ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Anthropometry of the southern Thai population

Jaruwan Klamklaya,, Angoon Sungkhaponga, Nantakrit Yodpijitb, Patrick E. Pattersonc
b

Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkuts Institute of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand c Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA Received 23 March 2006; received in revised form 30 August 2007; accepted 25 September 2007 Available online 5 November 2007

Abstract The South of Thailand is a long narrow peninsula and can further be divided into the upper-south and lower-south regions. This paper presents the Thai anthropometric data collected from university students in southern Thailand (combination of upper-south and lowersouth areas), and students specically originated from lower-southern region. One hundred male and 100 female students from southern Thailand, and 50 male and 50 female students from lower-southern Thailand participated in this study. Descriptive statistics give mean, standard deviation, and percentile values of each population group. The comparison between the current Thai anthropometric data and other existing Thai anthropometric data is presented. There were signicant differences in weight, stature, and other body dimensions between the populations. These results suggest that it is essential to incorporate accurate anthropometry in the design process, as well as in the application of biomechanical models. r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thai; Anthropometry; Southern Thailand

1. Introduction The economic growth and technological improvements have lead to greater demand and development of machines and devices used in industrial settings. With these dramatic changes there has also been greater interaction between man and machines. Anthropometric data are one of essential factors in designing machines and devices (Mebarki and Davies, 1990). Incorporating such information would yield more effective designs, ones that are more user friendly, safer, and enable higher performance and productivity. The lack of properly designed machines and equipment may lead to lower work performance and higher incidence of work-related injuries (Botha and Bridger, 1998). Thailand is divided into four main regions: North, Northeast, Central, and South. Due to the limitation of time and resources, only few studies on Thai anthropometry on selected regions have been conducted. In 1983,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 74 28 7020; fax: +66 74 21 2892.

E-mail address: jaruwan7@yahoo.com (J. Klamklay). 0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.09.001

Satavuthi (1983) reported a survey of 37 body dimensions of 855 females and 1260 males, with average ages of 23.70 years and 29.20 years, respectively. The subjects who participated in Satavuthis study were from central Thailand and worked in various types of industries: high physical demand task, medium physical demand task, and light physical demand task. The second study was reported in 1991 by Intaranont et al. (1991). A total of 500 industrial and agriculture workers (250 males and 250 females; ages 1755 years) from North Eastern of Thailand participated in this study. A newer study of Thai anthropometry by Yodpijit et al. (2004) reported the anthropometric data of 200 male and 200 female university students from central Thailand (i.e. Bangkok and its vicinities). The poor documentation of Thai anthropometry may prevent the proper consideration of Thai users in the design stage. Southern Thailand contains 13.4% of Thailands population (National Statistical Ofce, 2000), and it is a major area of several industries. However, no study has been conducted to report the anthropometric data of the people in this specic region, neither to report the effects of Thai geographical factors on the anthropometric data.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
112 J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118

Therefore, a need exists to establish the anthropometric characteristics of this region. Different from other regions, the south of Thailand is a long narrow peninsula. The mountain barriers and thick tropical forest caused the separation of this region into the upper-south and lower-south regions. Therefore, the word southern Thailand would generally refer to both uppersouth and lower-south areas, otherwise specied. There are seven provinces in the lower-south region and contains about 53% of the southern population. The remaining southern population resides in the other seven provinces of the upper-south (National Statistical Ofce, 2000). The objective of this study was to examine the anthropometric characteristics of southern Thai adults by using the physical measurements of university students. The secondary objective was to examine whether anthropometry of southern Thai population could be used to

represent both populations from both upper-south and lower-south regions. The information obtained from this study could be incorporated with the recent work of Yodpijit et al. (2004) to further complete the Thai anthropometric database. This database could provide information for effective engineering designs, and information for in depth research for the areas of engineering or other related disciplines. 2. Method This study is the combination of two independent surveys. The rst survey, the anthropometry of lowersouthern Thai adults, was funded by the Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand (February 2004). This survey adopted the measurements used by Intaranont et al. (1991) such that

