- Email: [email protected]
Anthropometric study of farm workers on Java Island, Indonesia, and its implications for the design of farm tools and equipment
Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Ergonomics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo
Anthropometric study of farm workers on Java Island, Indonesia, and its implications for the design of farm tools and equipment M. Faiz Syuaib Department of Mechanical & Biosystem Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 27 April 2014 Received in revised form 4 May 2015 Accepted 19 May 2015 Available online xxx
Anthropometric data are a prerequisite for designing agricultural tools and equipment that enable workers to achieve better performance and productivity while providing better safety and comfort. A set of thirty anthropometric dimensions was collected from a total sample of 371 male and female farmworkers from three different regions (west, central and east) of Java Island, Indonesia. The mean stature is 162.0 cm and 152.5 cm, the sitting height is 82.9 cm and 77.4 cm, and the body weight is 57.1 kg and 52.3 kg for male and female subjects, respectively. The index of relative sitting height (RSH) was 0.51 on average for both male and female subjects. Significant differences are found in most of the anthropometric dimensions between gender and regional data groups as well. Compared with groups of people from several other countries, the anthropometric dimensions of Indonesian people are quite similar to Indian people, but are relatively smaller than Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, British, and American people. An attempt was conducted to illustrate the use of this anthropometric database and ergonomic considerations in refining the design of traditional tools and equipment commonly in use for rice farming operations. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anthropometry Farm worker Tool design
1. Introduction Indonesia is an agricultural country in which a large portion of the population engages in agricultural works, either as smallholder farmers, farm labourers, or workers in agro-industrial plantations. In spite of a doubling of the total population from 1970 to 2010, the proportion of the agriculture-engaged workforce decreased by half over the same period (Komatsuzaki and Syuaib, 2011). Moreover, the proportion of female and elderly farm-workers is also steeply increasing. Various types of tools, equipment and simple machines have been commonly used to accomplish a variety of farm works, and new types of machines are sometimes introduced to improve the productivity of farm operations. Ergonomic considerations are required in this regard to attain a good match and suitability of machines to tasks to ensure safety and enhance comfort and eventually to leverage productivity. Anthropometry is a branch of Ergonomics that considers the measurement and description of the dimensions of the human
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.05.007 0003-6870/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
body. Anthropometric considerations in the design of tools will result in the improvement of performance and efficiency along with safety and comfort as well as prevent work-related injuries or accidents. Anthropometric dimensions vary considerably across gender, race, ethnicity and age (Pheasant, 2003). Anthropometric data of several Asia Pacific populations have been reported, such as those in China, Japan and Korea (Lin et al., 2004); the Philippines (Prado-Lu, 2007); India (Dewangan et al., 2008; Agrawal et al., 2010); Turkey (Iseria and Arslan, 2009); Malaysia (Karmegam et al., 2011); and Iran (Sadeghi et al., 2015). However, the application of anthropometry to the design of farm tools and machinery has not been implemented in practice in Indonesia due to the lack of a proper anthropometric database. To collect anthropometric data representing the Indonesian population as a whole is quite cumbersome because the country's area is quite extensive and consists of hundreds of tribes and ethnic groups. With a focus and emphasis on the main island of Java e which is inhabited by over half of the total population as well as by over half of the agriculture-engaged population of the country (Statistics of Indonesia, 2013) e this study was conducted with the aim to obtain an anthropometric database that can be used to design, or refine the design of, tools, machines, or work systems, particularly in agriculture.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
2. Methods Anthropometric surveys were undertaken in three districts representing three separate regions on Java Island, namely, Bogor in West Java, Demak in Central Java and Ponorogo in East Java. In total 189 males and 182 females were randomly selected among the selffarming (grass-root farmers) population in the regions. The numbers of sampled-subjects were selected proportionally to the size and distribution of the population in each study area, and all of the subjects were in good health and able to stand unassisted. The procedures of data collection were explained to the subjects before starting the measurement to obtain their understanding and cooperation, thereby ensuring that the measurement accuracy could be maintained. A portable weighing scale with an accuracy of 0.1 kg measured the body weight, and a commercial Anthropometer set (Fig. 1) and a measurement tape with accuracy of 1 mm measured the other twenty-nine basic anthropometric dimensions of the subjects. Thirteen measurements were performed with the subjects in the standing position, and the other seventeen measurements were performed with the subjects in the sitting position (Figs. 2 and 3). Subsequently, the index of RSH (relative sitting height) was calculated, and the ages of the subjects were likewise recorded. For the measurement techniques and terminologies used, please refer to the guidelines in Anthropometric Source Book (NASA, 1978). The required number of samples was estimated according to the equation in Annex A of ISO 15535:2003 e “General requirements for establishing anthropometric databases” e for a 95% confidence interval (Hua et al., 2007):
n ð3:006 CV=aÞ2
(1)
where n is the sample size, CV is the coefficient of variation, and a is the percentage of relative accuracy desired. In this survey, a 5% relative accuracy was desired, and a value of CV 0.125 was used to pre-determine the sample size. Thus, the minimum number of 60 for the number of subjects taken for each sample's group in this research is acceptable; Table 1 presents the distribution and characteristics of the subjects in the regions. A computer recorded the collected data, and a common spreadsheet software package was used to analyse them. The data set for each dimension in the sample's groups were checked to ensure that they represent a normal distribution. The values of the mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were computed. The 5th, 50th and
223
95th percentile values were calculated accordingly. The ANOVA Ftest was used to compare the significant differences among the data groups of the diverse regions, while the T-test was used to compare the difference between the mean dimensions of the males and females in each data group. The significant difference was accepted if a significant outcome existed (p < 0.05).
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Anthropometric measures A set of thirty anthropometric measurements were obtained, and the values of SD, SEM, CV, and the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles of each of the measures were calculated. Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the data analyses and how they are distributed with respect to the three distinct regions of study for males and females, respectively. Generally, the SEM values of the data groups are lower than 1.0, but the values associated with body weight, arm spans and vertical reaches are in the range of 1.0e1.4. These SEM values are accepted to the 95% confidence limit and therefore indicated that the number and distribution of the samples are representative of the targeted population. Furthermore, to summarize the overall anthropometric data of the three regions, iterative statistical calculations were performed to obtain a combined distribution of the data for each region. Table 4 presents the anthropometric data that correspond to the overall population of the farmers, both male and female. Regarding the coefficient of variation, the values of CV > 10% are associated with body weight, chest depth, sitting elbow height and grip diameter, and the values of CV < 10% are generally associated with the remaining body dimensions in the data groups. According to Pheasant (2003), the common characteristic ranges of CV (%) of the various anthropometric dimensions are: 3e4 for stature, 3e5 for body heights, 4e5 for parts of limbs, 5e9 for body breadths, 6e9 for body depths, 4e11 for dynamic reach and 10e21 for body weight. Thus, over 75% of the collected data is located in the ranges of the suggested CV. However, the CV values of some particular body dimensions, such as sitting eye height, sitting shoulder height, sitting elbow height, chest depth, arm lengths, hand breadth and grip diameter, are relatively higher. Therefore, the generalization of the sample of the population for these particular dimensions should be used more carefully. The mean (50th percentile) body weight of males in the West (W), Central (C) and East (E) regions of Java are 54.3 kg, 57.0 kg and
Fig. 1. Anthropometer set.
224
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Fig. 2. Illustration of the measurements (modified from: Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997 and Pheasant, 2003).
Fig. 3. Anthropometry measurements of the subjects.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
225
Table 1 Characteristics of the subjects for the anthropometric survey.
Number of subjects Average of age SD of age
West Java (Bogor)
Central Java (Demak)
East Java (Ponorogo)
Total subjects (Java)
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
60 36.0 7.4
60 32.0 7.3
69 44.0 11.8
62 40.0 9.3
60 51.0 11.2
60 46.0 8.9
189 43.7 10.1
182 39.3 8.5
60.0 kg, respectively, while the corresponding values of the females are 48.0 kg, 52.8 kg and 56.0 kg, respectively. The overall average body weight of the males and females in the three regions are 57.0 kg and 50.0 kg, respectively. The mean stature of males in the W, C and E regions is 161.9, 162.6 and 161.5 cm, respectively, while the corresponding values of females are 153.3, 151.1 and 153.1 cm, respectively. The overall stature of the males and females of the regions are, on average, 162.1 and 152.6 cm, respectively. The mean sitting height of each region is in the range of 82.0e84.2 cm for males and 76.8e78.5 cm for females. The sitting height of the overall population in the regions averaged 82.8 and 77.2 cm for males and females, respectively. Regarding the mean value of the relative sitting height (RSH), 0.51 was the result for the average of all of the data groups, for both males and females. However, the shorter the sample size, the lower the RSH value observed. The RSH of each data group was in the range of 0.46e0.49, 0.51e0.52, and 0.54e0.55 for the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles, respectively. Referring to Pheasant (2003), the shorter samples (5th percentiles) in all regions are categorized as “long legged” (RSH < 0.50), the taller ones (95th percentiles) are categorized as “short legged” (0.53 < RSH < 0.55), and the average of the groups (50th percentiles) are categorized as between short and long legged (0.51 < RSH < 0.53). In other words, the RSH tends to be lower for the short samples compared to the tall samples. These results reveal that the trunk of the Javanese contributes more to the differences in the stature dimension compared to the lower limbs; generally, the Javanese people have similar proportions to Far-Eastern people, but have different proportions to the European and Middle-Eastern people (Pheasant, 2003). 3.2. Comparison of the anthropometry results across regions and gender The variations in the body dimensions of people are reflected in their geographical locations, with some of these variations being significantly different. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in most of the mean body dimensions among people in the three regions of study (Table 5). A total comparison of 26 dimensions have significant outcomes among the female data groups (22 items within p < 0.01, and the other 4 items within p < 0.05), whereas 18 dimensions were significant among the male data groups (15 items within p < 0.01, and the other 3 items within p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between the mean dimensions of body weight, stature, shoulder height, fingertip height, arm reaches and sitting heights among the male data groups; in contrast, significant differences are observed in the corresponding dimensions among the female groups. In addition, all of the breadth and depth dimensions were found to be significantly different (p < 0.01), whereas eye height, vertical grip reach, hand length and RSH were found to not exhibit significant differences between the male and female data groups. These results suggest that a consideration of ethnic diversity is required in designing tools and machinery; in particular, attention is required when designing for female users because the diversity of body dimensions among the female groups was greater than that of the male groups.
