This article was downloaded by: [Universitätsbibliothek Bern] On: 24 August 2014, At: 03:27 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Ergonomics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20 Hand anthropometry in Bangladeshis living in America and comparisons with other populations Sheik N. Imrhan a , M.D. Sarder b & Nabeel Mandahawi c a Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering , The University of Texas at Arlington , Arlington, TX, 76013, USA b Department of Construction: Industrial Engineering and Technology , The University of Southern Mississippi , Long Beach, MS, 39560, USA c Department of Industrial Engineering , The Hashemite University , Zarqa, Jordan Published online: 03 Sep 2009. To cite this article: Sheik N. Imrhan , M.D. Sarder & Nabeel Mandahawi (2009) Hand anthropometry in Bangladeshis living in America and comparisons with other populations, Ergonomics, 52:8, 987-998, DOI: 10.1080/00140130902792478 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130902792478 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Universitätsbibliothek Bern]On: 24 August 2014, At: 03:27Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
ErgonomicsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20
Hand anthropometry in Bangladeshis living in Americaand comparisons with other populationsSheik N. Imrhan a , M.D. Sarder b & Nabeel Mandahawi ca Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering , The University of Texasat Arlington , Arlington, TX, 76013, USAb Department of Construction: Industrial Engineering and Technology , The University ofSouthern Mississippi , Long Beach, MS, 39560, USAc Department of Industrial Engineering , The Hashemite University , Zarqa, JordanPublished online: 03 Sep 2009.
To cite this article: Sheik N. Imrhan , M.D. Sarder & Nabeel Mandahawi (2009) Hand anthropometry in Bangladeshis living inAmerica and comparisons with other populations, Ergonomics, 52:8, 987-998, DOI: 10.1080/00140130902792478
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130902792478
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Hand anthropometry in Bangladeshis living in America and comparisons with other populations
Sheik N. Imrhana*, M.D. Sarderb and Nabeel Mandahawic
aDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76013,USA; bDepartment of Construction: Industrial Engineering and Technology, The University of Southern Mississippi, Long Beach,
MS 39560, USA; cDepartment of Industrial Engineering, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan
An anthropometric study of a convenience sample of 51 female and 50 male adults of Bangladeshi origin(mean age 41.3 years), living in the United States, but who spent most of their lives in Bangladesh, was conducted.Standard measurements were taken on 24 dimensions of the right hand that were relevant to the design of handtools, gloves and access spaces using a standard sliding calliper. Analysis of the results showed significant differencesin palm and finger segment lengths, breadths and depths between genders in Bangladeshis and also within eachgender between Bangladeshis and other populations. The differences between Bangladeshis and other populationswere of about the same magnitude as the differences between genders in Bangladeshis. The data gathered may beused for the design of hand tools, gloves, machine access spaces and hand-held devices and for selection of handtools for use by Bangladeshis. The study also allows inter-population comparisons that can enhance theunderstanding of hand anthropometry.
Keywords: hand anthropometry; hand tool design; Bangladeshis
1. Introduction
Design of tasks and equipment, based on the conceptof ‘fitting the person to the task’, requires that therebe a match between the requirements of the tasks andthe physical and mental capabilities of the peopleperforming them. Manual work requiring the use ofhand tools or gloves, and the movement of the handsthrough access spaces in machinery, for maintenance,are still common throughout the world. However,efficiency and safety have often been marred by flawsin the design of hand tools, gloves or access spaces.One aspect of a properly designed tool is how well itfits the hand. The anthropometric and biomechanicalcharacteristics of the hand, in gripping a tool handleand generating muscular forces, should be compatiblewith the size and shape of the tool and itsoperational features, such as the force required togrip and stabilise it or squeeze on a trigger to activateit. Incompatibility is likely to affect job performancequality and productivity, as well as workers’ safetyand health. Various investigators have emphasisedthe importance of anthropometric data in the designof tools, manual tasks or access spaces for the hand(Davies et al. 1980a, Courtney and Ng 1984,Courtney 1984, Schmidtke 1984, Snow and Newby1984, Rosenblad-Wallin 1987, Fransson and Winkel1991, Buchholz et al. 1992, Grant et al. 1992, Lewis
and Narayan 1993, Blackwell et al. 1999, Okunribido2000, Kar et al. 2003). Tools that are too small ortoo large, or that do not conform to the contours ofthe hand, may require greater muscular effort foroperation than those that fit well and, in repetitiveuse, the accumulation of musculo-tendinous strainsmay lead to cumulative trauma disorders of the hand.For example, a hand tool with a handle that isdesigned based on male anthropometric data is likelyto be too large for many females, who may,therefore, be required to exert a greater proportionof their maximum force capacity than males touse it.