Table 1 Anthropometric data for lower-southern Thai males, aged 1825 years (n 50) Dimensiona 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
a

Mean 59.65 169.17 141.10 43.10 26.56 48.59 59.08 31.72 140.59 83.60 35.41 41.09 46.04 13.42 13.70 9.91 25.16 23.19 74.63 88.53 8.36 17.98 55.78 18.88 84.14 127.80 34.75 37.36 200.14 41.77 103.51 35.61 88.75 32.68 49.69 72.11 48.10 37.64 100.77

S.D. 8.49 5.60 5.56 1.89 2.46 3.50 3.75 2.64 4.94 8.69 2.00 3.35 1.93 0.62 0.81 0.58 1.16 1.55 9.13 4.19 0.45 1.46 1.65 0.66 6.00 9.13 1.98 2.37 7.80 4.59 5.18 1.52 4.82 1.96 5.26 9.39 3.55 2.20 4.39

1st percentile 44.96 158.03 130.04 38.45 21.43 42.98 52.56 26.06 131.60 53.90 31.93 34.41 41.26 12.16 12.00 8.61 22.95 20.45 41.56 81.38 7.42 12.90 52.32 17.75 73.03 118.02 31.66 31.83 182.43 25.45 91.81 32.57 78.90 29.11 42.47 43.95 40.50 33.65 90.82

5th percentile 48.90 159.60 132.87 40.21 22.89 44.26 54.12 27.03 132.84 75.57 32.61 35.86 43.07 12.67 12.41 8.93 23.23 20.61 70.28 82.01 7.47 16.58 53.09 17.97 74.59 119.38 32.04 33.05 187.73 40.33 95.83 33.50 80.32 30.07 43.59 63.49 42.42 34.75 92.91

50th percentile 59.00 169.53 140.38 42.98 26.70 47.62 58.80 31.60 140.55 83.97 35.00 40.88 46.05 13.40 13.63 9.97 25.37 23.15 75.93 87.98 8.35 18.08 55.53 18.90 83.58 127.10 34.52 37.22 199.83 42.43 103.48 35.62 88.72 32.48 48.88 70.72 47.70 37.50 101.17

95th percentile 75.93 177.09 149.15 46.30 30.29 54.76 65.38 36.17 148.29 93.77 39.16 47.47 48.91 14.36 15.34 10.91 26.73 25.52 81.35 96.16 9.06 19.71 58.37 19.99 94.62 135.28 38.12 41.00 210.08 44.89 113.31 37.78 94.01 36.30 56.19 85.13 54.46 41.31 107.17

99th percentile 83.16 182.46 156.04 47.35 32.78 57.80 68.12 36.72 152.18 98.47 41.06 49.01 50.17 15.06 15.38 11.05 27.31 26.99 82.19 97.20 9.18 19.92 59.39 20.27 99.01 160.49 40.42 42.14 220.00 45.32 116.42 38.70 103.26 37.89 67.29 91.28 55.53 43.71 109.87

Weight (kg) Stature Acromion height Bideltoid breadth Biceps circumference, exed Buttockpopliteal length Buttockknee length Calf circumference Cervical height Chest circumference at scye Elbow to center of grip Elbow-to-elbow breadth Elbow-to-elbow length Face breadth (bi-zygomatic) Face length (sellionmenton) Foot breadth Foot length Forearm circumference, exed Functional reach Functional reach, extended Hand breadth Hand length Head circumference Head length Hip circumference Kneeling height Neck circumference (base) Overhead reach breadth Overhead reach height Popliteal height Shoulder circumference Shoulderelbow length Sitting height Sitting thigh breadth Upper thigh circumference Waist circumference (natural) Waist back length Waist front length Waist height

