1-s2.0-s0169814107001709-main

International Journal of Industrial Ergo

ou

ga

ring

ngk

ity,

rm

5 N

r be

ude

ern

Th

standard deviation, and percentile values of each population group. The comparison between the current Thai anthropometric data and

changes there has also been greater interaction betweenman and machines. Anthropometric data are one of

Northeast, Central, and South. Due to the limitation oftime and resources, only few studies on Thai anthropo-metry on selected regions have been conducted. In 1983,

physical demand task, medium physical demand task, andlight physical demand task. The second study was reported

Southern Thailand contains 13.4% of Thailands popu-lation (National Statistical Ofce, 2000), and it is a majorarea of several industries. However, no study has been

ARTICLE IN PRESSconducted to report the anthropometric data of the peoplein this specic region, neither to report the effects ofThai geographical factors on the anthropometric data.

0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.09.001

Corresponding author. Tel.: +6674 28 7020; fax: +66 74 21 2892.E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Klamklay).essential factors in designing machines and devices(Mebarki and Davies, 1990). Incorporating such informa-tion would yield more effective designs, ones that are moreuser friendly, safer, and enable higher performance andproductivity. The lack of properly designed machines andequipment may lead to lower work performance and higherincidence of work-related injuries (Botha and Bridger,1998).Thailand is divided into four main regions: North,

in 1991 by Intaranont et al. (1991). A total of 500 industrialand agriculture workers (250 males and 250 females; ages1755 years) from North Eastern of Thailand participatedin this study. A newer study of Thai anthropometry byYodpijit et al. (2004) reported the anthropometric data of200 male and 200 female university students from centralThailand (i.e. Bangkok and its vicinities). The poordocumentation of Thai anthropometry may prevent theproper consideration of Thai users in the design stage.between the populations. These results suggest that it is essential to incorporate accurate anthropometry in the design process, as well as

in the application of biomechanical models.

r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Thai; Anthropometry; Southern Thailand

1. Introduction

The economic growth and technological improvementshave lead to greater demand and development of machinesand devices used in industrial settings. With these dramatic

Satavuthi (1983) reported a survey of 37 body dimensionsof 855 females and 1260 males, with average ages of 23.70years and 29.20 years, respectively. The subjects whoparticipated in Satavuthis study were from central Thai-land and worked in various types of industries: highother existing Thai anthropometric data is presented. There were signicant differences in weight, stature, and other body dimensionsAnthropometry of the s

Jaruwan Klamklaya,, Angoon SungkhaponaDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Enginee

bDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King MocTexas Tech Univers

Received 23 March 2006; received in revised fo

Available online

Abstract

The South of Thailand is a long narrow peninsula and can furthe

presents the Thai anthropometric data collected from university st

south areas), and students specically originated from lower-south

Thailand, and 50 male and 50 female students from lower-southernnomics 38 (2008) 111118

thern Thai population

, Nantakrit Yodpijitb, Patrick E. Pattersonc

, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand

uts Institute of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand

Lubbock, TX, USA

30 August 2007; accepted 25 September 2007

ovember 2007

divided into the upper-south and lower-south regions. This paper

nts in southern Thailand (combination of upper-south and lower-

region. One hundred male and 100 female students from southern

ailand participated in this study. Descriptive statistics give mean,

www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Therefore, a need exists to establish the anthropometriccharacteristics of this region.Different from other regions, the south of Thailand is a

long narrow peninsula. The mountain barriers and thicktropical forest caused the separation of this region into theupper-south and lower-south regions. Therefore, the wordsouthern Thailand would generally refer to both upper-south and lower-south areas, otherwise specied. There areseven provinces in the lower-south region and containsabout 53% of the southern population. The remainingsouthern population resides in the other seven provinces ofthe upper-south (National Statistical Ofce, 2000).The objective of this study was to examine the

anthropometric characteristics of southern Thai adults byusing the physical measurements of university students.The secondary objective was to examine whether anthro-pometry of southern Thai population could be used to

represent both populations from both upper-south andlower-south regions. The information obtained from thisstudy could be incorporated with the recent work ofYodpijit et al. (2004) to further complete the Thaianthropometric database. This database could provideinformation for effective engineering designs, and informa-tion for in depth research for the areas of engineering orother related disciplines.

