1-s2.0-s0169814101000737-main

5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

1/11

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 29 (2002) 331341

Anthropometric study of Algerian farmers

M. Mokdad*

Psychology Department, International Islamic University, Jalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received 7 June 2001; received in revised form 9 August 2001; accepted 17 November 2001

Abstract

An anthropometric study of Algerian date-palm farmers was carried out. Thirty-six body dimensions were measured.

Mean, variation measures, percentiles, 4 indices, and correlation coefficients between body dimensions were calculated.

Effects of age were studied. Data of Algerian farmers and farmers from both developed and developing countries are

compared. Body dimensions results were presented in one table so that they can easily be used by designers. It has been

found that both stature and weight correlated significantly with many body dimensions. In addition, age was found to

affect body height and weight. Moreover, it was found that stature and weight have increased with time. These days

farmers are taller and heavier than farmers of the 1960s. Algerian farmers are also taller and heavier than farmers of

many developing countries. However, when Algerians are compared with the farmers of developed countries, they are

shorter and lighter.

Relevance to industry

The physical dimensions of the workplace are very important because small changes can have a considerable impact

on worker health, safety, and productivity. Therefore, this study was completed to provide anthropometric data that

can be used to design or redesign agricultural machines, tools and equipment. Date-palm agriculture is still done

traditionally in most of the date-palm producing countries. The introduction of ergonomically designed technology will

improve the date-palm industry. r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Anthropometry; Date-palm farmers; Ideal body weight; Secular change; Developing countries

1. Anthropometric study of Algerian farmers

One of the important principles of ergonomics is

that workplace dimensions should match the body

dimensions of the expected users. A good match

can be obtained if anthropometric data are

applied. Incorrect workplace design where anthro-

pometric data are ignored can cause psychological

discomfort, physical fatigue and could be harmfuland damaging in the long term. Therefore,

anthropometric data are an essential condition to

the design of safe, comfortable and effective

machines, tools and workplaces.

In the developed countries, where ergonomic

research and practice are widespread, structured

and highly developed researchers have been

collecting anthropometric data from different

segments of the populations for a long time. The

first systematic large-scale anthropometric studies*Corresponding author. Tel.: +603-2056-5111.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Mokdad).

0169-8141/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 8 1 4 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 7 3 - 7

5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

2/11

were started in the 1940s. On the other hand, in

developing countries, where ergonomic thought as

well as applications are unstructured and limited,

anthropometric studies in general and anthropo-metric data of some segments of the population

such as women, children and disabled people are

very scarce if not available at all.

In Algeria, there are about 7 million farmers

(B23% of the whole Algerian population in 1998)

involved in date-palm culture either directly or

indirectly, of whom, B78% are in the private

sector and B22% in the government sector. The

anthropometric data of these farmers are needed

for various purposes. The first of which is the

design or redesign of agricultural equipment,

workplaces, tools and clothing, so that efficient

use with safety and comfort might be ensured. It is

estimated that B55% of agricultural equipment

and tools are imported and B45% are locally

made (Biskra Governorate Department of Agri-

culture, 1996). In addition, anthropometric data

are necessary to describe the physical character-

istics of the body of the Algerians. Anthropo-

metric data are also needed to allow for

comparisons with other populations to be made.

This study aims, therefore, to provide anthro-

pometric data which can be used in design orredesign, descriptions, comparisons, and evalua-

tion purposes.

2. Methods

2.1. Subjects

A sample of 514 male farmers engaged in field

activities was randomly chosen from both private

and government sectors and the four date-palmregions (Zeb, Souf, Touat and Hoggar). The

distribution of the subjects among both the

agricultural sector and the region can be seen in

Table 1. It can be seen that B44% of the sample

farmers were taken from Souf date-palm region

because it is a very large area with the largest

number of both farmers and date palms. The first

contact with the farmers of each region was

organized by the principal governorate depart-

ment of agriculture of the region.

2.2. Body dimensions

Thirty-six body dimensions were chosen because

it has been thought that they are useful for thedesign or redesign of agricultural equipment and

tools. These measurements were 14 in standing

position (6 heights, 1 breadth, 2 depths, 1 reach,

handgrip force, triceps and sub-scapular skinfold

thickness and weight) and 22 in sitting position (7

heights, 3 breadths, 5 lengths, 2 reaches, 3 hand

and 2 foot measurements). In addition, 4 other

anthropometric indices were calculated. These

were ideal body weight (IBW), body fat percen-

tage, relative sitting height (RSH) and body

surface area (BSA). Body dimensions, landmarks

and the measurement of each body dimension

procedures were defined by Frisancho (1993) and

Pheasant (1997). All the measurements can be seen

in Fig. 1ac.