Fransson and Winkel (1991), Eskioglu (2004) andBlackwell et al. (1999) have stressed the importance ofthe interplay of hand anthropometry and handle sizeor shape in influencing hand posture or grip strength.In their experimental study of grip strength usingpliers, Fransson and Winkel (1991) concluded that themaximum force exerted by a particular finger in ahandgrip depends on the grip span of the other fingers.Specifically, they observed that: (i) the finger/hand gripspan affects the pre-contractile length of the fingerflexor muscles; (ii) at wide grip spans all fingers cannotgrip a tool handle properly; (iii) gripping at wide gripspans results in loss of grip force. Blackwell et al.
(1999) found similar associations between grip span andgrip force and suggested that handle shape designsshouldbe influencedby thedifferent lengths of thefingersfor achieving maximal crossbridge attachments inmuscles when gripping the handles. Various otherinvestigators have shown the importance of handanthropometric measurements in ergonomic andbiomechanical applications. For example, Buchholzet al. (1992) used hand length and breadthmeasurements for estimating the lengths of thekinematic hand segments and axial locations of fingerjoints; Irwin and Radwin (2008) estimated internalbiomechanical loads of the hand from external loadsand finger lengths that were themselves estimated frommeasured hand length and breadth; and Nicolay andWalker (2005) found that hand anthropometricmeasurements, especially palm width, are betterpredictors of hand strength than stature and bodyweight. The effects on hand grip forces by relativelysmall changes in hand or handle size have also beendemonstrated by Imrhan and Farahmand (1999) fortorquing on cylinders, Grant et al. (1992) for grippingcylinders and Eskioglu (2004) for gripping andsqueezing on parallel handles (of a standard handgripdynamometer). Hence, measurement of smalldifferences in hand size is important in understandinggripping forces. An important implication of the abovediscussion is that the anthropometry of the hand mustbe known for any target population for whom handtools and other manual devices are to be designed. Evenwhen efforts are made to use anthropometric data forergonomic designs, however, differences withinpopulations (e.g. gender differences) and betweenpopulations are not always incorporated into thedesign parameters. The potentially harmful effects ofignoring anthropometric differences betweenpopulations may be manifested when a developingnation, for example, imports equipment from adeveloped nation since the latter tends to design theirequipment based on anthropometric data of their ownpopulation. Shahnavaz (1988), Abeysekera andShahnavaz (1989) and Okunribido (2000) havediscussed these problems.
Reliable data on the association between handinjuries or disorders and hand anthropometry arealmost absent in the developing countries. Given thecontinued reliance on muscular power in tool use, indeveloping countries, and the widespread use ofhand tools that do not fit the hands properly(Okunribido 2000, Kar et al. 2003) problems inhealth, safety and task performance are likely topersist. Data on relevant anthropometric dimensionsof the populations of the importing countries forequipment design may help alleviate the problems.Only a few sources of hand anthropometry data
from the populations of developing countries havebeen published – Gite and Yadav (1989), Okunribido(2000), Nag et al. (2003), Kar et al. (2003), Imrhanand Contreras (2005), Mandahawi et al. (2008).Anecdotal evidence from developing countries(Sarder and Ali 1996) indicates that the problemswith hand tools and other equipment not designed toconform to workers’ anthropometry are no lesssevere in developing countries than in developedones. Based on their study of garment manufacturingin Bangladesh (Sarder and Ali 1996), it was decidedthat anthropometric data of all kinds were neededfor the Bangladeshi people. The present studyrepresents a start in that effort by gathering handanthropometry data for male and female adultBangladeshis.
1.1. Objectives
The objectives of the present study are to measure,summarise and compare anthropometric dimensions ofthe hand, considered useful for the design ofergonomic hand tools and other hand-held devices,and to compare these dimensions with thecorresponding ones from other populations. The datafrom the study may also help to understand theanatomical relationships among the various segmentsof the hand within the Bangladesh population andbetween it and other populations. This paper is anexpansion of two earlier conference papers (Imrhanet al. 2005, 2006), which were based on smaller samplesizes and provided limited analyses and comparisonswith other populations.
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects and apparatus
A total of 101 Bangladeshi adults (51 males and 50females) living in the USA, comprising a conveniencesample, were measured for this study. They were allvolunteers and were from varied occupationalbackgrounds. Most were industrial/manufacturingworkers, clerical workers and home makers. A fewwere college students. Their age ranged from 25–58years, with a mean of 41.3 and all, except three femalesand two males, were right handed. They were notoffered any rewards for their participation. Themethods of hand anthropometric measurements werethe same as described in Davies et al. (1980a),Courtney (1984) and Imrhan et al. (1993). Anelectronic digital calliper (0.01 mm increment) and ananthropometer with a sliding arm for measuring handlength only (the longest measurement; 0.1 mmincrement) were used. The first 12 subjects weremeasured in both hands and the difference between the
988 S.N. Imrhan et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itäts
bibl
ioth
ek B
ern]
at 0
3:27
24
Aug
ust 2
014
hands, for each dimension, was tested for statisticalsignificance using paired t-tests. The tests failed to showany statistically significant differences (p 4 0.05),confirming a previous study (Imrhan and Contreras2005) that hand laterality does not affect handdimension, at least in healthy adults. Therefore, theremaining subjects in the present study were measured
only in the right hand to save time and effort andgain the subjects’ cooperation.
