Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2025 Sep 5;14:477. Originally published 2025 May 6. [Version 3] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.163622.3

Ergonomic Design and Evaluation of Cloth-Pulling Devices for Praewa Silk Weavers 

Wuttichai Yota 1, Manida Swangnetr Neubert 2,3, Teeraphun Kaewdok 4,5,a
PMCID: PMC12449686  PMID: 40979285

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 2

We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments provided by four reviewers, having previously addressed the feedback from the first reviewers. As part of this revision, we have revised abstract conclusion including specific and actionable recommendations based on the study findings. we mentioned the study region and the sampling framework for drawing the study sample, explained for choosing a particular study area, update Table 1, Figure 4 and enhanced the manuscript’s language, clarity, and overall flow.

Abstract

Background

Traditional weaving professionals pull cloth manually during the handloom process, which can lead to several unnoticed musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to design and evaluate the effectiveness of cloth-pulling devices for Praewa silk weavers in Thailand.

Methods

An experimental trial was conducted using surface electromyography to evaluate weavers’ muscle activity, productivity and perceived satisfaction during the Praewa silk-pulling process while employing traditional cloth pulling, using a standard cloth-pulling device and using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device.

Results

The results showed that the levels of muscle activity and hand activity with the prototype design were generally lower than those with traditional cloth pulling and with the standard cloth-pulling device (p < 0.01). There was a significant preference for the prototype, based on productivity and perceived satisfaction (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The new cloth-pulling device was found to be both applicable and well accepted by the weavers. It is recommended that future research include ergonomic assessments such as muscle activity and fatigue measurements during actual field production to further refine the tool design. Additionally, workstation modifications and improvements to working conditions should be explored to enhance overall ergonomics and worker well-being in the weaving industry Practical implementation of these recommendations may contribute to increased productivity and reduced work-related discomfort among weavers.

Keywords: Informal workers, Well-being, Safety, Decent work, Hand tools, Muscular effort, Electromyography

Introduction

The informal labour sector constitutes the largest segment of the workforce in Thailand. According to the 2023 Labour Force Survey conducted by the National Statistical Office, 18.47 million people, representing 31.35% of the population, were identified as being outside the formal labour force. Among this group, skilled workers accounted for 10.68%. The safety of the working environment within this sector has declined, with workplace safety rates dropping from 7.21% in 2022 to 6.64% in 2023. 1 The profession of producing Prawa silk, which is considered a unique craft of the Phu Thai people, is renowned and recognised by both governments and the private sector at the national and international levels. It is a traditional occupation of villagers in northeastern Thailand, with the majority located in Kalasin Province. The artisans who produce Praewa silk create pieces that are typically 1 wah (2 cm) or one arm’s length in size. Each piece takes between 3 months and 1 year to make. On average, artisans weave for approximately 3–6 hours per day and produce approximately 3–5 cm of silk, depending on the complexity of the pattern. 2 This leads to an increased risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), particularly ergonomic problems, and there are significant cases of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among professionals in this occupation. According to a previous survey working condition among weavers, working more than 8 hours a day was found to account for 97.40% of MSD cases. Regarding work-related stress, 54.80% of weavers experienced occasional stress, 20.00% experienced frequent stress and 16.10% reported no work-related stress. 3 A quarter of the weavers report that their pain has caused them to stop working for 1–30 days. Age, years of experience and daily hours worked all have an impact on the prevalence of WMSDs, as do extended workdays, awkward postures and repetitive limb movements. 4 The prevalence of MSDs among handloom weavers in Thailand who use the traditional handloom weaving technique has been found to be the highest, at shoulder (91.43%), lower back (85.71%) and wrists (60.00%), respectively. 5 In a study by Daneshmandi et al. 6 found that the prevalence of WMSDs and ergonomic risk factors among assembly line workers. The results for MSDs were mostly associated with the lower back (73.6%), wrists/hands (71.7%) and neck (67.9%). Most (80%) of the working postures analysed using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) were at action levels 3 or 4. 6 Kaewdok 7 stated that ergonomic risk factors, such as work posture, behaviour, tools, equipment and the working environment, can lead to injuries when there is a mismatch between the workload and the worker’s abilities and limitations. This is particularly true for WMSDs. In Thailand, these disorders have resulted in up to 3.8 million lost workdays due to medical treatment in 2020. 1 According to occupational health reports, the most common occupational illness, accounting for 45% of cases of MSDs. The most common problem encountered by informal sector workers in the work occupational was repetitive motion at work for 39.9% of workers. 1 A study of Besharati found that the highest rate of prevalence of MSDs within the last 12 months. 8 In the case of Praewa silk weaving, the work involves repetitive hand movements to pull silk threads into patterns, requiring weavers to spend prolonged periods pulling individual threads while maintaining the same posture. This process includes wrist rotations during the insertion of threads to create patterns in the fabric. Furthermore, no supportive tools are available to alleviate physical strain during the weaving process. Therefore, it is essential to design an ergonomic handle. 9

Figure 3.2 . (A) Traditional cloth pulling, (B) Postures of Praewa silk weavers.


Figure 3.2

Ergonomics is an interdisciplinary field that studies human characteristics, capabilities and limitations to optimise work conditions. It includes job characteristics, posture, tools and equipment to ensure that workers are comfortable, safe and have a good quality of life with minimal injuries and accidents. Ergonomics also involves studying the relationship between workers and their work environments. 10 This concept is combined with user-centred design principles through the design thinking process, which consists of five steps: understanding behaviour, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping and finally testing and evaluating. 11 This aligns with the capabilities of workers in Thailand as the country advances towards Industry 4.0. This era marks a transformation in industrial systems through the adoption of advanced technology and automation to produce goods more quickly, efficiently and with higher quality. Key factors for evaluating worker capabilities include adherence to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aimed at promoting sustainable development globally. The goal for worldwide good health promotes healthy lifestyles, preventive measures and modern, efficient healthcare for everyone aligns with SDG 3 – to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages by fostering good health and well-being across all age groups – and also supports SDGs 8: to promote sustained, inclusive economic growth through improved labour productivity and the development of technology and innovation in production. This goal is full and productive employment with meaningful work for everyone by 2030 with established by the United Nations in 2015. 12 The production of Praewa silk by the Phu Tai community in Ban Phon has experienced significant growth in both quantity and quality. This traditional textile is distinguished by its intricate patterns and substantial dimensions. The price of Praewa silk typically ranges from 15,000 to 40,000 baht per piece. However, certain designs that require a high level of craftsmanship and take approximately 5 to 6 months to complete can command prices between 50,000 and 100,000 baht. This study focused on Praewa silk weavers in Northeastern Thailand, a group who have inherited traditional weaving practices from their ancestors and for whom the use of modern machinery is not feasible. The development of this new cloth-pulling device aims to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries associated with weaving and to sustainably enhance income for people in these communities.

It is essential to design cloth-pulling devices for Praewa silk weavers that reduce the risk of wrist injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, De Quervain’s tendonitis and trigger finger. Proper ergonomic design for silk-pulling tools can help align with workers’ physiology, enhance safety and improve overall work efficiency. 13 By adhering to ergonomic principles, these tools can reduce strain and potential injuries, leading to safer and more effective working environments. 14 The novelty of this research lies in the design of a Praewa silk cloth-pulling devices that adheres to ergonomic principles, specifically tailored for Praewa silk weavers. This innovation aims to enhance worker safety and improve operational efficiency by aligning with the physical capabilities of the users. Furthermore, the device is expected to reduce work-related musculoskeletal discomfort and increase overall production capacity. The design of cloth-pulling devices based on ergonomics can help alleviate worker discomfort and increase productivity. This study aims to design and evaluate ergonomic cloth-pulling devices for Praewa silk weavers to enhance production efficiency and reduce the risk of MSDs through proper ergonomic principles. The study aims to design an ergonomics-based cloth-pulling device and to evaluate the effectiveness of such devices for Praewa silk weavers.