Generally, the stature and sitting height of females in the 50th percentile are comparable to the corresponding dimensions of males in the 5th percentile, and the corresponding dimensions of males in the 50th percentile are comparable to that of females in the 95th percentile (Fig. 4). Furthermore, the means of the armrelated dimensions (arm span, elbow span, and reach), the handrelated dimensions (grip diameter, hand breadth and hand length) and the foot dimensions (length and breadth) of females are generally in the range of 90e96% compared to those of the males. Statistical T-tests were used to compare the means of the dimensions between males and females in each data group. Significant outcomes are generally observed between the mean body dimensions of males and females in all of the data groups (Table 6), and approximately 85% among the significant items are within p < 0.001. This result reveals that the mean body dimensions of males and females are undoubtedly unique and that the body dimensions of the males are comparatively larger than those of the females. This difference suggests that a designer must fully consider the dimensional differences between males and females in designing tools and machinery to take full advantage of the usability and safety and to minimize the risk of musculoskeletal disorder to the users. 3.3. Comparison of anthropometry across the ethnic populations of the world It is generally accepted that anthropometric dimensions vary considerably across gender, race, ethnicity and age. Various anthropometric studies in different countries and for diverse groups of workers have been conducted and reported by many authors, some of which are listed in Tables 7 and 8 for males and females, respectively. From a comparison of the bodily proportions in standing and sitting postures (Figs. 5 and 6), Indonesians tend to have shorter height dimensions compared to the other groups of people, for both males and females. However, Indonesian males have approximately the same stature but higher shoulder height than those of their Indian counterparts. Furthermore, the mean of the arm reaches of Indonesian males were comparatively longer than those of Filipino and Japanese males, but shorter than those of the other groups of people; while the corresponding dimensions of Indonesian females were comparatively longer than Japanese females, but shorter than those of the other groups of people. The means of the hip and shoulder depths of Indonesian males were comparatively the same as that of Indians, but smaller than those of the other groups of people, while the mean of the hip dimension of Indonesian females was among the smallest value compared to those of the other groups of people. Finally, from a general comparison of all of the body dimensions (as presented in Tables 7 and 8), the means of the anthropometric dimensions of Indonesian males have relative values in the ranges of 100 ± 4% of Indian males, 98 ± 4% of Filipino males, 96 ± 5% of Japanese males, 94 ± 6% of Chinese males, 94 ± 4% of Brazilian males, 93 ± 5% of Turkish males, 92 ± 6% of British males and 91 ± 5% of American males. The mean dimensions of Indonesian females have relative values in the ranges of 100 ± 8% of Indian females, 98 ± 5% of Filipino females, 97 ± 6% of Japanese and
226
Table 2 Anthropometry of male farmers in the three different regions. NO
Anthropometric measures
West Java (Bogor); n ¼ 60
Central Java (Demak); n ¼ 69
East Java (Ponorogo); n ¼ 60
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
5th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
43.0 154.3 143.0 127.1 94.5 88.3 62.0 54.0 157.3 76.0 183.3 64.9 75.4
54.3 161.9 150.9 136.2 102.8 94.7 68.6 59.9 166.6 84.8 194.2 69.1 80.0
77.0 171.4 158.6 143.9 108.2 102.3 74.6 66.1 179.2 92.0 206.6 74.6 86.0
10.9 5.4 5.5 5.2 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.7 6.4 4.4 7.2 3.5 3.1
1.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.4
19.3 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.6 5.5 6.1 3.8 5.2 3.7 5.0 3.8
46.0 151.6 139.2 125.0 91.8 88.6 64.2 53.3 159.0 77.4 177.9 59.0 69.6
57.0 162.6 151.6 135.5 98.6 97.5 70.5 59.2 171.0 87.0 194.3 70.0 83.0
75.0 171.0 160.5 142.5 105.9 105.2 77.5 64.1 182.9 94.8 207.5 75.0 87.0
10.0 6.1 6.5 5.4 4.3 4.9 3.9 3.4 7.4 5.4 8.7 4.7 5.1
1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.6
17.3 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.5 5.8 4.3 6.2 4.5 6.7 6.2
48.0 152.2 140.5 126.5 95.1 86.7 65.0 54.5 156.8 77.0 181.9 63.9 71.9
60.0 161.5 151.0 135.8 102.2 92.8 71.7 60.3 169.0 86.0 196.7 70.8 81.0
75.0 168.0 157.3 141.6 109.1 98.8 77.8 65.7 176.1 92.0 206.3 78.1 86.2
8.5 5.0 5.3 5.5 4.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 9.4 4.6 8.7 4.9 5.5
1.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.7
13.9 3.1 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.9 5.0 6.3 5.6 5.4 4.5 6.9 6.9
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
77.0 63.2 51.0 17.3 47.0 50.5 42.2 18.0 40.8 30.0 28.2 42.6 17.0 8.0 4.5 23.3 9.6
84.2 71.6 57.2 21.9 50.0 55.7 47.5 20.5 43.2 34.0 31.5 45.4 18.5 8.7 4.8 25.0 10.5
89.3 78.1 62.1 26.5 54.5 59.5 52.0 25.3 49.6 39.8 34.2 48.2 19.5 9.3 5.3 26.7 11.4
5.0 4.2 3.6 2.9 2.2 2.7 3.0 2.3 3.2 3.3 2.0 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.6
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
6.0 5.9 6.4 13.1 4.3 4.9 6.4 10.8 7.3 9.6 6.5 4.1 4.2 6.2 5.3 4.8 5.3
76.6 65.2 50.6 16.0 46.0 47.8 39.0 16.3 37.2 25.5 32.0 42.7 17.0 7.3 3.3 22.5 8.7
82.5 71.7 56.3 20.8 50.5 54.0 46.0 19.6 40.5 29.0 34.0 46.0 18.3 8.1 4.3 25.0 9.7
88.8 77.9 60.8 25.9 57.2 59.0 49.5 22.1 48.7 35.2 37.0 49.0 20.0 8.9 5.0 26.5 11.0
4.0 4.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.0 3.4 2.9 1.6 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
4.8 5.8 5.7 15.5 7.1 6.1 6.9 10.1 8.3 9.8 4.7 4.5 5.0 6.1 13.2 5.2 8.0
75.0 63.5 51.0 16.0 50.4 49.9 38.0 16.4 37.9 23.2 29.0 42.0 16.0 7.2 3.1 21.0 9.4
81.6 71.0 55.8 23.0 55.8 56.3 46.8 20.0 41.6 27.2 30.0 45.3 18.0 8.2 3.7 22.5 10.2
89.7 78.1 60.5 28.0 64.1 65.0 53.4 28.0 46.8 30.7 33.0 49.0 19.5 9.2 4.4 25.0 11.2
4.5 4.9 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.6 5.0 3.6 3.3 2.5 1.3 2.3 1.0 1.1 0.5 1.3 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
5.5 7.0 5.8 16.4 7.0 8.2 10.8 17.2 8.0 9.1 4.3 5.1 5.4 13.7 12.4 5.9 7.1
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.49
0.52
0.54
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. SD ¼ standard deviation, SEM ¼ standard error of mean, CV ¼ coefficient of variation.
5.19
0.48
0.51
0.54
3.67
0.46
0.51
0.54
5.03
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
50th pct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Table 3 Anthropometry of female farmers in the three different regions. NO
Anthropometric measures
West Java (Bogor); n ¼ 60
Central Java (Demak); n ¼ 69
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
East Java (Ponorogo); n ¼ 60
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
45.0 150.0 132.5 118.5 90.1 86.0 63.7 50.2 150.5 75.1 171.8 58.6 69.7
48.0 153.3 136.9 123.3 95.8 89.7 67.7 55.8 157.0 78.5 180.6 64.3 74.3
52.2 156.1 146.0 131.0 100.4 92.4 70.7 60.6 161.2 83.0 189.4 70.3 78.9
3.5 2.4 4.7 3.9 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.3 7.6 4.1 5.0 3.8 3.2
0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4
7.2 1.6 3.5 3.2 3.5 4.1 3.4 5.9 4.8 5.2 2.8 5.8 4.2
39.1 142.6 130.8 117.0 88.8 83.1 60.8 49.1 146.5 74.1 170.0 59.5 70.0
52.8 151.1 140.0 125.1 94.0 88.8 66.1 56.2 156.0 79.0 179.5 67.0 78.0
71.0 159.2 148.2 132.2 100.1 95.5 72.4 61.6 165.9 88.8 188.7 72.8 82.8
10.4 5.1 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.1 6.3 4.9 6.0 3.8 4.0
1.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5
19.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.9 4.8 6.3 7.5 4.0 6.2 3.4 5.7 5.1
44.9 143.0 132.0 120.0 90.2 83.5 62.0 51.9 146.0 73.0 169.8 62.0 72.0
56.0 153.1 141.3 126.8 96.0 89.0 66.5 57.0 158.0 78.3 180.0 66.5 76.0
69.5 159.9 149.6 132.8 103.5 94.5 72.0 62.7 164.7 87.0 192.2 70.1 82.0
9.2 5.7 5.1 4.7 6.2 3.7 3.7 3.3 6.3 5.0 6.6 3.4 4.4
1.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6
16.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 6.4 4.1 5.6 5.8 4.0 6.4 3.7 5.1 5.7
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
71.4 61.2 43.6 15.1 43.4 46.4 40.1 20.1 42.3 27.7 28.4 42.7 15.5 8.2 3.9 19.7 8.6
76.8 66.7 48.2 20.5 47.2 49.2 43.2 20.7 45.5 30.7 31.4 46.5 17.8 8.5 3.9 23.3 9.5
82.1 71.6 53.8 24.0 49.5 50.7 45.3 23.3 48.8 33.8 34.7 50.8 18.8 8.8 4.1 25.5 10.7
3.7 3.6 3.4 2.6 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 1.3 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
4.8 5.4 7.0 12.9 4.0 2.7 3.5 5.4 5.2 8.1 8.2 6.1 7.3 2.1 1.7 6.9 8.1
68.3 59.9 43.5 13.5 44.0 48.0 39.0 17.0 32.3 26.0 30.0 40.0 16.0 6.7 3.2 21.0 7.7
77.0 65.7 51.5 19.8 47.8 53.0 45.0 22.0 37.4 31.0 32.0 42.0 17.0 7.4 3.9 22.5 8.8
82.1 70.3 55.6 24.4 51.0 58.0 49.0 27.0 47.3 35.9 34.0 46.9 19.3 8.5 4.7 24.5 10.6
4.1 3.6 3.9 3.6 2.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.3 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
5.4 5.5 7.6 18.7 5.2 6.9 7.8 15.1 8.9 10.9 4.0 4.8 5.1 5.1 12.3 5.6 8.5
71.6 61.2 48.0 16.6 47.4 50.0 41.0 18.0 33.1 23.7 26.0 41.0 15.5 6.8 2.7 19.0 8.4
78.5 67.5 52.2 21.2 52.0 55.8 47.0 22.4 38.5 28.0 29.0 43.0 17.0 7.5 3.5 21.0 9.5
85.7 75.1 57.5 25.7 58.5 60.0 52.0 29.3 41.7 34.0 31.1 46.0 18.0 8.2 4.1 23.0 10.1
5.3 4.1 5.1 3.0 3.6 3.2 3.9 3.1 3.2 3.0 5.4 1.6 1.7 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.5
0.7 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
6.8 6.0 9.9 13.8 6.9 5.8 8.3 13.7 8.3 10.8 18.2 3.8 9.9 6.7 11.7 5.4 5.6
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.47
0.51
0.54
4.64
0.46
0.51
0.54
4.22
0.49
0.51
0.55
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7.34
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. SD ¼ standard deviation, SEM ¼ standard error of mean, CV ¼ coefficient of variation.
227
Table 4 Anthropometry of Javanese farmers, both male and female. NO
Anthropometric measures
Male (n ¼ 189)
Female (n ¼ 182)
Mean
SD
5th pct
95th pct
SEM
CV (%)
Mean
SD
5th pct
95th pct
SEM
CV (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
57.1 162.0 151.2 135.8 101.1 95.1 70.2 59.8 169.0 86.0 195.0 69.9 81.4
9.8 5.5 5.7 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.6 7.8 4.8 8.2 4.3 4.5
41.0 153.0 141.8 127.0 93.8 88.1 64.1 53.8 156.2 78.1 181.5 62.8 74.0
73.2 171.1 160.6 144.6 108.3 102.1 76.4 65.7 181.7 93.8 208.5 77.1 88.8
0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3
17.2 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.4 4.5 5.3 6.1 4.6 5.6 4.2 6.2 5.6
52.3 152.5 139.4 125.0 95.2 89.1 66.7 56.3 157.0 78.6 180.0 66.0 76.1
7.7 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.6 6.7 4.7 5.9 3.6 3.8
39.7 145.3 131.2 117.6 87.5 82.8 61.2 50.5 146.0 70.9 170.4 60.0 69.8
64.9 159.7 147.6 132.4 102.9 95.5 72.3 62.2 168.0 86.2 189.7 71.9 82.4
0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3
14.7 2.9 3.6 3.6 4.9 4.4 5.1 6.4 4.3 5.9 3.3 5.5 5.0
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
82.7 71.4 56.4 21.8 52.0 55.3 46.7 20.0 41.7 30.0 31.9 45.6 18.3 8.3 4.3 24.2 10.1
4.5 4.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 2.6 3.3 2.9 1.7 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.7
75.4 64.1 50.9 16.5 46.7 49.4 40.6 15.7 36.2 25.3 29.2 42.2 16.8 7.1 3.6 22.1 9.0
90.1 78.8 61.9 27.2 57.3 61.1 52.8 24.3 47.1 34.7 34.6 49.0 19.7 9.5 5.0 26.3 11.2
0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
5.4 6.2 6.0 14.9 6.2 6.4 7.9 13.0 8.0 9.6 5.2 4.5 4.9 8.6 9.9 5.3 6.8
77.4 66.6 50.6 20.5 49.0 52.7 45.0 21.7 40.4 29.9 30.8 43.8 17.2 7.8 3.8 22.3 9.3
4.4 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.7
70.2 60.5 43.9 15.5 44.6 48.2 40.2 17.5 35.6 25.0 25.8 40.2 15.1 7.2 3.2 20.1 8.1
84.6 72.8 57.4 25.5 53.3 57.1 49.9 25.8 45.3 34.7 35.9 47.4 19.4 8.4 4.3 24.4 10.4
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
5.6 5.6 8.2 15.0 5.4 5.2 6.6 11.7 7.3 9.9 10.0 5.0 7.4 4.5 8.5 6.0 7.4
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
0.51
0.02
0.47
0.55
0.00
4.61
0.51
0.03
0.46
0.55
0.00
5.40
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. SD ¼ standard deviation, SEM ¼ standard error of mean, CV ¼ coefficient of variation. Table 5 Results of ANOVA (comparison among the male and female data groups in the three regions). NO
Anthropometric measures
Males F-value
Females Sign.
