See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260806442

Development of anthropometric data for

Bangladeshi male population

Article in International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics May 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2014.01.007

CITATIONS READS

6 418

2 authors, including:

Mohammad Khadem
Sultan Qaboos University
10 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Khadem on 22 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2014) 407e412

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Development of anthropometric data for Bangladeshi male population

Mohammad M. Khadem*, Md. Anisul Islam 1
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123, Muscat, Oman

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An anthropometric study of a group of people is important when designing ergonomic products and
Received 14 August 2012 workstations for that group. This study surveys the anthropometric dimensions of the Bangladeshi male
Received in revised form population between the ages of 15 and 64 years to compare these dimensions with male anthropo-
6 November 2013
metrics for different countries available in the literature.
Accepted 20 January 2014
The mean stature and sitting height of Bangladeshi males are 167.7 cm and 82.9 cm, respectively.
Available online 13 March 2014
Stature and body mass are signicantly correlated with most of the other dimensions for the Bangladeshi
male population. The mean BMI is 23.62, which indicates that the Bangladeshi male population is
Keywords:
Anthropometry
normal. Signicant differences are found between the body dimensions of the Bangladeshi male pop-
Bangladeshi male ulation and male samples of other nationalities in a comparative analysis. In comparison with European
Body mass index males, the mean stature of Bangladeshi males is 1.3 cm shorter (Portuguese) to 11.8 cm shorter
(Netherlands). The average stature of Bangladeshi males is 5.7 cm, which is 3.8 cm taller than southern
Indian males and Sri Lankan males and is 6.3 cm shorter than the Singaporean male population.
As the rst comprehensive anthropometric study of the Bangladeshi male population, these results are
expected to have considerable value in designing ergonomic products and workstations for the Ban-
gladeshi male population.
Relevance to industry: The ndings of this study indicate differences in anthropometric data between
Bangladeshi male and other countries. The utilization of an updated anthropometric database that in-
corporates geographical origin is useful. Product designers would be able to outt to a wider range of
target users.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction peoples health status (Marks et al., 1989). It is difcult to design

Over the course of a day, people interact with various products
in both formal and informal workplaces. An appropriate match
between people, products and workplaces in these interactions
requires that users anthropometrics must be ergonomically
adjusted to products and workplaces (Mokdad, 2002; Wichansky,
2000; Pentikis et al., 2002). Anthropometry is an important area
of human science that concerns measures of human height and
weight and the dimensions of various body parts. Anthropometry
also examines how these measurements vary in certain circum-
stances, such as by age group, race, gender and nationality.
Anthropometrical data and formulae are used in anthropological
and medical research and in forensic investigations. Thus, anthro-
pometry is an important area of human science that indicates
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 968 2414 2568; fax: 968 2414 1316.
E-mail addresses: khadem@squ.edu.om, khadem1973@gmail.com (M.
M. Khadem).
1
Permanent address: Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet 3144, Bangladesh.
products and workplaces because the dimensions of the human
body vary by age, sex, race and nationality. Thus, it is advisable to
consider some essential anthropometric dimensions (Chuan et al.,
2010).
Although a perfect match between a product or workplace and a
user is not always possible (Pentikis et al., 2002), integrating
anthropometric data into ergonomic designing ensures a safe and
user-friendly relationship between a product or workplace and a
user (Pheasant, 1998) that contributes to high work performance and
productivity (Klamklay et al., 2008). However, incorrect adjustments
or the omission of anthropometric data in product or workplace
designs may result in work-related psychological discomfort
(Mokdad, 2002), physical fatigue and suffering or injuries such as
musculoskeletal disorders of the neck (Chuan et al., 2010), shoulders,
back (Westgaard and Aaras, 1984), arm and hand, or wrist (Snook,
1978). As a result, the use of anthropometric data is essential for a
safe, comfortable and productive working environment.
To collect anthropometric data, researchers have used
numerous tools, such as sophisticated and expensive three-
dimensional technology with error-detection procedures (Park

0169-8141/$ e see front matter 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2014.01.007
 Author's personal copy

408 M.M. Khadem, Md.A. Islam / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2014) 407e412

et al., 2009), integrated high-tech equipment (Hua et al., 2007; Table 1

Dewangan et al., 2005), or less expensive standard equipment Demographic record of subjects (Sample size, n 470).