Methods

Participants

Twenty-nine female Praewa silk weavers volunteered to participate in this study. The sample size was calculated using the mean maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) among handloom weavers from a previous study. 5 The participants were aged between 40 and 70 years (mean = 55.28; SD = 7.99); all were right-handed and none had a history of bone dislocation or injury to the upper-body extremities. Before taking part in the experimental procedure, each participant was briefed about the purpose of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Due to the fact that Kalasin province has the highest concentration of Praewa silk weavers in Thailand, accounting for 87.50% of the total population of Praewa silk weavers.

Sample size selection process: The sample size for this study was determined using statistical power analysis to ensure that the study would have sufficient power to detect a meaningful difference in muscle activity between workstations. The formula described by Heinisch (1965) was applied, which is commonly used to estimate the required sample size when comparing two means. The calculation incorporated the following parameters: n = number of samples. Zα = The statistical significance level; at the 0.05 level, the value is 1.96. Zβ = Corresponds to a test power of 95%, with a value of 1.645. Δ = The difference in mean muscle electrical activity of the weavers between the traditional workstation and the experimental workstation, based on related research. The measurement is expressed in %MVC. The experimental condition involves a seated workstation at a 0-degree seat angle and a 10-degree cloth angle from the horizontal line. The observed difference is 7.97. 5 σ = The standard deviation of the difference in mean %MVC, with a value of 5.61. 5

The formula used was as follows:

n=(Zα+Zβ(σ)Δ)2

Upon substituting the specified values:

n=(1.96+1.645(7.97)5.61)2=(5.12)2=26.22

To prevent data loss and ensure sufficient response from participants, the calculated sample size was increased by 10%. This result was rounded up, and data were ultimately collected from 29 participants. In summary, the sample size was determined using statistical power analysis, specifically the Heinisch (1965) formula for comparing means, with all parameter values based on established standards and previous research findings. This method was chosen to maximize the validity and reliability of the study results.

This study was conducted in Kalasin province, Thailand, which is the area with the highest number of Praewa silk weavers. The sample was selected using purposive sampling from Praewa silk weavers in Kalasin province. Subsequently, the participants were assigned to three experimental conditions using block randomization. A total of 29 volunteers participated in the study, and they were allocated to one of the following experimental conditions: (A) traditional cloth pulling, (B) using a standard cloth-pulling device and (C) using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device.

Although most Praewa silk weavers are of relatively advanced age, this study carefully considered both the age and substantial weaving experience of the participants. To ensure the relevance of the findings to musculoskeletal disorders arising from long-term repetitive work, we specifically included subjects who had a minimum of 10 years of continuous weaving experience.

The nature of work and working environment in Praewa silk weaving involve repetitive silk-thread pulling in a fixed posture. Weavers typically work 6 to 8 hours per day, performing the same repetitive tasks. This type of work poses a risk of developing wrist-related musculoskeletal disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, De Quervain’s tendonitis, and trigger finger.

Physiological measurements

From the study on the working conditions, health impacts, and musculoskeletal risk among Praewa silk weavers, the key findings are as follows:

  • 1.

    Working characteristics and use of equipment: The majority of participants did not use any assistive devices during weaving (77.27%), resulting in repeated manual and arm exertion, which increased their risk of musculoskeletal discomfort and injuries.

  • 2.

    Prevalence of MSDs: In the past 12 months, 96.46% of respondents reported musculoskeletal pain or injury related to work, while 84.85% reported such symptoms during the past 7 days. The most commonly affected body parts were the wrists, fingers, and neck.

  • 3.

    Postural risk assessment: Assessment of upper limb working posture using 198 observed postures revealed an average grand total score of 6.89±0.31, suggesting a relatively high level of risk for musculoskeletal disorders.

  • 4.

    Hand mobility and muscle strength: The average mobility score of the right hand was 2.90±2.14, which was higher than the left hand (1.99±1.22). Additionally, the grip strength of the dominant hand (0.35±0.07) was greater than that of the non-dominant hand (0.29±0.60), reflecting repetitive use of the dominant limb.

  • 5.

    Overall workplace safety: Almost all participants (nearly 99%) perceived a high risk of work-related injuries, which affected their health and quality of life.

Incorporating physiological data into the design process helps produce tools that are suitable, safe, minimize injuries, and enhance work efficiency. If you need examples of measurement methods or case studies.

Hand anthropometric measurements

In this study, 10 hand anthropometric dimensions were measured for each participant. These dimensions were chosen based on their usefulness relative to the design considerations for cloth-pulling devices, with an emphasis on comfort and safety. Based on the hand proportion measurements, the cloth-pulling devices were designed as lightweight plastic hooks shaped like a parrot’s beak. The dimensions of the tools were determined from 10 hand measurements: hand length, palm breadth, palm circumference, thumb finger length, index finger length, palm thickness, hand circumference, hand breadth, maximum spread and grip diameter ( Figure 1).

Figure 1. Hand anthropometric dimensions.


Figure 1.

Percentiles: Indicates the percentage of the population that falls below a certain measurement. For example, the 5 th, 50 th and 95 th percentiles are commonly reported.

Mean (min–max): The average (mean) value of a measurement, along with its minimum and maximum recorded values in the sample population.

SD (Standard Deviation): A measure of the spread or variability in the data.

CV (Coefficient of Variation): The standard deviation divided by the mean (usually expressed as a percentage). Indicates the extent of variability in relation to the mean.

Details of the hand anthropometric measurement are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The 10 hand anthropometric measurements of the study participants (n = 29).

Hand anthropometric dimensions * Percentiles Mean (min–max) SD CV
5 th 50 th 95 th
Hand length 15.50 14.70 16.20 14.78 (11.50–17.30) 0.82 5.55
Palm breadth 4.60 5.50 6.40 5.51 (4.00–7.20) 0.56 9.98
Palm circumference 15.20 17.80 21.10 17.79 (14.10–21.40) 1.83 10.29
Thumb finger length 5.60 6.20 7.10 6.31 (5.20–7.90) 0.49 7.77
Index finger length 4.70 5.20 7.00 5.43 (4.10–8.70) 0.63 11.60
Palm thickness 1.40 1.60 1.80 1.60 (1.30–1.90) 0.133 8.13
Hand circumference 16.40 20.00 23.10 19.73 (15.60–23.80) 2.15 10.90
Hand breadth 5.60 6.50 8.21 6.66 (4.20–9.00) 0.75 7.83
Maximum spread 13.70 14.75 17.50 15.21 (12.80–24.00) 1.46 10.36
Grip diameter 3.20 4.10 4.60 4.05 (3.00–5.20) 0.36 8.64
*

All dimensions are in cm.

Prototype cloth-pulling device design

Based on the results of the walkthrough survey phase, pulling cloth manually, as the most commonly used approach in Praewa silk weaving operations, was of central attention. The following design procedure was followed:

  • Understanding behaviour: Interactions were examined among the weavers’ characteristics, work conditions, tools/equipment and health effects. A collection of the hand tools currently used for Praewa silk weaving was provided.

  • Defining the problem: The problem was clearly defined based on user feedback and ergonomic analysis. A problem statement was formulated to address the specific ergonomic issues identified.

  • Ideating: Hand tools for Praewa silk weaving were studied during operation to consider the design/redesign requirements and determine the specifications, including weight, texture, handle shape and hand posture during application.

  • Prototyping: 1) New models of cloth-pulling devices were developed according to the hand anthropometrics of the weavers and ergonomic design principles to reduce the risk of MSDs during the weaving task. The cloth-pulling devices’ handles were made of plastic polyester materials. Handle length was calculated using the 95 th percentile of hand length (16.20 cm), handle width using hand circumference (23.10 cm) and handle diameter using grip diameter (4.60 cm) ( Figure 2). The diameter of a clenched fist was used to set the width of the hand-insertion gap on the handle, which was 4.60 cm. The palm thickness was 1.80 cm, which, when combined for both sides, became 3.60 cm. The hook tip length extending from the handle was 3.38 cm. These measurements were used for 3D modeling of both the front and back views. 2) The model was then fabricated as a cloth-pulling device designed according to ergonomic principles. 3) The prototype was tested with Praewa silk weavers in two rounds. In the first round, it was found that the handle’s surface was not smooth. 4) The researchers thus developed a new prototype with a smooth handle surface, which was then ready for the next stages. Developing new models of pull cloth device according to hand anthropometric of the weavers and ergonomic design principles to reduce the risk of MSDs during the weaving task. The handles were made plastic polyester materials.