2.2. Measurements
The definitions and diagrams of the hand dimensionsare given in Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively.
Table 1. Hand dimension definitions.
Hand Dimension Definition
1 Fingertip to root digit 5 Hand is extended and the palm is facing up. The distance along vertical the axisof digit 5, from the midpoint of the tip of this digit to the root of the hand.
2 Fingertip to root digit 3 Hand is extended and the palm is facing up; the distance along the vertical axis ofdigit 3, from the tip of this digit to the root of the hand.
3 First joint to root digit 5 Hand is extended and the palm is facing up; the distance along the axis of digit 5,from themidpoint of thebaseline (proximal) creaseat thedistal interphalangealjoint of this digit to the root of the hand.
4 First joint to root digit 3 Hand is extended and the palm is facing up; the distance along the axis of digit 3,from themidpoint of thebaseline (proximal) creaseat thedistal interphalangealjoint of this digit to the root of the hand.
5 Second joint to root digit 5 Hand is extended and the palm is facing up; the distance along the axis of digit 5,from the midpoint of the baseline (proximal) crease at the proximalinterphalangeal joint of this digit to the root of the hand.
6 Second joint to root digit 3 Hand is extended and the palm is facing up; the distance along the axis of digit 3,from the midpoint of the baseline (proximal) crease at the proximalinterphalangeal joint of this digit to the root of the hand.
7 Breadth at tip digit 5 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the breadth at the tip of digit 5.8 Breadth at tip digit 3 Hand is extended and palm is facing down, the breadth at the tip of digit 3.9 Breadth at 1st joint of digit 5 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the maximum breadth at the distal
interphalangeal joint of digit 5.10 Breadth at 1st joint of digit 3 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the maximum breadth at the distal
interphalangeal joint of digit 3.11 Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 5 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the maximum breadth at the
proximal interphalangeal joint of digit 5.12 Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 3 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the maximum breadth at the
proximal interphalangeal joint of digit 3.13 Depth at tip digit 5 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the depth at the tip of digit 5.14 Depth at tip digit 3 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the depth at the tip of digit 3.15 Depth at 1st joint digit 5 Hand is extended and palm facing is down; the maximum depth at the distal
interphalangeal joint of digit 5.16 Depth at 1st joint digit 3 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the maximum depth at the distal
interphalangeal joint of digit 3.17 Depth at 2nd joint digit 5 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the maximum depth of the
proximal interphalangeal joint of digit 5.18 Depth at 2nd joint digit 3 Hand is extended and palm is facing down; the maximum depth at the
proximal interphalangeal joint of digit 3.19 Maximum breadth of the hand Hand is extended and palm facing down; fingers are together while the thumb
is held loosely against the hand. Distance at right angles to the long axis ofthe hand from the metacarpal-phalangeal joint of digit 1 to the ulnar side ofthe hand.
20 Breadth at the knuckles Distance across the palm of the hand at the metacarpal-phalangeal joints ofdigits 2 to 5. Hand is extended, fingers are close together.
21 Length of hand Hand is extended and palm is facing up. Distance from the wrist creasedirectly below the pad ofmuscle at the base of the thumb to the tip of themiddlefinger. The hand and fingers are held straight and flat, palm uppermost.
22 3rd digit to base of the thumb Hand is extended and palm is facing up; thumb is held away from the side ofthe hand with its axis about 45 degrees to the long axis of the hand. Distancealong the long axis of the hand from crotch 1 to dactylion.
23 Depth at knuckles Hand is extended; thumb held away from the hand but the other fingers closetogether.Depth of the hand at the distal ends of themetacarpals of digits 2 to 5.
24 Maximum depth of the hand Hand is extended with palm facing down; fingers are close together with thethumb held against the side of the hand. Maximum depth from the volar sideof the thenar pad to the dorsal surface of the hand.
Ergonomics 989
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itäts
bibl
ioth
ek B
ern]
at 0
3:27
24
Aug
ust 2
014
2.3. Data analysis methods
The data were summarised and analysed with the aidof the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute Inc.1994) software on a desktop computer. Descriptivestatistics (Tables 2 and 3) for each anthropometricdimension are given as mean, standard deviation andselected percentiles. Normality of distribution was
tested for each dimension, using the Wilk-Shapirotest (SAS Institute Inc. 1994), at the 5% level ofsignificance. Those dimensions that were found to benormally distributed are indicated by ‘ND’ inparentheses in the first column of Tables 2 and 3. Foreach dimension a comparison was made betweenBangladeshis and other adult populations, using
Figure 1. Diagrams of hand dimensions defined in Table 1.