2. Method

This study is the combination of two independentsurveys. The rst survey, the anthropometry of lower-southern Thai adults, was funded by the Faculty ofEngineering, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla,Thailand (February 2004). This survey adopted themeasurements used by Intaranont et al. (1991) such that

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Anthropometric data for lower-southern Thai males, aged 1825 years (n 50)

Dimensiona Mean S.D. 1st percentile 5th percentile 50th percentile 95th percentile 99th percentile

1 Weight (kg) 59.65 8.49 44.96 48.90 59.00 75.93 83.16

2 Stature 169.17 5.60 158.03 159.60 169.53 177.09 182.46

3 Acromion height 141.10 5.56 130.04 132.87 140.38 149.15 156.04

4 Bideltoid breadth 43.10 1.89 38.45 40.21 42.98 46.30 47.35

5 Biceps circumference, exed 26.56 2.46 21.43 22.89 26.70 30.29 32.78

6 Buttockpopliteal length 48.59 3.50 42.98 44.26 47.62 54.76 57.80

7 Buttockknee length 59.08 3.75 52.56 54.12 58.80 65.38 68.12

8 Calf circumference 31.72 2.64 26.06 27.03 31.60 36.17 36.72

9 Cervical height 140.59 4.94 131.60 132.84 140.55 148.29 152.18

10 Chest circumference at scye 83.60 8.69 53.90 75.57 83.97 93.77 98.47

11 Elbow to center of grip 35.41 2.00 31.93 32.61 35.00 39.16 41.06

12 Elbow-to-elbow breadth 41.09 3.35 34.41 35.86 40.88 47.47 49.01

13 Elbow-to-elbow length 46.04 1.93 41.26 43.07 46.05 48.91 50.17

14 Face breadth (bi-zygomatic) 13.42 0.62 12.16 12.67 13.40 14.36 15.06

15 Face length (sellionmenton) 13.70 0.81 12.00 12.41 13.63 15.34 15.38

16 Foot breadth 9.91 0.58 8.61 8.93 9.97 10.91 11.05

17 Foot length 25.16 1.16 22.95 23.23 25.37 26.73 27.31

18 Forearm circumference, exed 23.19 1.55 20.45

J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 11111811219 Functional reach 74.63 9.13 41.56

20 Functional reach, extended 88.53 4.19 81.38

21 Hand breadth 8.36 0.45 7.42

22 Hand length 17.98 1.46 12.90

23 Head circumference 55.78 1.65 52.32

24 Head length 18.88 0.66 17.75

25 Hip circumference 84.14 6.00 73.03

26 Kneeling height 127.80 9.13 118.02

27 Neck circumference (base) 34.75 1.98 31.66

28 Overhead reach breadth 37.36 2.37 31.83

29 Overhead reach height 200.14 7.80 182.43

30 Popliteal height 41.77 4.59 25.45

31 Shoulder circumference 103.51 5.18 91.81

32 Shoulderelbow length 35.61 1.52 32.57

33 Sitting height 88.75 4.82 78.90

34 Sitting thigh breadth 32.68 1.96 29.11

35 Upper thigh circumference 49.69 5.26 42.47

36 Waist circumference (natural) 72.11 9.39 43.95

37 Waist back length 48.10 3.55 40.50

38 Waist front length 37.64 2.20 33.65

39 Waist height 100.77 4.39 90.82aAdopted from Intaranont et al. (1991); measured in centimeters.20.61 23.15 25.52 26.99

70.28 75.93 81.35 82.19

82.01 87.98 96.16 97.20

7.47 8.35 9.06 9.18

16.58 18.08 19.71 19.92

53.09 55.53 58.37 59.39

17.97 18.90 19.99 20.27

74.59 83.58 94.62 99.01

119.38 127.10 135.28 160.49

32.04 34.52 38.12 40.42

33.05 37.22 41.00 42.14

187.73 199.83 210.08 220.00

40.33 42.43 44.89 45.32

95.83 103.48 113.31 116.42

33.50 35.62 37.78 38.70

80.32 88.72 94.01 103.26

30.07 32.48 36.30 37.89

43.59 48.88 56.19 67.29

63.49 70.72 85.13 91.28

42.42 47.70 54.46 55.53

34.75 37.50 41.31 43.71

92.91 101.17 107.17 109.87

the comparison between the lower-south data and Intar-anont et al.s data could be performed. The second survey,the anthropometry of southern Thai adults, is funded bythe Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkuts Institute ofTechnology North Bangkok, Thailand (June 2004). Asstated earlier, the anthropometry of southern populationcould be incorporated with the anthropometry conductedby Yodpijit et al. (2004). Therefore, the second surveyadopted the measurements proposed by Pheasant (1988)and the same measurements used in Yodpijit et al. (2004).Due to the limitation of resources and fund, the data of thepopulation from upper-south could not yet been surveyed.