F-value
Sign.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
2.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 11.2 15.9 11.5 2.6 6.5 5.5 1.1 1.2 2.7
ns ns ns ns ** ** ** ns ** ** ns ns ns
29.1 3.4 2.8 4.3 12.3 30.8 2.7 5.4 6.2 28.1 0.8 7.7 11.0
** * ns * ** ** ns ** ** ** ns ** **
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
2.9 0.7 3.1 3.8 81.2 7.7 4.8 6.1 19.8 85.5 67.7 1.1 2.9 11.7 175.2 61.9 23.6
ns ns * * ** ** * ** ** ** ** ns ns ** ** ** **
3.8 4.7 12.2 9.6 80.4 134.9 36.7 10.3 162.8 20.2 5.6 48.9 1.9 223.1 52.2 32.4 24.5
* * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ns ** ** ** **
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
2.45
ns
0.50
ns: not significant, *: significant at p < 0.05, **: significant at p < 0.01.
ns
Chinese females, 95 ± 6% of Turkish females, 94 ± 5% of British females and 93 ± 5% of American females. These results suggest that the general characteristics of Indonesian anthropometry are quite similar to those of their Indian counterparts, but tends to be smaller than those of the other Eastern people (Filipino, Chinese and Japanese) and definitely smaller than those of the Western people (Turkish, Brazilian, British and Americans). The differences in anthropometric dimensions between the Indonesian people and population groups from the other countries emphasize the usefulness of this study in the context of designing and introducing agricultural tools, equipment and machinery. The various tools, equipment and machinery used in Indonesia are based on foreign design and anthropometry; thus, they must be appropriately modified or refined before introducing them to Indonesian workers. 4. Illustration of the use of anthropometric data in designing farm tools and equipment from ergonomics considerations Manual labour plays an important role and human power remains predominant in conducting farm operations in Indonesia (Komatsuzaki and Syuaib, 2011). Various hand tools and manually operated equipment are commonly used in farm operations; these tools and equipment are generally shared between male and female workers. Heavy labour, such as land preparation, puddling, spraying and transporting, are mostly performed by male workers, while seeding, transplanting and weeding are mainly performed by females. Some additional operations, such as fertilizing, harvesting and threshing, are performed by both males and females. Changes in the demographic proportion of farm-workers in recent decades have shifted the roles of males and females in farm labour; as a result, the designs of the work system and tools must be altered or refined accordingly. To achieve better performance
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
229
Fig. 4. Comparison of the stature and sitting height dimensions across regions and genders.
and productivity along with better safety and comfort, the tools, machinery and work system must be designed to be suitable and tailored to the workers; an anthropometric database is a prerequisite for such design work. The results of this study may be a starting point to develop an anthropometric database and to apply it in practice to improve the design of agricultural tools, equipment and machinery to suit them to the physical characteristics of the workers. To demonstrate the use of anthropometric data, three simple examples of traditional hand tools and equipment designs will be discussed below. 4.1. Grip diameter for hand-operated tools and equipment Various hand-operated tools, such as a hoe, sickle, and chopping-knife, and manually operated equipment or simple
machinery, such as a hand-sprayer, hand-weeder, and hand-tractor, are widely used in agricultural labour in Indonesia. These types of tools or equipment could be operated by both male and female workers. The handle is one of the important components of hand tools and equipment, so a proper grip dimension is very important to ensure effective and safe handling of the tools or operation of the machinery. The sickle is an example of a hand tool that is widely used in various tasks in farm labour, especially for the harvesting operation in rice cultivation (Fig. 7). Therefore, the handle dimension is quite essential in the design of a sickle. Anthropometrically, the handle diameter should be such that while the worker grasps it, her/his longest finger should not touch the palm and, at the same time, it should not exceed the internal grip diameter (Dewangan et al., 2010). Regarding the handle length, it must be fully grasped along the palm of the hand; therefore, it
Table 6 Results of the T test (comparison between males and females in each region). NO
Anthropometric measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
West Java (df ¼ 118)
Central Java (df ¼ 129)
East Java (df ¼ 118)
All Java (df ¼ 369)
F-value
Sign.
F-value
Sign.
F-value
Sign.
F-value
Sign.
4.2 11.3 15.1 15.3 9.9 6.8 1.5 6.5 7.5 8.2 12.0 7.1 10.1
*** *** *** *** *** *** ns *** *** *** *** *** ***
2.3 11.2 10.8 11.1 5.7 10.5 6.0 4.3 11.9 8.5 10.8 3.9 6.0
* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
2.5 8.6 10.3 9.7 6.2 5.6 7.8 5.0 7.5 8.9 11.8 5.5 5.5
* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
5.3 18.5 21.1 21.0 12.3 14.1 9.4 9.2 15.9 15.1 20.3 9.6 12.2
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
9.2 6.8 14.0 2.7 7.8 16.8 9.9 0.8 4.6 6.3 0.1 2.5 3.9 2.7 27.3 6.6 8.0
*** *** *** ** *** *** *** ns *** *** ns * *** ** *** *** ***
7.5 8.4 7.4 1.7 4.9 1.6 1.7 4.7 5.0 3.5 7.6 10.6 7.9 8.7 4.5 10.8 6.1
*** *** *** ns *** ns ns *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
3.4 4.2 4.6 2.9 5.4 0.6 0.3 3.8 5.3 1.6 1.4 6.2 4.0 4.4 2.5 6.6 6.1
*** *** *** ** *** ns ns *** *** ns ns *** *** *** * *** ***
11.6 11.3 14.7 4.1 10.0 7.9 4.8 6.3 3.9 0.4 4.3 8.0 8.9 9.0 13.4 14.3 11.7
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ns *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
ns
0.25
ns
2.45
*
0.01
ns: not significant, *: significant at p < 0.05, **: significant at p < 0.01, ***: significant at p < 0.001.
1.55
ns
230
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Table 7 Comparison of the anthropometry of males among different countries of origin. NO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 a b c d e f
Anthropometric measures
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Cest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand Length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
Indonesia
Indiaa,b
Mean
SD
Mean
57.1 162.0 151.2 135.8 101.2 95.0 70.2 59.8 168.9 85.9 195.1 69.9 82.9 71.4 56.4 21.8 52.1 55.3 46.8 20.0 41.9 30.1 31.8 45.6 18.3 8.3 4.3 24.2 10.1
10.0 5.5 5.7 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.6 7.8 4.8 8.2 4.3 4.0 4.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 2.6 7.7 2.9 1.6 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.7
53.7 162.5 151.0 134.5 102.5 98.9 68.5 58.5 170.5 88.0 199.5 72.5 84.0 74.0 55.5 20.5 51.0 55.5 46.5 20.5 41.0 31.0 35.5 46.0 18.5 8.5 4.0 25.0 9.5
Filipinoc
Japanesea,d
Chinese (Taiwan)d
Braziliana
Turkishe,f
Britisha
USAa
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
6.3 5.0 5.2 4.9 4.0 4.1 2.9 2.8 6.6 3.3 7.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.1 2.0 3.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.0 0.8 0.4 1.1 1.0 2.2
nda 167.0 155.0 137.5 104.1 97.3 72.5 nda 167.9 nda 193.4 nda 84.8 73.4 nda 22.2 50.0 54.8 46.4 nda 44.7 35.6 nda 44.1 nda nda nda nda nda
nda 8.0 6.9 6.1 6.7 8.4 5.8 nda 9.2 nda 10.8 nda 5.8 3.8 nda 4.2 4.0 5.2 3.7 nda 7.3 4.2 nda 4.1 nda nda nda nda nda
66.0 168.8 157.7 137.0 103.5 nda 74.0 64.4 169.0 87.5 194.0 69.0 91.0 79.0 59.1 25.4 50.9 56.7 47.0 21.7 44.0 34.9 33.7 44.8 nda 8.5 nda 25.1 10.4
8.0 5.5 5.3 5.0 5.0 nda 4.0 3.0 6.3 4.8 8.3 3.7 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.3 3.1 1.8 2.2 1.9 7.8 1.8 nda 0.4 nda 1.1 0.5
67.0 170.5 nda 139.6 105.9 nda 75.7 65.9 173.8 89.4 200.2 71.0 91.0 79.1 60.2 26.4 52.1 55.8 nda 21.7 46.0 36.0 33.8 42.7 18.3 8.6 nda nda nda
8.8 5.9 nda 5.3 4.0 nda 3.2 3.0 6.9 4.5 7.9 3.6 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.1 nda 1.9 2.3 2.7 1.9 2.7 1.0 0.5 nda nda nda
66.0 170.0 159.5 141.0 104.5 nda 72.0 62.5 175.5 92.5 202.0 76.5 88.0 77.5 59.5 23.0 53.0 59.5 48.0 23.5 44.5 34.0 36.5 47.5 18.5 8.5 nda 26.0 10.0
11.0 6.6 6.6 6.0 4.9 nda 4.0 3.7 7.8 4.4 7.5 3.2 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.2 0.9 0.5 nda 1.2 0.5
77.0 170.8 160.5 141.6 107.6 nda 74.6 64.2 172.7 92.7 217.5 75.1 89.2 78.5 60.6 23.4 51.5 nda nda 22.4 47.5 33.3 35.7 46.6 18.9 8.7 nda 26.1 10.4
12.0 8.1 8.0 7.5 6.0 nda 4.5 5.0 9.8 5.5 11.7 4.2 4.6 4.9 4.3 3.8 3.9 nda nda 2.7 6.4 2.7 2.4 2.5 1.4 0.7 nda 1.9 1.1
75.0 174.0 163.0 142.5 109.0 nda 75.5 65.5 179.0 94.5 206.0 78.0 91.0 79.0 59.5 24.5 54.5 59.5 49.5 25.0 46.5 36.0 36.5 47.5 19.0 8.5 nda 26.5 9.5
11.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 5.2 nda 4.1 3.8 8.3 4.7 8.0 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.2 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.1 1.0 0.5 nda 1.4 0.6
77.8 175.5 170.9 144.0 110.5 nda 76.5 66.0 181.1 95.5 208.0 78.5 91.4 80.0 59.9 24.4 55.1 59.9 50.0 25.4 47.0 36.1 36.6 48.0 19.1 8.9 nda 26.4 9.9
14.0 7.1 7.1 6.6 5.3 nda 4.1 3.8 8.4 4.8 7.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 nda 1.5 0.5
MacLeod, 2000. Agrawal. Del Prado-Lu. Kagimoto in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Wang in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Is, eria; nda: no data available.