990 S.N. Imrhan et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itäts
bibl
ioth
ek B
ern]
at 0
3:27
24
Aug
ust 2
014
Table 2. Mean, SD and percentile values (mm) for Bangladeshi females (n ¼ 51).
Hand Dimension Mean SD 5th 50th 95th
Fingertip to root digit 5 51.95 4.12 46.94 51.62 58.40Fingertip to root digit 3 (ND) 72.95 3.77 67.15 72.82 78.91First joint to root digit 5 30.37 3.25 24.76 31.00 35.46First joint to root digit 3 45.66 4.12 39.26 46.36 51.05Second joint to root digit 5 (ND) 16.33 2.45 12.35 16.20 20.19Second joint to root digit 3 (ND) 23.42 3.23 19.07 22.93 29.10Breadth at tip of digit 5 10.72 0.95 8.46 10.97 12.06Breadth at tip of digit 3 13.45 1.05 11.25 13.67 14.37Breadth at 1st joint of digit 5 12.77 0.99 11.43 12.60 14.71Breadth at 1st joint of digit 3 (ND) 15.57 1.31 13.38 15.67 17.51Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 5 (ND) 15.42 1.24 13.52 15.50 17.08Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 3 (ND) 18.46 1.96 16.02 18.81 20.41Depth at tip digit 5 (ND) 9.29 1.16 7.43 9.32 11.20Depth at tip digit 3 (ND) 10.72 1.36 8.29 11.06 13.17Depth at 1st joint digit 5 10.39 1.45 8.37 10.01 12.99Depth at 1st joint digit 3 12.37 1.44 10.35 12.96 14.32Depth at 2nd joint digit 5 (ND) 12.97 1.28 10.91 13.22 14.93Depth at 2nd joint digit 3 15.59 1.68 13.02 15.21 18.61Maximum breadth of the hand (ND) 88.63 5.62 80.58 87.60 98.40Breadth at the knuckles (ND) 74.12 4.05 67.50 74.00 80.20Length of the hand 167.64 11.49 152.45 163.90 190.903rd digit to base of the thumb 127.83 7.59 115.81 126.50 142.50Depth at the knuckles 27.73 3.74 20.60 29.00 32.40Maximum depth of the hand 41.95 2.71 38.00 41.60 46.95
ND ¼ normally distributed.
Table 3. Mean, SD and percentile values (mm) for Bangladeshi males (n ¼ 50) and t-test results for male-female differencein means.
Hand Dimension Mean SD 5th 50th 95th% difference in
male–female means{ t-value
Fingertip to root digit 5 57.85 3.81 51.73 57.56 63.07 10.2 7.43**Fingertip to root digit 3 (ND) 75.81 3.39 70.78 75.935 80.97 3.8 3.99**First joint to root digit 5 34.95 1.97 32.16 35.10 38.64 13.1 8.52**First joint to root digit 3 50.17 4.17 44.60 49.36 58.70 9.0 5.44**Second joint to root digit 5 (ND) 19.63 1.49 17.35 19.93 22.01 16.8 8.14**Second joint to root digit 3 (ND) 26.29 2.07 22.83 26.565 28.82 10.9 5.29**Breadth at tip of digit 5 11.98 0.98 10.24 12.035 13.56 10.5 6.53**Breadth at tip of digit 3 14.66 0.90 13.16 14.785 16.05 8.3 6.19**Breadth at 1st joint of digit 5 13.86 1.28 12.03 13.82 15.93 7.9 4.76**Breadth at 1st joint of digit 3 (ND) 17.29 1.72 14.02 17.74 19.45 9.9 5.63**Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 5 (ND) 16.84 1.87 13.84 16.80 19.95 8.4 4.48**Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 3 19.38 1.59 16.93 19.595 21.58 4.7 2.58*Depth at tip digit 5 (ND) 9.55 1.42 7.89 9.115 11.87 2.7 1.00Depth at tip digit 3 (ND) 11.54 1.83 9.31 10.80 14.84 7.1 2.54*Depth at 1st joint digit 5 11.00 2.07 8.50 10.24 14.21 5.5 1.71Depth at1st joint digit 3 13.35 1.98 10.98 13.00 16.11 7.3 2.83**Depth at 2nd joint digit 5 (ND) 14.31 1.97 11.61 13.95 17.43 9.4 4.03**Depth at 2nd joint digit 3 16.75 2.26 13.82 16.19 20.70 6.9 2.91**Maximum breadth of the hand (ND) 98.31 9.61 89.05 93.30 117.43 9.8 6.15**Breadth at the knuckles (ND) 79.39 7.16 71.00 77.85 92.47 6.6 4.53**Length of the hand 173.15 8.38 159.05 173.90 187.58 3.2 2.74**3rd digit to base of the thumb 129.98 6.79 122.30 130.50 137.55 1.7 1.49Depth at the knuckles 28.08 3.92 22.91 28.30 36.00 1.2 0.46Maximum depth of the hand 46.10 4.09 41.09 45.60 54.30 9.0 5.98**
*Indicates significance at the 5% level.
