Anthropometric Evaluation of Tertiary Institution Mounted Desktop Furniture

Adu Sylvia
Department of Forest Resources Technology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Adu George
Department of Interior Design and Materials Technology, Kumasi Technical University, Kumasi,
Asante Boadi Alfred
Department of Building Technology, Kumasi Technical University, Kumasi, Ghana
Kwaku Antwi
Department of Wood Science and Technology, Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurship Development, Kumasi, Ghana

Published 08-12-2024

Keywords

  • Anthropometry,
  • Classroom furniture,
  • Ergonomics evaluation,
  • Fit,
  • Pain

How to Cite

Sylvia, A., George, A., Alfred, A. B., & Antwi, K. (2024). Anthropometric Evaluation of Tertiary Institution Mounted Desktop Furniture. International Journal of Kinanthropometry, 4(3), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.34256/ijk2432

Dimensions

Abstract

Introduction: Students in the classroom often use mounted desktop furniture that is not the right size for lectures, studying, and completing coursework. Methods: A study measuring body composition was conducted on 300 university students at Kumasi Technical University, Ghana to design an ergonomic modeled mounted desktop furniture. The study focused on whether the existing designed dimensions fit the students body proportions so that the best recommended dimensions for newly ergonomic modeled mounted desktop classroom furniture can be tested to ascertain its effect on the ergonomics and comfort of the proposed design for the target user population. Results: The study compared students' anthropometry data with their furniture dimensions and reported on three furniture sizes (seat-to-desk clearance, backrest width, and desk width) that fit students’ posture and comfort, while six furniture sizes (seat height, seat width, seat depth, seat to desk height, desk depth and upper edge of backrest) were unfit for the postural alignment and comfort requirements of university students in their study spaces.  Conclusion: Implementing recommended furniture measurements to design the newly modeled classroom mounted desktop designs will optimise comfortable user seating position to mitigate the risk of musculoskeletal disorders to ensure students possess the physical, mental, and emotional well-being necessary for a successful career.