2.1. Subjects

The limitations of funds and necessary resourcesrestricted the participation of general adult population.

Male and female college students from different elds ofstudy at the Prince of Songkla University, the largestuniversity in southern Thailand, were enrolled on avoluntary basis to participate in this study. The subjectswere paid for their time and participation.

2.1.1. Subjects for the anthropometry of lower-southern

adults

The subjects were 50 female and 50 male college studentsfrom the seven provinces of the lower region of southernThailand. The number of subjects from each provincecorresponded with the percentage of adults residing in eacharea. The average age, height, and weight of the femalesubjects were 19.9871.30 years, 156.9074.85 cm, and49.8477.50 kg, respectively. The average age, height, andweight of male subjects were 20.8071.34 years,169.1775.60 cm, and 59.6578.49 kg, respectively.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Anthropometric data for lower-southern Thai females, aged 1825 years (n 50)


1 Weight (kg) 49.84 7.50 39.99 42.45 48.00 62.00 71.16

2 Stature 156.90 4.85 147.45 149.45 156.62 165.80 168.20

3 Acromion height 129.46 4.58 121.65 123.38 129.10 137.58 140.86

4 Bideltoid breadth 38.43 1.92 33.94 35.74 38.08 41.76 42.41

5 Biceps circumference, exed 23.94 2.60 20.28 20.35 23.42 28.07 31.31

6 Buttockpopliteal length 45.38 2.14 41.37 42.67 44.77 49.16 50.41

7 Buttockknee length 55.82 2.64 51.38 52.41 55.33 60.39 63.16

8 Calf circumference 30.15 3.22 25.80 26.38 29.62 35.61 39.08

9 Cervical height 127.57 12.33 83.98 121.77 128.85 136.46 139.87

10 Chest circumference at scye 78.34 5.01 70.44 71.52 76.80 86.83 90.36

11 Elbow to center of grip 32.45 1.60 29.85 30.32 32.30 34.62 37.43

12 Elbow-to-elbow breadth 37.84 3.51 32.85 33.60 36.97 44.35 47.13

13 Elbow-to-elbow length 42.72 1.86 39.83 40.24 42.85 45.29 48.45

14 Face breadth (bi-zygomatic) 12.30 0.65 10.58 11.24 12.27 13.39 13.58

15 Face length (sellionmenton) 11.98 0.65 10.73 10.95 11.87 13.14 13.42

16 Foot breadth 8.76 0.79 7.65 8.03 8.70 9.52 11.37

17 Foot length 22.58 1.14 20.37 20.98 22.47 24.51 25.22

J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 11318 Forearm circumference, exed 20.18 1.62 17.58