(Chuan et al., 2010; Mokdad and Al-Ansari, 2009; Klamklay et al., % (Statistics)
2008; Mohammad, 2005; Kothiyal and Tettey, 2000; Dewangan Age ranks
et al., 2008, 2010). For accurate and reliable data collection, less 15w20 2.12% (10)
expensive traditional equipment is similar to expensive high-tech 21w30 54.46% (256)
equipment (Ghoddousi et al., 2007). Furthermore, traditional 31w40 31.48% (148)
41w50 8.72% (41)
equipment is easy to use because dimensions are measured in
51w64 3.19% (15)
traditional ways (Musaiger et al., 2000). Occupation
Anthropometric data have long been available for segments of Industrial workers 41.70% (196)
the population or for entire populations in both developed and Bankers 2.12% (10)
Employees 24.89% (117)
developing countries. Studies include the hand anthropometry of
Doctors 1.27% (6)
the Jordanian population (Mandahawi et al., 2008), the static Students 20.0% (94)
anthropometry of Tehran University students (Mououdi, 1997), the Others 10.0% (47)
anthropometry of the elderly in Australia (Kothiyal and Tettey, Born in
2000), the anthropometry of the Chinese elderly living in the Bei- Dhaka 20.85% (98)
Chittagong 44.46% (210)
jing area (Hua et al., 2007), an anthropometric study of Algerian
Rajshahi 3.61% (17)
farmers (Mokdad, 2002), the anthropometry of Taiwanese women Khulna 7.02% (33)
(Huang and You, 1994) and Taiwanese workers (Wang et al., 1999), Barishal 9.36% (44)
the anthropometry of Portuguese workers (Barroso et al., 2005), the Sylhet 10.42% (49)
anthropometry of Turkish women (Gonen et al., 1991), the Rangpur 4.04% (19)
_ eri and Arslan, 2009), Note: n [ 470
anthropometry of the Turkish population (Is
the anthropometry of the Thai population (Klamklay et al., 2008),
the anthropometry of Bahraini school children (Mokdad and Al-
Ansari, 2009), the anthropometry of northeastern Indian female 2.2. Dimensions
farm workers (Dewangan et al., 2008), farm youth (Dewangan et al.,
2005) and male agricultural workers (Dewangan et al., 2010), the This study was inuenced by two previous anthropometric
anthropometry of Sri Lankan university students (Thariq et al., studies by Chuan et al. (2010) and Pheasant and Haslegrave (2006).
2010), the anthropometrics of Sweden for product and workplace Based on these studies, the authors decided to use 37 dimensions
design (Hanson et al., 2009), the anthropometry of Filipino for each subject in this research. Fourteen measurements were
manufacturing workers (Prado-Lu, 2007), the anthropometry of the taken in a standing position (including body mass) and 23 mea-
Malaysian population (Mohamad et al., 2010) and the anthro- surements were taken in a seated position (Chuan et al., 2010).
pometry of the Singaporean and Indonesian populations (Chuan Three anthropometric indices were calculated for each subject to
et al., 2010). Since Imrhan et al.s (2009) measurement of the examine the health condition of the male population: body mass
hand anthropometry of the Bangladeshi adult population living in index (BMI), relative sitting height (RSH) and body surface area
America, there has been no publication of anthropometric data for (BSA). The subjects were measured in the late afternoon and eve-
the overall Bangladeshi population. Bangladesh is the eighth most ning. They were asked to wear as little clothing as possible with
populated country in the world, with approximately 160 million respect to local culture. Subjects were barefoot and wearing casual
people. The age range of 15e64 years is considered working age in dress during the measurements. The weight (0.5 kg) of clothes was
Bangladesh. Approximately 61% of the population belongs to this subtracted from the subjects weights. Measurements of anthro-
age range, of which less than half (approximately 47%) are male. pometric data are sensitive for some people, and some subjects
The main objectives of this study are as follows: refused to wear less clothing or to allow themselves to be measured
due to religious cause. Although body measurement can be taken
i) to measure the anthropometry dimensions of the overall Ban- from either side (Klamklay et al., 2008), only the right side was used
gladeshi male population; to measure the subjects in this study. The subjects were in static
ii) to compare the results with the anthropometric data of different (xed) positions while the measurements were recorded.
countries available in publications;
2.3. Equipment