  • Testing and evaluating: A usability test was conducted to assess the comfort and applicability of the hand tools designed for cloth-pulling and the weavers’ perceptions of them. The authors conducted preliminary tests prior to this study; however, these were not included in the research report.

Figure 2. Ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device.


Figure 2.

Experimental design

The researcher administered a preliminary questionnaire in Phase I to investigate the muscle groups involved in the weaving process. The results showed that the muscles most frequently used for wrist rotation and arm flexion were four major muscles: the upper trapezius, biceps brachii, brachioradialis, and flexor carpi ulnaris. Therefore, these muscles were selected as the primary focus for EMG analysis in this study.

All the participants were randomly divided into three cloth-pulling groups for the experimental trial: (A) traditional cloth pulling, (B) using a standard cloth-pulling device and (C) using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device. Each technique was carried out for 40 minutes. Before starting the experimental trial, the participants were trained to pull cloth using the newly designed devices to avoid errors. The instrument used and the measurement of the variables in this study are described below:

  • Surface electromyography (EMG): EMG signals were recorded during the trials using an eego TM amplifier (EE – 223, revision no. 1.2, Germany). Four channels were used to simultaneously record the EMG activity of four muscles – the upper trapezius, the biceps brachii, the brachioradialis and the flexor carpi ulnaris. 15, 16 These muscles were selected based on their relevance to the weaving task performed, in accordance with a previous study. 17, 18 Skin was prepared using a cotton alcohol swab before surface electrodes were placed on the muscles. The electrodes were placed on the muscles according to the reviewed literature. 19, 20 Bipolar surface electrode placement (disposable Ag/AgCl) with a 2-cm interelectrode distance was performed in accordance with recommendations found in the literature. 2123

  • MVC: Muscle activity was normalised using MVC, which was measured for each muscle at the beginning of the experiment. The root mean square (RMS) values of the surface EMG data (millivolts) of all the muscles were determined for muscle strength and fatigue. Three MVC efforts were performed for each muscle for 5 seconds with three repetitions, with 20 minutes of rest provided between the trials to eliminate traces of muscle fatigue. In all of the tests performed, pressure and resistance were applied by the participants to the respective muscle tendons. 18 Average RMS values were considered for subsequent normalisation of the muscles (upper trapezius, biceps brachii, brachioradialis and flexor carpi ulnaris).

  • Ergonomic observational risk assessment: HAL and normalised peak force were used to identify the level of hand activity on a scale of 0 to 10, where zero is virtually no activity and 10 is the highest imaginable hand activity. 24 Weavers’ HALs were calculated based on observations and interviews regarding their daily exposure duration while weaving Prawa silk. Then, the threshold limit values were grouped into three classifications (below the action value of 0.56, between 0.56 and 0.78 and above the threshold limit value of 0.78). 2527

  • Productivity test: Upon completion of each trial, the Prawa silk length was measured using measurement tape (in cm) to evaluate productivity from the different cloth-pulling hand-tool devices.

  • Perceived usability: To evaluate the user’s experiences when interacting with the cloth-pulling devices, after they had finished weaving, the participants were asked to self-assess their perceived satisfaction between the different models. Each item had a response set using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). 28, 29

In this study, three different cloth pulling devices were used (traditional cloth pulling, a standard cloth-pulling device and an ergonomic cloth-pulling device) ( Figure 3.1). Praewa silk weaver ( Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1 . (A) Traditional cloth pulling. (B) Using a standard cloth-pulling device. (C) Using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device.


Figure 3.1

Statistical analysis

The data analysis was carried out using SPSS Statistics software (v. 23). Descriptive statistics, including number, percentage, percentile, mean and standard deviation (SD), were used to describe the participants’ characteristics, MVC, HAL level, productivity and perceived usability. A normality test was performed to determine whether the value sets were normally distributed, for which a Shapiro–Wilk test was carried out to certify its validity. A one-way ANOVA test was then performed to determine the effects of the cloth-pulling devices (A vs. B vs. C) on the dependent variables. Pairwise comparison tests were conducted using a post hoc test with Tukey’s adjustment. A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Muscle activity

According to the ANOVA results, the main effects of the cloth-pulling devices were statistically significant for muscle activity. The result of Tukey’s post hoc test indicated that weaving with device A required significantly higher exertion levels (%MVC) in the upper trapezius, biceps brachii and brachioradialis compared with device B (p < 0.01) and the flexor carpi ulnaris (p < 0.05). Higher muscle activity was recorded for device B than for device C (p < 0.01) and for device A than for device C (p < 0.01) in each muscle, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Effect of the cloth-pulling devices on muscle activity (normalised %MVC) while performing the simulated Praewa silk task.


Figure 4.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Hand activity level

There was a significant difference with regard to the force ratings, which were higher for device A than for device B, for device B than for device C and for device A than for device C (p < 0.01), as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Hand activity level using the three cloth-pulling devices.


Figure 5.

**p < 0.01.

The mean and standard deviation of muscle activity by comparing the %MVC of muscle electrical potentials measured using EMG. The data are categorized by Praewa silk weaving methods: (A) traditional cloth pulling, (B) using a standard cloth-pulling device and (C) using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device, for the following muscles: Upper Trapezius, Biceps brachii, Brachioradialis, and Flexor carpi ulnaris, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

The mean and standard deviation of muscle activity by comparing the %MVC of muscle electrical potentials measured using EMG. The data are categorized by Praewa silk weaving methods: (A) traditional cloth pulling, (B) using a standard cloth-pulling device and (C) using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device, for the following muscles: Upper Trapezius, Biceps brachii, Brachioradialis, and Flexor carpi ulnaris.

n Upper Trapezius
(%MVC)
Biceps brachii
(%MVC)
Brachioradialis
(%MVC)
Flexor carpi ulnaris
(%MVC)
A B C A B C A B C A B C
1 14.44 14.83 9.47 16.61 17.79 8.85 21.78 16.46 10.23 30.10 15.06 9.72
2 14.81 24.34 15.23 14.56 19.05 13.34 17.38 29.88 13.06 29.34 18.19 11.63
3 14.82 16.59 10.74 15.95 15.92 10.08 15.26 16.13 10.03 15.20 15.33 14.13
4 17.61 17.44 10.53 18.44 17.44 12.89 15.04 13.28 13.87 16.28 16.23 10.71
5 17.22 17.75 16.12 18.24 17.54 16.43 20.72 13.88 13.22 19.69 17.30 13.64
6 20.84 17.44 16.30 19.75 17.14 16.05 20.10 16.55 15.83 17.44 17.31 15.68
7 20.74 17.50 14.76 18.65 17.72 15.85 19.43 16.45 14.62 20.50 17.67 15.42
8 21.58 17.46 14.46 19.78 16.45 15.04 19.11 15.12 13.86 21.65 17.17 15.01
9 17.58 14.17 10.61 20.44 16.45 14.76 18.98 15.64 12.30 21.64 16.49 13.90
10 18.07 14.78 11.69 18.53 16.16 13.84 17.79 15.98 14.46 18.37 17.21 13.90
11 20.57 16.61 12.71 18.94 15.14 12.31 22.30 17.17 13.03 21.64 13.13 10.44
12 17.80 13.57 9.68 22.59 18.16 14.77 20.91 16.60 14.19 21.96 17.14 13.97
13 22.37 19.60 14.47 23.95 20.33 15.04 22.59 17.66 14.18 17.16 16.21 12.96
14 23.47 18.09 17.50 22.46 17.89 13.88 20.45 17.39 14.47 23.80 19.15 16.90
15 18.07 16.90 14.47 23.50 19.07 14.24 19.74 15.83 12.10 20.68 17.47 15.64
16 18.74 15.97 14.77 23.80 17.20 14.50 22.47 18.13 15.05 19.27 16.88 13.87
17 20.68 17.77 15.44 19.79 17.45 14.77 20.55 17.53 13.92 22.27 18.10 15.70
18 20.50 15.65 15.11 21.98 17.51 13.86 20.59 17.20 15.04 19.43 17.80 14.62
19 18.07 16.87 16.63 18.10 17.50 12.74 17.18 13.57 12.06 18.11 16.60 12.83
20 21.37 18.70 16.34 22.26 18.98 12.37 20.54 15.25 12.91 21.04 17.46 14.27
21 23.50 19.63 15.47 18.07 17.23 15.40 19.32 16.13 15.07 23.47 18.96 17.48
22 21.74 19.92 17.79 22.27 20.95 18.73 20.19 16.13 13.87 20.81 17.16 16.27
23 18.97 17.47 12.37 18.31 16.63 15.31 22.27 19.60 15.44 19.27 17.26 14.08
24 18.53 17.14 12.80 16.91 16.00 14.78 20.19 17.35 13.28 23.50 19.60 18.97
25 20.81 16.57 14.90 23.50 18.97 17.08 19.39 17.54 15.04 22.23 18.02 17.18
26 17.20 15.76 12.64 18.40 15.98 12.06 20.77 20.33 15.71 21.10 20.08 17.20
27 18.97 15.04 12.47 19.40 17.50 12.37 23.51 20.51 18.40 22.25 18.12 16.49
28 20.50 15.83 15.32 23.80 18.98 18.02 18.40 17.84 15.06 21.97 19.31 16.15
29 22.10 16.61 11.78 18.76 13.93 10.60 17.77 15.06 11.68 20.77 16.12 12.76
Mean±SD 19.36±2.44 17.10±2.08 13.88±2.33 19.92±2.59 17.48±1.49 14.13±2.22 19.81±2.05 17.11±3.01 13.86±1.72 21.06±3.20 17.32±1.43 14.53±2.20