Adopted from Intaranont et al. (1991); measured in centimeters.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 113

the comparison between the lower-south data and Intaranont et al.s data could be performed. The second survey, the anthropometry of southern Thai adults, is funded by the Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkuts Institute of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand (June 2004). As stated earlier, the anthropometry of southern population could be incorporated with the anthropometry conducted by Yodpijit et al. (2004). Therefore, the second survey adopted the measurements proposed by Pheasant (1988) and the same measurements used in Yodpijit et al. (2004). Due to the limitation of resources and fund, the data of the population from upper-south could not yet been surveyed. 2.1. Subjects The limitations of funds and necessary resources restricted the participation of general adult population.

Male and female college students from different elds of study at the Prince of Songkla University, the largest university in southern Thailand, were enrolled on a voluntary basis to participate in this study. The subjects were paid for their time and participation. 2.1.1. Subjects for the anthropometry of lower-southern adults The subjects were 50 female and 50 male college students from the seven provinces of the lower region of southern Thailand. The number of subjects from each province corresponded with the percentage of adults residing in each area. The average age, height, and weight of the female subjects were 19.9871.30 years, 156.9074.85 cm, and 49.8477.50 kg, respectively. The average age, height, and weight of male subjects were 20.8071.34 years, 169.1775.60 cm, and 59.6578.49 kg, respectively.

Table 2 Anthropometric data for lower-southern Thai females, aged 1825 years (n 50) Dimensiona 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
a

Mean 49.84 156.90 129.46 38.43 23.94 45.38 55.82 30.15 127.57 78.34 32.45 37.84 42.72 12.30 11.98 8.76 22.58 20.18 69.83 79.15 7.25 16.63 53.57 17.24 80.14 118.17 29.41 33.40 182.26 39.04 90.41 32.97 83.07 34.63 48.41 66.79 39.73 33.62 93.48

S.D. 7.50 4.85 4.58 1.92 2.60 2.14 2.64 3.22 12.33 5.01 1.60 3.51 1.86 0.65 0.65 0.79 1.14 1.62 3.15 3.98 0.32 0.72 1.48 0.68 5.51 4.18 1.46 2.67 11.67 2.30 14.58 1.30 3.76 2.60 4.35 6.68 2.63 1.98 4.29

1st percentile 39.99 147.45 121.65 33.94 20.28 41.37 51.38 25.80 83.98 70.44 29.85 32.85 39.83 10.58 10.73 7.65 20.37 17.58 62.75 70.75 6.66 15.58 49.62 15.83 71.41 110.69 27.18 28.77 142.98 34.56 23.77 30.11 72.23 30.18 41.83 55.42 34.83 30.50 86.70

5th percentile 42.45 149.45 123.38 35.74 20.35 42.67 52.41 26.38 121.77 71.52 30.32 33.60 40.24 11.24 10.95 8.03 20.98 17.91 64.74 73.03 6.78 15.66 50.65 16.20 73.08 111.24 27.55 29.84 167.95 36.05 83.81 30.74 77.54 31.61 42.54 59.32 35.44 30.72 88.41

50th percentile 48.00 156.62 129.10 38.08 23.42 44.77 55.33 29.62 128.85 76.80 32.30 36.97 42.85 12.27 11.87 8.70 22.47 20.18 69.97 79.05 7.27 16.43 53.92 17.35 79.40 118.03 29.28 32.88 182.70 38.72 92.32 33.03 83.18 34.55 47.32 64.80 39.45 33.60 93.23

95th percentile 62.00 165.80 137.58 41.76 28.07 49.16 60.39 35.61 136.46 86.83 34.62 44.35 45.29 13.39 13.14 9.52 24.51 23.36 74.78 85.44 7.67 17.89 55.34 18.20 90.92 125.44 31.47 37.92 197.54 41.72 100.46 35.07 88.17 38.71 54.36 79.50 44.46 37.14 99.93