19 Functional reach 69.83 3.15 62.75

20 Functional reach, extended 79.15 3.98 70.75

21 Hand breadth 7.25 0.32 6.66

22 Hand length 16.63 0.72 15.58

23 Head circumference 53.57 1.48 49.62

24 Head length 17.24 0.68 15.83

25 Hip circumference 80.14 5.51 71.41

26 Kneeling height 118.17 4.18 110.69

27 Neck circumference (base) 29.41 1.46 27.18

28 Overhead reach breadth 33.40 2.67 28.77

29 Overhead reach height 182.26 11.67 142.98


31 Shoulder circumference 90.41 14.58 23.77


33 Sitting height 83.07 3.76 72.23

34 Sitting thigh breadth 34.63 2.60 30.18

35 Upper thigh circumference 48.41 4.35 41.83

36 Waist circumference (natural) 66.79 6.68 55.42

37 Waist back length 39.73 2.63 34.83

38 Waist front length 33.62 1.98 30.50

39 Waist height 93.48 4.29 86.70aAdopted from Intaranont et al. (1991); measured in centimeters.17.91 20.18 23.36 24.59

64.74 69.97 74.78 75.25

73.03 79.05 85.44 85.62

6.78 7.27 7.67 7.97

15.66 16.43 17.89 18.32

50.65 53.92 55.34 55.79

16.20 17.35 18.20 18.37

73.08 79.40 90.92 92.95

111.24 118.03 125.44 127.83

27.55 29.28 31.47 33.20

29.84 32.88 37.92 39.00

167.95 182.70 197.54 200.67

36.05 38.72 41.72 46.75

83.81 92.32 100.46 103.13

30.74 33.03 35.07 35.40

77.54 83.18 88.17 89.54

31.61 34.55 38.71 42.52

42.54 47.32 54.36 59.94

59.32 64.80 79.50 85.23

35.44 39.45 44.46 45.95

30.72 33.60 37.14 37.59

88.41 93.23 99.93 107.28

2.1.2. Subjects for the anthropometry of southern adults

The subjects were 100 female and 100 male collegestudents from the 14 provinces of southern Thailand. Theaverage age, height, and weight of the female subjects were20.5671.53 years, 157.9475.32 cm, and 49.9077.59 kg,respectively. The average age, height, and weight of malesubjects were 20.8571.43 years, 171.9475.15 cm, and61.8578.57 kg, respectively.

2.2. Body dimensions

To comply with standard measurement methods, allmeasurements were taken in the afternoon. However, dueto the Thai culture, individuals should be fully dressedwhen in public. Therefore, the subjects were barefooted,wearing thin T-shirts and thin shorts during the measure-ments. For body dimensions that could be measured bothon the left and right sides, measurements were always takenon the right side.

For the anthropometry of lower-southern adults, bodyweight and 38 body dimensions were measured. The bodydimensions and measurement denitions were adoptedfrom Intaranont et al. (1991, pp. 99112).For the anthropometry of southern adults, body weight,

and 36 anthropometric measurements were taken. Thebody dimensions and measurement denitions wereadopted from Pheasant (1988, pp. 7281).

2.3. Equipment

A Ross Craft Anthropometer set (i.e. Campbell Calipers,Segmometer, Anthropometric Tapes, Stadiometer) and ascale were used for taking measurements in both surveys.

2.4. Procedure

One week of training was given to the two male and twofemale experimenters to allow them to become familiar

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Anthropometric data for Southern Thai males, aged 1825 years (n 100)


1 Weight (kg) 61.85 8.57 46.00 49.95 60.42 75.42 86.06

2 Stature 171.94 5.15 161.99 164.60 170.92 181.25 184.60

3 Eye height 160.21 5.01 151.73 153.60 159.28 169.07 172.35

4 Shoulder height 140.67 11.74 99.14 135.56 141.30 149.44 154.06

5 Elbow height 109.18 8.75 98.83 102.40 107.78 119.54 151.03

6 Hip height 84.96 4.09 76.03 77.88 84.55 91.25 95.61

7 Knuckle height 74.19 10.13 64.79 69.00 73.07 79.23 83.86

8 Fingertip height 63.21 4.87 55.44 59.17 63.18 69.06 71.08

9 Sitting height 90.16 3.41 83.01 85.30 89.95 95.30 100.90

10 Sitting eye height 78.01 3.37 70.69 72.69 78.13 83.04 84.57

11 Sitting shoulder height 60.63 2.68 53.66 56.16 60.82 65.31 66.52

12 Sitting elbow height 25.11 2.58 19.05 21.47 25.05 28.85 30.84

13 Thigh thickness 14.21 1.46 11.10 11.90 14.18 17.10 17.40

J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 11111811414 Buttockknee length 58.52 2.45 53.43