2. Method The traditional anthropometric equipment/toolbox is consid-

This study included a search of relevant literature, familiarity
with the tools and data collection techniques, data collection and
analysis of the data by means of descriptive statistics.
2.1. Subjects
A total of 470 male subjects from the Bangladeshi population
were evaluated in this study. Subjects in the 15- to 64-year-old age
range, which is considered working age in Bangladesh, were tar-
geted. Males from ve different public places in two large cities
were randomly measured to allow subjects to be chosen from
around the country. The subjects were asked to participate volun-
tarily in this research study. The demographics of the subjects are
shown in Table 1.
ered as reliable and accurate as semi-high-tech or high-tech
equipment for measuring the dimensions (Chuan et al., 2010).
Most importantly, traditional equipment is portable, easy to use
and inexpensive. Thus, a traditional manual anthropometric
toolbox that included an anthropometer, two calipers and one
measuring tape were adopted as the equipment in this study. An
anthropometer is a 2-meter graduated rod that has one xed edge
and another sliding edge at a right angle. One spreading caliper had
two curved branches that were joined in a hinge, and a scale xed
near the hinge was used to measure distance. The second small
sliding caliper was used to measure short distances, such as hand
length, hand width, leg length and leg width. Some small lengths
were measured by tape. An analog weighing scale and a small
adjustable steel stool with at sitting support were also used to
measure the dimensions.
 Author's personal copy

M.M. Khadem, Md.A. Islam / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2014) 407e412 409

2.4. Procedures 3.1. Anthropometric dimensions of Bangladeshi male

The measurements were performed by a team of two experi-
menters. Both experimenters were trained in the data collection
procedures (the techniques to measure the dimensions and com-
plete the dimension form) over 3 days. For effective and reliable
data collection, a pilot study was performed with a sample of nine
subjects. The pilot study established consistent measurements for
the data collection. The survey was completed over a period of
approximately two months.
3. Results and discussion
Generally, anthropometric results are calculated using statistics,
and the choice of statistics is motivated by the specic purpose and
nature of the data. In this study, descriptive and inferential statistics,
such as the mean, standard deviation (STDEV), 5th percentile, 50th
percentile, 95th percentile, standard error of mean (SEM) and coef-
cient of variation (CV), were considered. These statistics are essen-
tial for both product and workstation designs. Three indices, BMI, RSH
and BSA, were also calculated to examine the subjects health.
Table 2 shows the results of the anthropometric data for the
Bangladeshi male population. The means of stature, sitting
height, and body mass of the sample are 167.7  5.25 cm,
82.9  3.69 cm and 66.5  9.59 kg, respectively. The vertical grip
reach (standing) and vertical grip reach (sitting) are
208.1  5.48 cm and 129.1  4.59 cm, respectively. As mentioned
above, the subjects were in a static (xed) position while the
measurements were taken. Thus, the results of this study should
not be utilized directly in the designing process unless some
modications are made.
The SEM measures how well the mean of a sample approxi-
mates the mean of the overall population. In this study, body mass
has the highest SEM (0.44), and the SEM for the other dimensions
ranges from 0.02 to 0.26. The variability in relation to the mean
value was measured by the CV. The results of the CV show that the
values range from 2.63 to 14.41 for vertical grip reach standing and
body mass, respectively.
Table 2 also shows the three indices: BMI, or the Quetelet index,
RSH and BSA. In this study, the mean value for BMI is 23.62, which

Table 2
Result of anthropometric data for Bangladeshi male (n 470).