99th percentile 71.16 168.20 140.86 42.41 31.31 50.41 63.16 39.08 139.87 90.36 37.43 47.13 48.45 13.58 13.42 11.37 25.22 24.59 75.25 85.62 7.97 18.32 55.79 18.37 92.95 127.83 33.20 39.00 200.67 46.75 103.13 35.40 89.54 42.52 59.94 85.23 45.95 37.59 107.28

Weight (kg) Stature Acromion height Bideltoid breadth Biceps circumference, exed Buttockpopliteal length Buttockknee length Calf circumference Cervical height Chest circumference at scye Elbow to center of grip Elbow-to-elbow breadth Elbow-to-elbow length Face breadth (bi-zygomatic) Face length (sellionmenton) Foot breadth Foot length Forearm circumference, exed Functional reach Functional reach, extended Hand breadth Hand length Head circumference Head length Hip circumference Kneeling height Neck circumference (base) Overhead reach breadth Overhead reach height Popliteal height Shoulder circumference Shoulderelbow length Sitting height Sitting thigh breadth Upper thigh circumference Waist circumference (natural) Waist back length Waist front length Waist height

Adopted from Intaranont et al. (1991); measured in centimeters.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
114 J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118

2.1.2. Subjects for the anthropometry of southern adults The subjects were 100 female and 100 male college students from the 14 provinces of southern Thailand. The average age, height, and weight of the female subjects were 20.5671.53 years, 157.9475.32 cm, and 49.9077.59 kg, respectively. The average age, height, and weight of male subjects were 20.8571.43 years, 171.9475.15 cm, and 61.8578.57 kg, respectively. 2.2. Body dimensions To comply with standard measurement methods, all measurements were taken in the afternoon. However, due to the Thai culture, individuals should be fully dressed when in public. Therefore, the subjects were barefooted, wearing thin T-shirts and thin shorts during the measurements. For body dimensions that could be measured both on the left and right sides, measurements were always taken on the right side.
Table 3 Anthropometric data for Southern Thai males, aged 1825 years (n 100) Dimensiona 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
a

For the anthropometry of lower-southern adults, body weight and 38 body dimensions were measured. The body dimensions and measurement denitions were adopted from Intaranont et al. (1991, pp. 99112). For the anthropometry of southern adults, body weight, and 36 anthropometric measurements were taken. The body dimensions and measurement denitions were adopted from Pheasant (1988, pp. 7281). 2.3. Equipment A Ross Craft Anthropometer set (i.e. Campbell Calipers, Segmometer, Anthropometric Tapes, Stadiometer) and a scale were used for taking measurements in both surveys. 2.4. Procedure One week of training was given to the two male and two female experimenters to allow them to become familiar

Mean 61.85 171.94 160.21 140.67 109.18 84.96 74.19 63.21 90.16 78.01 60.63 25.11 14.21 58.52 48.23 52.81 43.04 43.24 40.45 34.34 19.85 20.90 35.97 47.12 77.12 66.55 18.99 15.78 19.11 8.22 25.35 9.80 174.28 90.07 204.73 124.78 73.66

S.D. 8.57 5.15 5.01 11.74 8.75 4.09 10.13 4.87 3.41 3.37 2.68 2.58 1.46 2.45 3.95 2.29 1.56 2.26 1.99 5.48 1.92 2.43 1.46 1.63 4.12 2.73 0.73 0.56 7.16 0.35 0.99 0.54 13.88 3.14 12.51 14.51 4.70

1st percentile 46.00 161.99 151.73 99.14 98.83 76.03 64.79 55.44 83.01 70.69 53.66 19.05 11.10 53.43 43.85 47.86 39.66 38.10 35.96 29.80 14.73 16.00 32.70 44.00 70.16 61.52 17.59 14.60 16.80 7.40 23.29 8.73 107.32 84.43 170.51 115.42 64.41