2.3. Equipment

Body dimensions were taken with a Harpenden

standard anthropometer (Holtain Ltd., UK).

Hand and foot measurements were taken using

sliding calipers. A squeeze dynamometer (Model78010 Lafayette Instrument Co.) was used to take

the handgrip strength. Skinfold thickness was

taken with a skinfold caliper which was calibrated

to give a constant pressure of 10 g/mm2 over its

entire operational range. In addition, a portable

weighing scale accurate to +50 g was used to take

the body weight. Finally, an adjustable swivel

stool which can rotate on a pivot attached to a 4-

star-welded steel base was used to take sitting

Table 1

The distribution of subjects among the date-palm regions and

the agricultural sector

Agricultural sector Agricultural region Total %

Souf Zeb Touat Hoggar

Private 198 123 51 29 401 78

Government 28 57 17 11 113 22

Total 226 180 68 40 514 100

M. Mokdad / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 29 (2002) 331341332

5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

3/11

Fig. 1.

M. Mokdad / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 29 (2002) 331341 333

5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

4/11

Table 2

Anthropometric data of sample (n 514)

Measurement Mean SD SEM CV (%) Min 1st 5th 50th 95th 99th Max

Age 36 11.1 0.5 30.8 15 10 18 36 54 62 75

Handgrip 38 8.7 0.4 22.4 11 18 25 38 53 58 73

Weight 64 10.9 0.5 17.0 49 39 46 64 82 89 97

Standing arm reach

Maximum overhead 2074 89.4 3.9 4.3 1853 1866 1927 2074 2221 2282 2343

Standing heights

Stature 1726 76.0 3.4 4.0 1449 1549 1601 1726 1851 1903 1909

Eye 1597 66.3 3.0 4.0 1168 1443 1488 1597 1706 1751 1873

Shoulder 1446 67.1 2.9 4.7 893 1290 1335 1446 1556 1602 1787

Elbow 1099 52.8 2.4 4.0 747 976 1012 1099 1185 1222 1550

Knuckle 786 47.6 2.0 6.0 453 675 708 786 864 909 995

Standing breadths

Chest 264 6.1 0.8 6.0 182 226 238 264 291 302 415

Standing depths

Chest 217 19.0 0.9 8.7 159 173 186 217 248 261 350

Waist 200 22.1 1.0 11.0 116 149 167 200 236 251 304

Sitting arm reach

Maximum overhead 1280 64.0 2.8 4.9 1094 1131 1175 1280 1385 1429 1628

Maximum horizontal 884 64.1 2.8 7.2 710 735 779 884 989 950 1124

Sitting heights

Sitting 870 35.4 1.6 4.0 685 788 812 870 928 952 1069

Cervical 689 34.2 1.5 4.9 573 653 633 689 745 835 873

Eye 744 39.1 1.8 5.2 513 609 680 744 808 769 850

Shoulder 609 37.2 1.6 6.1 411 522 548 609 670 696 743

Knee 522 30.0 1.4 5.7 326 452 473 522 571 592 649

Popliteal 422 30.0 1.4 7.0 244 342 373 422 441 492 494

Elbow 191 24.0 1.0 12.5 105 135 152 191 230 247 335

Thigh thickness 115 15.3 0.7 13.3 88 79 90 115 140 151 215

Sitting lengths

Buttockfoot 1041 48.4 2.2 4.6 697 928 962 1041 1120 1154 1163

Buttockknee 574 38.4 1.7 6.6 363 485 511 574 637 663 840

Buttockpopliteal 475 28.5 1.3 6.0 314 409 428 475 522 541 620

Shoulderelbow 349 32.2 1.4 9.2 251 274 296 349 402 424 559

Elbowfingertip 463 33.0 1.5 7.1 346 386 409 463 517 540 528

Sitting breadths

Shoulder 406 27.0 1.2 6.6 303 343 362 406 450 469 504

Elbowelbow 430 38.0 1.7 8.8 326 341 368 430 492 519 730

Hip 337 25.8 1.2 7.6 198 277 295 337 379 397 528

Hand measurements

Hand length 194 14.0 0.7 7.2 140 161 171 194 217 227 297

Hand breadth 101 8.4 0.4 8.3 90 87 90 101 115 121 150

Hand breadth metacarpa 82 4.0 0.2 4.8 88 73 75 82 89 91 101


5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

5/11

dimensions. Both the Harpenden anthropometer

and the skinfold caliper were periodically cali-

brated against rules. However, the weighting scale

and the squeeze dynamometer were calibrated

against standard weights (5 and 10 kg), by putting

the weights on the scale surface and hanging them

to the internal grip of the dynamometer which was

held vertical to a grooved surface.

2.4. Procedures

Both measuring postures were maintained

throughout the whole survey as natural as possible

according to Hertzberg (1968). To achieve a