Productivity test

There was a significant difference with regard to Prawa silk lengths, which were shorter with device A than with device B, with device B than with device C and with device A than with device C (p < 0.01), as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Prawa silk length (in cm) using three cloth-pulling devices.


Figure 6.

**p < 0.01.

Perceived usability

A comparison of the mean of perceived satisfaction between devices A, B and C was conducted. The results indicated that the users’ experiences were lower when interacting with device A than with device B, with device B than with device C and with device A than with device C, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Perceived satisfaction with the three cloth-pulling devices.


Figure 7.

**p < 0.01.

Discussion

Hand tools are widely used in a large number of occupations, with many workers having to use them to accomplish their duties. 30 This study dealt with the effect of three different cloth-pulling devices in weaving Praewa silk (traditional cloth pulling, a standard cloth-pulling device and an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device). In this study, a cloth pulling design with a new handle was considered an important factor in the safe, comfortable and easy use of hand tools among Praewa silk weavers. 31 The results showed that the cloth-pulling devices had a significant effect on the activity of each muscle. When performing the Praewa silk task with the prototype cloth-pulling device (device C), the muscular activity (% MVC) of each muscle was generally lower than with traditional cloth pulling (device A) and the standard cloth-pulling device (device B). This is in agreement with the reduction in muscle activity observed in Shankar et al., 32 which found that ergonomically optimised hand tools can decrease muscle activation patterns by 15–25% compared to traditional designs. Previous studies have confirmed a lower muscle activity level when working with the new hand-tool design. 21, 29, 32 It is possible that muscle fatigue reduced the muscles’ ability to generate force due to exhaustion and strenuous activity. Over-contraction of the muscles leads to the development of fatigue due to an inadequate blood supply to the muscles that inhibits the supply of oxygen, resulting in increased production of lactic acid in the blood and further affecting work performance, with a reduction in work capacity and productivity. 33 The results of the evaluation trials showed that the muscle activities of the biceps brachii and flexor carpi ulnaris showed higher maximum contraction (%MVC) compared to the other muscles. This may be attributed to the nature of the task of cloth pulling, which generally requires repetitive pulling actions, with the flexor muscles of the forearm used during the weaving process. In addition, the two muscle groups were demonstrated to be the most active among the arm muscles because of their upper-extremity positions during lifting, handling, pushing and pulling tasks. 34 Due to the dominance of the pulling action and other factors, such as elevated arm posture and repetitive movement of the hand during the manual weaving task, this study’s finding that the ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device could minimise the risk of muscle exertion during the performance of weaving tasks seems appropriate. The performance of the worker’s muscle strength and proper hand tools was considered.

Weaving involves a variety of tasks that are performed while the weaver sits constantly in a static position while making repeated movements of the upper limbs to operate shuttles, with the arms extended away from the body. 14, 35 The results of this study indicate that the decreased HAL with the new cloth-pulling device reduces hand activity and the level of effort required for a typical posture while performing a cloth-pulling task. During work with the cloth-pulling prototype, the HAL had a lower action limit value with indicated acceptable tasks. These findings support previous studies showing that optimised tool designs can significantly reduce repetitive hand movements and associated strain. 26, 36, 37 This may highlight that a lower HAL indicates a reduced risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders, especially in the hands and wrists, during extended weaving operations. Prolonged static postures in traditional looms have been linked to high rates of musculoskeletal issues among handloom weavers. 38 Ergonomic tools help maintain optimal HAL, potentially increasing productivity and reducing injury risk. The findings emphasise the importance of improved work environments and postures for enhanced safety and lower injury risk. Erdem and Savaş’s study 39 identified significant risk factors for WMSDs, including chronic disease, hand tool usage and high RULA scores, as well as unawareness of ergonomic risks among those with no prior accidents. A previous study by Rahman et al. showed a decrease in RULA scores and a reduction in upper-limb disorder risk from high to low within 6 months of using the new loom design, with high-risk weavers dropping from 12.5% to 2.5%. 40 This evidence underscores the effectiveness of ergonomic improvements in reducing MSD risks among weavers.

This study focused on designing a cloth-pulling device for a common procedure in Praewa silk weaving. The implementation of the ergonomic cloth-pulling device led to notable improvements in user comfort and productivity. The results of the usability test indicated that there was a significant difference with regard to length, with the silk produced using the ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device being longer than that produced using the standard device as well as traditional cloth pulling. Moreover, the results also showed that the mean perceived satisfaction with the ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device was the highest. This may indicate that the users’ experiences when interacting with the new hand-tool device were perceived as satisfying. It can be concluded that the ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device is suitable in terms of comfort and applicability for weavers. This is consistent with a previous study, 41 which concluded that an ergonomic design can significantly improve workplace health and productivity. User satisfaction was strongly related to reduced physical strain and improved work efficiency. This may be because the positive feedback from weavers regarding comfort and ease of use suggests that the ergonomic improvements effectively addressed the weavers’ practical needs and preferences. 30, 31 This is in agreement with the results of other studies showing that ergonomically well-designed hand tools may reduce the risk of occupational injuries to the upper limbs. 21, 32 Such tools also provide comfortable work for users and provide high product quality to consumers. 11, 42

Hand tools are the primary instruments in a large number of industrial tasks, and most workers use them to accomplish activities that must be done through manual operation. 11, 23, 32, 42 The results revealed that due to the proposed ergonomic design principle, the ergonomically designed device reduced the mean values of muscle activity during each of the proposed tasks. This is particularly important considering the high prevalence of injuries and MSDs among workers involved in hand-tool use. Placing emphasis on reducing muscular effort is therefore an essential step in avoiding such problems. This study emphasises the importance of adjusting grip diameters and considering the ergonomics of silk weaving workstations, which not only helps prevent health issues but also boosts productivity among weavers. The ergonomic cloth-pulling device in this study was shown to enhance productivity, reduce MSDs and promote better posture. Its key ergonomic principles include maintaining a neutral wrist position, minimising the grip force requirements, avoiding pressure points on the palmar surface and distributing forces evenly across the hand through the handle design. 11, 41, 43 However, the application of ergonomic principles to traditional weaving tools must consider both the physical requirements of the task and the anthropometric characteristics of the local weaving population. Therefore, further studies applying ergonomic principles and using worker-specific anthropometric data are needed to improve workstation design to enhance safety, comfort and overall work performance in the weaving industry.

A limitation of this study is that it focused only on Praewa silk weavers in Kalasin province in northeastern Thailand who used hand tools. There may be limitations in applying the results of this study to populations in other areas due to differences in the society, culture and body size proportions in each region. This is because fabrics, which come in various sizes and forms, depend on the needs and purposes for which they are used. The experience of weaving Praewa silk varies from individual to individual. Familiarity with different weaving patterns leads to different sitting postures when using each weaving tool. The experience of using each type of equipment also varies.