15 Buttockpopliteal length 48.23 3.95 43.85

16 Knee height 52.81 2.29 47.86


18 Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) 43.24 2.26 38.10

19 Shoulder breadth (biacromial) 40.45 1.99 35.96

20 Hip breadth 34.34 5.48 29.80

21 Chest (bust) depth 19.85 1.92 14.73

22 Abdominal depth 20.90 2.43 16.00


24 Elbowngertip length 47.12 1.63 44.00

25 Upper limb length 77.12 4.12 70.16

26 Shouldergrip length 66.55 2.73 61.52

27 Head length 18.99 0.73 17.59

28 Head breadth 15.78 0.56 14.60

29 Hand length 19.11 7.16 16.80

30 Hand breadth 8.22 0.35 7.40

31 Foot length 25.35 0.99 23.29

32 Foot breadth 9.80 0.54 8.73

33 Span 174.28 13.88 107.32

34 Elbow span 90.07 3.14 84.43

35 Vertical grip reach (standing) 204.73 12.51 170.51

36 Vertical grip reach (sitting) 124.78 14.51 115.42

37 Forward grip reach 73.66 4.70 64.41aAdopted from Pheasant (1988); measured in centimeters.54.95 58.40 61.91 64.25

45.02 48.42 51.78 54.02

48.62 52.85 56.07 59.11

40.64 43.02 45.51 46.18

39.63 43.12 46.94 49.27

37.28 40.25 43.85 44.77

30.82 33.77 36.89 39.52

16.68 19.90 22.59 25.63

17.52 20.98 24.45 26.97

33.46 35.93 38.21 39.47

44.70 47.00 50.24 50.64

72.92 77.02 82.57 83.54

62.65 66.47 71.44 72.05

17.93 18.92 20.04 20.70

14.86 15.80 16.70 17.03

17.13 18.40 20.30 21.49

7.66 8.25 8.87 8.90

23.63 25.42 26.90 27.20

8.97 9.75 10.67 11.07

166.35 175.15 187.73 190.85

85.72 89.90 95.71 96.51

195.95 204.65 217.17 220.61

117.63 124.02 132.92 177.06

68.00 73.78 80.34 81.63

with the equipment, body landmarks, and measurementtechniques. The subjects were informed with the objectivesof the study, body dimensions, clothing requirements,measurement procedures, and freedom to withdraw. Theexperimenters located body landmarks and used propertapes or calipers to take measurements. For each measure-ment dimension, three trials were taken, and the averagevalue was recorded. The male experimenters measured themale subjects, and the female experimenters measured thefemale subjects. The same experimenters conducted mea-surements for both surveys.

3. Results

3.1. The anthropometric data for the southern Thai adults

Descriptive statistics given mean, standard deviation,and percentile values of each population group arepresented in Tables 14.

3.2. Comparison of anthropometric data for southern Thai

adults and lower-southern Thai adults

The t-test was performed to determine the differencesbetween mean values of the southern Thai data and thelower-southern Thai data. As the body dimensions fromthe two data sets did not fully correspond, only 18matching dimensions were selected for comparison. Theresults (Table 5(a)) indicated that southern male adultshave greater height, elbow-to-ngertip length, overheadreach height, and sitting thigh breadth than the lower-southern male adults. There were no signicant differencesbetween other selected values such as weight, acromionheight, foot, hands, etc. The results (Table 5(b)) indicatedthat southern female adults and lower-southern femaleadults are different in buttockpopliteal length, buttockknee length, overhead reach height, functional reach,popliteal height, shoulderelbow length, and sitting thighbreadth. There were no signicant differences between

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Anthropometric data for Southern Thai females, aged 1825 years (n 100)


1 Weight (kg) 49.90 7.59 38.00 40.95 48.07 64.22 72.11

2 Stature 157.94 5.32 146.36 149.44 157.98 167.18 169.48

3 Eye height 146.29 5.15 135.73 137.41 146.03 155.09 158.57

4 Shoulder height 129.71 4.94 119.91 122.73 129.43 139.19 142.30

5 Elbow height 99.02 6.15 90.63 92.25 98.65 105.19 117.82

6 Hip height 78.36 4.08 69.76 72.62 77.90 85.67 87.27

7 Knuckle height 68.26 3.03 61.99 63.55 68.40 73.00 74.20

8 Fingertip height 59.08 2.89 51.97 54.56 59.22 63.11 65.38

9 Sitting height 83.70 5.00 77.22 79.39 84.00 88.43 91.01

10 Sitting eye height 72.97 2.93 66.12 68.76 73.27 76.75 80.55

11 Sitting shoulder height 56.50 4.35 47.13 52.33 56.25 61.24 66.83

12 Sitting elbow height 23.12 2.06 18.96 20.02 23.07 26.04 27.21

13 Thigh thickness 12.01 1.03 10.27 10.62 11.87 13.84 14.90

J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 11514 Buttockknee length 54.54 2.51 49.87