References

  1. Agha, S.R. (2010). School furniture match to students' anthropometry in the Gaza Strip. Ergonomics, 53(3): 344–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903398366
  2. Aiyegbusi, A.I., Gbiri, C.A., Oyeniran, T.O., Balogun, O.J. (2023). Mismatch between school furniture dimensions and anthropometric parameters is a risk for spinal deformities in secondary school students in Lagos, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy, 28(1): 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43161-023-00145-8
  3. Alrashdan, A., Alsudairi, L., Alqaddoumi, A. (2014). Anthropometry of Saudi Arabian female college students. In Proceedings of the industrial and systems engineering research conference, 4075 – 4083.
  4. Al-Saleh, K.S., Ramadan, M.Z., Al-Ashaikh, R.A. (2013). Ergonomically adjustable school furniture for male students. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(13): 943.
  5. Altaboli, A., Belkhear, M., Bosenina, A., Elfsei, N. (2015). Anthropometric evaluation of the design of the classroom desk for the fourth and fifth grades of Benghazi primary schools. Procedia Manufacturing, 3: 5655 – 5662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.778
  6. Aravind, S., Ilangkumaran, M. (2019). Ergonomic Assessment of Classroom Furniture in KS Rangasamy College of Technology. Bulletin of Scientific Research, 1(2): 59 – 72.
  7. Balague, F., Troussier, B., Salminen, J.J. (1999). Non-specific low back pain in children and adolescents: risk factors. European Spine Journal, 8: 429 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860050201
  8. Castellucci, H.I., Arezes, P.M., Molenbroek, J.F. (2015). Analysis of the most relevant anthropometric dimensions for school furniture selection based on a study with students from one Chilean region. Applied ergonomics, 46: 201 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.08.005
  9. Castellucci, H.I., Arezes, P.M., Viviani, C.A. (2010). Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools. Applied ergonomics, 41(4): 563-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.001
  10. Chung, J.W., Wong, T.K. (2007). Anthropometric evaluation for primary school furniture design. Ergonomics, 50(3): 323 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600842328
  11. Dianat, I., Karimi, M.A., Hashemi, A.A., Bahrampour, S. (2013). Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data. Applied ergonomics, 44(1): 101 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.004
  12. Esmaeel, A., Starovoytova, D., Maube, O., Asad, R. (2020). Design of Classroom Furniture for Use at Tertiary Institutions. Innovative Systems Design and Engineering, 11(5), 42-49.
  13. furniture for Bogotá schools based on anthropometric criteria. Ergonomics, 50 (10): 1626 – 1642. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701587541
  14. García-Acosta, G., Lange-Morales, K. (2007). Definition of sizes for the design of school
  15. Gastro-Intestinal Parasitism and Anthelmintic Resistance in Gi Nematodes of Small Ruminants in Semi-Intensive Farms of Kalyana-Karnataka Region of Karnataka, India. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 26(1): 595 – 604. https://doi.org/10.51470/jez.2023.26.1.595
  16. Gouvali, M.K., Boudolos, K. (2006). Match between school furniture dimensions and children’s anthropometry. Applied ergonomics, 37(6): 765-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.11.009
  17. Igbokwe, J.O., Osueke, G.O., Opara, U.V., Ileagu, M.O., Ezeakaibeya, K.U. (2019). Considerations of anthropometrics in the design of lecture hall furniture. International Journal of Regulation and Governance, 7(8): 374 – 386.
  18. Ismaila, S.O., Akanbi, O.G., Adekunle, N.O., Adetunji, O.R., Kuye, S.I. (2010). An ergonomics assessment of passenger seats in buses in South Western Nigeria. Sigurnost, 52(4): 329.
  19. Kahya, E. (2018). Evaluation of the classroom furniture for university students. Eskisehir Osmangazi University Journal of Engineering and Architecture, 26(1): 20 – 29. https://doi.org/10.31796/ogummf.330136
  20. Khaspuri, G.C., Sau, S.K., Dhara, P.C. (2007). Anthropometric consideration for designing class room furniture in rural schools. Journal of human ecology, 22(3): 235 – 244.
  21. Khoshabi, P., Nejati, E., Ahmadi, S. F., Chegini, A., Makui, A., Ghousi, R. (2020). Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making approach to compare types of classroom furniture considering mismatches for anthropometric measures of university students. PloS one, 15(9): e0239297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239297
  22. Macedo, A. C., Morais, A. V., Martins, H. F., Martins, J. C., Pais, S. M., Mayan, O. S. (2015). Match between classroom dimensions and students’ anthropometry: re-equipment according to european educational furniture standard. Human factors, 57(1): 48 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814533991
  23. Mahantesh, M.T., Prasad, K.C., Sreedhara, J.N., Ram10, J. (2023). Prevalence Of
  24. Osquei-Zadeh, R., Ghamari, J., Abedi, Z., Shiri, H. (2012). Ergonomic and anthropometric consideration for library furniture in an Iranian public university. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 3(1): 19 – 26.
  25. Oyewole, S.A., Haight, J.M., Freivalds, A. (2010). The ergonomic design of classroom furniture/computer workstation for first graders in the elementary school. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(4): 437-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2010.02.002
  26. Parcells, C., Stommel, M., Hubbard, R.P. (1999). Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications. Journal of adolescent health, 24(4): 265 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00113-X
  27. Parvez, M. S., Parvin, F., Shahriar, M.M., & Kibria, G. (2018). Design of ergonomically fit classroom furniture for primary schools of Bangladesh. Journal of Engineering, 2018(1), 3543610. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3543610
  28. Parvez, M.S., Rahman, A., Tasnim, N. (2019). Ergonomic mismatch between student’s anthropometry and university classroom furniture. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(5): 603 – 631. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2019.1617909
  29. Pérez-Gosende, P. (2017). Anthropometry-based approach for side-mounted desktop chairs design evaluation for university students in Ecuador. In 2017 IEEE Second Ecuador Technical Chapters Meeting (ETCM), IEEE, Ecuador. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETCM.2017.8247516
  30. Saarni, L, Nygård, C.H., Kaukiainen, A., Rimpelä, A. (2007). Are the desks and chairs at school appropriate?. Ergonomics, 50(10): 1561 – 1570. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701587368
  31. Shah, R.M., Bhuiyan, M.A.U., Debnath, R., Iqbal, M., Shamsuzzoha, A. (2013). Ergonomics issues in furniture design: a case of a tabloid chair design. In Advances in Sustainable and Competitive Manufacturing Systems: 23rd International Conference on Flexible Automation & Intelligent Manufacturing, International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00557-7_8
  32. Taifa, I.W., Desai, D.A. (2017). Anthropometric measurements for ergonomic design of students’ furniture in India. Engineering science and technology, an international journal, 20(1), 232 – 239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.08.004
  33. Thariq, M.M., Munasinghe, H.P., Abeysekara, J.D. (2010). Designing chairs with mounted desktop for university students: Ergonomics and comfort. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(1): 8 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2009.10.003
  34. Trevelyan, F.C., & Legg, S.J. (2011). Risk factors associated with back pain in New Zealand school children. Ergonomics, 54(3), 257-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.547608
  35. Ziefle, M. (2003). Sitting posture, postural discomfort, and visual performance: a critical view on the interdependence of cognitive and anthropometric factors in the VDU workplace. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 9(4): 503 – 514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2003.11076586