**Indicates significance at the 1% level, for test of difference in means between genders.{[(male mean–female mean)/male mean] * 100.
ND ¼ normally distributed.
Ergonomics 991
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itäts
bibl
ioth
ek B
ern]
at 0
3:27
24
Aug
ust 2
014
previously published data – US citizens (Garrett 1971),UK females (Davies et al. 1980b), Hong Kong Chinesefemales (Courtney 1984), Central Indian farm workers(Gite and Yadav 1989), ethnic Vietnamese in USA(Imrhan et al. 1993), Indian agricultural workers fromWest Bengal, Eastern India (Kar et al. 2003), Indianwomen workers from Ahmedabad (Nag et al. 2003),Mexicans in the USA–Mexico border region (Imrhanand Contreras 2005), Jordanians (Mandahawi et al.2008). T-tests for the difference in two populationmeans (Ho: m1 ¼ m2 vs. Ha: m1 6¼ m2) were employed.The appropriate t-statistic was determined after testingthe two parent populations for equality of variances,using an F-test (Ho: s1
2 ¼ s22 vs Ha: s1
2 6¼ s22), at the
5% level of significance (Walpole et al. 2007).
3. Results and discussion
The normality test for the Bangladeshi data showedthat 11 of the 24 dimensions were normally distributedin females and 10 in males (p 5 0.05). Knowing that adimension is normal makes it possible to easily derivepercentiles in the distribution using the standardnormal (Z) table. Otherwise, the cumulative distribu-tion may be used. T-tests for differences in meansshowed many gender differences in the Bangladeshidata and between Bangladeshis and other populationswithin each gender (p 5 0.05).
3.1. Bangladeshi male–female differences
The male–female percentage difference in means, foreach dimension, and the results of the T-tests are givenin the two rightmost columns, respectively, of Table 3.All 24 male means were greater than the correspondingfemale’s and the T-tests showed that 20 of the 24differences in means were statistically significant(p 5 0.05 or 5 0.01). The magnitudes of the signifi-cant differences, calculated as a percentage of the maledimension, ranged from 3.2 to 16.8%. The non-significant differences were depth at the tip of digit 5,depth at the first joint of digit 5, third digit to base ofthumb and depth at the knuckles.
3.2. Bangladeshis compared to other populations
The mean and standard deviation of the measurementsfor Bangladeshis and other populations are given inTables 4 and 5 and the corresponding tests for thedifferences in means in Tables 6 and 7. Tables 6 and 7also give the difference in means between the Bangla-deshi and the comparison populations, as a percentageof the Bangladeshi mean. In assessing the comparisonsit is important to consider the palm-related dimensions(maximum breadth of the hand, breadth at the
knuckles, length of the hand, third digit to base ofthe thumb, depth at the knuckles and maximum depthof the hand) and the finger dimensions separately.Longer, broader or thicker palms do not necessarilyaccompany longer, broader or thicker fingers,respectively, as the data in Tables 4–7 show. Forexample, no finger length or breadth measurement infemale Vietnamese was significantly smaller than inBangladeshis (four lengths and two breadths weresignificantly larger, instead) but three palm length orbreadth measurements were significantly smaller andnone significantly larger. Similar discrepanciesoccurred with other comparison populations, apartfrom Vietnamese, within each gender.
3.2.1. Female differences
Overall, the female palm dimensions of Bangladeshisseem to be smaller (negative differences) than those ofMexicans, Hong Kong Chinese and Jordanians andlarger (positive differences) than those of Vietnamese,UK residents and two Indian sub-populations (Karet al. 2003, Nag et al. 2003) (Table 6). The number ofnegative differences that were significant (p 5 0.05 or5 0.01) were two out of five with Mexicans, one out ofone with UK residents, four out of five with HongKong Chinese, three out of four with Jordanians andnone out of one for Indian women from Ahmedabad.The number of positive differences that were significantwas one out of one with Mexicans, three out of six withVietnamese, two out of three with UK residents, oneout of one with Hong Kong Chinese, three out of fourwith Eastern Indians, one out of two with Jordaniansand three out of three with Indian women ofAhmedabad. The magnitude of the significant negativedifferences ranged from –2.2 to –12.9% and themagnitude of the significant positive differences rangedfrom 1.5 to 13.4%, for all comparison populationsexcept Indians from Ahmedabad. The latter’s palmdimensions seemed exceptionally small – two of thethree significant differences were 18.5 and 19.9%.