should not be shorter than the hand breadth. The appropriate handle diameter for general users should be designed in such a way that the person with 5th percentile dimensions could properly grip the handle, and the length of the handle should accommodate the 95th percentile dimension. Therefore, by taking the clearance of 0.5 cm on each side of the grip, the recommended length of the handle is 10.5 cm and 9.4 cm and the recommended handle diameter is 3.6 cm and 3.2 cm for males and females, respectively. 4.2. Handle length of a manual hoe for dryland and wetland field operations A manual hoe is a very important tool in farming operations, especially for land-preparation. Land preparation is a critical and routine operation that involves the following functions: breaking of a dense layer of soil, management of crop residues and weeds, incorporation of fertilizers, increase of water infiltration, shaping of the soil surface and preparation of a seed bed. This operation is usually performed by male workers because it is relatively hard work and burdensome for female workers. Generally, there are two types of farm fields in Indonesia (upland or dryland field and wetland or paddy field); thus, there are two common types of hoes that are used for the land preparation accordingly. The top layer (approximately 20e30 cm depth) of wetland soil is soft and muddy; as a result, the feet of a worker are submerged until reaching a hard soil layer below the field surface, which is called the hardpan layer. In contrast, the upland field has topsoil that is relatively hard and dry, so the feet of a worker
remains on the surface of the field when she/he is using a hoe (Fig. 8). Consequently, the length of the hoe handles should be designed differently, and the handle of the wetland hoe should be designed to be shorter than that of the dryland hoe. In addition, the angle of blade mounting should be likewise designed differently to enable safe and effective work motion. The angle generally is in the range of 75e80 for the wetland hoe and 80e85 for the dryland hoe. The grip diameter should accommodate the 5th percentile dimensions because the hoe is generally operated by a male worker, and a grip diameter of 3.6 cm is recommended. Operations of a manual hoe require flexions of the back, shoulders, elbows and knees and, sometimes, shoulder and neck extensions. To determine the appropriate length of a hoe handle (Fig. 9), the heights of the shoulder, waist (or hip), knees, and elbows and the lengths of the arms and hands must be considered along with the natural range of motion (ROM) of shoulder flexion (SF), back flexion (BF), hip flexion (HF), knee flexion (KF) and elbow flexion (EF). Furthermore, in most cases, manual hoe operation requires a certain working depth; therefore, the design and length of the handle should provide a comfortable holding height to the user ranging in the 5th e 95th percentile body dimensions. By considering the ROM suggested by Kroemer and Grandjean (1997) and the four zones of ROM recommended by Openshaw and Taylor (2006), 90 SF, 45 BF, 55 HF, 65 KF and 110 EF were predetermined as the extreme limits of tolerable work motion. The motion analysis found that BF is most likely to be at the extreme limit of motion range. Thus, the optimum length of the handle can be geometrically calculated by setting the 45 BF and 95th
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
231
Table 8 Comparison of the anthropometry of females among different countries of origin. NO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 a b c d e f
Anthropometric measures
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Cest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand Length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
Indonesia
Indiaa,b
Filipinoc
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
52.3 152.5 139.4 125.0 94.9 91.9 65.1 56.3 156.3 78.2 180.0 66.7 77.4 66.6 50.6 20.5 49.0 52.7 45.1 21.7 40.5 29.9 30.8 43.8 17.3 7.6 3.8 22.3 9.7
7.7 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.7 4.0 3.9 3.6 6.7 4.2 6.2 3.6 4.2 3.3 4.1 3.1 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.9
48.0 153.2 141.8 127.1 96.2 94.1 66.4 nda 153.1 78.4 184.4 66.6 80.3 68.7 54.6 23.4 45.3 50.5 38.2 20.3 36.5 31.1 nda 40.7 16.5 6.5 4.3 22.7 8.9
4.4 5.5 5.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.0 nda 6.0 3.4 6.4 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 3.0 1.9 2.2 2.0 nda 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.6
nda 153.9 143.1 127.2 96.3 95.5 67.8 nda 153.2 nda 190.2 nda 79.9 68.4 nda 21.9 47.0 52.7 45.1 nda 40.2 36.4 nda 40.5 nda nda nda nda nda
Japanesea,d
Chinese (Taiwan)d
Turkishe,f
Britisha
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
nda 8.3 6.2 5.8 7.4 6.1 6.3 nda 8.5 nda 10.3 nda 4.5 4.9 nda 4.1 4.4 4.6 3.7 nda 8.3 4.8 nda 5.4 nda nda nda nda nda
54.0 158.4 142.5 127.9 96.7 nda 70.5 60.8 157.9 78.0 179.5 62.0 85.5 73.3 55.1 23.6 47.5 55.0 45.0 21.5 39.5 35.8 31.5 41.6 16.5 7.5 nda 23.2 9.6
6.0 5.0 4.7 4.8 3.7 nda 3.3 2.7 6.2 4.1 6.9 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.9 0.3 nda 0.9 0.4
52.1 157.2 nda 128.5 97.8 nda 70.8 61.8 157.1 nda 183.1 65.1 84.6 73.2 56.1 25.2 47.1 53.0 nda 21.3 40.6 35.3 30.9 38.4 16.7 7.5 nda nda nda
7.2 5.3 nda 5.0 3.8 nda 3.3 3.2 6.2 nda 6.7 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.6 nda 1.9 2.4 2.3 1.8 2.7 0.8 0.4 nda nda nda
65.0 159.8 149.2 130.7 100.3 nda 72.4 62.8 159.3 84.2 188.1 69.5 84.8 73.7 55.8 23.2 49.4 nda nda 25.9 36.6 30.8 27.3 42.7 16.7 7.5 nda 23.2 8.8
13.0 7.6 7.3 7.1 5.5 nda 4.5 4.7 8.7 5.3 8.8 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.3 nda nda 2.7 2.4 3.8 3.2 2.4 1.0 0.6 nda 1.4 0.7
63.0 161.0 150.5 131.0 100.5 nda 72.0 62.5 160.5 85.0 190.5 70.5 85.0 74.0 55.5 23.5 50.0 57.0 48.0 25.0 39.5 37.0 33.0 43.0 17.5 7.5 nda 23.5 9.0
11.0 6.2 6.1 5.8 4.6 nda 3.6 3.8 7.1 4.3 7.1 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.4 3.8 1.7 1.9 0.9 0.4 nda 1.2 0.6
64.9 162.6 152.4 132.6 102.1 nda 72.9 63.0 162.6 86.1 192.5 71.1 86.1 74.9 56.4 23.6 50.5 57.4 49.0 25.4 39.9 37.6 33.5 43.4 17.5 7.6 nda 23.9 8.9
15.0 6.4 6.4 6.1 4.8 nda 3.8 4.1 7.4 4.3 7.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.8 1.8 2.0 1.0 0.5 nda 1.3 0.5
MacLeod, 2000. Dewangan. Del Prado-Lu. Kagimoto in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Wang in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Is, eria; nda: no data available.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the bodily proportion in standing posture among different peoples.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the bodily proportion in the sitting posture among different peoples.
USAa
232
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Fig. 7. Manual sickle for paddy harvesting operation.
Fig. 8. Examples of manual hoe handling for land preparation on upland and wetland fields.
percentile body dimensions as the maximum limit of tolerable posture in the operation (Fig. 9); finally, 106 and 79 cm were found as the optimum length of the hoe lever that is suitable for upland (dryland) and wetland field operations, respectively. 4.3. Design of a wooden-bench manual thresher for paddy Threshing is the final task in paddy cultivation activities, in which a thresher is used to detach the grains from the harvested
paddy-stems. Various types of threshing tools or machines (thresher) are commonly used by Indonesian farmers. Instead of a power or pedal thresher, a wooden-bench manual thresher is quite typically used by small-scale or grass-root farmers in Indonesia, especially in Java Island (Fig. 10). The manual threshing task is performed in such a simple manner that both male and female workers may easily operate it. The results of motion analysis (Fig. 11) reveals four sequential motions of the manual threshing task. First, the operator firmly
Fig. 9. Illustration of the work motion modelling to determine the suitable length of a hoe handle.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
233
Fig. 10. Manual paddy threshing using a wooden-bench (threshing can be performed by female or male workers).
grasps a ‘bundle’ of harvested paddy-stems and raises it by flexing her/his shoulders and elbows upward within a comfortable range of motion (Fig. 11[a]). Next, the operator swings their arm downward (Fig. 11[b], [c]). Finally, the operator strokes all of the stems at once onto a wooden-bench surface (Fig. 11[d]) to detach the grains from the stems. A plastic canvas is spread in the area below the thresher bench to collect the detached grain. The stroke intensity, landing slant and contact area between the paddy stems and bench surface were found to be the important factors to be considered to achieve a good threshing performance. Accordingly, the length (L), height (H), width (W) and beach slope (a) were found to be the functional dimensions of the bench (Fig. 12). Thus, the heights of the stature, shoulder, waist or hip,
knuckle and knee and the lengths of the arm and hand were found to be relevant anthropometric dimensions in designing an appropriate threshing bench. Motion analysis revealed that the most important part in the threshing task sequence is when the bundle of the paddy-stems lands on the surface of the bench (Fig. 11[d]). The landing slope and contact area between the bundle of the paddy and the bench surface must be maintained to be the maximum possible, while the worker repetitively strokes the bundle by flexing her/his back, shoulder and elbow in such a way that the grain is detached properly and not deflected far away from the bench. If the task motion is not conducted in the proper manner and the bench dimension is not appropriate, then the grains may not be detached
Fig. 11. Work-motion analysis of manual threshing (based on actual conditions in the field).
234
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
different groups of users were then geometrically calculated; the results are shown in Fig. 13. The 50th percentile could be adopted as the practical design for common use because the dimensions are still within an acceptable range for the taller (95th percentile) as well as for the shorter (5th percentile) male and female users. 5. Conclusions
Fig. 12. Functional dimensions of a wooden-bench threshing tool.
properly or they may be deflected away from the collecting canvas area. In most cases, the motion analysis found that elbow and shoulder flexions were naturally within the comfortable range of motion, while back flexion was much more influenced by the bench dimensions. A shorter bench caused excessive back flexion, while a taller bench caused the hand to collide with the bench. The flexions of the related body motion are assumed to be as high as possible within the comfort zones while being suitable to the threshing mechanism and the threshing bench dimensions; a 25 back flexion was taken as the basis of the motion to achieve appropriate task performance. Thus, by fully considering the nature of the task sequence and the diversity of user anthropometry, the ideal dimensions of the benches suitable for
Thirty anthropometric parameters of Indonesian farm-workers in three diverse regions of Java Island were collected and summarized. The variation in the anthropometric dimensions among people in the regions and between males and females were analysed. Significant differences of most of the anthropometric dimensions were indicated between males and females as well as among people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. Generally, the anthropometric dimensions of Indonesian farm-workers are found to be similar to Indian workers; however, they were comparatively smaller than the Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, Brazilian, Turkish, British and American workers, for both males and females. Indonesia is a country with diversity in both indigenous and agro-environments, and agriculture-related operations still play a very important role in the local economy, employing the majority of the grass-root population. Most of the agricultural tools and equipment used by the majority of farmers are simple and traditional that are locally produced by small-scale makers or artisans and are designed with a lack of ergonomic principles. Some tools or machinery may also be introduced and adopted from other regions or countries. As a result, an anthropometric database is essential in Indonesia to enable engineers, manufacturers, or artisans to design, adopt, adjust or modify the tools, machines, or equipment manufactured in other countries or regions that are being introduced in Indonesia.
Fig. 13. Ideal design of a threshing bench for male and female workers of the 5th, 50th and 95th percentile values.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Acknowledgements The author acknowledges Dani Rahmawan, David Raditya, Siska Febriana, Ita Hanani, Tri Novita Sari, Raizummi Fil'aini and Nugrahaning Dewi for their cooperation and assistance in conducting surveys and collecting data in this study. References Agrawal, K.N., Singh, R.K.P., Satapathy, K.K., 2010. Anthropometric considerations of farm tools/machinery design for tribal workers of northeastern India. CIGR J. 12 (1), 143e152. Dewangan, K.N., Owary, C., Datta, R.K., 2008. Anthropometric data of female farm workers from north eastern India and design of hand tools of the hilly region. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38, 90e100. Dewangan, K.N., Owary, C., Datta, R.K., 2010. Anthropometry of male agricultural workers of north-eastern India and its use in design of agricultural tools and equipment. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 40, 560e573. Hua, H., Lia, Z., Yana, J., Wang, X., Xiao, H., Duana, J., Zhenga, L., 2007. Anthropometric measurement of the Chinese elderly living in the Beijing area. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37, 303e311. Iseria, A., Arslan, N., 2009. Estimated anthropometric measurements of Turkish adults and effects of age and geographical regions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 860e865. Karmegam, K., et al., 2011. Anthropometric study among adults of different ethnicity in Malaysia. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 6 (4), 777e788.