greater scientific uniformity, measurements were

always carried out on the right-hand side of the

subjects, to the nearest millimeter. In addition, all

the measurements were taken in the mornings

between 7 and 12 a.m. Except handgrip measure-

ment, weight and skinfold thickness which weretaken twice (average recorded), all the remaining

measurements were taken just once. The whole

survey was carried out by a team of four members

aged 2236 years. Before starting the survey, a

training session of one week was provided in which

theoretical and practical instructions were given.

To ensure reliable measurements and recording, an

inspection tour was randomly performed by the

author. The whole survey was completed in a

period of about one and a half months.

3. Results and discussion

Different statistical methods can be used in

anthropometric studies. The choice of the statis-

tical method depends to a great extent upon the

nature of data and the purpose for which they are

collected and presented. In this study, descriptive

and inferential statistics have been used to make

data suitable for design purposes and to study the

differences which might exist between the studygroups. (See Appendix A for formula and refer-

ences.) All the results are presented in Tables 25.

Table 2 shows the mean, standard deviation

(SD), standard error of mean (SEM), coefficient of

variation (CV), 1st percentile, 5th percentile, 50th

percentile, 95th percentile, 99th percentile, the

maximum and the minimum values. Besides, it

shows the 4 anthropometric indices results.

It should be noted that body measurements were

taken when the body was in a fixed (static)

posture. Therefore, they should not be useddirectly in the design or redesign of equipment,

tools, and workplaces as they require functional

body dimensions which are more representative of

human activities. To translate static body dimen-

sions into dynamic ones, so that they can fit the

dynamic characteristics of equipment, Kroemers

suggestions (Kroemer, 1983) can be used. He

suggested the following guidelines:

(I) All heights are decreased by 0.3% of

their values except elbow height which is

Table 2 (continued)

Measurement Mean SD SEM CV (%) Min 1st 5th 50th 95th 99th Max

Foot measurements

Foot length 254 15.4 0.7 6.0 210 218 229 254 279 290 297

Foot breadth 95 7.7 0.4 8.1 95 87 82 95 108 123 136

Skinfold thickness

Triceps 0.8 5.2 0.3 66.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.8 17 20 31

Sub-scapula 13 6.7 0.3 51.5 0.5 0.0 2.0 13 24 29 47

Indices

Quetelet index 21 2.0 0.1 9.6 19 17 18 21 25 26 27

Body fat percentage 13 6.5 0.2 50.0 08 0.0 2.3 13 24 28 30

RSH 0.504 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.504 0.6 0.6 0.6

BSA (m2) 1.73 0.0 2.2 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.73 1.8 1.9 2.0

NB: All measurements are in millimeters except handgrip and weight in kilograms and age in years.


5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

6/11

increased by 0.5% of its value, and knee

height which is left as it is (i.e., with no

change).

(II) Reaches, particularly forward reach, are

decreased by 30%.

(III) If extensive shoulder and trunk movements

are involved, then reach is increased by20%.

As concerns SEM results, it can be seen that

standing heights and sitting arm reach dimensions

had the highest SEM values (2.83.9). However,

SEM of the other body dimensions are generally

small (0.32.2). These results indicate that spread

among the mean of the first set of dimensions

(standing heights and sitting arm reach) is greater

than spread among the means of the second set of

dimensions. Therefore, design or redesign deci-sions where standing heights and sitting arm reach

dimensions are used should be carefully made, as

generalizations from the sample to the population

could be difficult. A larger sample has to be

studied, if correct judgments are to be made.