The finger measurements – length, breadth anddepth (thickness) – showed many significantdifferences. Overall, the Bangladeshi finger and fingersegment lengths were significantly smaller than thoseof all other populations, with the significant negativedifferences ranging from –3.0 to –17.6%. In general,these percentage differences with UK residents andJordanians were larger than with the otherpopulations. There was no significant positivedifference with any of the comparison populations, forany of these length measurements.
For breadths in the finger dimensions, significantnegative differences (smaller Bangladeshimeasurement) occurred at the tips of both fingers
(digits 3 and 5) with Mexicans, Vietnamese and HongKong Chinese, and at the first joint of digit 5 withMexicans, Hong Kong Chinese and Jordanians.Significant positive differences occurred at the first andsecond joints of digit 3 with Mexicans, UK residentsand Hong Kong Chinese and Indian women fromAhmedabad, and at the second joint of digit 5 with UKresidents. In other words, the significant differences atthe tips of the fingers were all negative (narrower inBangladeshis) and the significant differences nearer theknuckles were all positive (broader in Bangladeshis).Except for Indians from Ahmedabad, the significantnegative differences ranged from –4.2 to –25.0% and thesignificant positive differences ranged from 3.0 to11.2%. The two positive differences with Indians fromAhmedabad were 28 and 33.2%.
No Bangladeshi finger depth was significantlylarger than any depth compared with Mexicans,Americans, UK residents or Jordanians. Significantlylarger depths occurred only in comparison withVietnamese (four dimensions) and Indians fromAhmedabad (two dimensions). Significantly smallerBangladeshi finger depths occurred in comparisonwith Mexicans (one dimension), Americans (two
dimensions), UK citizens (two dimensions), HongKong Chinese (two dimensions) and Jordanians (sixdimensions). Significant positive differences rangedfrom 5.8 to 18.2% and the significant negativedifferences from –5.0 to –25.7% with the comparisonpopulations, except Indians from Ahmedabad withwhom the differences (positive) were 23.7–36.1%.
3.2.2. Male differences
Overall, the palm dimensions of Bangladeshis seem tobe significantly smaller (negative difference) than thoseof Mexicans, Eastern and Central Indians andJordanians, but not smaller than those of Vietnamese.Four of the six negative differences were significant inMexicans, one out of three in Eastern Indians, threeout of three in Central Indians and five out of five inJordanians. Only two palm dimensions inBangladeshis were significantly larger than those in thecomparison populations – one compared withVietnamese and the other compared with Jordanians.Significant negative palm dimension differences rangedfrom –3.7 to –25.4% and significant positivedifferences from 4.1 to 4.8%.
Table 5. The mean and SD (mm) for the Bangladeshi males alongside other nationalities*.
Hand Dimension Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Fingertip to root digit 5 57.85 3.81 67.9 12.1 57.9 3.2 61.12 4.69Fingertip to root digit 3 75.81 3.39 78.2 4.5 78.5 4.4 81.26 7.14First joint to root digit 5 34.95 1.97 35.8 3.3 33.5 3.3 36.56 3.5First joint to root digit 3 50.17 4.17 51.6 5.8 51.9 4.2 55.08 5.29Second joint to root digit 5 19.63 1.49 20.5 4.3 17.4 1.7 19.05 2.13Second d joint to root digit 3 26.29 2.07 26.8 3.6 27.6 3.5 27.75 2.63Breadth at tip of digit 5 11.98 0.98 13.7 3.0 12.3 2.0 12.28 1.12Breadth at tip of digit 3 14.66 0.90 16.7 3.6 15.0 1.5 15.8 1.28Breadth at 1st joint of digit 5 13.86 1.28 14.8 2.5 15.0 1.2 15.4 1.15Breadth at 1st joint of digit 3 17.29 1.72 17.5 2.4 17.0 1.4 17.65 1.06Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 5 16.84 1.87 16.9 2.5 17.3 1.2 17.4 1.34Breadth at 2nd joint of digit 3 19.38 1.59 20.3 2.4 20.0 1.2 20.41 1.41Depth at tip digit 5 9.55 1.42 10.3 2.2 10.5 1.2 12.04 1.12Depth at tip digit 3 11.54 1.83 12.3 2.4 12.2 1.2 13.84 1.66Depth at 1st joint digit 5 11.00 2.07 10.7 2.1 13.0 1.4 12.58 1.47Depth at1st joint digit 3 13.35 1.98 12.7 2.1 14.6 0.9 14.65 1.12Depth at 2nd joint digit 5 14.31 1.97 13.3 2.1 18.2 1.8 15.35 1.28Depth at 2nd joint digit 3 16.75 2.26 16.2 2.1 18.58 1.43Maximum breadth of the hand 98.31 9.61 102.0 3.8 100.3 5.9 98.2 5.8 102.6 6.5 104.2 10.94Breadth at the knuckles 79.39 7.16 83.0 3.6 79.2 6.9 82.3 4.4 85.3 4.9 87.7 4.82Length of the hand 173.15 8.38 181.0 8.4 177.0 12.0 175.1 8.5 185.5 7.1 191.2 10.23rd digit to base of the thumb 129.98 6.79 124.7 11.8 130.7 5.8 137.69 18.33Depth at the knuckles 28.08 3.92 27.0 12.6 28.2 3.0 28.1 2.1 35.2 3.6 30.31 2.4Maximum depth of the hand 46.10 4.09 45.8 5.9 48.2 5.1 43.9 3.93
*Central Indian (Gite and Yadav 1989); Vietnamese (Imrhan et al. 1993); East Indian agricultural workers (Kar et al. 2003); Mexican(Imrhan and Contreras, 2005); Jordanian (Mandahawi et al. 2008).