235
Komatsuzaki, M., Syuaib, M.F., 2011. New farm management strategy to enhance sustainable rice production in Japan and Indonesia. Book chapter 14. In: Benkeblia, N. (Ed.), Sustainable Agriculture and New Biotechnologies. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Kroemer, K.H.E., Grandjean, E., 1997. Fitting the Task to the Human. Taylor & Francis, London. Lin, Y.J., Wang, M.J., Wang, E.M., 2004. The comparisons of anthropometric characteristics among four peoples in East Asia [technical note]. Appl. Ergon. 35, 173e178. MacLeod, D., 2000. The Rules of Work: a Practical Engineering Guide to Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, USA. Marras, W.R., Karwowski, W. (Eds.), 2006. The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook, second ed. Fundamental Assessment Tools for Occupational Ergonomics Taylor & Francis Group, Florida, USA. NASA, 1978. Anthropometric Source Book [NASA Reference Publication 1024]. Webb Associates. Yellow Spring, Ohio, USA. Openshaw, S., Taylor, E., 2006. Ergonomics and Design A Reference Guide [e-book]. Allsteel. Inc. http://www.allsteeloffice.com/ergo. Pheasant, S., 2003. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work, second ed. Taylor & Francis, London. Prado-Lu, J.L.D., 2007. Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37, 497e503. Sadeghi, F., Mazloumi, A., Kazemi, Z., 2015. An anthropometric data bank for the Iranian working population with ethnic diversity. Applier Ergon. 48, 95e103. 2013. Statistical Year Book of Indonesia. Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik), Indonesia.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Ergonomics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo
Anthropometric study of farm workers on Java Island, Indonesia, and its implications for the design of farm tools and equipment M. Faiz Syuaib Department of Mechanical & Biosystem Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 27 April 2014 Received in revised form 4 May 2015 Accepted 19 May 2015 Available online xxx
Anthropometric data are a prerequisite for designing agricultural tools and equipment that enable workers to achieve better performance and productivity while providing better safety and comfort. A set of thirty anthropometric dimensions was collected from a total sample of 371 male and female farmworkers from three different regions (west, central and east) of Java Island, Indonesia. The mean stature is 162.0 cm and 152.5 cm, the sitting height is 82.9 cm and 77.4 cm, and the body weight is 57.1 kg and 52.3 kg for male and female subjects, respectively. The index of relative sitting height (RSH) was 0.51 on average for both male and female subjects. Significant differences are found in most of the anthropometric dimensions between gender and regional data groups as well. Compared with groups of people from several other countries, the anthropometric dimensions of Indonesian people are quite similar to Indian people, but are relatively smaller than Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, British, and American people. An attempt was conducted to illustrate the use of this anthropometric database and ergonomic considerations in refining the design of traditional tools and equipment commonly in use for rice farming operations. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anthropometry Farm worker Tool design
1. Introduction Indonesia is an agricultural country in which a large portion of the population engages in agricultural works, either as smallholder farmers, farm labourers, or workers in agro-industrial plantations. In spite of a doubling of the total population from 1970 to 2010, the proportion of the agriculture-engaged workforce decreased by half over the same period (Komatsuzaki and Syuaib, 2011). Moreover, the proportion of female and elderly farm-workers is also steeply increasing. Various types of tools, equipment and simple machines have been commonly used to accomplish a variety of farm works, and new types of machines are sometimes introduced to improve the productivity of farm operations. Ergonomic considerations are required in this regard to attain a good match and suitability of machines to tasks to ensure safety and enhance comfort and eventually to leverage productivity. Anthropometry is a branch of Ergonomics that considers the measurement and description of the dimensions of the human
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.05.007 0003-6870/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
body. Anthropometric considerations in the design of tools will result in the improvement of performance and efficiency along with safety and comfort as well as prevent work-related injuries or accidents. Anthropometric dimensions vary considerably across gender, race, ethnicity and age (Pheasant, 2003). Anthropometric data of several Asia Pacific populations have been reported, such as those in China, Japan and Korea (Lin et al., 2004); the Philippines (Prado-Lu, 2007); India (Dewangan et al., 2008; Agrawal et al., 2010); Turkey (Iseria and Arslan, 2009); Malaysia (Karmegam et al., 2011); and Iran (Sadeghi et al., 2015). However, the application of anthropometry to the design of farm tools and machinery has not been implemented in practice in Indonesia due to the lack of a proper anthropometric database. To collect anthropometric data representing the Indonesian population as a whole is quite cumbersome because the country's area is quite extensive and consists of hundreds of tribes and ethnic groups. With a focus and emphasis on the main island of Java e which is inhabited by over half of the total population as well as by over half of the agriculture-engaged population of the country (Statistics of Indonesia, 2013) e this study was conducted with the aim to obtain an anthropometric database that can be used to design, or refine the design of, tools, machines, or work systems, particularly in agriculture.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
2. Methods Anthropometric surveys were undertaken in three districts representing three separate regions on Java Island, namely, Bogor in West Java, Demak in Central Java and Ponorogo in East Java. In total 189 males and 182 females were randomly selected among the selffarming (grass-root farmers) population in the regions. The numbers of sampled-subjects were selected proportionally to the size and distribution of the population in each study area, and all of the subjects were in good health and able to stand unassisted. The procedures of data collection were explained to the subjects before starting the measurement to obtain their understanding and cooperation, thereby ensuring that the measurement accuracy could be maintained. A portable weighing scale with an accuracy of 0.1 kg measured the body weight, and a commercial Anthropometer set (Fig. 1) and a measurement tape with accuracy of 1 mm measured the other twenty-nine basic anthropometric dimensions of the subjects. Thirteen measurements were performed with the subjects in the standing position, and the other seventeen measurements were performed with the subjects in the sitting position (Figs. 2 and 3). Subsequently, the index of RSH (relative sitting height) was calculated, and the ages of the subjects were likewise recorded. For the measurement techniques and terminologies used, please refer to the guidelines in Anthropometric Source Book (NASA, 1978). The required number of samples was estimated according to the equation in Annex A of ISO 15535:2003 e “General requirements for establishing anthropometric databases” e for a 95% confidence interval (Hua et al., 2007):
n ð3:006 CV=aÞ2
(1)
where n is the sample size, CV is the coefficient of variation, and a is the percentage of relative accuracy desired. In this survey, a 5% relative accuracy was desired, and a value of CV 0.125 was used to pre-determine the sample size. Thus, the minimum number of 60 for the number of subjects taken for each sample's group in this research is acceptable; Table 1 presents the distribution and characteristics of the subjects in the regions. A computer recorded the collected data, and a common spreadsheet software package was used to analyse them. The data set for each dimension in the sample's groups were checked to ensure that they represent a normal distribution. The values of the mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were computed. The 5th, 50th and
223
95th percentile values were calculated accordingly. The ANOVA Ftest was used to compare the significant differences among the data groups of the diverse regions, while the T-test was used to compare the difference between the mean dimensions of the males and females in each data group. The significant difference was accepted if a significant outcome existed (p < 0.05).
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Anthropometric measures A set of thirty anthropometric measurements were obtained, and the values of SD, SEM, CV, and the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles of each of the measures were calculated. Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the data analyses and how they are distributed with respect to the three distinct regions of study for males and females, respectively. Generally, the SEM values of the data groups are lower than 1.0, but the values associated with body weight, arm spans and vertical reaches are in the range of 1.0e1.4. These SEM values are accepted to the 95% confidence limit and therefore indicated that the number and distribution of the samples are representative of the targeted population. Furthermore, to summarize the overall anthropometric data of the three regions, iterative statistical calculations were performed to obtain a combined distribution of the data for each region. Table 4 presents the anthropometric data that correspond to the overall population of the farmers, both male and female. Regarding the coefficient of variation, the values of CV > 10% are associated with body weight, chest depth, sitting elbow height and grip diameter, and the values of CV < 10% are generally associated with the remaining body dimensions in the data groups. According to Pheasant (2003), the common characteristic ranges of CV (%) of the various anthropometric dimensions are: 3e4 for stature, 3e5 for body heights, 4e5 for parts of limbs, 5e9 for body breadths, 6e9 for body depths, 4e11 for dynamic reach and 10e21 for body weight. Thus, over 75% of the collected data is located in the ranges of the suggested CV. However, the CV values of some particular body dimensions, such as sitting eye height, sitting shoulder height, sitting elbow height, chest depth, arm lengths, hand breadth and grip diameter, are relatively higher. Therefore, the generalization of the sample of the population for these particular dimensions should be used more carefully. The mean (50th percentile) body weight of males in the West (W), Central (C) and East (E) regions of Java are 54.3 kg, 57.0 kg and
Fig. 1. Anthropometer set.
224
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Fig. 2. Illustration of the measurements (modified from: Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997 and Pheasant, 2003).
Fig. 3. Anthropometry measurements of the subjects.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
225
Table 1 Characteristics of the subjects for the anthropometric survey.
Number of subjects Average of age SD of age
West Java (Bogor)
Central Java (Demak)
East Java (Ponorogo)
Total subjects (Java)
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
60 36.0 7.4
60 32.0 7.3
69 44.0 11.8
62 40.0 9.3
60 51.0 11.2
60 46.0 8.9
189 43.7 10.1
182 39.3 8.5
60.0 kg, respectively, while the corresponding values of the females are 48.0 kg, 52.8 kg and 56.0 kg, respectively. The overall average body weight of the males and females in the three regions are 57.0 kg and 50.0 kg, respectively. The mean stature of males in the W, C and E regions is 161.9, 162.6 and 161.5 cm, respectively, while the corresponding values of females are 153.3, 151.1 and 153.1 cm, respectively. The overall stature of the males and females of the regions are, on average, 162.1 and 152.6 cm, respectively. The mean sitting height of each region is in the range of 82.0e84.2 cm for males and 76.8e78.5 cm for females. The sitting height of the overall population in the regions averaged 82.8 and 77.2 cm for males and females, respectively. Regarding the mean value of the relative sitting height (RSH), 0.51 was the result for the average of all of the data groups, for both males and females. However, the shorter the sample size, the lower the RSH value observed. The RSH of each data group was in the range of 0.46e0.49, 0.51e0.52, and 0.54e0.55 for the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles, respectively. Referring to Pheasant (2003), the shorter samples (5th percentiles) in all regions are categorized as “long legged” (RSH < 0.50), the taller ones (95th percentiles) are categorized as “short legged” (0.53 < RSH < 0.55), and the average of the groups (50th percentiles) are categorized as between short and long legged (0.51 < RSH < 0.53). In other words, the RSH tends to be lower for the short samples compared to the tall samples. These results reveal that the trunk of the Javanese contributes more to the differences in the stature dimension compared to the lower limbs; generally, the Javanese people have similar proportions to Far-Eastern people, but have different proportions to the European and Middle-Eastern people (Pheasant, 2003). 3.2. Comparison of the anthropometry results across regions and gender The variations in the body dimensions of people are reflected in their geographical locations, with some of these variations being significantly different. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in most of the mean body dimensions among people in the three regions of study (Table 5). A total comparison of 26 dimensions have significant outcomes among the female data groups (22 items within p < 0.01, and the other 4 items within p < 0.05), whereas 18 dimensions were significant among the male data groups (15 items within p < 0.01, and the other 3 items within p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between the mean dimensions of body weight, stature, shoulder height, fingertip height, arm reaches and sitting heights among the male data groups; in contrast, significant differences are observed in the corresponding dimensions among the female groups. In addition, all of the breadth and depth dimensions were found to be significantly different (p < 0.01), whereas eye height, vertical grip reach, hand length and RSH were found to not exhibit significant differences between the male and female data groups. These results suggest that a consideration of ethnic diversity is required in designing tools and machinery; in particular, attention is required when designing for female users because the diversity of body dimensions among the female groups was greater than that of the male groups.