Conclusion

This study showed that upper limb muscle activities occurred at a high rate among Praewa silk weavers. The experimental results showed improvements in terms of comfort and reduced muscle activity with the ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device. Its design led to a significant reduction in the levels of hand activity and muscle activity for each muscle. Based on the usability test, it can be concluded that the new pull device was perceived as more comfortable and able to weave longer pieces than the other devices. The new ergonomically designed device was found to be applicable to and acceptable among the Praewa silk weavers.

However, further studies are required to make appropriate revisions to the ergonomically designed tool based on quantitative measures of musculoskeletal loading. Further studies related to workstations and work conditions are needed to consider weaving industry sectors.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Thammasat University (Science) (code 66EN108; COA No. 100/2566). The date of ethical approval received is October, 27, 2024.

Consent for participate

A written informed consent was taken from all participants for their voluntary participation in the study prior to data collection explaining the possible use of the data for research and publication without revealing their identity.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants for their contributions to this study.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Thammasat University Research Unit in Occupational Ergonomics, Thailand under Grant [001/2566].

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 3; peer review: 2 approved

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: “Ergonomic Design and Evaluation of Cloth-Pulling Devices for Praewa Silk Weavers” https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28874267.v2 44

This project contains the following underlying data:

  • -

    Law data Result and Assessment

  • -

    A questionnaire is a set of questions used to gather information from individuals, typically for research.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Ergonomic Design and Evaluation of Cloth-Pulling Devices for Praewa Silk Weavers © 2025 by Teeraphun Kaewdok is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

References

  • 1. Report of the situation operation of surveillance, prevention, and control of diseases and health hazards for informal workers: situation report for 2022. 2023 [cited 2024 Jul 15]. Reference Source
  • 2. Wannakit N: Wisdom in “Phrae-Wa Silk of Phu Thai, Baan Phon”: Dynamic and Assimilation. J. Thai Stud. 2023;10(2):63–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Hossain A, Kamrujjaman M, Maleque A: Associated factors and pattern of musculoskeletal pain among male handloom weavers residing in Belkuchi, Shirajgonj: a cross-sectional study. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2018;9(10):1447–1451. [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Kaboré PA, Schepens B: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and risk factors among weavers: A cross-sectional study. S. Afr. J. Physiother. 2023;79(1):1904. 10.4102/sajp.v79i1.1904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Chantaramanee N, Taptagaporn S, Piriyaprasarth P: Work-Related Musculoskeletal Problems of Hand Loom Weaving Group in Northern Thailand. J. Saf. Health. 2014;7(24):29–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Daneshmandi H, Kee D, Kamalinia M, et al. : An ergonomic intervention to relieve musculoskeletal symptoms of assembly line workers at an electronic parts manufacturer in Iran. Work. 2018;61(4):515–521. 10.3233/WOR-182822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Kaewdok T: Ergonomics risk assessment using psychophysical approach. Thai Journal of Ergonomics. 2020;3(2):55–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Besharati A, Daneshmandi H, Zareh K, et al. : Work-related musculoskeletal problems and associated factors among office workers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020;26(3):632–638. 10.1080/10803548.2018.1501238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Radwin RG, Azari DP, Lindstrom MJ, et al. : A frequency-duty cycle equation for the ACGIH hand activity level. Ergonomics. 2015;58(2):173–183. 10.1080/00140139.2014.966154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Ergonomics guidelines for occupational health practice in industrially developing countries. 2010 [cited 2024 May 15]. Reference Source
  • 11. Motamedzade M, Afshari D, Soltanian A: The Impact of Ergonomically Designed Workstations on Shoulder EMG Activity during Carpet Weaving. Health Promot. Perspect. 2014;4(2):144–150. 10.5681/hpp.2014.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. The sustainable development goals report 2024. 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 19]. Reference Source
  • 13. Rithinyo M, Nithikarnjanatharn J, Mayai A, et al. : Improvement of Workstation to Decrease the Muscle Pain in the Silk Weaving Preparation Process at the Weaving Group in Surin Province. J. Adv. Dev. Eng. Sci. 2023;11(30):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Koiri P: Occupational health problems of the handloom workers: A cross sectional study of Sualkuchi, Assam, Northeast India. Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health. 2020;8(4):1264–1271. 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.04.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Pizzolato C, Reggiani M, Saxby DJ, et al. : Biofeedback for Gait Retraining Based on Real-Time Estimation of Tibiofemoral Joint Contact Forces. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017;25(9):1612–1621. 10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2683488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Poitras I, Bielmann M, Campeau-Lecours A, et al. : Validity of Wearable Sensors at the Shoulder Joint: Combining Wireless Electromyography Sensors and Inertial Measurement Units to Perform Physical Workplace Assessments. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19(8). 10.3390/s19081885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Bakhtiari N, Azizian S, Mohazzab BF, et al. : One-step fabrication of brass filter with reversible wettability by nanosecond fiber laser ablation for highly efficient oil/water separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021;259(1):118139. 10.1016/j.seppur.2020.118139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Shankar V, Kalyanam K, Setia P, et al. : How Technology is Changing Retail. J. Retail. 2021;97(1):13–27. 10.1016/j.jretai.2020.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. ABC of EMG – A Practical Introduction to Kinesiological Electromyography. USA: Noraxon INC;2005 [cited 2023 Jun 15]. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Lim J, Lu L, Goonewardena K, et al. : Assessment of Self-report, Palpation, and Surface Electromyography Dataset During Isometric Muscle Contraction. Sci. Data. 2024;11(1):208. 10.1038/s41597-024-03030-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Bakhtiari N, Dianat I, Nedaei M: Electromyographic evaluation of different handle shapes of masons’ trowels. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021;27(1):106–111. 10.1080/10803548.2018.1530489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Durlov S, Chakrabarty S, Chatterjee A, et al. : Prevalence of low back pain among handloom weavers in West Bengal, India. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health. 2014;20(4):333–339. 10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Motamedzade M, Choobineh A, Mououdi MA, et al. : Ergonomic design of carpet weaving hand tools. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2007;37(7):581–587. 10.1016/j.ergon.2007.03.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Threshold limit values and biological exposure indices for 2001. 2002 [cited 2023 Aug 15]. Reference Source
  • 25. Bao S, Spielholz P, Howard N, et al. : Force measurement in field ergonomics research and application. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2009;39(2):333–340. 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.03.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Brambilla C, Lavit Nicora M, Storm F, et al. : Biomechanical Assessments of the Upper Limb for Determining Fatigue, Strain and Effort from the Laboratory to the Industrial Working Place: A Systematic Review. Bioengineering. 2023;10(4):2–35. 10.3390/bioengineering10040445 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Drinkaus P, Sesek R, Bloswick D, et al. : Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment outputs from Rapid Upper Limb Assessment and the Strain Index for tasks in automotive assembly plants. Work. 2003;21(2):165–172. 10.3233/WOR-2003-00317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Lin K, Wink C, Dolan B, et al. : A Novel Ergonomic Curette Design Reduces Dental Prophylaxis-Induced Muscle Work and Fatigue. dentistry journal. 2023;11(12). 10.3390/dj11120272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Sancibrian R, Redondo-Figuero C, Gutierrez-Diez MC, et al. : Ergonomic evaluation and performance of a new handle for laparoscopic tools in surgery. Appl. Ergon. 2020;89:103210. 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Veisi H, Choobineh A, Ghaem H, et al. : The effect of hand tools’ handle shape on upper extremity comfort and postural discomfort among hand-woven shoemaking workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019;74:102833. 10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102833 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Nakata C: Design thinking for innovation: Considering distinctions, fit, and use in firms. Bus. Horiz. 2020;63(6):763–772. 10.1016/j.bushor.2020.07.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Shankar S, Kumar RN, Raman SJ, et al. : Ergonomic evaluation of ergonomically designed chalkboard erasers on shoulder and hand-arm muscle activity among college professors. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2021;84:103170. [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Geetashree B, Nandita B: Muscle fatigue and grip strength among commercial handloom weavers. Pharm. Innov. J. 2020;1(11):362–365. [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Fang N, Zhang C, Lv J: Effects of Vertical Lifting Distance on Upper-Body Muscle Fatigue. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18(10):2–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Zinabu FS, Getie K, Shiferaw KB, et al. : Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and associated factors among weavers working in Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia: cross-sectional study design. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2024;25(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Popp WL, Lambercy O, Müller C, et al. : Effect of handle design on movement dynamics and muscle co-activation in a wrist flexion task. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016;56:170–180. 10.1016/j.ergon.2016.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Seidel DH, Heinrich K, Hermanns-Truxius I, et al. : Assessment of work-related hand and elbow workloads using measurement-based TLV for HAL. Appl. Ergon. 2021;92:103310. 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Subramaniya B, Jothi S: A study on influence of physical related factors on performance of handloom weavers in Omalur Region, Salem Dist. Tamil Nadu, India. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Dev. 4(4):196–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Erdem M, Savaş N: Ergonomics-Related and Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in A High-Hazard Factory in Hatay Region. J. Contemp. Med. Sci. 2023;13(1):36–41. 10.16899/jcm.1176447 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Moshiur R, Manzurul Haque K, Irin H, et al. : Musculoskeletal Problems among Handloom Workers. Texila Int. J. Public Health. 2017;5(3):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Muhamad Ramdan I, Candra KP, Rahma Fitri A: Factors affecting musculoskeletal disorder prevalence among women weavers working with handlooms in Samarinda, Indonesia. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020;26(3):507–513. 10.1080/10803548.2018.1481564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Dianat I, Nedaei M, Mostashar Nezami MA: The effects of tool handle shape on hand performance, usability and discomfort using masons’ trowels. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015;45:13–20. 10.1016/j.ergon.2014.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Mital A, Kumar S: Ergonomics tool design: principles and applications. 4th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press;2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Kaewdok T: Questionnare and data sheet.Dataset. figshare. 2025. 10.6084/m9.figshare.28874267.v2 [DOI]
F1000Res. 2025 Sep 24. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.187385.r412614