15 Buttockpopliteal length 46.43 2.22 42.73

16 Knee height 48.13 2.16 43.96


18 Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) 38.75 1.96 35.24

19 Shoulder breadth (biacromial) 35.19 1.59 31.76

20 Hip breadth 36.15 2.18 32.36

21 Chest (bust) depth 19.95 1.67 17.52

22 Abdominal depth 18.45 1.70 15.23


24 Elbowngertip length 42.57 3.52 38.93

25 Upper limb length 69.71 3.18 63.26

26 Shouldergrip length 59.56 2.78 53.83

27 Head length 17.97 0.64 16.57

28 Head breadth 14.95 0.58 13.70

29 Hand length 16.61 0.73 15.20

30 Hand breadth 7.26 0.34 6.50

31 Foot length 22.68 0.94 20.50

32 Foot breadth 8.63 0.47 7.46

33 Span 157.41 6.86 143.96

34 Elbow span 81.17 3.35 74.97

35 Vertical grip reach (standing) 187.12 9.56 170.96

36 Vertical grip reach (sitting) 114.81 10.86 101.75

37 Forward grip reach 68.45 3.28 62.91aAdopted from Pheasant (1988); measured in centimeters.50.96 54.30 59.38 60.37

43.39 46.12 50.69 52.07

44.70 47.77 51.77 53.74

38.13 40.08 42.90 43.24

35.83 38.57 41.88 44.67

32.60 35.22 37.74 38.64

33.18 35.65 39.91 41.15

17.83 19.70 23.35 24.22

16.20 18.30 21.76 23.34

30.80 33.17 36.24 37.12

39.36 41.92 45.77 47.31

64.72 69.30 75.24 76.35

55.53 59.53 64.54 66.57

16.96 17.93 18.97 19.20

14.00 14.95 15.87 16.20

15.46 16.57 17.84 18.10

6.57 7.30 7.77 7.87

21.05 22.78 24.00 24.57

7.93 8.63 9.47 9.63

146.97 155.60 169.46 172.50

76.02 80.55 87.31 88.24

176.16 187.53 201.47 208.29

106.76 113.38 122.63 153.57

63.60 67.77 74.13 78.37

ARTICLE IN PRESSof ITable 5

Comparison of selected mean values for (a) male and (b) female data

Dimension Lower-south (n 50)

Mean S.D.

(a) Male data

Weight (kg) 59.65 8.49

Stature 169.17 5.60

Acromion height 141.10 5.56

Bideltoid breadth 43.10 1.89

Buttockpopliteal length 48.59 3.50

Buttockknee length 59.08 3.75

Elbow-to-ngertip length 46.04 1.93

Foot breadth 9.91 0.58

Foot length 25.16 1.16

J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal116other selected values such as height, weight, acromionheight, foot, hands, etc.

3.3. Comparison of anthropometric data for southern Thai

adults and central Thai adults

The anthropometric data from this study were thencompared with the anthropometry of the population fromcentral Thailand (Table 6). The results from the t-testshowed that geographical origin had an effect on Thaianthropometric data.The male populations from both southern and lower-

southern regions weigh signicantly less than the malepopulation from the central region. However, male adultsfrom central Thailand are shorter and have wider bideltoidbreadth than the males from the south and lower-south of

Functional reach 74.63 9.13

Hand breadth 8.36 0.45

Hand length 17.98 1.46

Head length 18.88 0.66

Overhead reach height 200.14 7.80

Popliteal height 41.77 4.59

Shoulderelbow length 35.61 1.52

Sitting height 88.75 4.82

Sitting thigh breadth 32.68 1.96

(b) Female data

Weight (kg) 49.84 7.50

Stature 156.90 4.85

Acromion height 129.46 4.58

Bideltoid breadth 38.43 1.92

Buttockpopliteal length 45.38 2.14

Buttockknee length 55.82 2.64

Elbow-to-ngertip length 42.72 1.86

Foot breadth 8.76 0.79

Foot length 22.58 1.14

Functional reach 69.83 3.15

Hand breadth 7.25 0.32

Hand length 16.63 0.72

Head length 17.24 0.68

Overhead reach height 182.26 11.67

Popliteal height 39.04 2.30

Shoulderelbow length 32.97 1.30

Sitting height 83.07 3.76

Sitting thigh breadth 34.63 2.60

Signicant at po0.05.South (n 100) t-Ratio p-Value

Mean S.D.