Generally, the stature and sitting height of females in the 50th percentile are comparable to the corresponding dimensions of males in the 5th percentile, and the corresponding dimensions of males in the 50th percentile are comparable to that of females in the 95th percentile (Fig. 4). Furthermore, the means of the armrelated dimensions (arm span, elbow span, and reach), the handrelated dimensions (grip diameter, hand breadth and hand length) and the foot dimensions (length and breadth) of females are generally in the range of 90e96% compared to those of the males. Statistical T-tests were used to compare the means of the dimensions between males and females in each data group. Significant outcomes are generally observed between the mean body dimensions of males and females in all of the data groups (Table 6), and approximately 85% among the significant items are within p < 0.001. This result reveals that the mean body dimensions of males and females are undoubtedly unique and that the body dimensions of the males are comparatively larger than those of the females. This difference suggests that a designer must fully consider the dimensional differences between males and females in designing tools and machinery to take full advantage of the usability and safety and to minimize the risk of musculoskeletal disorder to the users. 3.3. Comparison of anthropometry across the ethnic populations of the world It is generally accepted that anthropometric dimensions vary considerably across gender, race, ethnicity and age. Various anthropometric studies in different countries and for diverse groups of workers have been conducted and reported by many authors, some of which are listed in Tables 7 and 8 for males and females, respectively. From a comparison of the bodily proportions in standing and sitting postures (Figs. 5 and 6), Indonesians tend to have shorter height dimensions compared to the other groups of people, for both males and females. However, Indonesian males have approximately the same stature but higher shoulder height than those of their Indian counterparts. Furthermore, the mean of the arm reaches of Indonesian males were comparatively longer than those of Filipino and Japanese males, but shorter than those of the other groups of people; while the corresponding dimensions of Indonesian females were comparatively longer than Japanese females, but shorter than those of the other groups of people. The means of the hip and shoulder depths of Indonesian males were comparatively the same as that of Indians, but smaller than those of the other groups of people, while the mean of the hip dimension of Indonesian females was among the smallest value compared to those of the other groups of people. Finally, from a general comparison of all of the body dimensions (as presented in Tables 7 and 8), the means of the anthropometric dimensions of Indonesian males have relative values in the ranges of 100 ± 4% of Indian males, 98 ± 4% of Filipino males, 96 ± 5% of Japanese males, 94 ± 6% of Chinese males, 94 ± 4% of Brazilian males, 93 ± 5% of Turkish males, 92 ± 6% of British males and 91 ± 5% of American males. The mean dimensions of Indonesian females have relative values in the ranges of 100 ± 8% of Indian females, 98 ± 5% of Filipino females, 97 ± 6% of Japanese and
226
Table 2 Anthropometry of male farmers in the three different regions. NO
Anthropometric measures
West Java (Bogor); n ¼ 60
Central Java (Demak); n ¼ 69
East Java (Ponorogo); n ¼ 60
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
5th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
43.0 154.3 143.0 127.1 94.5 88.3 62.0 54.0 157.3 76.0 183.3 64.9 75.4
54.3 161.9 150.9 136.2 102.8 94.7 68.6 59.9 166.6 84.8 194.2 69.1 80.0
77.0 171.4 158.6 143.9 108.2 102.3 74.6 66.1 179.2 92.0 206.6 74.6 86.0
10.9 5.4 5.5 5.2 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.7 6.4 4.4 7.2 3.5 3.1
1.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.4
19.3 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.6 5.5 6.1 3.8 5.2 3.7 5.0 3.8
46.0 151.6 139.2 125.0 91.8 88.6 64.2 53.3 159.0 77.4 177.9 59.0 69.6
57.0 162.6 151.6 135.5 98.6 97.5 70.5 59.2 171.0 87.0 194.3 70.0 83.0
75.0 171.0 160.5 142.5 105.9 105.2 77.5 64.1 182.9 94.8 207.5 75.0 87.0
10.0 6.1 6.5 5.4 4.3 4.9 3.9 3.4 7.4 5.4 8.7 4.7 5.1
1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.6
17.3 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.5 5.8 4.3 6.2 4.5 6.7 6.2
48.0 152.2 140.5 126.5 95.1 86.7 65.0 54.5 156.8 77.0 181.9 63.9 71.9
60.0 161.5 151.0 135.8 102.2 92.8 71.7 60.3 169.0 86.0 196.7 70.8 81.0
75.0 168.0 157.3 141.6 109.1 98.8 77.8 65.7 176.1 92.0 206.3 78.1 86.2
8.5 5.0 5.3 5.5 4.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 9.4 4.6 8.7 4.9 5.5
1.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.7
13.9 3.1 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.9 5.0 6.3 5.6 5.4 4.5 6.9 6.9
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
77.0 63.2 51.0 17.3 47.0 50.5 42.2 18.0 40.8 30.0 28.2 42.6 17.0 8.0 4.5 23.3 9.6
84.2 71.6 57.2 21.9 50.0 55.7 47.5 20.5 43.2 34.0 31.5 45.4 18.5 8.7 4.8 25.0 10.5
89.3 78.1 62.1 26.5 54.5 59.5 52.0 25.3 49.6 39.8 34.2 48.2 19.5 9.3 5.3 26.7 11.4
5.0 4.2 3.6 2.9 2.2 2.7 3.0 2.3 3.2 3.3 2.0 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.6
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
6.0 5.9 6.4 13.1 4.3 4.9 6.4 10.8 7.3 9.6 6.5 4.1 4.2 6.2 5.3 4.8 5.3
76.6 65.2 50.6 16.0 46.0 47.8 39.0 16.3 37.2 25.5 32.0 42.7 17.0 7.3 3.3 22.5 8.7
82.5 71.7 56.3 20.8 50.5 54.0 46.0 19.6 40.5 29.0 34.0 46.0 18.3 8.1 4.3 25.0 9.7
88.8 77.9 60.8 25.9 57.2 59.0 49.5 22.1 48.7 35.2 37.0 49.0 20.0 8.9 5.0 26.5 11.0
4.0 4.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.0 3.4 2.9 1.6 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
4.8 5.8 5.7 15.5 7.1 6.1 6.9 10.1 8.3 9.8 4.7 4.5 5.0 6.1 13.2 5.2 8.0
75.0 63.5 51.0 16.0 50.4 49.9 38.0 16.4 37.9 23.2 29.0 42.0 16.0 7.2 3.1 21.0 9.4
81.6 71.0 55.8 23.0 55.8 56.3 46.8 20.0 41.6 27.2 30.0 45.3 18.0 8.2 3.7 22.5 10.2
89.7 78.1 60.5 28.0 64.1 65.0 53.4 28.0 46.8 30.7 33.0 49.0 19.5 9.2 4.4 25.0 11.2
4.5 4.9 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.6 5.0 3.6 3.3 2.5 1.3 2.3 1.0 1.1 0.5 1.3 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
5.5 7.0 5.8 16.4 7.0 8.2 10.8 17.2 8.0 9.1 4.3 5.1 5.4 13.7 12.4 5.9 7.1
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.49
0.52
0.54
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. SD ¼ standard deviation, SEM ¼ standard error of mean, CV ¼ coefficient of variation.
5.19
0.48
0.51
0.54
3.67
0.46
0.51
0.54
5.03
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
50th pct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Table 3 Anthropometry of female farmers in the three different regions. NO
Anthropometric measures
West Java (Bogor); n ¼ 60
Central Java (Demak); n ¼ 69
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
East Java (Ponorogo); n ¼ 60
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
5th pct
50th pct
95th pct
SD
SEM
CV (%)
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
45.0 150.0 132.5 118.5 90.1 86.0 63.7 50.2 150.5 75.1 171.8 58.6 69.7
48.0 153.3 136.9 123.3 95.8 89.7 67.7 55.8 157.0 78.5 180.6 64.3 74.3
52.2 156.1 146.0 131.0 100.4 92.4 70.7 60.6 161.2 83.0 189.4 70.3 78.9
3.5 2.4 4.7 3.9 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.3 7.6 4.1 5.0 3.8 3.2
0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4
7.2 1.6 3.5 3.2 3.5 4.1 3.4 5.9 4.8 5.2 2.8 5.8 4.2
39.1 142.6 130.8 117.0 88.8 83.1 60.8 49.1 146.5 74.1 170.0 59.5 70.0
52.8 151.1 140.0 125.1 94.0 88.8 66.1 56.2 156.0 79.0 179.5 67.0 78.0
71.0 159.2 148.2 132.2 100.1 95.5 72.4 61.6 165.9 88.8 188.7 72.8 82.8
10.4 5.1 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.1 6.3 4.9 6.0 3.8 4.0
1.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5
19.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.9 4.8 6.3 7.5 4.0 6.2 3.4 5.7 5.1
44.9 143.0 132.0 120.0 90.2 83.5 62.0 51.9 146.0 73.0 169.8 62.0 72.0
56.0 153.1 141.3 126.8 96.0 89.0 66.5 57.0 158.0 78.3 180.0 66.5 76.0
69.5 159.9 149.6 132.8 103.5 94.5 72.0 62.7 164.7 87.0 192.2 70.1 82.0
9.2 5.7 5.1 4.7 6.2 3.7 3.7 3.3 6.3 5.0 6.6 3.4 4.4
1.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6
16.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 6.4 4.1 5.6 5.8 4.0 6.4 3.7 5.1 5.7
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
71.4 61.2 43.6 15.1 43.4 46.4 40.1 20.1 42.3 27.7 28.4 42.7 15.5 8.2 3.9 19.7 8.6
76.8 66.7 48.2 20.5 47.2 49.2 43.2 20.7 45.5 30.7 31.4 46.5 17.8 8.5 3.9 23.3 9.5
82.1 71.6 53.8 24.0 49.5 50.7 45.3 23.3 48.8 33.8 34.7 50.8 18.8 8.8 4.1 25.5 10.7
3.7 3.6 3.4 2.6 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 1.3 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
4.8 5.4 7.0 12.9 4.0 2.7 3.5 5.4 5.2 8.1 8.2 6.1 7.3 2.1 1.7 6.9 8.1
68.3 59.9 43.5 13.5 44.0 48.0 39.0 17.0 32.3 26.0 30.0 40.0 16.0 6.7 3.2 21.0 7.7
77.0 65.7 51.5 19.8 47.8 53.0 45.0 22.0 37.4 31.0 32.0 42.0 17.0 7.4 3.9 22.5 8.8
82.1 70.3 55.6 24.4 51.0 58.0 49.0 27.0 47.3 35.9 34.0 46.9 19.3 8.5 4.7 24.5 10.6
4.1 3.6 3.9 3.6 2.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.3 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
5.4 5.5 7.6 18.7 5.2 6.9 7.8 15.1 8.9 10.9 4.0 4.8 5.1 5.1 12.3 5.6 8.5
71.6 61.2 48.0 16.6 47.4 50.0 41.0 18.0 33.1 23.7 26.0 41.0 15.5 6.8 2.7 19.0 8.4
78.5 67.5 52.2 21.2 52.0 55.8 47.0 22.4 38.5 28.0 29.0 43.0 17.0 7.5 3.5 21.0 9.5
85.7 75.1 57.5 25.7 58.5 60.0 52.0 29.3 41.7 34.0 31.1 46.0 18.0 8.2 4.1 23.0 10.1
5.3 4.1 5.1 3.0 3.6 3.2 3.9 3.1 3.2 3.0 5.4 1.6 1.7 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.5
0.7 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
6.8 6.0 9.9 13.8 6.9 5.8 8.3 13.7 8.3 10.8 18.2 3.8 9.9 6.7 11.7 5.4 5.6
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.47
0.51
0.54
4.64
0.46
0.51
0.54
4.22
0.49
0.51
0.55
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7.34
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. SD ¼ standard deviation, SEM ¼ standard error of mean, CV ¼ coefficient of variation.
227
Table 4 Anthropometry of Javanese farmers, both male and female. NO
Anthropometric measures
Male (n ¼ 189)
Female (n ¼ 182)
Mean
SD
5th pct
95th pct
SEM
CV (%)
Mean
SD
5th pct
95th pct
SEM
CV (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
57.1 162.0 151.2 135.8 101.1 95.1 70.2 59.8 169.0 86.0 195.0 69.9 81.4
9.8 5.5 5.7 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.6 7.8 4.8 8.2 4.3 4.5
41.0 153.0 141.8 127.0 93.8 88.1 64.1 53.8 156.2 78.1 181.5 62.8 74.0
73.2 171.1 160.6 144.6 108.3 102.1 76.4 65.7 181.7 93.8 208.5 77.1 88.8
0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3
17.2 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.4 4.5 5.3 6.1 4.6 5.6 4.2 6.2 5.6
52.3 152.5 139.4 125.0 95.2 89.1 66.7 56.3 157.0 78.6 180.0 66.0 76.1
7.7 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.6 6.7 4.7 5.9 3.6 3.8
39.7 145.3 131.2 117.6 87.5 82.8 61.2 50.5 146.0 70.9 170.4 60.0 69.8
64.9 159.7 147.6 132.4 102.9 95.5 72.3 62.2 168.0 86.2 189.7 71.9 82.4
0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3
14.7 2.9 3.6 3.6 4.9 4.4 5.1 6.4 4.3 5.9 3.3 5.5 5.0
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
82.7 71.4 56.4 21.8 52.0 55.3 46.7 20.0 41.7 30.0 31.9 45.6 18.3 8.3 4.3 24.2 10.1
4.5 4.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 2.6 3.3 2.9 1.7 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.7
75.4 64.1 50.9 16.5 46.7 49.4 40.6 15.7 36.2 25.3 29.2 42.2 16.8 7.1 3.6 22.1 9.0
90.1 78.8 61.9 27.2 57.3 61.1 52.8 24.3 47.1 34.7 34.6 49.0 19.7 9.5 5.0 26.3 11.2
0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
5.4 6.2 6.0 14.9 6.2 6.4 7.9 13.0 8.0 9.6 5.2 4.5 4.9 8.6 9.9 5.3 6.8
77.4 66.6 50.6 20.5 49.0 52.7 45.0 21.7 40.4 29.9 30.8 43.8 17.2 7.8 3.8 22.3 9.3
4.4 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.7
70.2 60.5 43.9 15.5 44.6 48.2 40.2 17.5 35.6 25.0 25.8 40.2 15.1 7.2 3.2 20.1 8.1
84.6 72.8 57.4 25.5 53.3 57.1 49.9 25.8 45.3 34.7 35.9 47.4 19.4 8.4 4.3 24.4 10.4
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
5.6 5.6 8.2 15.0 5.4 5.2 6.6 11.7 7.3 9.9 10.0 5.0 7.4 4.5 8.5 6.0 7.4
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
0.51
0.02
0.47
0.55
0.00
4.61
0.51
0.03
0.46
0.55
0.00
5.40
Measurements are in cm, until otherwise specified. SD ¼ standard deviation, SEM ¼ standard error of mean, CV ¼ coefficient of variation. Table 5 Results of ANOVA (comparison among the male and female data groups in the three regions). NO
Anthropometric measures
Males F-value
Females Sign.