5th percentile 49.95 164.60 153.60 135.56 102.40 77.88 69.00 59.17 85.30 72.69 56.16 21.47 11.90 54.95 45.02 48.62 40.64 39.63 37.28 30.82 16.68 17.52 33.46 44.70 72.92 62.65 17.93 14.86 17.13 7.66 23.63 8.97 166.35 85.72 195.95 117.63 68.00

50th percentile 60.42 170.92 159.28 141.30 107.78 84.55 73.07 63.18 89.95 78.13 60.82 25.05 14.18 58.40 48.42 52.85 43.02 43.12 40.25 33.77 19.90 20.98 35.93 47.00 77.02 66.47 18.92 15.80 18.40 8.25 25.42 9.75 175.15 89.90 204.65 124.02 73.78

95th percentile 75.42 181.25 169.07 149.44 119.54 91.25 79.23 69.06 95.30 83.04 65.31 28.85 17.10 61.91 51.78 56.07 45.51 46.94 43.85 36.89 22.59 24.45 38.21 50.24 82.57 71.44 20.04 16.70 20.30 8.87 26.90 10.67 187.73 95.71 217.17 132.92 80.34

99th percentile 86.06 184.60 172.35 154.06 151.03 95.61 83.86 71.08 100.90 84.57 66.52 30.84 17.40 64.25 54.02 59.11 46.18 49.27 44.77 39.52 25.63 26.97 39.47 50.64 83.54 72.05 20.70 17.03 21.49 8.90 27.20 11.07 190.85 96.51 220.61 177.06 81.63

Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckle height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttockknee length Buttockpopliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth (biacromial) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulderelbow length Elbowngertip length Upper limb length Shouldergrip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach

Adopted from Pheasant (1988); measured in centimeters.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 115

with the equipment, body landmarks, and measurement techniques. The subjects were informed with the objectives of the study, body dimensions, clothing requirements, measurement procedures, and freedom to withdraw. The experimenters located body landmarks and used proper tapes or calipers to take measurements. For each measurement dimension, three trials were taken, and the average value was recorded. The male experimenters measured the male subjects, and the female experimenters measured the female subjects. The same experimenters conducted measurements for both surveys. 3. Results 3.1. The anthropometric data for the southern Thai adults Descriptive statistics given mean, standard deviation, and percentile values of each population group are presented in Tables 14.
Table 4 Anthropometric data for Southern Thai females, aged 1825 years (n 100) Dimensiona 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
a

3.2. Comparison of anthropometric data for southern Thai adults and lower-southern Thai adults The t-test was performed to determine the differences between mean values of the southern Thai data and the lower-southern Thai data. As the body dimensions from the two data sets did not fully correspond, only 18 matching dimensions were selected for comparison. The results (Table 5(a)) indicated that southern male adults have greater height, elbow-to-ngertip length, overhead reach height, and sitting thigh breadth than the lowersouthern male adults. There were no signicant differences between other selected values such as weight, acromion height, foot, hands, etc. The results (Table 5(b)) indicated that southern female adults and lower-southern female adults are different in buttockpopliteal length, buttock knee length, overhead reach height, functional reach, popliteal height, shoulderelbow length, and sitting thigh breadth. There were no signicant differences between

Mean 49.90 157.94 146.29 129.71 99.02 78.36 68.26 59.08 83.70 72.97 56.50 23.12 12.01 54.54 46.43 48.13 40.17 38.75 35.19 36.15 19.95 18.45 33.36 42.57 69.71 59.56 17.97 14.95 16.61 7.26 22.68 8.63 157.41 81.17 187.12 114.81 68.45

S.D. 7.59 5.32 5.15 4.94 6.15 4.08 3.03 2.89 5.00 2.93 4.35 2.06 1.03 2.51 2.22 2.16 1.41 1.96 1.59 2.18 1.67 1.70 1.64 3.52 3.18 2.78 0.64 0.58 0.73 0.34 0.94 0.47 6.86 3.35 9.56 10.86 3.28