As to the CV% results, it can be seen that the

highest values are associated with skinfold thick-

ness (66% and 51.5%), handgrip strength (22.4%)

and weight (17%). These values highly exceeded

the values of all other dimensions which are

Table 3

Anthropometric data of sample classified by age (mean values

Measurement 25 and less

(n 143)

2645

(n 230)

Over 45

(n 141)

Age 22 40 60

Handgrip 38 41 33

Weight 61 68 62

Standing arm reach

Maximum overhead 2099 2072 2051

Standing heights

Stature 1757 1724 1697

Eye 1640 1607 1544

Shoulder 1490 1457 1391

Elbow 1143 1118 1036

Knuckle 835 807 718

Standing breadths

Chest 259 273 265

Standing depths

Chest 206 233 215

Waist 180 198 221

Sitting arm reach

Maximum overhead 1293 1281 1266

Maximum horizontal 894 883 875

Sitting heights

Sitting 885 871 854

Cervical 710 696 662

Eye 765 751 716

Shoulder 630 616 580

Knee 529 520 518

Popliteal 429 421 419

Elbow 197 190 187

Thigh thickness 114 115 112

Sitting lengths

Buttockfoot 1052 1052 1019

Buttockknee 579 573 570

Buttockpopliteal 478 478 469

Shoulderelbow 376 376 358Elbowfingertip 464 464 461

Sitting breadths

Shoulder 406 413 400

Elbowelbow 416 452 430

Hip 340 344 332

Hand measurements

Hand length 197 198 186

Hand breadth 101 110 94

Hand breadth metacarpa 80 82 81

Table 3 (continued)

Measurement 25 and less

(n 143)

2645

(n 230)

Over 45

(n 141)

Foot measurements

Foot length 258 258 246

Foot breadth 95 94 93

Skinfold thickness

Triceps 8 10 8

Sub-scapula 12 15 13

Indices

Quetelet index 19.9 22.9 21.7

Body fat percentage 12 14 12

RSH 0.503 0.505 0.503

BSA (m2) 1.73 1.81 1.71

NB: All measurements are in millimeters except handgrip and

weight in kilograms.


5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

7/11

5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

8/11

generally small. In addition, it can be seen that

53% of the body dimensions are in the ranges

suggested by Pheasant (1997). However, CV% of

the other body dimensions particularly for some

sitting heights, sitting lengths and some parts of

the limbs are outside the suggested ranges. They

seem to suggest that the sample of this study whichwas 0.008% of the whole population (about 7

million agricultural workers) was not large enough

to decrease CV values. In order to reduce CV%

values, one has to increase the mean values which

could be done by adding new observations to the

sample. Increasing the sample mean will in turn

cause CV to decrease.

As related to the IBW; it can be seen that

Quetelet index was 21.48 which means that

Algerian farmers are normal, i.e., neither meager

nor obese (see Appendix B). This result is slightlyconfirmed by body fat percentage results. Table 2

shows that the mean body fat percentage of

Algerian farmers is 13. According to Hoeger and

Hoeger (1996), a good body fat percentage for the

age group 3039 years, should be 1419. Values

below this range indicate meagerness, whereas

values above it indicate obesity. Therefore, the

Algerian farmers can be considered as slightly

meager on this body fat percentage scale. How-

ever, when Demoulin and Chamla (1981) data

were used, Algerian farmers were also found to be

normal (Quetelet index was 21.19). Although both

indices indicated that farmers were normal, it

should be observed that Quetelet index has

increased from 21.19% in 1966 to 21.48% in

1998 confirming the idea of secular change that

has been advocated by many research workerssuch as Tunner (1978) who has shown that in a

period of about 80 years starting from about 1880

most of the European countries as well as USA,

Canada and Australia have seen this secular

change. It was B10 mm per decade in adult

stature. However, in the last few decades, this

secular increase seemed to have leveled off, if not

decreased in some counties. In Algeria, this secular

change could be attributed to nutritional and

health variables. As to nutrition, the policy that

the Algerian government started in the 1980s andfor which the slogan towards a better life was

advertised has played a great role in improving the

life of Algerians. The majority of young people

have access to good living facilities, which their

parents could not have access to previously

particularly during the French colonization era.