F-value
Sign.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
2.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 11.2 15.9 11.5 2.6 6.5 5.5 1.1 1.2 2.7
ns ns ns ns ** ** ** ns ** ** ns ns ns
29.1 3.4 2.8 4.3 12.3 30.8 2.7 5.4 6.2 28.1 0.8 7.7 11.0
** * ns * ** ** ns ** ** ** ns ** **
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
2.9 0.7 3.1 3.8 81.2 7.7 4.8 6.1 19.8 85.5 67.7 1.1 2.9 11.7 175.2 61.9 23.6
ns ns * * ** ** * ** ** ** ** ns ns ** ** ** **
3.8 4.7 12.2 9.6 80.4 134.9 36.7 10.3 162.8 20.2 5.6 48.9 1.9 223.1 52.2 32.4 24.5
* * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ns ** ** ** **
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
2.45
ns
0.50
ns: not significant, *: significant at p < 0.05, **: significant at p < 0.01.
ns
Chinese females, 95 ± 6% of Turkish females, 94 ± 5% of British females and 93 ± 5% of American females. These results suggest that the general characteristics of Indonesian anthropometry are quite similar to those of their Indian counterparts, but tends to be smaller than those of the other Eastern people (Filipino, Chinese and Japanese) and definitely smaller than those of the Western people (Turkish, Brazilian, British and Americans). The differences in anthropometric dimensions between the Indonesian people and population groups from the other countries emphasize the usefulness of this study in the context of designing and introducing agricultural tools, equipment and machinery. The various tools, equipment and machinery used in Indonesia are based on foreign design and anthropometry; thus, they must be appropriately modified or refined before introducing them to Indonesian workers. 4. Illustration of the use of anthropometric data in designing farm tools and equipment from ergonomics considerations Manual labour plays an important role and human power remains predominant in conducting farm operations in Indonesia (Komatsuzaki and Syuaib, 2011). Various hand tools and manually operated equipment are commonly used in farm operations; these tools and equipment are generally shared between male and female workers. Heavy labour, such as land preparation, puddling, spraying and transporting, are mostly performed by male workers, while seeding, transplanting and weeding are mainly performed by females. Some additional operations, such as fertilizing, harvesting and threshing, are performed by both males and females. Changes in the demographic proportion of farm-workers in recent decades have shifted the roles of males and females in farm labour; as a result, the designs of the work system and tools must be altered or refined accordingly. To achieve better performance
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
229
Fig. 4. Comparison of the stature and sitting height dimensions across regions and genders.
and productivity along with better safety and comfort, the tools, machinery and work system must be designed to be suitable and tailored to the workers; an anthropometric database is a prerequisite for such design work. The results of this study may be a starting point to develop an anthropometric database and to apply it in practice to improve the design of agricultural tools, equipment and machinery to suit them to the physical characteristics of the workers. To demonstrate the use of anthropometric data, three simple examples of traditional hand tools and equipment designs will be discussed below. 4.1. Grip diameter for hand-operated tools and equipment Various hand-operated tools, such as a hoe, sickle, and chopping-knife, and manually operated equipment or simple
machinery, such as a hand-sprayer, hand-weeder, and hand-tractor, are widely used in agricultural labour in Indonesia. These types of tools or equipment could be operated by both male and female workers. The handle is one of the important components of hand tools and equipment, so a proper grip dimension is very important to ensure effective and safe handling of the tools or operation of the machinery. The sickle is an example of a hand tool that is widely used in various tasks in farm labour, especially for the harvesting operation in rice cultivation (Fig. 7). Therefore, the handle dimension is quite essential in the design of a sickle. Anthropometrically, the handle diameter should be such that while the worker grasps it, her/his longest finger should not touch the palm and, at the same time, it should not exceed the internal grip diameter (Dewangan et al., 2010). Regarding the handle length, it must be fully grasped along the palm of the hand; therefore, it
Table 6 Results of the T test (comparison between males and females in each region). NO
Anthropometric measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Forward fingertip reach
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Chest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
31
Relative sitting height (RSH)
West Java (df ¼ 118)
Central Java (df ¼ 129)
East Java (df ¼ 118)
All Java (df ¼ 369)
F-value
Sign.
F-value
Sign.
F-value
Sign.
F-value
Sign.
4.2 11.3 15.1 15.3 9.9 6.8 1.5 6.5 7.5 8.2 12.0 7.1 10.1
*** *** *** *** *** *** ns *** *** *** *** *** ***
2.3 11.2 10.8 11.1 5.7 10.5 6.0 4.3 11.9 8.5 10.8 3.9 6.0
* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
2.5 8.6 10.3 9.7 6.2 5.6 7.8 5.0 7.5 8.9 11.8 5.5 5.5
* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
5.3 18.5 21.1 21.0 12.3 14.1 9.4 9.2 15.9 15.1 20.3 9.6 12.2
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
9.2 6.8 14.0 2.7 7.8 16.8 9.9 0.8 4.6 6.3 0.1 2.5 3.9 2.7 27.3 6.6 8.0
*** *** *** ** *** *** *** ns *** *** ns * *** ** *** *** ***
7.5 8.4 7.4 1.7 4.9 1.6 1.7 4.7 5.0 3.5 7.6 10.6 7.9 8.7 4.5 10.8 6.1
*** *** *** ns *** ns ns *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
3.4 4.2 4.6 2.9 5.4 0.6 0.3 3.8 5.3 1.6 1.4 6.2 4.0 4.4 2.5 6.6 6.1
*** *** *** ** *** ns ns *** *** ns ns *** *** *** * *** ***
11.6 11.3 14.7 4.1 10.0 7.9 4.8 6.3 3.9 0.4 4.3 8.0 8.9 9.0 13.4 14.3 11.7
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ns *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
ns
0.25
ns
2.45
*
0.01
ns: not significant, *: significant at p < 0.05, **: significant at p < 0.01, ***: significant at p < 0.001.
1.55
ns
230
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Table 7 Comparison of the anthropometry of males among different countries of origin. NO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 a b c d e f
Anthropometric measures
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Cest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand Length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
Indonesia
Indiaa,b
Mean
SD
Mean
57.1 162.0 151.2 135.8 101.2 95.0 70.2 59.8 168.9 85.9 195.1 69.9 82.9 71.4 56.4 21.8 52.1 55.3 46.8 20.0 41.9 30.1 31.8 45.6 18.3 8.3 4.3 24.2 10.1
10.0 5.5 5.7 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.6 7.8 4.8 8.2 4.3 4.0 4.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 2.6 7.7 2.9 1.6 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.7
53.7 162.5 151.0 134.5 102.5 98.9 68.5 58.5 170.5 88.0 199.5 72.5 84.0 74.0 55.5 20.5 51.0 55.5 46.5 20.5 41.0 31.0 35.5 46.0 18.5 8.5 4.0 25.0 9.5
Filipinoc
Japanesea,d
Chinese (Taiwan)d
Braziliana
Turkishe,f
Britisha
USAa
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
6.3 5.0 5.2 4.9 4.0 4.1 2.9 2.8 6.6 3.3 7.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.1 2.0 3.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.0 0.8 0.4 1.1 1.0 2.2
nda 167.0 155.0 137.5 104.1 97.3 72.5 nda 167.9 nda 193.4 nda 84.8 73.4 nda 22.2 50.0 54.8 46.4 nda 44.7 35.6 nda 44.1 nda nda nda nda nda
nda 8.0 6.9 6.1 6.7 8.4 5.8 nda 9.2 nda 10.8 nda 5.8 3.8 nda 4.2 4.0 5.2 3.7 nda 7.3 4.2 nda 4.1 nda nda nda nda nda
66.0 168.8 157.7 137.0 103.5 nda 74.0 64.4 169.0 87.5 194.0 69.0 91.0 79.0 59.1 25.4 50.9 56.7 47.0 21.7 44.0 34.9 33.7 44.8 nda 8.5 nda 25.1 10.4
8.0 5.5 5.3 5.0 5.0 nda 4.0 3.0 6.3 4.8 8.3 3.7 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.3 3.1 1.8 2.2 1.9 7.8 1.8 nda 0.4 nda 1.1 0.5
67.0 170.5 nda 139.6 105.9 nda 75.7 65.9 173.8 89.4 200.2 71.0 91.0 79.1 60.2 26.4 52.1 55.8 nda 21.7 46.0 36.0 33.8 42.7 18.3 8.6 nda nda nda
8.8 5.9 nda 5.3 4.0 nda 3.2 3.0 6.9 4.5 7.9 3.6 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.1 nda 1.9 2.3 2.7 1.9 2.7 1.0 0.5 nda nda nda
66.0 170.0 159.5 141.0 104.5 nda 72.0 62.5 175.5 92.5 202.0 76.5 88.0 77.5 59.5 23.0 53.0 59.5 48.0 23.5 44.5 34.0 36.5 47.5 18.5 8.5 nda 26.0 10.0
11.0 6.6 6.6 6.0 4.9 nda 4.0 3.7 7.8 4.4 7.5 3.2 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.2 0.9 0.5 nda 1.2 0.5
77.0 170.8 160.5 141.6 107.6 nda 74.6 64.2 172.7 92.7 217.5 75.1 89.2 78.5 60.6 23.4 51.5 nda nda 22.4 47.5 33.3 35.7 46.6 18.9 8.7 nda 26.1 10.4
12.0 8.1 8.0 7.5 6.0 nda 4.5 5.0 9.8 5.5 11.7 4.2 4.6 4.9 4.3 3.8 3.9 nda nda 2.7 6.4 2.7 2.4 2.5 1.4 0.7 nda 1.9 1.1
75.0 174.0 163.0 142.5 109.0 nda 75.5 65.5 179.0 94.5 206.0 78.0 91.0 79.0 59.5 24.5 54.5 59.5 49.5 25.0 46.5 36.0 36.5 47.5 19.0 8.5 nda 26.5 9.5
11.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 5.2 nda 4.1 3.8 8.3 4.7 8.0 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.2 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.1 1.0 0.5 nda 1.4 0.6
77.8 175.5 170.9 144.0 110.5 nda 76.5 66.0 181.1 95.5 208.0 78.5 91.4 80.0 59.9 24.4 55.1 59.9 50.0 25.4 47.0 36.1 36.6 48.0 19.1 8.9 nda 26.4 9.9
14.0 7.1 7.1 6.6 5.3 nda 4.1 3.8 8.4 4.8 7.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 nda 1.5 0.5
MacLeod, 2000. Agrawal. Del Prado-Lu. Kagimoto in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Wang in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Is, eria; nda: no data available.