1st percentile 38.00 146.36 135.73 119.91 90.63 69.76 61.99 51.97 77.22 66.12 47.13 18.96 10.27 49.87 42.73 43.96 36.66 35.24 31.76 32.36 17.52 15.23 30.03 38.93 63.26 53.83 16.57 13.70 15.20 6.50 20.50 7.46 143.96 74.97 170.96 101.75 62.91

5th percentile 40.95 149.44 137.41 122.73 92.25 72.62 63.55 54.56 79.39 68.76 52.33 20.02 10.62 50.96 43.39 44.70 38.13 35.83 32.60 33.18 17.83 16.20 30.80 39.36 64.72 55.53 16.96 14.00 15.46 6.57 21.05 7.93 146.97 76.02 176.16 106.76 63.60

50th percentile 48.07 157.98 146.03 129.43 98.65 77.90 68.40 59.22 84.00 73.27 56.25 23.07 11.87 54.30 46.12 47.77 40.08 38.57 35.22 35.65 19.70 18.30 33.17 41.92 69.30 59.53 17.93 14.95 16.57 7.30 22.78 8.63 155.60 80.55 187.53 113.38 67.77

95th percentile 64.22 167.18 155.09 139.19 105.19 85.67 73.00 63.11 88.43 76.75 61.24 26.04 13.84 59.38 50.69 51.77 42.90 41.88 37.74 39.91 23.35 21.76 36.24 45.77 75.24 64.54 18.97 15.87 17.84 7.77 24.00 9.47 169.46 87.31 201.47 122.63 74.13

99th percentile 72.11 169.48 158.57 142.30 117.82 87.27 74.20 65.38 91.01 80.55 66.83 27.21 14.90 60.37 52.07 53.74 43.24 44.67 38.64 41.15 24.22 23.34 37.12 47.31 76.35 66.57 19.20 16.20 18.10 7.87 24.57 9.63 172.50 88.24 208.29 153.57 78.37

Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckle height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttockknee length Buttockpopliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth (biacromial) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulderelbow length Elbowngertip length Upper limb length Shouldergrip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach

Adopted from Pheasant (1988); measured in centimeters.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
116 J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 Table 5 Comparison of selected mean values for (a) male and (b) female data Dimension Lower-south (n 50) Mean (a) Male data Weight (kg) Stature Acromion height Bideltoid breadth Buttockpopliteal length Buttockknee length Elbow-to-ngertip length Foot breadth Foot length Functional reach Hand breadth Hand length Head length Overhead reach height Popliteal height Shoulderelbow length Sitting height Sitting thigh breadth (b) Female data Weight (kg) Stature Acromion height Bideltoid breadth Buttockpopliteal length Buttockknee length Elbow-to-ngertip length Foot breadth Foot length Functional reach Hand breadth Hand length Head length Overhead reach height Popliteal height Shoulderelbow length Sitting height Sitting thigh breadth
Signicant at po0.05.

South (n 100) S.D. Mean S.D.

t-Ratio

p-Value

59.65 169.17 141.10 43.10 48.59 59.08 46.04 9.91 25.16 74.63 8.36 17.98 18.88 200.14 41.77 35.61 88.75 32.68 49.84 156.90 129.46 38.43 45.38 55.82 42.72 8.76 22.58 69.83 7.25 16.63 17.24 182.26 39.04 32.97 83.07 34.63

8.49 5.60 5.56 1.89 3.50 3.75 1.93 0.58 1.16 9.13 0.45 1.46 0.66 7.80 4.59 1.52 4.82 1.96 7.50 4.85 4.58 1.92 2.14 2.64 1.86 0.79 1.14 3.15 0.32 0.72 0.68 11.67 2.30 1.30 3.76 2.60