Reviewer response for version 3

Wisit Thongkum 1

After reading the article, it was found that the author's explanation was still unclear, especially in the methodology section. Therefore, the author should provide additional clarification for greater accuracy and clarity.

  1. From introduction part: Praewa silk create pieces that are typically 1 wah (2cm) oronearm’s length in size. The conversion you've provided is incorrect.

  2. The objectives of the study should be written clearly, or they can be combined into a single sentence.

  3. When using purposive sampling in a research methodology section, it's crucial to be transparent about the selection process. How it was done: You need to specify the criteria used to select participants. Purposive sampling is a non-probability method where you deliberately choose individuals because they have specific characteristics relevant to your research question. You should detail inclusion and exclusion criteria.

  4. Postural risk assessment:  average grand total score of 6.89±0.31, suggesting a relatively high level of risk. This part need reference or standard.

  5. Prototype cloth-pulling device design using the Design Thinking method. It should be clearly specified in which stages the 29 participants were involved.

  6. Several of your references do not adhere to the required citation format, as they lack page numbers. You may find using a citation management tool like EndNote helpful for correcting these.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Occupational health & safety and Environmental Technology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 19. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.187385.r411888

Reviewer response for version 3

Ashish Kumar Meher 1

The comments and suggestions raised earlier in this manuscript have been incorporated, and hence, the manuscript may be accepted for indexed now in its present form. However, language editing is still required, as some of the sentences are unclear and incomplete.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Economics, Development economics, informal sector, handloom industry, occupational health issues

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.183554.r395096

Reviewer response for version 2

Shanel Wu 1

Summary: This study was conducted with handweavers in northeastern Thailand who work in a traditional regional style (Praewa silk). Weavers often work long hours using repetitive motions and awkward positions, which leads to injury, pain, and chronic musculoskeletal disorders. The authors recruited a group of 29 female weavers to study how to improve their workplace's safety conditions by redesigning the cloth-pulling device (often a conventional crochet hook), which is a key hand tool in the process.

Context: As previous reviewers have already commented on the quantitative results' presentation (which I note that I don't see many differences from version 1), I will focus more on how the paper contextualizes the problem and reports on the design process. I am proficient in handweaving with a variety of techniques, so I feel that I can more effectively comment on these aspects.

Study Design (Q2): Overall, I appreciate that the researchers worked directly with weavers from this community and familiarized themselves with their craft.  Suggestion(s): 

> Because I'm also a weaver, I can somewhat able visualize how the pull cloth device is used, but many readers will need more clarification. I would add onto Figure 3 (or create a new figure) with more photos similar to 3A (top) of how their hands/tools are interacting with the yarns on the loom. Arrows to indicate direction of movements would help even more.

> The first stage of the design process (Understanding behaviour) mentions collecting the hand tools that weavers currently use. I would be interested in seeing a picture of other tools besides the cloth pull devices, like the details of their handlooms, their sitting/standing postures while working, etc.

Methods (Q3):  Sharing their dataset and questionnaires will be extremely valuable for other researchers to translate the design improvements to other weaving communities and regions.  Suggestion(s): 

> The design process should be documented in more detail, especially the Prototyping stage. How many iterations did the prototype undergo? What changes were made between iterations and how did the researchers decide on what to change?

> In contrast, the Evaluation aspects of the study are well-detailed, but think the timeline could be clearer since design work often includes some formative evaluation (e.g. between iterations). Did the authors test any of the earlier versions with weavers during prototyping (even informally)? 

Source Data (Q5):  As I noted previously, I really appreciate the data and documentation already included. My suggestions focus on what additional information is needed to replicate the final tool design.  Suggestion(s):

> Include any CAD files that were used in prototype fabrication and list software tools.

> Bill of materials for the prototype with sources of components/materials.

Other Suggestions: There are some revisions from previous reviews that have not been addressed.

On the whole, very interesting research! I agree with the authors that handcraft ergonomics are under-researched. I look forward to seeing more work in this area, as there are many opportunities for further research, design improvements, and new community collaborations.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Human-computer interaction, human-centred design, textile crafts, digital fabrication, creativity support tools, craft and technology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 28.
Teeraphun Kaewdok 1

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript. We thank you the reviewers for their comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide specific answers.

Reviewers' comments:

Study Design (Q2): Overall, I appreciate that the researchers worked directly with weavers from this community and familiarized themselves with their craft. Suggestion(s):

> Because I'm also a weaver, I can somewhat able visualize how the pull cloth device is used, but many readers will need more clarification. I would add onto Figure 3 (or create a new figure) with more photos similar to 3A (top) of how their hands/tools are interacting with the yarns on the loom. Arrows to indicate direction of movements would help even more.

> The first stage of the design process (Understanding behaviour) mentions collecting the hand tools that weavers currently use. I would be interested in seeing a picture of other tools besides the cloth pull devices, like the details of their handlooms, their sitting/standing postures while working, etc.

We thank you for your comments and useful suggestion. We have revised and added of Traditional cloth pulling (Figure 3.2.) A. Traditional cloth pulling

(Figure 3.2.)  B. Postures of Praewa silk weavers. https://f1000research-files.f1000.com/linked/749692.163622-_FRES_%28Figure_3.2.%29%C2%A0_a._Postures_of_Praewa_silk_weavers..png

(Figure 3.2.)  B. Postures of Praewa silk weavers. https://f1000research-files.f1000.com/linked/749693.163622-_FRES_%28Figure_3.2.%29%C2%A0_B._Postures_of_Praewa_silk_weavers..png

Methods (Q3): Sharing their dataset and questionnaires will be extremely valuable for other researchers to translate the design improvements to other weaving communities and regions. Suggestion(s):

> The design process should be documented in more detail, especially the Prototyping stage. How many iterations did the prototype undergo? What changes were made between iterations and how did the researchers decide on what to change?

> In contrast, the Evaluation aspects of the study are well-detailed, but think the timeline could be clearer since design work often includes some formative evaluation (e.g. between iterations). Did the authors test any of the earlier versions with weavers during prototyping (even informally)?

We have revised and added in the methodology.