One of the most important aspects of this policy

was supporting the prices of all food items

particularly the basic ones such as flour, meat,

milk, oil, sugar and dry vegetables. The major

Table 5

Anthropometric dimensions and indices of farmers from different nationalities

Source Nationality n Age (years) Stature (cm) Weight (kg) BSA (m2) Ratio

Phillips (1954) Nigerians 7 29 163.4 54.7 1.583 0.028

Manuba and Nala (1969) Indonesians 5 3560 161.6 54.8 1.571 0.028

Kerana et al. (1997) Indonesians 6 3350 162.4 54.8 1.58 0.028

Davies (1973) Tanzanians 78 27 165.9 62.2 1.690 0.027

Spurr et al. (1975) Colombians 59 1856 163.8 58.6 1.633 0.027

Davies et al. (1975) Sudanese 165 26 173.2 54.8 1.652 0.030

Maksud et al. (1976) Colombians 55 29 163.0 57.8 1.618 0.027

Maksud et al. (1976) Mexicans 15 22 166.7 71.0 1.794 0.025

Collins et al. (1976) Sudanese 53 26 173.3 58.6 1.701 0.029

Sen et al. (1977) Indians 192 21 161.5 45.9 1.457 0.031

Demoulin and Chamla (1981) Algerians 384 2076 167.0 59.1 1.662 0.028

Pfeiffer et al. (1984) Canadians 105 48 174.4 80.2 1.953 0.024

Donati et al. (1984) English 6 42 180.0 76.5 1.958 0.025

Smith et al. (1986) Canadians 12 28 175.4 73.5 1.889 0.025Intaranont et al. (1988) Thai 100 2049 162.8 55.2 1.585 0.028

This study Algerians 514 36 172.6 64.0 1.760 0.027


5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

9/11

result of this policy was that many Algerians were

able to have daily a well-balanced calorie intake

where the percentage of protein particularly from

animal sources has dramatically increased. Asconcerns health facilities, the policy of free

medicine, the government started in the early

1970s which increased the number of hospitals,

clinics, and doctors (either by local training or

through foreign cooperation), supplied free med-

icine to the poor and the needy, and supported the

prices of all types of medicaments, has played a

great role in the improvement of life of the

Algerians.

As to the RSH;it can be seen that Algerians had

a ratio of 0.504. According to Pheasant (1997),

when RSH is large (B0.55), the sample is short-

legged. But if it is small (B0.50), the sample is

long-legged. Therefore, Algerian farmers can be

considered as a long-legged sample, similar to

Black Africans who have proportionally longer

lower limbs. On the other hand, Algerian farmers

are clearly different from Europeans with an RSH

of B0.52 and far Easterners with an RSH of

B0.54 (Pheasant, 1997).

Table 3 shows anthropometric data classified on

the basis of age. This classification revealed that

there are clear differences between the three groups(25 years and less, 2645 years and over 45 years)

of the study. The means of stature for the young,

middle-aged, and old subjects were 1757, 1724 and

1697 mm, respectively. However, the means of

weight for the young, middle-aged and old subjects

were 61, 68 and 62 kg, respectively.F test (2, 511)

shows that older people (over 45 years) are

significantly shorter (po0:01) but not significantly

(p >0:05) heavier than young people. Moreover,

F test shows that young people (o25 years) are

significantly smaller (po0:01) than old people inwaist depth. However, in other body dimensions,

the old people are generally smaller than both the

young and the middle-aged. These differences

confirm the secular change hypothesis mentioned

above.

Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients

between different anthropometric dimensions.

These coefficients were calculated to see to what

extent these dimensions are related to each other

and to what extent equipment design decisions

could be based on such correlations. All

coefficients of correlation which are >0.19 are

significant at the 0.05 level. Stature, as can be seen

in Table 4, correlated significantly with all thestanding and sitting heights, sitting lengths and

hand and foot measurements. Similarly, weight

correlated significantly with body breadths,

depths, some sitting heights, hand and foot

measurements and skinfold thickness. In the case

of predicting body dimensions, only the predicted

values for eye height, shoulder height, elbow

height, buttockknee length, knee height, popliteal

height, elbowhand length and hand length from

stature, and for waist depth, elbow-to-elbow

breadth, hip breadth and sub-scapular skinfold

from weight could be accurately used for design

purposes as their coefficient of determination (r2)

is equal to or higher than 0.70.