61.85 8.57 1.49 0.1387171.94 5.15 2.94 0.0042*140.67 11.74 0.31 0.7592

43.24 2.26 0.41 0.683348.23 3.95 0.56 0.5738

58.52 2.45 0.95 0.3445

47.12 1.63 3.38 0.0011*9.80 0.54 1.11 0.2711

25.35 0.99 0.97 0.3372

ndustrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118Thailand. Several other selected dimensions of the malepopulations are also signicantly different.Unlike the male population, there were no differences

between weight and height among female populations fromcentral, southern, and lower-southern regions. However,several other selected dimensions of the female populationsare signicantly different.

4. Discussion and conclusions

Anthropometric data of male and female students, aged1825 years, from southern and lower-southern Thailandwere collected and summarized. The comparison betweenthe populations from these two regions indicated that therewere few dimensions that are signicantly different. Maleadults from southern region are signicantly taller than the

73.66 4.70 0.71 0.4816

8.22 0.35 1.88 0.0632

19.11 7.16 1.52 0.131018.99 0.73 0.90 0.3703204.73 12.51 2.75 0.006743.04 1.56 1.90 0.063135.97 1.45 1.38 0.169590.21 3.38 1.85 0.068534.34 5.48 2.70 0.0077

49.90 7.59 0.04 0.9659157.94 5.32 1.20 0.2321129.73 4.94 0.31 0.759638.76 1.96 0.96 0.340946.44 2.22 2.79 0.006254.56 2.50 2.85 0.0055

42.56 3.52 0.34 0.7331

8.64 0.47 1.08 0.2848

22.68 0.94 0.53 0.594868.40 3.26 2.49 0.0143

7.26 0.34 0.26 0.795816.61 0.73 0.16 0.8736

17.97 0.64 6.27 0.0000187.12 9.56 2.55 0.012740.17 1.41 3.19 0.002233.36 1.64 1.59 0.115583.69 5.00 0.86 0.389436.16 2.18 3.56 0.0006

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(thi

wer

50

65

.17

.10

of ITable 6

Comparison of mean values for southern and lower-southern Thai adults

Dimension Male

Central

(n 200)South

(n 100)Lo

(n

Weight (kg) 65.40 61.85 59.Stature 168.56 171.94 169Eye height 156.43 160.21 NAShoulder height 139.58 140.67 141

J. Klamklay et al. / International Journalmale adults from lower-southern region. However, therewere no differences in body weight between these two malepopulations. In addition, there were no differences betweenthe weight and height among females from southern andlower-southern regions. Surprisingly, the southern popula-tion (both male and female) has larger sitting thigh breadthand overhead reach height than the lower-southernpopulation.Geographical effect was much stronger when comparing

the anthropometric data from this study with the anthro-pometric data of population from central Thailand. Thet-test indicated that most of the selected dimensions

Elbow height 107.00 109.18 NA

Hip height 82.43 84.96 NAKnuckle height 70.26 74.19 NAFingertip height 63.57 63.21 NA

Sitting height 88.87 90.16 88.75Sitting eye height 76.22 78.01 NASitting shoulder height 59.09 60.63 NASitting elbow height 23.44 25.11 NAThigh thickness 16.36 14.21 NAButtockknee length 56.14 58.52 59.08

Buttockpopliteal length 48.14 48.23 48.59

Knee height 47.54 52.81 NAPopliteal height 39.15 43.04 41.77

Shoulder breadth

(bideltoid)

44.37 43.24 43.10

Shoulder breadth

(biacromial)

32.89 40.45 NA

Hip breadth 33.68 34.34 32.68

Chest (bust) depth 21.59 19.85 NAAbdominal depth 20.02 20.90 NAShoulderelbow length 37.12 35.97 35.61

Elbowngertip length 46.27 47.12 46.04Upper limb length 76.58 77.12 NA

Shouldergrip length 68.93 66.55 NAHead length 19.69 18.99 18.88

Head breadth 17.43 15.78 NAHand length 18.44 19.11 17.98

Hand breadth 8.53 8.22 8.36

Foot length 25.63 25.35 25.16

Foot breadth 10.75 9.80 9.91

Span 174.78 174.28 NA

Elbow span 94.32 90.07 NAVertical grip reach

(standing)

