co mpared to the others.Among the tested models it can be considered as the most efficient, although it requires higher activation effort (37.76 N).Th is can be caused by greater use of the work due to, for example, a more perfect fit between the cylinder and the piston, or higher cylinder volume.Sprayers "C", "D", "E" and "F" d id not differ in relat ion to the average activation effort, presenting the lowest values which were 19.81 N; 24.61 N; 10.10 N and 22.65 N; respectively.Sprayer "B" d iffered fro m "C", "E" and "F" with an average activation effort of 38.05 N, almost four times greater than the effort obtained with the "E" sprayer, which was the smallest.
The results demonstrate that the maximu m (downward) effort required by the sprayer pumping lever was 69.3 N (Sprayer D).Considering the CLT -Law no.6,514, the activation effort required to achieve the 300 kPa pressure was below the proposed limits.However, compared to that recommended by NASA -STD-3000B, the effort is above the limit of 60.8 N for the left arm, but within the limit for the right arm o f 71.2 N in descending movement wh ich is the predominant arm of the operators.The averages followed by the same letter do not differ from each other at a significance level of 5%.
Analyzing the effort after reach300 kPa p ressure for the water fluid (Tab le 3) it was verified that the "A" sprayer required a lower average effort and a lower maximu m effort which were respectively 26.73 N and 34.72 N. In this way, it can be affirmed that the "A" sprayer becomes, among the analyzed equipment, the one which provides greater comfort to the operator.The sprayers "B", "C" and "F" d id not differ in relation to the average activation effort, presenting intermediate values which were 54.19 N; 65.24 N and 59.27 N, respectively.On the other hand, the "D" sprayer differed fro m the others with average value activation effort of 88.89 N, more than three times the obtained effort with the "A" sprayer which was the lowest (26.73 N).Finally, sprayer "E" (46.45 N) also differed significantly fro m the others.
The results demonstrate that the maximu m effort required by the sprayer pumping lever was 108.56 N (Sprayer D).Considering the CLT -Law no.6,514, the activation effort required to achieve the 300 kPa pressure was below the proposed limits.However, according to NASA-STD-3000B, the effort is above the limit of 60.8 N for the left arm with downward movement.0.13 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.07 The averages followed by the same letter do not differ fro m each other at a significance level of 5%.
The data of the activation efforts measured in the sprayers with water are shown in the scatter chart, shown in Figure 5.It is noted that the "A" sprayer, in addition to requiring lower values, also provides decreasing activation effort over time, while the others require increasing activation efforts.In general, the results demonstrate that the "A" Sprayer required more effort for the return activation (17.46 N).The "D" sprayer required a higher activation effort fo r both before and after reaching the pressure at 300 kPa, being 69.33 N, 108.56 N, respectively.The "E" Sprayer was the least intense in relation to the average activation effort to obtain the pressure of 300 kPa (10.10 N).The "A" Sprayer was the most regular and least intense in relation to the average activation effort to maintain the pressure of 300 kPa (26.73 N), besides requiring a smaller amount of activation cycles of the pumping lever to reach the work pressure.
Although we obtained only one bibliographical reference that could make the co mparisons of the results and despite of this reference being very old, it was observed that the results were very similar to those found by Phadke et al. (1992).Therefo re, the application of the proposed methodology proved to be efficient, easy and of low cost, so that further studies could be done to provide data for the analysis of the ergonomic working conditions of sprayers and other manual activation lever.

CONCLUS IONS
The emp loyed methodology was adequate to measure the operator's upward and downward effort required for the operation of knapsack hand sprayers.Considering the Brazilian laws, CLT -Law no.6,514, all sprayers obtained satisfactory results, i.e. with effort values below the expected limit.Ho wever, only "A" and "E" sprayers obtained satisfactory results for the international indicat ions (NASA-STD-3000B) for manual activation lever.
evaluated the ergonomic conditions of a knapsack sprayer operator.The authors themselves claim to be pioneers in this study; for the tests were considered four models of knapsack sprayers.The results obtained were: average effort to lo wer the pumping lever of 71.40 N and to raise, an average effort of 18.70 N, not distinguishing the right arm fro m the left; number of strokes required to create 300 kPa pressure was 10.15 and the number of strokes required to maintain the 300 kPa pressure was 11.05, mean values.No other relevant materials were found, as mentioned, most of them are ergonomic analyzes of different operations, but it can also be mentioned the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT -Brazilian Law nº.6.514 de 22.12.1977), in its Chapter V, Sect ion XIV, article 198, wh ich establishes as being 60 kg the maximu m weight that an employee can remove individually.However, Bill of law No. 5,746-C modified this law in 2003, setting this value at 30 kg.Therefo re for on ly one arm it is arbitrated that it is the half of 15 kg or 147.1 N.
FIGURE 3.Pu mp ing lever system for transferring the applied efforts on the sprayers pumping levers (a) and digital scale to measure the efforts (b).

FIGURE 4 .
FIGURE 4. Dispersion graphs of the return effort on the sprayer pumping lever tested with water.

FIGURE 5 .
FIGURE 5. Scatter chart of the efforts of the sprayer pumping lever tested with water.

TABLE 1 .
Average return effort required by sprayer operator when supplied with water.

TABLE 2 .
Results of the efforts and amounts of cycles required to achieve a pressure of 300 kPa with water.

TABLE 3 .
Results of pumping lever act ivation efforts after reaching 300 kPa pressure with water.