Dimensions Mean STDEV CV (%) SEM Percentile

5th 50th 95th

1. Stature 167.7 5.25 3.13 0.24 159 168 176

2. Eye height 155.8 5.27 3.38 0.24 147.39 156 164.75
3. Shoulder height 138.7 5.30 3.82 0.24 131 139 147
4. Elbow height 108.8 4.39 4.03 0.20 102.09 109 116
5. Hip height 102.5 4.86 4.73 0.22 94.83 103 109.05
6. Knuckle height 75.6 3.52 4.65 0.16 70 75.5 81.5
7. Fingertip height 64.2 3.50 5.46 0.16 59 64 69.91
8. Sitting height 82.9 3.69 4.45 0.17 77 83 88.5
9. Sitting eye height 72.6 3.63 5.00 0.16 66 73 78
10. Sitting shoulder height 57.0 3.44 6.03 0.15 51 57 62.5
11. Sitting elbow height 23.6 2.74 11.61 0.12 19 23.9 28
12. Thigh thickness 14.6 1.93 13.20 0.08 11.5 14.5 18
13. Buttock-knee length 56.3 3.25 5.78 0.15 51 56 62
14. Buttock-popliteal length 47.8 3.43 7.17 0.15 42.72 48 54
15. Knee height 52.3 2.63 5.03 0.12 48 52.5 56
16. Popliteal height 42.6 2.65 6.22 0.12 38 43 47
17. Shoulder breadth (Bideltoid) 41.9 2.38 5.69 0.11 38 42 46
18.Shoulder breadth (Biacromial) 36.2 1.99 5.49 0.09 33.18 36 40
19. Hip breadth 32.7 2.09 6.40 0.09 29.5 32.5 36
20. Chest (bust) depth 21.5 1.93 8.99 0.08 18.5 21.5 25
21. Abdominal depth 24.7 3.33 13.47 0.15 19.5 24.5 31
22.Shoulder-elbow length 33.4 2.32 6.94 0.10 30 33.5 37
23. Elbow-ngertip length 44.9 2.56 5.69 0.11 41 45 49
24. Upper limb length 74.0 3.48 4.69 0.16 68.22 74 80
25. Shoulder-grip length 63.8 3.34 5.24 0.15 59 64 69.27
26. Head length 18.2 0.80 4.41 0.03 17 18.5 19.5
27. Head breadth 14.7 0.59 4.03 0.02 14 15 15.75
28. Hand length 19.6 1.17 5.99 0.05 18 19.5 21.5
29. Hand breadth 8.95 0.53 5.97 0.02 8 9 10
30. Foot length 24.6 1.54 6.25 0.07 22.63 24.55 27
31. Foot breadth 9.7 0.64 6.61 0.02 9 10 10.75
32. Span 166.6 5.71 3.43 0.26 157 166.45 176
33. Elbow span 82.9 4.83 5.82 0.22 74 83 89.77
34.Vertical grip reach (standing) 208.1 5.48 2.63 0.25 198 208 217
35. Vertical grip reach (sitting) 129.1 4.59 3.55 0.21 121.09 129 136.5
36. Forward grip reach 79.8 3.81 4.77 0.17 74 80 86
37. Body weight (kg) 66.5 9.59 14.41 0.44 52 66 83

Indices
BMI 23.62 3.08 13.03 0.141 18.98 23.48 29.21
RSH 0.494 0.0189 3.82 0.008 0.462 0.495 0.524
BSA 1.75 0.129 7.371 0.005 1.55 1.74 1.94

All Results (Dimensions 1e37) are in cm. Dimensions 1 to 7 are in standing position.
STDEV standard deviation, SEM standard error of mean, CV coefcient of variation.
RSH Sitting height/Stature; BMI Body weight divided by squared height (kg/m2).
BSA (Body weight0.425  Stature0.725)  0.007184 [Du Bois formula e Verbraecken et al. (2006)].
 Author's personal copy