61.85 171.94 140.67 43.24 48.23 58.52 47.12 9.80 25.35 73.66 8.22 19.11 18.99 204.73 43.04 35.97 90.21 34.34 49.90 157.94 129.73 38.76 46.44 54.56 42.56 8.64 22.68 68.40 7.26 16.61 17.97 187.12 40.17 33.36 83.69 36.16

8.57 5.15 11.74 2.26 3.95 2.45 1.63 0.54 0.99 4.70 0.35 7.16 0.73 12.51 1.56 1.45 3.38 5.48 7.59 5.32 4.94 1.96 2.22 2.50 3.52 0.47 0.94 3.26 0.34 0.73 0.64 9.56 1.41 1.64 5.00 2.18

1.49 2.94 0.31 0.41 0.56 0.95 3.38 1.11 0.97 0.71 1.88 1.52 0.90 2.75 1.90 1.38 1.85 2.70 0.04 1.20 0.31 0.96 2.79 2.85 0.34 1.08 0.53 2.49 0.26 0.16 6.27 2.55 3.19 1.59 0.86 3.56

0.1387 0.0042* 0.7592 0.6833 0.5738 0.3445 0.0011* 0.2711 0.3372 0.4816 0.0632 0.1310 0.3703 0.0067 0.0631 0.1695 0.0685 0.0077 0.9659 0.2321 0.7596 0.3409 0.0062 0.0055 0.7331 0.2848 0.5948 0.0143 0.7958 0.8736 0.0000 0.0127 0.0022 0.1155 0.3894 0.0006

other selected values such as height, weight, acromion height, foot, hands, etc. 3.3. Comparison of anthropometric data for southern Thai adults and central Thai adults The anthropometric data from this study were then compared with the anthropometry of the population from central Thailand (Table 6). The results from the t-test showed that geographical origin had an effect on Thai anthropometric data. The male populations from both southern and lowersouthern regions weigh signicantly less than the male population from the central region. However, male adults from central Thailand are shorter and have wider bideltoid breadth than the males from the south and lower-south of

Thailand. Several other selected dimensions of the male populations are also signicantly different. Unlike the male population, there were no differences between weight and height among female populations from central, southern, and lower-southern regions. However, several other selected dimensions of the female populations are signicantly different. 4. Discussion and conclusions Anthropometric data of male and female students, aged 1825 years, from southern and lower-southern Thailand were collected and summarized. The comparison between the populations from these two regions indicated that there were few dimensions that are signicantly different. Male adults from southern region are signicantly taller than the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118 Table 6 Comparison of mean values for southern and lower-southern Thai adults (this study) and central Thai adults (Yodpijit et al., 2004) Dimension Male Central (n 200) Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Hip height Knuckle height Fingertip height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttockknee length Buttockpopliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Shoulder breadth (biacromial) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Abdominal depth Shoulderelbow length Elbowngertip length Upper limb length Shouldergrip length Head length Head breadth Hand length Hand breadth Foot length Foot breadth Span Elbow span Vertical grip reach (standing) Vertical grip reach (sitting) Forward grip reach
Signicant at po0.05.