Table 5 presents anthropometric dimensions of

farmers from different nationalities. Comparisons

of the present study results with results from other

national and international studies have been

carried out. First, it can be seen that both stature

and weight of Algerians have increased. In 1966,

they were 167 cm and 59.1 kg, respectively (De-

moulin and Chamla, 1981). However, in this

study, they are 172.6 cm and 64 kg, respectively.Second, it can also be seen that Algerian farmers

are taller and heavier than farmers in many

developing countries which have been considered

in this study. This conclusion should not be

regarded as completely true as results from

developing countries are slightly outdated. They

were published in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and

1980s. Secular change could also be a character-

istic of many developing countries. The evidences

cited by Roche (1979) that in many developed and

developing countries including India there exists asecular decrease, do not fit well with the develop-

ing countries agricultural workers and farmers

who have just started enjoying good life environ-

ment. What Roche mentioned could be a char-

acteristic of high-class individuals who had been

enjoying adequate life facilities for many years.

Third, it is also seen that the Algerians are both

lighter and shorter than farmers from developed

countries. Although the sample of farmers from

developed countries is very small (farmers from


5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

10/11

Britain and Canada only), it is to a certain extent

representative of the farmers of other developed

countries. Many researchers have found that

developed countries populations are larger andheavier than populations in developing countries.

(Roberts, 1975; Abeysekera and Shahnawaz,

1989). These results will presumably help all the

authorities who are responsible for both the

development and transfer of technology to agri-

cultural sector. It has been already mentioned that

in Algeria B45% of agricultural equipment is

locally made, and B55% is transferred from

developed countries. The technology that is

transferred from developed countries is not going

to automatically fit the Algerians, because it has

not been designed for them. The misfit will be

unavoidable, and it will cause not only quick and

short-term effects, but, in the long term, it will also

have negative consequences on both farmers and

agriculture.

In addition, it shows the ratio of BSA to body

mass of farmers from different nationalities. It can

be seen that values range from 0.024 (the smallest

value) to 0.031 (the highest value), the mean and

SD being 0.027 and 0.002, respectively. In addi-

tion, it can be observed that the Canadians, the

English and the Mexicans obtain the smallestvalues. However, the values of the other nation-

alities are generally high. These results confirm the

rule of Bergmann which states that the body size

of varieties increases with decreasing mean tem-

perature of the habitat (Ciochon and Fleagle,

1993). Therefore, a small ratio is to be found in

cold and moderate areas of the globe (Earth),

whereas high ratio is found in hot and warm areas.

A large body size helps the creature maintain the

body heat, while a small size helps to dissipate

body heat. The majority of developing countriesconsidered in this study are found in hot and warm

areas. On the other hand, the farmers of developed

countries of this study live in cold and moderate

environments.

4. Uncited references

Davies et al., 1976; Suyasning et al., 1997.

Appendix A. Formulae used in this study

(1) SEM=SD/square root of sample size.

(2) CV=SD/mean 100 (Pheasant, 1997).

(3) RSH=sitting height/stature (Frisancho,

1993).

(4) Percentage of body fat=skinfold measure-

ments taken at two body sites: triceps and

sub-scapular. Body fat%=[(4.95/

density)4.50] 100 (Frisancho, 1993).

(5) IBW: Quetelet index=weight (kg)/height 2

(m) (Frisancho, 1993).

Quetelet index range Classificationo20.00 Underweight

20.0024.9 Normal

25.0029.9 Overweight

30.0034.9 Moderate obesity

40.00 and over Severe obesity

(6) BSA=weight 0.425 height 0.725-

0.425height 0.725 0.007184 (DuBois

and DuBois, 1916).

References

Abeysekera, J., Shahnawaz, H., 1989. Body size variability

between people in developed and developing countries and

its impact on the use of imported goods. International

Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 4, 139149.

Biskra Governorate Department of Agriculture, 1996. Re-

organization of agricultural sector. Internal Report No.

011/96, p. 27.

Ciochon, R.L., Fleagle, J.G., 1993. The Human EvolutionSource Book. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Collins, K.J., Brotherhood, R.G., Davies, C.T.M., Dore, C.,

Hacket, A., Imms, F.J., Musgrove, J., Weiner, J.S., Amin,

A.M., El-Karim, M., Ismail, H.M., Omer, A.H.S., Sukkar,

M.Y., 1976. Physiological performance work capacity of

Sudanese cane cutter with Schistosoma Mansoni infection.