Overall, the finger dimension in male Bangladeshiswere smaller (negative differences) compared to thosein the three populations with available data forcomparison – Mexicans, Vietnamese and Jordanians.The number of finger dimensions (length, breadth ordepth), of the 18 measured, that were significantlysmaller than in the other populations were 15compared with Jordanians, six with Vietnamese andseven with Mexicans. The number that were signifi-cantly larger in Bangladeshis (positive differences) werenone compared with Jordanians, one (length) withVietnamese and two (lengths) with Mexicans. All threeof these larger measurements were for digit 5. Mostfinger breadth measurements in Bangladeshis (five outof six) were not significantly different from those inMexicans, and most finger depth measurements (fiveout of six) were not significantly different from those inVietnamese. Significant negative finger length, breadthand depth differences ranged from –3.2 to –17.4%,–3.3 to –14.4% and –7.3 to –27.2, respectively, and thesignificant positive finger length differences rangedfrom 4.1 to 11.4%.
3.2.3. Summary of differences
The differences between Bangladeshis and otherpopulations, except for Indian women from Ahmeda-bad, were of about the same absolute magnitudes asthe differences between male and female Bangladeshis(Tables 6 and 7). The measurements for the Ahmeda-bad women seem exceptionally small compared withall other populations, but there is no way to determinethe reasons. The significant differences reported abovesupport the suggestion by previously mentionedresearchers that the design of gloves and industrialhand tools needs population-specific data for goodfitting. However, the exact magnitude differences thatmay cause potential problems cannot be determinedmerely from the data in this study – it depends on thecharacteristics of the specific hand-held device and thetasks to be performed.
Apart from gender and nationality addressed inthis study, many other factors, such as age group,occupation, exercise and fitness levels, climate, timeperiod of measurement and measurer differences, areknown to affect body dimensions. The effects of thesefactors have not yet been quantified in any study ofhand anthropometry. In the present study, the effectsare confounded within gender and nationality and thesample size is too small to permit any quantification ofthem. Some of the results of the comparisons acrossstudies may have also been affected by differences inmeasurement techniques, measurer accuracy andinstruments used, but there is no way to assess thesesystematic differences by examining the published data
or from any other information available on thesestudies.
4. Conclusions
The results of the present study indicate that significanthand dimension differences exist between Bangladeshisand other populations and the magnitudes of thesedifferences are of the same order as the male–femaleBangladeshi differences. Therefore, the sameconsiderations given to male–female differences inergonomic designs should also be given to differencesbetween different populations. The anthropometricdata provided on the hand in this study may be usednot only for the design of hand-held devices and accessspaces but also for guiding professionals in theselection and purchasing of manual work equipment.Because of the relatively small sample size, the datashould be used with caution. The findings are notconclusive but they provide a starting point for furtherinvestigations in hand anthropometry amongBangladeshi and other south Asian populations. It islikely that there is significant variation amongpopulation sub-groups in Bangladesh, which the dataof this study cannot account for. Future studies withmuch larger sample sizes are, therefore, needed toquantify the effects of factors other than gender andnationality.
References
Abeysekera, J.D.A. and Shahnavaz, H., 1989. Body sizevariability between people in developed and developingcountries and its impact on the use of imported goods.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4,139–149.
Blackwell, J.R., Kornatz, K.W., and Heath, E.M., 1999.Effect of grip span on maximal grip force and fatigue offlexor digitorum superficialis. Applied Ergonomics, 30,401–405.