117

Female South (n 100) 61.85 171.94 160.21 140.67 109.18 84.96 74.19 63.21 90.16 78.01 60.63 25.11 14.21 58.52 48.23 52.81 43.04 43.24 40.45 34.34 19.85 20.90 35.97 47.12 77.12 66.55 18.99 15.78 19.11 8.22 25.35 9.80 174.28 90.07 204.73 124.78 73.66 Lower-south (n 50) 59.65 169.17 NA 141.10 NA NA NA NA 88.75 NA NA NA NA 59.08 48.59 NA 41.77 43.10 NA 32.68 NA NA 35.61 46.04 NA NA 18.88 NA 17.98 8.36 25.16 9.91 NA NA 200.14 NA 74.63 Central (n 200) 51.40 157.48 145.82 131.12 98.28 76.34 67.39 57.65 84.67 73.88 55.81 21.73 15.08 54.86 44.25 45.41 36.96 39.24 30.32 34.97 22.09 18.53 32.70 42.82 74.69 65.20 17.34 14.79 17.27 7.76 22.59 9.40 167.64 88.66 187.00 112.47 72.62 South (n 100) 49.90 157.94 146.29 129.71 99.02 78.36 68.26 59.08 83.70 72.97 56.50 23.12 12.01 54.54 46.43 48.13 40.17 38.75 35.19 36.15 19.95 18.45 33.36 42.57 69.71 59.56 17.97 14.95 16.61 7.26 22.68 8.63 157.41 81.17 187.12 114.81 68.45 Lower-south (n 50) 49.84 156.90 NA 129.46 NA NA NA NA 83.07 NA NA NA NA 55.82 45.38 NA 39.04 38.43 NA 34.63 NA NA 32.97 42.72 NA NA 17.24 NA 16.63 7.25 22.58 8.76 NA NA 182.26 NA 69.83

65.40 168.56 156.43 139.58 107.00 82.43 70.26 63.57 88.87 76.22 59.09 23.44 16.36 56.14 48.14 47.54 39.15 44.37 32.89 33.68 21.59 20.02 37.12 46.27 76.58 68.93 19.69 17.43 18.44 8.53 25.63 10.75 174.78 94.32 201.56 120.44 79.95

male adults from lower-southern region. However, there were no differences in body weight between these two male populations. In addition, there were no differences between the weight and height among females from southern and lower-southern regions. Surprisingly, the southern population (both male and female) has larger sitting thigh breadth and overhead reach height than the lower-southern population. Geographical effect was much stronger when comparing the anthropometric data from this study with the anthropometric data of population from central Thailand. The t-test indicated that most of the selected dimensions

were signicantly different. In addition, surprisingly, the results indicated differences in weight and height among the male populations from the central and southern regions, yet there were no such differences among the female populations. In conclusion, anthropometric data of male and female students, aged 1825 years, from southern and lowersouthern Thailand were collected and summarized. The Thai people from the southern and lower-southern regions are similar in various body dimensions. However, the southern and lower-southern Thai populations are different from the central Thai people in various body

ARTICLE IN PRESS
118 J. Klamklay et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 111118

dimensions. These results suggest that it is essential to incorporate accurate anthropometry in the design process, as well as in the application of biomechanical models. The limitation of resources and funds has posed some restrictions to this study. For example, there were small numbers of participants, it was assumed that students enrolled at the Prince of Songkla University could represent general adults of southern Thailand, and it was assumed that clothing had no effect on body dimensions or weight. Therefore, these factors should be taken into account when applying the data. Acknowledgments The research was funded by the Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand, and the Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkuts Institute of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand.

References
Botha, W.E., Bridger, R.S., 1998. Anthropometric variability, equipment, usability and musculoskeletal pain in a group of nurses in the Western Cape. International Journal of Applied Ergonomics 29 (6), 481490. Intaranont, K., Somnasaeng, S., Khokhajaikiat, P., Charoenchai, V., 1991. Anthropometry and physical work capacity of agricultural and industrial populations in Northeast Thailand. Research Report for USAID, Bangkok, Thailand. Mebarki, B., Davies, B.T., 1990. Anthropometry of Algerian woman. International Journal of Ergonomics 33 (12), 15371547. Pheasant, S.T., 1988. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. Taylor & Francis, London. Satavuthi, K., 1983. Some anthropometrical data of the workers in central Thailand. Research Report for Engineering Institute of Research and Development, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Thailand National Statistical Ofce, 2000. Preliminary Report the 2000 Population and Housing Census, Bangkok, Thailand. Yodpijit, N., Bunterngchit, Y., Lockhart, T.E., 2004. Anthropometry of Thai Technical University students. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IIE Annual Research Conference, Houston, TX, USA.