Prototyping:1)New models of cloth-pulling devices were developed according to the hand anthropometrics of the weavers and ergonomic design principles to reduce the risk of MSDs during the weaving task. The cloth-pulling devices’ handles were made of plastic polyester materials. Handle length was calculated using the 95 th percentile of hand length (16.20 cm), handle width using hand circumference (23.10 cm) and handle diameter using grip diameter (4.60 cm). The diameter of a clenched fist was used to set the width of the hand-insertion gap on the handle, which was 4.60 cm. The palm thickness was 1.80 cm, which, when combined for both sides, became 3.60 cm. The hook tip length extending from the handle was 3.38 cm. These measurements were used for 3D modeling of both the front and back views.

2)The model was then fabricated as a cloth-pulling device designed according to ergonomic principles.

3)The prototype was tested with Praewa silk weavers in two rounds. In the first round, it was found that the handle’s surface was not smooth.

4)The researchers thus developed a new prototype with a smooth handle surface, which was then ready for the next stages.

In contrast, the Evaluation “ The authors conducted preliminary tests prior to this study; however, these were not included in the research report.

Source Data (Q5): As I noted previously, I really appreciate the data and documentation already included. My suggestions focus on what additional information is needed to replicate the final tool design. Suggestion(s):

> Include any CAD files that were used in prototype fabrication and list software tools.

> Bill of materials for the prototype with sources of components/materials.

Other Suggestions: There are some revisions from previous reviews that have not been addressed.

We have revised and added in the tool design.

Developing new models of pull cloth device according to hand anthropometric of the weavers and ergonomic design principles to reduce the risk of MSDs during the weaving task. The handles were made plastic polyester materials.

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 21. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.183554.r395094

Reviewer response for version 2

Subhasish Sahu 1

This manuscript discusses a significant issue and offers intriguing research on musculoskeletal stress and ergonomic designing and evaluation of cloth-pulling devices for Praewa Silk Weavers. Overall, the study is well-designed and offers insightful information. However, to increase clarity, technique, and result interpretation, the manuscript might be strengthened in a few places.

1) Mention the full forms of SD and CV in Table 1.

2) Explain the selection process of sample size more clearly. If any statistical method was used to determine the selection of sample size, mention it in the methodology section.

3) Apart from anthropometric measurements, are there any physiological considerations addressed in the design and selection of ergonomic tools? Mention it if it has.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Ergonomics and Occupational Physiology, Respiratory Physiology, Chronobiology, Oxidative stress, Heat Stress, Organized and unorganized sector

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 28.
Teeraphun Kaewdok 1

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript. We thank you the reviewers for their comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide specific answers.

Reviewer 3  Version 2

Reviewers' comments:

1) Mention the full forms of SD and CV in Table 1.

We thank you for your comments and useful suggestion. We have revised and added of SD and CV in Table 1.

Percentiles: Indicates the percentage of the population that falls below a certain measurement. For example, the 5 th, 50 th (mean/median), and 95 th percentiles are commonly reported.

Mean (min–max): The average (mean) value of a measurement, along with its minimum and maximum recorded values in the sample population.

SD (Standard Deviation): A measure of the spread or variability in the data.

CV (Coefficient of Variation): The standard deviation divided by the mean (usually expressed as a percentage). Indicates the extent of variability in relation to the mean.

2) Explain the selection process of sample size more clearly. If any statistical method was used to determine the selection of sample size, mention it in the methodology section.

We have revised and added in the methodology section.

Sample Size Selection Process.

The sample size for this study was determined using statistical power analysis to ensure that the study would have sufficient power to detect a meaningful difference in muscle activity between workstations. The formula described by Heinisch (1965) was applied, which is commonly used to estimate the required sample size when comparing two means. The calculation incorporated the following parameters:

n = number of samples.

Zα = The statistical significance level; at the 0.05 level, the value is 1.96.

Zβ = Corresponds to a test power of 95%, with a value of 1.645.

∆ = The difference in mean muscle electrical activity of the weavers between the traditional workstation and the experimental workstation, based on related research. The measurement is expressed in %MVC. The experimental condition involves a seated workstation at a 0-degree seat angle and a 10-degree cloth angle from the horizontal line. The observed difference is 7.97 (Chantaramanee N, Taptagaporn  S,  Piriyaprasarth  P., 2014).

σ = The standard deviation of the difference in mean  %MVC, with a value of 5.61 (Chantaramanee N, Taptagaporn  S,  Piriyaprasarth  P., 2014).

The formula used was as follows:

n= zα+ Zβ (σ)∆ 2 Inline graphic

Upon substituting the specified values:

n= 1. 96+ 1. 645 7. 97 5. 612 Inline graphic  = (5.12) 2  = 26.22

   

To prevent data loss and ensure sufficient response from participants, the calculated sample size was increased by 10%,  This result was rounded up, and data were ultimately collected from 29 participants.

In summary, the sample size was determined using statistical power analysis, specifically the Heinisch (1965) formula for comparing means, with all parameter values based on established standards and previous research findings. This method was chosen to maximize the validity and reliability of the study results.

3. Apart from anthropometric measurements, are there any physiological considerations addressed in the design and selection of ergonomic tools? Mention it if it has.

We have revised and added in the physiological considerations in the design and selection of ergonomic tools.

Physiological measurements.

From the study on the working conditions, health impacts, and musculoskeletal risk among Praewa silk weavers, the key findings are as follows:

1.Working Characteristics and Use of Equipment

The majority of participants did not use any assistive devices during weaving (77.27%), resulting in repeated manual and arm exertion, which increased their risk of musculoskeletal discomfort and injuries.

2. Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders

In the past 12 months, 96.46% of respondents reported musculoskeletal pain or injury related to work, while 84.85% reported such symptoms during the past 7 days. The most commonly affected body parts were the wrists, fingers, and neck.

3. Postural Risk Assessment

Assessment of upper limb working posture using 198 observed postures revealed an average Grand Total Score of 6.89±0.31, suggesting a relatively high level of risk for musculoskeletal disorders.

4. Hand Mobility and Muscle Strength

The average mobility score of the right hand was 2.90±2.14, which was higher than the left hand (1.99±1.22). Additionally, the grip strength of the dominant hand (0.35±0.07) was greater than that of the non-dominant hand (0.29±0.60), reflecting repetitive use of the dominant limb.

5. Overall Workplace Safety

Almost all participants (nearly 99%) perceived a high risk of work-related injuries, which affected their health and quality of life.

Incorporating physiological data into the design process helps produce tools that are suitable, safe, minimize injuries, and enhance work efficiency. If you need examples of measurement methods or case studies.

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 19. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.183554.r392486

Reviewer response for version 2

Ashish Kumar Meher 1

After reviewing the revised manuscript, I observed that the authors have not addressed several key points raised in the initial review, particularly in the methodology section. This lack of revision suggests that the feedback may not have been fully considered. Therefore, I do not recommend the indexing of the article in its current form.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Economics, Development economics, informal sector, handloom industry, occupational health issues

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Jun 3. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.180004.r384478

Reviewer response for version 1

Shankar Subramaniam 1

  • Abstract Conclusion Improvement:

    The conclusion section of the abstract should be enhanced by including specific and actionable recommendations based on the study findings.

  • Literature Gap and Study Motivation:

    Clearly articulate the gap in the existing literature and present the motivation for this study before detailing the methodology section. This will provide a stronger rationale for the research.

  • Novelty of the Work:

    Given that several similar studies already exist in the textile sector, the manuscript must distinctly highlight the novelty and unique contributions of this research compared to prior works.

  • Participant Age Justification:

    The rationale behind selecting subjects aged around 70 years needs clarification. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) often manifest with 10–15 years of repetitive work exposure. Hence, including moderately experienced individuals might yield more relevant insights.

  • Description of Work Tasks:

    The nature of the occupational tasks and work environment should be described first to contextualize the anthropometric and physiological data that follow.

  • Statistical Representation in Charts:

    Use error bars in all relevant charts to represent variability and statistical significance clearly.

  • Justification for Muscle Selection:

    Was a questionnaire or preliminary assessment conducted to determine which hand muscles were most affected or relevant? If not, the criteria used to prioritize hand muscles for EMG analysis must be clearly explained.