American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 25 (3),

410421.

Davies, C.T.M., 1973. Relationship of maximum aerobic power

output to productivity and absenteeism of East African

sugar can cutters. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 30,

154164.


5/27/2018 1-s2.0-S0169814101000737-main

11/11

Davies, C.T.M., Brotherhood, J.R., Collins, K.J., Dore, C.,

Imms, F., Musgrove, J., Wiener, J.S., 1976. Energy

expenditure and physiological performance of Sudanese

cane cutters. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 33, 181

186.

Demoulin, F., Chamla, M.C., 1981. Anthropometric data,

physical activity and nutrition status in a population of

rural adults in North Africa (Algeria). Journal of Human

Evolution 10, 615622.

Donati, P.M., Boldero, A.G., Whyte, R.T., Stayner, R.M.,

1984. The postural support of seats: a study of driver

preferences during simulated tractor operation. Applied

Ergonomics 15 (1), 210.

DuBois, D., DuBois, E.F., 1916. A formula to estimate the

approximate surface area if height and weight be known.

Archives of Internal Medicine 17, 863871.

Frisancho, A.R., 1993. Anthropometric Standards for the

Assessment of Growth and Nutritional Status. The Uni-versity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Hertzberg, H.T.E., 1968. The conference on standardization of

anthropometric techniques and terminology. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology 28 (1), 116.

Hoeger, W.K., Hoeger, S.A., 1996. Principles and Labs for

Physical Fitness and Wellness. Morton Publishing Com-

pany, Englewood, NJ.

Intaranont, K., Khokhajaikiat, P., Somnasang, S., Asvakiat, P.,

1988. Anthropometry and physical work capacity of

agricultural workers in Thailand. Proceedings of the IEA,

Australia.

Kroemer, K.H.E., 1983. Engineering anthropometry: work

space and equipment to fit the user. In: Oborne, D.,

Gruneberg, M. (Eds.), The Physical Environment at Work.Wiley, London.

Maksud, M.G., Spurr, G.B., Barac-Nieto, M., 1976. The

aerobic power of several groups of labourers in Columbia

and the United States. European Journal of Applied

Physiology 35, 173182.

Manuba, A., Nala, N., 1969. Survey of Patjols in Bali.

Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Occupa-

tional Health, Tokyo, Japan. pp. 434436.

Pfeiffer, S., Graham, T.E., Webb, R.D.G., Wilson, B.A.,

Rivingtons-Moss, E.G., Fisker-Iggram, L.M., 1984. Aspects

of physical fitness and health in Ontario dairy farmers.

Canadian Journal of Public Health 75, 204211.

Pheasant, S., 1997. Body Space: Anthropometry, Ergonomics

and Design. Taylor & Francis, London.

Phillips, P.G., 1954. The metabolic cost of common West

African agricultural activities. Journal of Tropical Medicine

57, 1220.

Roberts, D.F., 1975. Population differences in dimensions, their

genetic basis and their relevance to practical problems. In:

Chapanis, A. (Ed.), Ethnic Variables in Human Engineer-

ing. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Roche, A.F., 1979. Secular trends in stature, weight and

maturation. Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development 44 (3-4), 327.

Sen, R.N., Nag, P.K., Ray, G.G., 1977. Some anthropometry

of people of Eastern India. Journal of Indian Anthro-

pological Association 12, 199206.

Smith, T.J., Gilbert, A.M., Henshaw, M., 1986. Tree planting

work: an occupational ergonomics health and safety

analysis. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of

the Human Factors Association of Canada, British Colom-

bia, 2223 August 1986. pp. 16.

Spurr, G.B., Barac-Nieto, M., Maksud, M.G., 1975. Energy

expenditure cutting sugar cane. Journal of Applied Physiol-

ogy 39 (6), 990996.

Suyasning, T.K., Manuba, A., Vanwonterghem, K., 1997. The

effects of postural load and environmental conditions toBalinese farmers physical performance. In: Halimahtun,

M.K. (Ed.), ASEAN Ergonomics 97. Proceedings of the

Fifth SEAES Conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. IEA

Press, pp. 518523.

Tunner, J.M., 1978. Foetus into Man. Open Books, London.


1-s2.0-s0169814101000737-main

Documents