410 M.M. Khadem, Md.A. Islam / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2014) 407e412

Table 3 indicates that the Bangladeshi population is normal (i.e., neither

The stature dimension of male population for different nationalities. overweight nor underweight); the WHO (2008) and Frisancho
Source Nationalities (year) Stature (cm) (1993) indicate that a BMI value of 18.5e25.0 is normal. The 5th
Dewangan et al., 2010 India (2010) 162.0
and 95th percentile values are 18.98 cm and 29.21 cm, respectively,
Bush, 2012 Sri Lanka (1991) 163.9 indicating that approximately 5 percent of the population is un-
Prado-Lu, 2007 Filipino (2007) 167.0 derweight and 5 percent of the population is overweight.
Bush, 2012 Saudi Arabia (1985) 167.5 The results for RSH are 0.462, 0.495, and 0.524 for the 5th, 50th,
In this Study Bangladesh (2012) 167.7
and 95th percentiles, respectively, which are all in the approximate
Khan et al., 2008 Pakistan (2008) 168.0
Mohamad et al., 2010 Malaysian (2010) 168.6 range of 0.50. This result indicates that the Bangladeshi population
Lin et al., 2004 Japanese (2004) 169.0 is long-legged (Pheasant, 1998). The mean value of BSA is deter-
Barroso et al., 2005 Portuguese (2005) 169.0 mined to be 1.75.
Pheasant, 1998 Poland (1998) 169.5
Lin et al., 2004 Taiwanese (2004) 169.9
Bush, 2012 Brazil (1988) 169.9 3.2. Comparison of stature of Bangladeshi males with stature of
Xiao et al. (2005). Chinese (2005) 170.3 male populations of different nationalities
Lin et al., 2004 South Korean (2004) 170.7
_ eri and Arslan, 2009
Is Turkey (2009) 170.8
Bush, 2012 Germany (1986) 171.0 Table 3 shows the stature dimensions of the male population
Klamklay et al., 2008 Thai land (South) (2008) 171.9 for different nationalities. This table compares the stature in the
Chuan et al., 2010 Indonesia (2010) 172.0 present study with male populations of different countries from
Mououdi, 1997 Iran (1997) 172.5
the literature. The Bangladeshi male population (167.7 cm, in this
Mokdad, 2002 Algeria (2002) 172.6
Bush, 2012 Ireland (1985) 173.1 study) is taller than the Indian male (162 cm, studied in 2010)
Bush, 2012 Italy (2002) 173.6 and Sri Lankan male populations (163.9 cm, studied in 1991), the
Bush, 2012 Hong Kong (2000) 173.7 Filipino male population (167 cm, studied in 2007), and the Saudi
Chuan et al., 2010 Singapore (2010) 174.0 Arabian male population (167.5 cm, studied in 1985). The pop-
Pheasant, 1998 UK (1998) 174.0
ulation in this study is shorter than the male population of other
Bush, 2012 Jamaica (1991) 174.9
Bush, 2012 France (2006) 175.6 countries, such as Japan (169 cm, studied in 2004), Singapore
Hanson et al., 2009 Sweden (2009) 179.2 (174 cm, studied in 2010), and Sweden (179.2 cm, studied in
Pheasant, 1998 Netherlands (1998) 179.5 2009). Although, each study mentioned in Table 3 uses different
Marklin et al., 2010 USA (2010) 180.1

Table 4
Comparison for Bangladeshi male with Indian, Southern Thai and Malaysian male population.

Dimensions Bangladesh (n 470) Vs India (n 801) Vs Southern Thai (n 100) Vs Malaysia (n 516)

Mean (StDev) Mean(StDev) p value Mean (StDev) p value Mean (StDev) p value

Stature 167.72(5.25) 162.0(6) 0.0001** 171.94(5.15) 0.0001** 168.6(6.77) 0.0237*

Eye height 155.88(5.27) 150.1(6.3) 0.0001** 160.21(5.01 0.0001** 156.9(6.83) 0.0093**
Shoulder height 138.79(5.30) 134.5(5.7) 0.0001** 140.67(11.74) 0.0133* 138.8(6.65) 0.9793
Elbow height 108.84(4.39) 100.5(4.7) 0.0001** 109.18(8.75) 0.5684 105.6(8.7) 0.0001**
Hip height 102.54(4.86) 92.8(5.2) 0.0001** 84.96(4.09) 0.0001** 98.4(9.29) 0.0001**
Knuckle height 75.64(3.52) NA NA 74.19(10.13) 0.0133* NA NA
Fingertip height 64.20(3.50) NA NA 63.21(4.87) 0.0176* NA NA
Sitting height 82.91(3.69) 83.6(3.7) 0.0013** 90.16(3.41) 0.0001** 84.6(6.62) 0.0001**
Sitting eye height 72.66(3.63) 72.1(3.6) 0.0173* 78.01(3.37) 0.0001** 73.3(6.96) 0.0746
Sitting shoulder height 57.05(3.44) 56.7(3.4) 0.0780 60.63(2.68) 0.0001** 55.4(6.16) 0.0001**
Sitting elbow height 23.63(2.74) 21.5(2.1) 0.0001** 25.11(2.58) 0.0001** 21.2(4.41) 0.0001**
Thigh thickness 14.64(1.93) 13.6(1.3) 0.0001** 14.21(1.46) 0.0359* 18.3(4.52) 0.0001**
Buttock-knee length 56.31(3.25) 53.2(2.8) 0.0001** 58.32(2.45) 0.0001** NA NA
Buttock-popliteal length 47.88(3.43) 41.5(3.5) 0.0001** 48.23(3.95) 0.3411 47.1(4.48) 0.0024**
Knee height 52.31(2.63) 49.5(2.8) 0.0001** 52.81(2.29) 0.0783 51.3(6.03) 0.0008**
Popliteal height 42.65(2.65) 39.7(3.4) 0.0001** 43.04(1.56) 0.1563 44.8(3.46) 0.0001**
Shoulder Breadth (bideltoid) 41.92(2.38) 42.6(2.7) 0.0001** 43.24(2.26) 0.0001** 48.1(5.76) 0.0001**
Shoulder breadth (biacromial) 36.29(1.99) 39.3(3.0) 0.0001** 40.45(1.99) 0.0001** 39.6(6.17) 0.0001**
Hip breadth 32.71(2.09) 31.2(1.7) 0.0001** 34.34(5.48) 0.0001** 37.5(6.86) 0.0001**
Chest (bust) depth 21.52(1.93) 20.1(1.3) 0.0001** 19.85(1.92) 0.0001** 21.7(4.35) 0.4090
Abdominal depth 24.79(3.33) 22.3(2.2) 0.0001** 20.90(2.43) 0.0001** NA NA
Shoulder-elbow length 33.41(2.32) NA NA 35.97(1.46) 0.0001** 35.3(3.46) 0.0001**
Elbow-ngertip length 44.96(2.56) NA NA 47.12(1.63) 0.0001** NA NA
Upper Limb Length 74.07(3.48) NA NA 77.12(4.12) 0.0001** NA NA
Shoulder-grip length 63.88(3.34) 71.3 (4.6) 0.0001** 66.55(2.73) 0.0001** 70.5(6.27) 0.0001**
Head length 18.28(0.80) NA NA 18.99(0.73) 0.0001** 20.3(2.76) 0.0001**
Head breadth 14.79(0.59) NA NA 15.78(0.56) 0.0001** NA NA
Hand length 19.60(1.17) 17.5(1.0) 0.0001** 19.11(7.16) 0.1615 19.2(5.47) 0.1207
Hand breadth 8.95(0.53) 9.8(0.5) 0.0001** 8.22(0.35) 0.0001** 9.16(5.41) 0.4023
Foot length 24.67(1.54) NA NA 25.35(0.99) 0.0001** 25.2(2.18) 0.0001**
Foot breadth 9.73(0.64) NA NA 9.80(0.54) 0.3086 10.5(1.12) 0.0001**
Span 166.66(5.71) 166.3(7.1) 0.3495 174.28(13.88) 0.0001** NA NA
Elbow span 82.99(4.83) 84.9(4.0) 0.0001** 90.07(3.14) 0.0001** NA NA
Vertical grip reach (standing) 208.13(5.48) 195.8(8.1) 0.0001** 204.73(12.51) 0.0001** NA NA
Vertical grip reach (sitting) 129.12(4.59) 116.9(5.3) 0.0001** 124.78(14.51) 0.0001** NA NA
Forward grip reach 79.89(3.81) NA NA 73.66(4.70) 0.0001** NA NA
Body weight (kg) 66.50(9.59) 56.1(5.7) 0.0001** 61.85(8.57) 0.0001** 66.64(3.62) 0.7579

*Signicant at p < 0.05 and **signicant at p < 0.01.

 Author's personal copy
M.M. Khadem, Md.A. Islam / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2014) 407e412
sample numbers, it is evident that the stature dimension of the
male population differs for each nationality. Thus, products or
workstations designed for a specic country should not be
transferred directly to the population of other countries because
a mismatch may result between subjects and products or
workstations, leading to both short- and long-term adverse
impacts.
3.3. Comparison of anthropometric dimensions for Bangladeshi
males and Indian, Southern Thai and Malaysian males
A t-test was used to separately compare Bangladeshi males with
Indian, Southern Thai and Malaysian male populations. The results
shown in Table 4 indicate that Bangladeshi males have greater
stature and eye height than Indian males, but these dimensions of
the Bangladeshi male population are smaller than those of the
Southern Thai and Malaysian male populations. Regarding sitting
height and elbow span, the dimensions for Bangladeshi males are
smaller than the dimensions for Indian and Southern Thai male
populations. Body mass is higher for Bangladeshi males than for
Indian or Southern Thai males but is smaller than the body mass of
the Malaysian male population. The Bangladeshi male population
signicantly differs from Indian males in all dimensions at p < 0.01,
with the exception of sitting shoulder height and span. In com-
parison with the Southern Thai male population, some dimensions
of the Bangladeshi population, such as elbow height, knee height
and foot breadth, are not signicantly different at p < 0.05. Simi-
larly, in a comparison of Malaysian males and Bangladeshi males,
shoulder height, chest breadth and body mass are not signicantly
different at <0.05.
3.4. Limitations
Historically, the Bangladeshi population has diverse origins
from various communities that entered this region over many
centuries. Due to the large population size in Bangladesh, a larger
sample size is necessary for a sound anthropometric database that
can be used by future studies. The male subjects in this study
ranged in age from 15 to 64 years but are assumed to be repre-
sentative of the entire population of Bangladeshi males.
4. Conclusion
The rst anthropometric database for the Bangladeshi male
population is summarized in this study. The results of 37 anthro-
pometric dimensions for a sample of 470 Bangladeshi males were
identied through statistical analysis. The sample population
ranged in age from 15 to 64 years. Three indices, BMI, RSH and BSA,
were also determined. A detailed comparison was performed be-
tween the results found for the Bangladeshi male population and
the Indian, Southern Thai, and Malaysian male populations, and the
stature of the Bangladeshi male population was compared with the
male population of several countries from the literature, such as the
US, the UK, Brazil and Sri Lanka. The comparison results indicated a
signicant difference between the dimensions of Bangladeshi
males and the dimensions of other nationalities. This result is ex-
pected because geographical location has a strong impact on
anthropometric dimensions (Is _ eri and Arslan, 2009). Thus, the
outcomes of this study have implications for the design of products
or workstations for the Bangladeshi male population. Especially for
the readymade garments industry machineries and safety products
use by the construction workers in Bangladesh. These are imported
from USA, and European countries. However, important issues
should be considered prior to using these data, such as the standing
411
position of subjects for the measurements of all dimensions and the
clothing of the subjects.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the support provided by The Research
Council (TRC), Oman through the Open Research Grant (No. RC/
ENG/MIED/10/01), Sultan Qaboos University and the participants.
References
Barroso, M.P., Arezes, P.M., Da-Costa, L.G., Miguel, A.S., 2005. Anthropometric study
of Portuguese workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 401e410.
Bush, P.M., 2012. Ergonomics Foundational Principles, Applications and Techniques.
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, USA.
Chuan, T.K., Hartono, M., Kumar, N., 2010. Anthropometry of the Singaporean and
Indonesian populations. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 40, 757e766.
Dewangan, K.N., Prasanna Kumar, G.V., Suja, P.L., Choudhury, M.D., 2005. Anthro-
pometric dimensions of farm youth of the north eastern region of India. Int. J.
Ind. Ergon. 35, 979e989.
Dewangan, K.N., Owarya, 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., Owarya, 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.
Frisancho, A.R., 1993. Anthropometric Standards for the Assessment of Growth and
Nutritional Status. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Ghoddousi, H., Edler, R., Haers, P., Wertheim, D., Greenhill, D., 2007. Comparison of
three methods of facial measurement. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 36, 250e258.
Gonen, E., Kalinkara, V., Ozgen, O., 1991. Anthropometry of Turkish women. Appl.
Ergon. 6, 409e411. Technical Note.
Hanson, L., Sperling, L., Gard, G., Ipsen, S., Vergara, C.O., 2009. Swedish anthropo-
metrics for product and workplace design. Appl. Ergon. 40, 797e806.
Hua, H., Lia, Z., Yana, J., Wanga, X., Xiaob, H., Duana, J., Zhenga, L., 2007. Anthro-
pometric measurement of the Chinese elderly living in the Beijing area. Int. J.
Ind. Ergon. 37, 303e311.
Huang, C., You, M., 1994. Anthropometry of Taiwanese women. Appl. Ergon. 25,
186e187. Technical Note.
Imrhan, S.N., Sarder, M.D., Mandahawi, N., 2009. Hand anthropometry in Bangla-
deshis living in America and comparisons with other populations. Ergonomics
52 (8), 987e998.
_ eri, A., Arslan, N., 2009. Estimated anthropometric measurements of Turkish
Is
adults and effects of age and geographical regions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 860e
865.
Khan, A., Haq, F.U., Pervez, M.B., Saleheen, D., Frossard, P.M., Ishaq, M., Hakeem, A.,
Sheikh, H.T., Ahmad, U., 2008. Anthropometric correlates of blood pressure in
normotensive Pakistani subjects. Int. J. Cardiol. 124, 259e262.
Klamklay, J., Sungkhapong, A., Yodpijit, N., Patterson, P.E., 2008. Anthropometry of
the southern Thai population. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38, 111e118.
Kothiyal, K., Tettey, S., 2000. Anthropometric data of elderly people in. Aust. Appl.
Ergon. 31, 329e332.
Lin, Y.C., Wang, M.J.J., Wang, E.M., 2004. The comparisons of anthropometric
characteristics among four peoples in East Asia. Appl. Ergon. 35, 173e178.
Mandahawi, N., Imrhan, S., Al-Shobaki, S., Sarder, B., 2008. Hand anthropometry
survey for the Jordanian population. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38 (11e12), 966e976.
Marklin, R.W., Saginus, K.A., Seeley, P., Freier, S.H., 2010. Comparison of anthro-
pometry of U.S. electric utility eld-workers with North American general
populations. Hum. Factors 52 (6), 643e662.
Marks, G.C., Habicht, J.P., Mueller, W.H., 1989. Reliability, dependability and preci-
sion of anthropometric measurement. Am. J. Epidemiol. 130 (3), 578e587.
Mohamad, D., Deros, B.M., Ismail, A.R., Daruis, D.D.I., 2010. Development of a
Malaysian anthropometric database. In: World Engineering Congress, Confer-
ence on Manufacturing Technology and Management, 2nde5th August 2010,
Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. CMTM, p. 49.
Mohammad, Y.A.A., 2005. Anthropometric characteristics of the hand based on
laterality and sex among Jordanian. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 747e754.
Mokdad, M., 2002. Anthropometric study of Algerian farmers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 29,
331e341.
Mokdad, M., Al-Ansari, M., 2009. Anthropometrics for the design of Bahraini school
furniture. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 728e735.
Mououdi, M.A., 1997. Static anthropometric characteristics of Tehran University
student 20e30. Appl. Ergon. 28 (2), 149e150. Technical Note.
Musaiger, A.O., Al-Ansari, M., Al-Mannai, M., 2000. Anthropometry of adolescent
girls in Bahrain, including body fat distribution. Ann. Hum. Biol. 27, 507e515.
Park, J., Nam, Y., Lee, E., Park, S., 2009. Error detection in three-dimensional surface
anthropometric data. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39 (1), 277e282.
Pentikis, J., Lopez, M., Thomas, R., 2002. Ergonomic evaluation of a government
ofce building. Work: A J. Prev. Assess. Rehab. 18 (2), 123e131.
Pheasant, S., 1998. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work,
second ed. Taylor & Francis, London.
 Author's personal copy
412 M.M. Khadem, Md.A. Islam / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2014) 407e412
Pheasant, S., Haslegrave, C.M., 2006. Body Space: Anthropometry, Ergonomics, and
the Design of Work, third ed. Taylor & Francis.
Prado-Lu, J.L.D., 2007. Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing
workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37, 497e503.
Snook, S.H., 1978. Design of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics 21 (5), 404e405.
Thariq, M.G.M., Munasinghe, H.P., Abeysekara, J.D., 2010. Designing chairs with
mounted desktop for university students: ergonomics and comfort. Int. J. Ind.
Ergon. 40, 8e18.
Verbraecken, J., Van de Heyning, P., De Backer, W., Van Gaal, L., 2006. Body surface
area in normal-weight, overweight, and obese adults. A comparison study.
Metabol. d Clin. Exp. 55 (4), 515e524.
View publication stats
Wang, E.M., Wang, M., Yeh, W., Shih, Y., Lin, Y., 1999. Development of anthropo-
metric work environment for Taiwanese workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 23, 3e8.
Westgaard, R.H., Aaras, A., 1984. Postural muscle strain as a causal factor in the
development of musculoskeletal illnesses. Appl. Ergon. 15 (3), 162e174.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2008. Body Mass Index (BMI) Classication
[Online] Available from: http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage1/4intro_
3.html (accessed 11.01.12.).
Wichansky, A.M., 2000. Usability testing in 2000 and beyond. Ergonomics 43 (7),
998e1006.
Xiao, G., Lei, L., Dempsey, P.G., Lu, B., Liang, Y., 2005. Isometric muscle strength and
anthropometric characteristics of a Chinese sample. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 674e679.