  • Need for Quantitative Conclusions:

    The conclusions derived from EMG analysis should be more quantitative and specific, rather than general or observational in nature.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

EMG, Ergonomics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Jun 10.
Teeraphun Kaewdok 1

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript. We thank you the reviewers for their comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide specific answers.

Abstract Conclusion Improvement:

The conclusion section of the abstract should be enhanced by including specific and actionable recommendations based on the study findings.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised: The new cloth-pulling device was found to be applicable and acceptable among the weavers. Further research is needed to make appropriate revisions to the ergonomically designed tool based on ergonomic measurements of muscle activity and fatigue under field production conditions. Studies related to workstations and working conditions are needed in the weaving industry sector.

Literature Gap and Study Motivation:

Clearly articulate the gap in the existing literature and present the motivation for this study before detailing the methodology section. This will provide a stronger rationale for the research.

Response : The production of Praewa silk by the Phu Tai community in Ban Phon has experienced significant growth in both quantity and quality. This traditional textile is distinguished by its intricate patterns and substantial dimensions. The price of Praewa silk typically ranges from 15,000 to 40,000 baht per piece. However, certain designs that require a high level of craftsmanship and take approximately 5 to 6 months to complete can command prices between 50,000 and 100,000 baht.

Novelty of the Work:

Given that several similar studies already exist in the textile sector, the manuscript must distinctly highlight the novelty and unique contributions of this research compared to prior works.

Response : The novelty of this research lies in the design of a Praewa silk cloth-pulling devices that adheres to ergonomic principles, specifically tailored for Praewa silk weavers. This innovation aims to enhance worker safety and improve operational efficiency by aligning with the physical capabilities of the users. Furthermore, the device is expected to reduce work-related musculoskeletal discomfort and increase overall production capacity.

Participant Age Justification:

The rationale behind selecting subjects aged around 70 years needs clarification. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) often manifest with 10–15 years of repetitive work exposure. Hence, including moderately experienced individuals might yield more relevant insights.

Response : The inclusion criteria for volunteer participants were set for individuals aged 40 to 70 years. This age range was determined based on the weaving experience commonly found among Praewa  silk weavers. Although many women over the age of 70 still actively engage in Praewa  silk weaving and are capable of sitting and working for extended periods, the research limited the upper age to 70 years to ensure consistency in the study sample. Notably, the average age of participants in this study was 55 years.

Description of Work Tasks:

The nature of the occupational tasks and work environment should be described first to contextualize the anthropometric and physiological data that follow.

Response : The nature of work and working environment in Praewa silk weaving involve repetitive silk-thread pulling in a fixed posture. Weavers typically work 6 to 8 hours per day, performing the same repetitive tasks. This type of work poses a risk of developing wrist-related musculoskeletal disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, De Quervain’s tendonitis, and trigger finger.

Statistical Representation in Charts:

Use error bars in all relevant charts to represent variability and statistical significance clearly.

Justification for Muscle Selection:

Was a questionnaire or preliminary assessment conducted to determine which hand muscles were most affected or relevant? If not, the criteria used to prioritize hand muscles for EMG analysis must be clearly explained.

Response : The researcher administered a preliminary questionnaire during Phase I to investigate the use of muscle groups involved in the weaving process. Four muscle groups were examined: the upper trapezius, biceps brachii, brachioradialis, and flexor carpi ulnaris.

F1000Res. 2025 Jun 3. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.180004.r384477

Reviewer response for version 1

Ashish Kumar Meher 1

Dear editor,

Thank you for considering me as a potential reviewer for this article. The paper addresses a significant issue concerning MSDs among the handloom weavers. The study is well-designed with respect to its aim and objectives. The findings in this study will be beneficial for improving the musculoskeletal health of the Praewa silk weavers. It will also be helpful for policymakers and future researchers due to its significant contribution to the literature on occupational health and ergonomics. Further, the references are diverse and cover the topic adequately. However, the study has some lacunae, which make it scientifically incomplete. Addressing these issues will enhance the overall quality of this manuscript and make it academically enriched. 

1. The sample size is very small, and hence, the study findings based on this sample size are a little skeptical in terms of their applicability.

2. The authors have not mentioned the study region and the sampling framework for drawing the study sample, which is a major drawback of this study.

3. The rationale for choosing a particular study area also has to be explained.

4. There is a need for language editing. Many sentences are unclear and incomplete, with grammatical and spelling errors. For example, lines 3-4 of para-1 and the last sentence of para-2 in the introduction section.

5. This comment is especially for the editor: There are many medical terms used in this manuscript. Hence, a recognized medical practitioner or a professor in the field of medicine should also be chosen as a second reviewer to look into the validity and applicability of these terms and their significance.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Economics, Development economics, informal sector, handloom industry, occupational health issues

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Jun 10.
Teeraphun Kaewdok 1

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript. We thank you the reviewers for their comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide specific answers.

1. The sample size is very small, and hence, the study findings based on this sample size are a little skeptical in terms of their applicability.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. The population in this study consists of individuals engaged in the production of Praewa silk weavers. The sample size was calculated using the formula by Heinisch (1965).

n= zα+ Zβ (σ)∆ 2 Inline graphic

n= 1. 96+ 1. 645 7. 97 5. 612 Inline graphic

n= 28. 731 5. 61 2 Inline graphic

n= 26.22 Inline graphic     

        

n = number of samples.

Zα = The statistical significance level; at the 0.05 level, the value is 1.96.

Zβ = Corresponds to a test power of 95%, with a value of 1.645.

∆ = The difference in mean muscle electrical activity of the weavers between the traditional workstation and the experimental workstation, based on related research. The measurement is expressed in %MVC. The experimental condition involves a seated workstation at a 0-degree seat angle and a 10-degree cloth angle from the horizontal line. The observed difference is 7.97 (Chantaramanee N, Taptagaporn  S,  Piriyaprasarth  P., 2014).

σ = The standard deviation of the difference in mean  %MVC, with a value of 5.61 (Chantaramanee N, Taptagaporn  S,  Piriyaprasarth  P., 2014).

To prevent data loss and ensure sufficient response from participants, the calculated sample size was increased by 10%, resulting in a total of 28.6. Therefore, the study collected data from a total of 29 participants.

2. The authors have not mentioned the study region and the sampling framework for drawing the study sample, which is a major drawback of this study.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. This quasi-experimental research was conducted as Phase III of the study. In Phase I, the population consisted of participants from four provinces in Thailand: Kalasin, Sakon Nakhon, Nakhon Phanom, and Mukdahan. In Phase III, participants were selected using purposive sampling, focusing on the province with the highest number of Praewa silk weavers, which was Kalasin Province. A total of 29 volunteers were assigned to three experimental conditions using the block randomization method: (A) traditional cloth pulling, (B) using a standard cloth-pulling device and (C) using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device.

3. The rationale for choosing a particular study area also has to be explained.

Response : Since the of Praewa silk weavers requires consistent patterns and is conducted under the same experimental conditions within the same area, it was necessary to select a single location for the experiment. Each volunteer participated in the experimental procedures at the site for approximately 295 minutes.

4. There is a need for language editing. Many sentences are unclear and incomplete, with grammatical and spelling errors. For example, lines 3-4 of para-1 and the last sentence of para-2 in the introduction section.

Response : Language editing in lines 3-4 of para-1(There were 18.47 million people (31.35%) outside the labor force in Thailand, of whom skilled workers accounted for 10.68%.)

Language editing in last sentence of para-2 in the introduction section. (The study aims to design an ergonomics-based cloth-pulling device and to evaluate the effectiveness of such devices for Praewa silk weavers.)

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Kaewdok T: Questionnare and data sheet.Dataset. figshare. 2025. 10.6084/m9.figshare.28874267.v2 [DOI]

    Data Availability Statement

    Underlying data

    Figshare: “Ergonomic Design and Evaluation of Cloth-Pulling Devices for Praewa Silk Weavers” https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28874267.v2 44

    This project contains the following underlying data:

    • -

      Law data Result and Assessment

    • -

      A questionnaire is a set of questions used to gather information from individuals, typically for research.

    Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

    Ergonomic Design and Evaluation of Cloth-Pulling Devices for Praewa Silk Weavers © 2025 by Teeraphun Kaewdok is licensed under CC BY 4.0.


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES