The importance of anthropometric measurements for ergonomic designs was explained by Desal D.A (2017).

To
allow comfort and productivity, an ergonomic chair was designed based on ergonomic principles and
anthropometric evidence obtained from the respondents. Users' anthropometric measurements should be
properly considered while developing chairs. Consumers are more comfortable when chair size and
anthropometric dimensions and ergonomics indices are matched. Chairs with a standard design can improve
anatomical positions and comfort, prohibiting incorrect body postures. This element can also lower the incidence
of musculoskeletal problems and improve the productivity and attention of professionals who work from home
and students who take online classes. The chair was designed so that distinct individuals can modify the height of
their elbows and set it along their elbows without raising and lowering their shoulders. The 5th to 95th percentile
of all individuals' sitting elbow height was used to calculate the adjustable height of this desk.

According to Grimes, a discrepancy of the sitting elbow height and the workstation height might promote shoulder
and neck pain. The adjustability of the desk was indicated as 22.64 to 24.26 cm in Kashif et al study, and 15.6 to
24.5 cm in Taifa and Desai's study, which are both in conflict with the proposed investigation. The premise that
these research were done in different countries contributed to the argument; as a result, the body dimensions of
each individual from different workplaces and home. This dimension was not considered modifiable in certain
studies, such as Thariq et al, and a stable height of desk was estimated at 22.9 cm. It should be mentioned that the
designed chair's softness of hand placement on the elbow support is based on Pheasant's recommendation. The
95th percentile of male students' elbow-to-fingertip length was utilized to establish the length of the desk, which
was 51 cm. This size was 50 cm in Zarei et al's study which differs by one centimeter from the current study. This
dimension was different from the current study in other research. One of the justifications for this discrepancy was
the difference in dimension and percentile utilized in the two studies, which used the 50th percentile of elbow
fingertip lengths and the buttock-knee length for this purpose. 

The popliteal height is an anthropometric dimension that forms the basis for the dimension of seat height, and the
seat height of a standard chair was calculated in this study based on the 5th percentile of girls' popliteal height.
The chair's seat height should correspond to the 5th percentile of users' popliteal height, so that short people may
easily place their feet on the floor and do not experience pressure in various regions of their bodies while sitting in
the chair. The standard seat height in this study, without taking shoes into account, was 33 cm, which is
comparable with findings from other investigations. Furthermore, with a heel height of 3 cm and a footrest height
of 8 cm, the seat height was calculated to be 44 cm, which is in conformity with BS5873 and ISIRI 7494. This
dimension was regarded as 44.5 cm in Thariq et al’s  study which is similar to the current study. The designed
chair's footrest was adjustable for short people who couldn't fully fit their legs on the floor and wanted to rest
them on this footrest. Tall people can even close it completely if they don't want to utilize the footrest. Additional
equipment can be stored in a basket under the chair.

The investigation of Thariq et al established a suitable fit between anthropometric features of employees, students
and used furniture, an ergonomic chair with adjustable components was devised. The chair's size was determined
by the participant's anthropometric measurements. Because most of a student's tasks are completed while sitting
in a chair, the chair's ergonomic design is critical. As a result, taking effort to fix the current chairs is critical for
students' physical health as well as economic feeling, as physical difficulties caused by poor sitting circumstances
can result in financial and medical expenditures. The chair that was created and developed in this study was
ergonomic, which assisted students with musculoskeletal diseases. The adjustment of the footrest, backrest,
armrests, and desk were among the ergonomic features of this chair, which led to its usage by a wide range of
students of various body types. The seat's edges were curved, preventing pressure on different areas of the body
and providing comfort to users. Other features that set this chair apart from other educational chairs include an
adjustable footrest that allows legs to be fully accommodated, a height-adjustable desk and left armrest, and a
desk that is height-adjustable.

The absence of seat height adjustment and angle adjustability in the desk, both of which are technical constraints
in the chair's construction, was one of the study's drawbacks. Home-based settings have an important influence on
employees working from home and students, a better degree of satisfaction can help individuals improve their
skills, mindset, and knowledge. Many employees and students across the world attend work and university, and
chairs have become an essential physical component of the learning environment. Many institutes and universities
utilize educational furniture in their classrooms, and students spend a significant amount of time sitting on it. As a
result, individuals are exposed to the dangers of extended sitting in an uncomfortable position. Inappropriate seats
are usually the source of these dangers. 

Improper chair design is one of the causes of incorrect sitting postures, which can result in poor posture, tiredness,
significant psychological stress, and negative impacts on student performance. Some research has looked into the
link between bad body posture and cognitive difficulties including awareness, discomfort, and reaction speed.
Lower back discomfort, pain in the spine, neck, shoulders, arms, and muscular paralysis are all possible side effects
of improper chair use. Because of decreased disk feeding and blood supply, static posture decreases the flexibility
and suppleness of intervertebral discs and produces significant muscular strain. According to studies, improper
chair design and its disproportion with body dimensions has a long-term impact on not only physical growth, poor
postures, and musculoskeletal disorders, but also decreases student learning interest, even during the most
stimulating and interesting lessons, and has an indirect impact on educational efficiency and focus. According to
recent studies, one of the variables that lowers attention and raises anxiety is a mismatch between users'
anthropometric measurements and available equipment.

According to Adu et al. on office furniture design and the correlation of worker and chair dimensions, to decrease
accidents and symptoms while increasing productivity, equipment should be built using anthropometry and
ergonomics principles. Anthropometry is the measurement of bodily measurements such as size, shape, strength,
capacity, and volume in order to create goals. Users' body dimensions play an essential role in creating
workstations that match their natural position. The true size of the desk and chair was established by measuring
the users' body measurements. Anthropometric characteristics have been found to be key variables in the design
of student desks and chairs in studies. Because anthropometric data was not considered in the design of this
furniture, it is uncomfortable for pupils. Students' comfort and musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs) are reduced when
anthropometric measures are used in design, which enhances their performance. MSDs are also characterized as
injuries to the musculoskeletal and neurological systems, which include muscles, bones, joints, tendons and
ligaments, nerves, and blood vessels, and can restrict students' normal activities. Job-related MSDs are one of the
side effects of poor posture, which can affect productivity, performance, well-being, and work quality.

Employee days absent from work due to low back discomfort have increased, resulting in lower output. Low back
discomfort is more common in businesses where employees must bend forward to complete tasks. When
performing jobs that demand visual acuity and manual manipulation, it's natural to lean forward. Backrests with
lumbar support are commonly offered with chairs; nevertheless, pushing forward renders the backrests ineffective
or non-existent. The purpose of this study is to see if a "front-rest" (rather than a backrest) provides greater
support for employees while performing their responsibilities. A chair with a backrest and a front-rest feature was
evaluated on two groups of subjects. Anthropometric measures were collected on 15 men and 15 women from
each group. All of the participants filled out surveys about how comfortable they were in their chairs. The
participants subsequently completed the same questions after an hour of jigsaw puzzle activity. Throughout the
activity, the participants' heart rates were measured. The changes in questionnaire and heart rate findings before
and after were statistically analysed. There was no difference in the outcomes between the front- and back-seat
groups. The data revealed tendencies that indicate the need for greater investigation, and best practices were
implemented. This research serves as a starting point for additional research into the issue of low back discomfort
during forward leaning tasks.

The use of surveys showed to be an appropriate type of assessment because some of the before and after answer
groups were different, and the varied scales provided the same overall results. There were no discernible patterns
in the heart rate data that might be linked to the questionnaire findings. The activity was not difficult, and the data
did not support the Neutral Posture's effectiveness in minimizing pain or tiredness when doing a forward-leaning
work. The only difference in response variable is that the intervention class judged the front-rest to be more
comfortable than the control group's backrest. Before and after the activity, the response data from the
measurements were not substantially different. This shows that the time of the activity and the activity itself were
insufficient to produce significant differences before and after data sets. The goal of the study was to determine
how uncomfortable the exercise was and to compare the results. It's possible that one hour wasn't long enough to
elicit enough discomfort for the bulk of the reactions to be measured. enough to make a difference between the
before and after outcomes. The inefficiency of heart rate data as a measure of weariness or pain for short-term,
quasi work can be seen.

Subjects who modified the seat so that the space between the seat and the floor was greater had more negative
reactions. This might be due to the participant's feet not being properly supported while working. The control
group had greater seat heights than the experimental group, and the experimental group made fewer comments
or requests for footrests because the angle of the seat enabled them to rest their feet on the chair's legs. Because
height had no effect on replies, the anthropometric data did not reflect this pattern. Even though they could touch
the floor and had a higher seat adjustability, the respondents who could touch the floor had more unfavorable
answers. With regard to seat height, the negative answers were constant across both groups, and so do not
indicate a judgment on the front-rest chair as a fatigue-reducing feature. 

Although the findings do not support this chair as a means of reducing LBP, more research is required. Extending
the exercise for a longer amount of time would be the best way to replicate this study. The majority of prior chair
evaluation work has been completed over an eight-hour period with a half-hour lunch break. This would make it
easier to distinguish between the two groups' degrees of pain. Furthermore, the vendor offers other alternatives
with this chair. The study chair has few features to decrease variables; nevertheless, a better choice for the 36-inch
work table might be installed and evaluated. Footrest bars, cushioned backrests, and more adjustability are among
the features of the other models compared to the one utilized in this study.

The length of the exam and the chair aren't the only things that might be changed or reevaluated in the future.
Other factors discovered throughout the research might have a role in the discomfort characteristics. Neck pain
might be quantified in addition to LBP and could be included or measured locally. Some of the participants
mentioned neck discomfort when filling out their surveys. Although research into neck pain and the flexion angles
that impact these activities was found in most of the literature, a new study should incorporate research into neck
pain and the flexion angles that influence these activities. 

The measurement of productivity or task completion is another option to examine. The number of finished puzzle
pieces may have been used to quantify production in this study. For fatigue correlation, the measurement of
increased or reduced production may be analyzed and compared (Poston et al., 2014). In fact, increasing output on
a non-strengthening job may be a stronger indicator of pain. 

The findings of this study were instructive, and they established a baseline for subsequent investigation into this
behavior. The surveys offered detailed information that may be used to guide future research efforts and
measures. The capacity to search for further patterns using anthropometry with several people adds to the data's
validity. Given the subjective nature of chair assessments, using three distinct questionnaires and scales that can
validate findings within the research is a good practice for future chair evaluations. Selecting relevant tasks in
subsequent chair research might assist in expanding the data source and the relevance of the findings. Overall, the
findings and methods of this study contribute to the body of work being done on chair assessments in industry to
reduce discomfort related to forward bending duties.

Another key aspect of workplace design to consider is the close relationship between the notions of job
measurement and ergonomics. The goal of work measurement is to determine how much time has passed, a set of
guidelines for doing a certain task. On the other hand, ergonomics is sometimes referred to as the study of work
(Zandin 2001) and is concerned with the rules that govern the interaction between humans and their working
environment. In practice, work measurement and ergonomics are intertwined: changes in ergonomics impact the
time necessary to conduct operations, and any change in work technique affects the ergonomics of the workplace.
Ergonomics and work measurement have both been included in several studies. Laring et al. (2002) propose an
ergonomic design. SAM, a current MTM system, is used as a supplement. The authors present a method that
allows for simultaneous estimation of time consumption in the planned production as well as the biomechanical
load inherent in the scheduled jobs. Udosen (2006) proposes a set of tools for designing, evaluating, and improving
a workplace for the assembly of a home fan (in terms of ergonomics and time).

Another key topic raised in many research papers published in the latter half of the twentieth century is the direct
application of ergonomic standards and job measuring methodologies in real-world situations. Typically, such a
strategy necessitates a significant investment of both money and time to investigate all of the options in terms of
workstation layouts, job assignment, and other factors. Methods of labour, etc. As a result, academics and
practitioners have begun to build research projects utilizing Modelling & Simulation (M&S) as a tool to help them
choose appropriately, explain why, identify issues, and explore options (Banks, 2008).

The paper's main goal is to give a survey of the literature on ergonomically effective design. The first search yielded
a large number of papers, which were narrowed down to around 50 pieces of research based on content and
methodology quality. The research papers were grouped together based on the scientific methodology they
advocate. The authors distinguish three alternative scientific approaches based on diverse ideas, methodologies,
and instruments in this regard.  Several writers offer a method for assessing ergonomic hazards in the workplace
based on the usage of video tape systems. It's worth noting that this type of assessment is the initial step toward
creating an ergonomically sound design.

Universal design is a fundamental theory in creating an environment that has a good design. The products that
would be created should be accessible to people with a wide range of abilities, disabilities, and other
characteristics. 

There are 7 principles of universal design that have the purpose to evaluate existing designs, guide the design
process and educate the designer and the users about the characteristics of the product. First principle is equitable
use, meaning the design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. Second principle is the flexibility
in use which accommodates the design of individual preferences and abilities. Third principle is simple and intuitive
use which means that it is easy to understand regardless of the user’s knowledge or skills. Fourth principle is
perceptible information wherein the product gives necessary information effectively to the user regardless of the
user’s abilities. Fifth principle is tolerance for error which minimizes the hazards that users may experience. Sixth
principle is low physical effort wherein the product can be used comfortably. Lastly, the seventh principle is size
and space for approach and use where the product should have appropriate size and space provided for approach,
reach, manipulation, etc.

There are a lot of benefits that an individual, society and the business industry may get from universal design.
Universal design gives individuals the chance to experience user-friendly and convenient products that respect
their dignity, rights and privacy. Because the number of people living with physical, sensory or mental health
problems are increasing, the product following the universal design would assist them in their coming decades.
Once business adopts a universal design approach then they can have an increased potential market and
costumer’s satisfaction.

In designing products, it is important to recognize the special needs of different users. But due to the vast personal
variability, it is impossible to recommend one seat design. By incorporating the principles of UD, the goal to benefit
a variety of average users can be made possible.

The connection of ergonomics and standard measurement issues is addressed in the third scientific approach. The
writers point out two points in this regard. contrasting thinking tendencies: directly using ergonomic standards and
work assessment techniques in an actual system; (ii) using Modelling & Simulation (M&S) as a tool to support
ergonomic effective implementation. Finally, the authors provide a scientific strategy for creating ergonomically
effective design in the literature study. It's worth noting that such a scientific method is described using a strategic
framework.