201.56 204.73 200.14

Vertical grip reach

(sitting)

120.44 124.78 NA

Forward grip reach 79.95 73.66 74.63

Signicant at po0.05.s study) and central Thai adults (Yodpijit et al., 2004)

Female

-south

)

Central

(n 200)South

(n 100)Lower-south

(n 50)

51.40 49.90 49.84

157.48 157.94 156.90

145.82 146.29 NA

131.12 129.71 129.46

ndustrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 117were signicantly different. In addition, surprisingly, theresults indicated differences in weight and height amongthe male populations from the central and southernregions, yet there were no such differences among thefemale populations.In conclusion, anthropometric data of male and female

students, aged 1825 years, from southern and lower-southern Thailand were collected and summarized. TheThai people from the southern and lower-southern regionsare similar in various body dimensions. However, thesouthern and lower-southern Thai populations are differ-ent from the central Thai people in various body

98.28 99.02 NA

76.34 78.36 NA67.39 68.26 NA57.65 59.08 NA84.67 83.70 83.07

73.88 72.97 NA55.81 56.50 NA

21.73 23.12 NA15.08 12.01 NA54.86 54.54 55.82

44.25 46.43 45.38

45.41 48.13 NA36.96 40.17 39.04

39.24 38.75 38.43

30.32 35.19 NA

34.97 36.15 34.6322.09 19.95 NA18.53 18.45 NA

32.70 33.36 32.9742.82 42.57 42.72

74.69 69.71 NA65.20 59.56 NA17.34 17.97 17.2414.79 14.95 NA

17.27 16.61 16.63

7.76 7.26 7.25

22.59 22.68 22.58

9.40 8.63 8.76

167.64 157.41 NA88.66 81.17 NA187.00 187.12 182.26

112.47 114.81 NA

72.62 68.45 69.83

dimensions. These results suggest that it is essential toincorporate accurate anthropometry in the design process,as well as in the application of biomechanical models.The limitation of resources and funds has posed some

restrictions to this study. For example, there were smallnumbers of participants, it was assumed that studentsenrolled at the Prince of Songkla University couldrepresent general adults of southern Thailand, and it wasassumed that clothing had no effect on body dimensions orweight. Therefore, these factors should be taken intoaccount when applying the data.

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by the Faculty of Engineering,Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand, and theFaculty of Engineering, King Mongkuts Institute ofTechnology North Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand.

References

Botha, W.E., Bridger, R.S., 1998. Anthropometric variability, equipment,

usability and musculoskeletal pain in a group of nurses in the Western

Cape. International Journal of Applied Ergonomics 29 (6), 481490.

Intaranont, K., Somnasaeng, S., Khokhajaikiat, P., Charoenchai, V.,

1991. Anthropometry and physical work capacity of agricultural and

industrial populations in Northeast Thailand. Research Report for

USAID, Bangkok, Thailand.

Mebarki, B., Davies, B.T., 1990. Anthropometry of Algerian woman.

International Journal of Ergonomics 33 (12), 15371547.

Pheasant, S.T., 1988. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and

Design. Taylor & Francis, London.

Satavuthi, K., 1983. Some anthropometrical data of the workers in central

Thailand. Research Report for Engineering Institute of Research and

Development, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Thailand National Statistical Ofce, 2000. Preliminary Report the 2000

Population and Housing Census, Bangkok, Thailand.

Yodpijit, N., Bunterngchit, Y., Lockhart, T.E., 2004. Anthropometry of

Thai Technical University students. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IIE

Annual Research Conference, Houston, TX, USA.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118118

Anthropometry of the southern Thai populationIntroductionMethodSubjectsSubjects for the anthropometry of lower-southern adultsSubjects for the anthropometry of southern adults

Body dimensionsEquipmentProcedure

ResultsThe anthropometric data for the southern Thai adultsComparison of anthropometric data for southern Thai adults and lower-southern Thai adultsComparison of anthropometric data for southern Thai adults and central Thai adults

Discussion and conclusionsAcknowledgmentsReferences

1-s2.0-s0169814107001709-main

Documents