should not be shorter than the hand breadth. The appropriate handle diameter for general users should be designed in such a way that the person with 5th percentile dimensions could properly grip the handle, and the length of the handle should accommodate the 95th percentile dimension. Therefore, by taking the clearance of 0.5 cm on each side of the grip, the recommended length of the handle is 10.5 cm and 9.4 cm and the recommended handle diameter is 3.6 cm and 3.2 cm for males and females, respectively. 4.2. Handle length of a manual hoe for dryland and wetland field operations A manual hoe is a very important tool in farming operations, especially for land-preparation. Land preparation is a critical and routine operation that involves the following functions: breaking of a dense layer of soil, management of crop residues and weeds, incorporation of fertilizers, increase of water infiltration, shaping of the soil surface and preparation of a seed bed. This operation is usually performed by male workers because it is relatively hard work and burdensome for female workers. Generally, there are two types of farm fields in Indonesia (upland or dryland field and wetland or paddy field); thus, there are two common types of hoes that are used for the land preparation accordingly. The top layer (approximately 20e30 cm depth) of wetland soil is soft and muddy; as a result, the feet of a worker are submerged until reaching a hard soil layer below the field surface, which is called the hardpan layer. In contrast, the upland field has topsoil that is relatively hard and dry, so the feet of a worker
remains on the surface of the field when she/he is using a hoe (Fig. 8). Consequently, the length of the hoe handles should be designed differently, and the handle of the wetland hoe should be designed to be shorter than that of the dryland hoe. In addition, the angle of blade mounting should be likewise designed differently to enable safe and effective work motion. The angle generally is in the range of 75e80 for the wetland hoe and 80e85 for the dryland hoe. The grip diameter should accommodate the 5th percentile dimensions because the hoe is generally operated by a male worker, and a grip diameter of 3.6 cm is recommended. Operations of a manual hoe require flexions of the back, shoulders, elbows and knees and, sometimes, shoulder and neck extensions. To determine the appropriate length of a hoe handle (Fig. 9), the heights of the shoulder, waist (or hip), knees, and elbows and the lengths of the arms and hands must be considered along with the natural range of motion (ROM) of shoulder flexion (SF), back flexion (BF), hip flexion (HF), knee flexion (KF) and elbow flexion (EF). Furthermore, in most cases, manual hoe operation requires a certain working depth; therefore, the design and length of the handle should provide a comfortable holding height to the user ranging in the 5th e 95th percentile body dimensions. By considering the ROM suggested by Kroemer and Grandjean (1997) and the four zones of ROM recommended by Openshaw and Taylor (2006), 90 SF, 45 BF, 55 HF, 65 KF and 110 EF were predetermined as the extreme limits of tolerable work motion. The motion analysis found that BF is most likely to be at the extreme limit of motion range. Thus, the optimum length of the handle can be geometrically calculated by setting the 45 BF and 95th
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
231
Table 8 Comparison of the anthropometry of females among different countries of origin. NO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 a b c d e f
Anthropometric measures
Body weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Waist height Knuckle height Fingertip height Arm span Elbow span Vertical grip reach Forward grip reach Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Knee height Buttockeknee length Buttock popliteal length Cest (bust) depth Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Upper-arm length Forearm hand length Hand Length Hand breadth Grip diameter (inside) Foot length Foot breadth
Indonesia
Indiaa,b
Filipinoc
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
52.3 152.5 139.4 125.0 94.9 91.9 65.1 56.3 156.3 78.2 180.0 66.7 77.4 66.6 50.6 20.5 49.0 52.7 45.1 21.7 40.5 29.9 30.8 43.8 17.3 7.6 3.8 22.3 9.7
7.7 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.7 4.0 3.9 3.6 6.7 4.2 6.2 3.6 4.2 3.3 4.1 3.1 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.9
48.0 153.2 141.8 127.1 96.2 94.1 66.4 nda 153.1 78.4 184.4 66.6 80.3 68.7 54.6 23.4 45.3 50.5 38.2 20.3 36.5 31.1 nda 40.7 16.5 6.5 4.3 22.7 8.9
4.4 5.5 5.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.0 nda 6.0 3.4 6.4 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 3.0 1.9 2.2 2.0 nda 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.6
nda 153.9 143.1 127.2 96.3 95.5 67.8 nda 153.2 nda 190.2 nda 79.9 68.4 nda 21.9 47.0 52.7 45.1 nda 40.2 36.4 nda 40.5 nda nda nda nda nda
Japanesea,d
Chinese (Taiwan)d
Turkishe,f
Britisha
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
nda 8.3 6.2 5.8 7.4 6.1 6.3 nda 8.5 nda 10.3 nda 4.5 4.9 nda 4.1 4.4 4.6 3.7 nda 8.3 4.8 nda 5.4 nda nda nda nda nda
54.0 158.4 142.5 127.9 96.7 nda 70.5 60.8 157.9 78.0 179.5 62.0 85.5 73.3 55.1 23.6 47.5 55.0 45.0 21.5 39.5 35.8 31.5 41.6 16.5 7.5 nda 23.2 9.6
6.0 5.0 4.7 4.8 3.7 nda 3.3 2.7 6.2 4.1 6.9 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.9 0.3 nda 0.9 0.4
52.1 157.2 nda 128.5 97.8 nda 70.8 61.8 157.1 nda 183.1 65.1 84.6 73.2 56.1 25.2 47.1 53.0 nda 21.3 40.6 35.3 30.9 38.4 16.7 7.5 nda nda nda
7.2 5.3 nda 5.0 3.8 nda 3.3 3.2 6.2 nda 6.7 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.6 nda 1.9 2.4 2.3 1.8 2.7 0.8 0.4 nda nda nda
65.0 159.8 149.2 130.7 100.3 nda 72.4 62.8 159.3 84.2 188.1 69.5 84.8 73.7 55.8 23.2 49.4 nda nda 25.9 36.6 30.8 27.3 42.7 16.7 7.5 nda 23.2 8.8
13.0 7.6 7.3 7.1 5.5 nda 4.5 4.7 8.7 5.3 8.8 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.3 nda nda 2.7 2.4 3.8 3.2 2.4 1.0 0.6 nda 1.4 0.7
63.0 161.0 150.5 131.0 100.5 nda 72.0 62.5 160.5 85.0 190.5 70.5 85.0 74.0 55.5 23.5 50.0 57.0 48.0 25.0 39.5 37.0 33.0 43.0 17.5 7.5 nda 23.5 9.0
11.0 6.2 6.1 5.8 4.6 nda 3.6 3.8 7.1 4.3 7.1 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.4 3.8 1.7 1.9 0.9 0.4 nda 1.2 0.6
64.9 162.6 152.4 132.6 102.1 nda 72.9 63.0 162.6 86.1 192.5 71.1 86.1 74.9 56.4 23.6 50.5 57.4 49.0 25.4 39.9 37.6 33.5 43.4 17.5 7.6 nda 23.9 8.9
15.0 6.4 6.4 6.1 4.8 nda 3.8 4.1 7.4 4.3 7.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.8 1.8 2.0 1.0 0.5 nda 1.3 0.5
MacLeod, 2000. Dewangan. Del Prado-Lu. Kagimoto in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Wang in Marras and Karwowski, 2006. Is, eria; nda: no data available.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the bodily proportion in standing posture among different peoples.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the bodily proportion in the sitting posture among different peoples.
USAa
232
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Fig. 7. Manual sickle for paddy harvesting operation.
Fig. 8. Examples of manual hoe handling for land preparation on upland and wetland fields.
percentile body dimensions as the maximum limit of tolerable posture in the operation (Fig. 9); finally, 106 and 79 cm were found as the optimum length of the hoe lever that is suitable for upland (dryland) and wetland field operations, respectively. 4.3. Design of a wooden-bench manual thresher for paddy Threshing is the final task in paddy cultivation activities, in which a thresher is used to detach the grains from the harvested
paddy-stems. Various types of threshing tools or machines (thresher) are commonly used by Indonesian farmers. Instead of a power or pedal thresher, a wooden-bench manual thresher is quite typically used by small-scale or grass-root farmers in Indonesia, especially in Java Island (Fig. 10). The manual threshing task is performed in such a simple manner that both male and female workers may easily operate it. The results of motion analysis (Fig. 11) reveals four sequential motions of the manual threshing task. First, the operator firmly
Fig. 9. Illustration of the work motion modelling to determine the suitable length of a hoe handle.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
233
Fig. 10. Manual paddy threshing using a wooden-bench (threshing can be performed by female or male workers).
grasps a ‘bundle’ of harvested paddy-stems and raises it by flexing her/his shoulders and elbows upward within a comfortable range of motion (Fig. 11[a]). Next, the operator swings their arm downward (Fig. 11[b], [c]). Finally, the operator strokes all of the stems at once onto a wooden-bench surface (Fig. 11[d]) to detach the grains from the stems. A plastic canvas is spread in the area below the thresher bench to collect the detached grain. The stroke intensity, landing slant and contact area between the paddy stems and bench surface were found to be the important factors to be considered to achieve a good threshing performance. Accordingly, the length (L), height (H), width (W) and beach slope (a) were found to be the functional dimensions of the bench (Fig. 12). Thus, the heights of the stature, shoulder, waist or hip,
knuckle and knee and the lengths of the arm and hand were found to be relevant anthropometric dimensions in designing an appropriate threshing bench. Motion analysis revealed that the most important part in the threshing task sequence is when the bundle of the paddy-stems lands on the surface of the bench (Fig. 11[d]). The landing slope and contact area between the bundle of the paddy and the bench surface must be maintained to be the maximum possible, while the worker repetitively strokes the bundle by flexing her/his back, shoulder and elbow in such a way that the grain is detached properly and not deflected far away from the bench. If the task motion is not conducted in the proper manner and the bench dimension is not appropriate, then the grains may not be detached
Fig. 11. Work-motion analysis of manual threshing (based on actual conditions in the field).
234
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
different groups of users were then geometrically calculated; the results are shown in Fig. 13. The 50th percentile could be adopted as the practical design for common use because the dimensions are still within an acceptable range for the taller (95th percentile) as well as for the shorter (5th percentile) male and female users. 5. Conclusions
Fig. 12. Functional dimensions of a wooden-bench threshing tool.
properly or they may be deflected away from the collecting canvas area. In most cases, the motion analysis found that elbow and shoulder flexions were naturally within the comfortable range of motion, while back flexion was much more influenced by the bench dimensions. A shorter bench caused excessive back flexion, while a taller bench caused the hand to collide with the bench. The flexions of the related body motion are assumed to be as high as possible within the comfort zones while being suitable to the threshing mechanism and the threshing bench dimensions; a 25 back flexion was taken as the basis of the motion to achieve appropriate task performance. Thus, by fully considering the nature of the task sequence and the diversity of user anthropometry, the ideal dimensions of the benches suitable for
Thirty anthropometric parameters of Indonesian farm-workers in three diverse regions of Java Island were collected and summarized. The variation in the anthropometric dimensions among people in the regions and between males and females were analysed. Significant differences of most of the anthropometric dimensions were indicated between males and females as well as among people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. Generally, the anthropometric dimensions of Indonesian farm-workers are found to be similar to Indian workers; however, they were comparatively smaller than the Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, Brazilian, Turkish, British and American workers, for both males and females. Indonesia is a country with diversity in both indigenous and agro-environments, and agriculture-related operations still play a very important role in the local economy, employing the majority of the grass-root population. Most of the agricultural tools and equipment used by the majority of farmers are simple and traditional that are locally produced by small-scale makers or artisans and are designed with a lack of ergonomic principles. Some tools or machinery may also be introduced and adopted from other regions or countries. As a result, an anthropometric database is essential in Indonesia to enable engineers, manufacturers, or artisans to design, adopt, adjust or modify the tools, machines, or equipment manufactured in other countries or regions that are being introduced in Indonesia.
Fig. 13. Ideal design of a threshing bench for male and female workers of the 5th, 50th and 95th percentile values.
M.F. Syuaib / Applied Ergonomics 51 (2015) 222e235
Acknowledgements The author acknowledges Dani Rahmawan, David Raditya, Siska Febriana, Ita Hanani, Tri Novita Sari, Raizummi Fil'aini and Nugrahaning Dewi for their cooperation and assistance in conducting surveys and collecting data in this study. References Agrawal, K.N., Singh, R.K.P., Satapathy, K.K., 2010. Anthropometric considerations of farm tools/machinery design for tribal workers of northeastern India. CIGR J. 12 (1), 143e152. Dewangan, K.N., Owary, C., Datta, R.K., 2008. Anthropometric data of female farm workers from north eastern India and design of hand tools of the hilly region. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38, 90e100. Dewangan, K.N., Owary, C., Datta, R.K., 2010. Anthropometry of male agricultural workers of north-eastern India and its use in design of agricultural tools and equipment. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 40, 560e573. Hua, H., Lia, Z., Yana, J., Wang, X., Xiao, H., Duana, J., Zhenga, L., 2007. Anthropometric measurement of the Chinese elderly living in the Beijing area. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37, 303e311. Iseria, A., Arslan, N., 2009. Estimated anthropometric measurements of Turkish adults and effects of age and geographical regions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 860e865. Karmegam, K., et al., 2011. Anthropometric study among adults of different ethnicity in Malaysia. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 6 (4), 777e788.
235
Komatsuzaki, M., Syuaib, M.F., 2011. New farm management strategy to enhance sustainable rice production in Japan and Indonesia. Book chapter 14. In: Benkeblia, N. (Ed.), Sustainable Agriculture and New Biotechnologies. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Kroemer, K.H.E., Grandjean, E., 1997. Fitting the Task to the Human. Taylor & Francis, London. Lin, Y.J., Wang, M.J., Wang, E.M., 2004. The comparisons of anthropometric characteristics among four peoples in East Asia [technical note]. Appl. Ergon. 35, 173e178. MacLeod, D., 2000. The Rules of Work: a Practical Engineering Guide to Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, USA. Marras, W.R., Karwowski, W. (Eds.), 2006. The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook, second ed. Fundamental Assessment Tools for Occupational Ergonomics Taylor & Francis Group, Florida, USA. NASA, 1978. Anthropometric Source Book [NASA Reference Publication 1024]. Webb Associates. Yellow Spring, Ohio, USA. Openshaw, S., Taylor, E., 2006. Ergonomics and Design A Reference Guide [e-book]. Allsteel. Inc. http://www.allsteeloffice.com/ergo. Pheasant, S., 2003. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work, second ed. Taylor & Francis, London. Prado-Lu, J.L.D., 2007. Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37, 497e503. Sadeghi, F., Mazloumi, A., Kazemi, Z., 2015. An anthropometric data bank for the Iranian working population with ethnic diversity. Applier Ergon. 48, 95e103. 2013. Statistical Year Book of Indonesia. Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik), Indonesia.