Buchholz, B., Armstrong, T.J., and Goldstein, S.A., 1992.Anthropometric data for describing the kinematics of thehuman hand. Ergonomics, 35, 261–273.
Courtney, A.J., 1984. Hand anthropometry of Hong KongChinese females compared to other ethnic groups.Ergonomics, 27 (11), 1169–1180.
Courtney, A.J. and Ng, M.K., 1984. Hong Kong femalehand dimensions and machine guarding. Ergonomics, 27(2), 187–193.
Davies, B.T., et al., 1980a. Female hand dimensions andguarding of machines. Ergonomics, 23 (1), 79–84.
Davies, B.T., et al., 1980b. A comparison of handanthropometry of females in three ethnic groups.Ergonomics, 23 (2), 179–182.
Fransson, C. and Winkel, J., 1991. Hand strength: theinfluence of grip spans and grip type. Ergonomics, 34,881–892.
Garrett, J.W., 1971. The adult hand: Some anthropometricand biomechanical considerations. Human Factors, 13(2), 117–131.
Ergonomics 997
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itäts
bibl
ioth
ek B
ern]
at 0
3:27
24
Aug
ust 2
014
Gite, L.T. and Yadav, B.G., 1989. Anthropometric surveyfor agricultural machinery design: An Indian case study.Applied Ergonomics, 20, 191–196.
Grant, K.A., Habes, D.J., and Steward, L.L., 1992. Ananalysis of handle designs for reducing manual effort:The influence of grip diameter. International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics, 10 (3), 199–206.
Imrhan, S.N. and Contreras, M.G., 2005. Hand anthro-pometry in a sample of Mexicans in the US-Mexicoborder region. Proceedings of the XIX annual occupa-tional ergonomics and safety conference, Las Vegas, NV,589–593.
Imrhan, S.N. and Farahmand, K., 1999. Male torquestrength in simulated oil rig tasks and the effects ofgrease-smeared gloves and handle length, diameter andorientation. Applied Ergonomics, 30 (5), 455–462.
Imrhan, S.N., Nguyen, M., and Nguyen, N., 1993. Handanthropometry of Americans of Vietnamese origin.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 12, 281–287.
Imrhan, S.N., Sarder, M.B., and Mandhawi, N., 2005. Handanthropometry in a sample of Bangladesh females.Proceedings of the 10th annual international conferenceon industrial engineering theory, applications & practice,Clearwater, FL, 4–7 December.
Imrhan, S.N., Sarder, M.B., and Mandhawi, N., 2006. Handanthropometry in a sample of Bangladesh males.Proceedings of the annual industrial engineering researchconference, Orlando, FL, 20–24 May.
Irwin, C.B. and Radwin, R.G., 2008. A new method forestimating hand internal loads from external forcemeasurements. Ergonomics, 51 (2), 156–167.
Kar, S.K., et al., 2003. An investigation of hand anthro-pometry of agricultural workers. Journal of HumanErgology, 14 (1), 57–62.
Lewis, W.G. and Narayan, C.V., 1993. Design and sizing ofergonomic handles for hand tools. Applied Ergonomics,24, 351–356.
Mandahawi, N., et al., 2008. Hand anthropometry survey forthe Jordanian population. International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics, 38, 966–976.
Nag, A., Nag, P.K., and Desai, H., 2003. Handanthropometry of Indian women. Indian Journal ofMedical Research, 117, 260–269.
Nicolay, C.W. and Walker, A.L., 2005. Grip strength andendurance: Influences of anthropometric variation, handdominance, and gender. International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics, 35, 605–618.
Okunribido, O., 2000. A survey of hand anthropometry offemale rural farm workers in Ibadan, Western Nigeria.Ergonomics, 43, 282–292.
Rosenblad-Wallin, E., 1987. An anthropometric study as thebasis for sizing anatomically designed mittens. AppliedErgonomics, 18 (4), 329–333.
Sarder, M.B. and Ali, M.Y., 1996. Design of a productionline – It’s balancing and layout for a garment factory.Engineering thesis (BSc). Department of Industrial andProduction Engineering, Bangladesh University ofEngineering & Technology, Dhaka.
SAS Institute Inc, 1994. SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 6,fourth edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Schmidtke, H., 1984. Ergonomics and equipment design.NATO conference series, Series III: Ergonomic data forequipment design. Human Factors, 25, 19–23.
Shahnavaz, H., 1988. Ergonomics of developing countries: dowe need a different approach? Occupational Safety andHealth Series, No. 58. Geneva: International LaborOrganization, 53–59.
Snow, N.A. and Newby, T.J., 1984. Ergonomically designedjob aids. Performance and Instruction Journal, 28, 26–30.
Walpole, R.E., et al., 2007. Probability and statistics forengineers and scientists. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.
