Anthropometric data is very important in product design and other applications. Hence, it is important that the data is representative of the target user or consumer of a product being designed. Some individual efforts have taken place in Malaysia in order to establish an anthropometry database that could be used to represent the Malaysian population. This is an addition to those efforts where the body anthropometric measurements of Malaysian military personnel were measured. Studies have indicated that body dimensions differ for various populations. This chapter focuses on the collection of anthropometry data for the Malaysian security agencies personnel. These data provide information on body size for Malaysian security agencies personnel such as armed forces, police, fireman, customs, maritime etc. Measurements were gathered among 450 male respondents ranging from the age of 21 to 57 years. A total of five body dimensions were measured. Anthropometric parameters of circumference for chest, shoulder, waist, hip and neck were measured according to standard techniques. The statistical test includes mean, standard deviation, 5th percentile, 50th percentile, and 95th percentile for the various body dimensions were tabulated using SPSS. Results showed that age-related growth were statistically significant in chest circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference and neck circumference. The One-way Anova analyses were executed to find out the significant difference between the dimensions and group of ages. In addition, simple linear regression was used to test the relationship between the anthropometric parameters and age. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.The increasing age increased the body circumference values among the Malaysian security agencies personnel except for the shoulder circumference.
Keywords: anthropometric, Malaysian security agencies, human body, SPSS
1.2 Introduction
The study of body sizes and other associated characteristics is generally referred to as anthropometry. While the term typically refers to static space dimensions, such as length, width, and shape, other important anthropometric measurements include the weights and inertial properties of body parts. Anthropometric measurements are essential when designing devices and/or systems to fit the users or employees. For example, almost everyone would expect doors in building to be well above 6 feet (1.83 m) tall, because we are well aware that many people exceed 6 feet in height. But how large should the diameter of a screwdriver handle be, if you want the human hand, including fingers and the thumb, to surround the circumference? Or suppose that you are designing eye-glasses and you want the hinges outboard of the glass frames to be slightly than the width of the human head just above the ears. What size do you need? Clearly, people who design products for the human body need to know something about the wide variety of body sizes which are possible.
Much of the collected anthropometric data has been taken from selected subpopulations, rather than the population as a whole, partly because many studies were originally directed at some specific design question asked by clothing or footwear manufacturers. A great deal of the data was obtained for the military to help determine the sizes of uniforms and properly design equipment.
A historical note is that anthropometrics originally used tape measures and other devices to make direct measurements of people. Since that process was very time consuming, it was largely dropped in favour of working extensively with photographic records. The use of photographs for measurement also improved the repeatability of measurements because all measurements were made on a flat surface. More recently, the use of laser scanning devices, interfaced with computer data collection software, has greatly reduced the time needed to collect information on body shapes. This potentially revolutionary development is already leading to new applications of anthropometric data.
Ergonomic design principle can help designers create better designs and solve particular design problems. There is no guarantee that a particular principle will work and there is no formula for determining which principles are more important. In fact, one can encounter situations where following one principle will cause another to be violated. In such cases, one should do the best one can and develop a few conceptual designs. Those conceptual designs can be evaluated later to see which is best. Ideally, prospective customers or end-users will be involved at this stage.
1.2.1 Protective Equipment
Today, a wide variety of protective equipment is provided to workers and consumers in industry. Protective equipment is needed to reduce the 8.4 to 8.5 injuries per 100 workers that occurred in the US during the 1990s (Letho et al., 2008). If that equipment is to be effective, it must fit, it must be used, and it must protect. The converse is not true. Ergonomics issues must be considered during the design of protective equipment. Supervisors and other personnel need to remind all operators to use protective equipment, and ergonomics personnel must make clear the importance of this equipment through signs, word of mouth, and maintaining consistency with safety concepts. Ergonomics specialists are also involved in selecting appropriate equipment for manufacturing operations. Some of the protective clothing that available today is safety shoes, helmets, protective gloves, eye protections, body armor etc.
1.2.1.1 Safety Shoes
Safety shoes are one of the oldest forms of personal protection. Yet their invention does not go back many decades. Although there is far more to safety shoes than the steel-capped toes, that is one of the primary features of safety shoes. Steel caps protect the foot from objects falling over on the toes. It is not uncommon during lifting or other materials handling operations to have the material slip and fall onto the feet of workmen, and the most vulnerable location is the toes. Other desirable features of protective shoes include reasonable wear characteristics, and cushioning for the many hours of standing required in many jobs. Most companies require their personnel to buy their own safety shoes and either directly or indirectly compensate them. In any case, safety shoes need to provide a good fit to the feet which of course depends on the available design information about the size and shape of feet.
Another important feature of safety shoes is well the sole adheres to the floor or to climbing surfaces. In the United States for 1988, 17% of disabling workers injuries and 13% of worker fatalities were due to falls, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Safety Council, respectively. Many falls occur while climbing or maneuvering on elevated surfaces. Stairs, escalators, ladders, scaffolds, and floor openings pose particular hazards. Most fall, however, involve slipping or tripping while walking, pushing, or pulling objects on level ground. The coefficient of friction between a shoe and floor surface is a primary determinant of slipping hazard. This coefficient varies between floor surfaces and shoe soles, and as a function of contaminants. Industrial flooring is frequently wet from water or lubricants and so the soles should offer slip resistance.
1.2.1.2 Helmets
Helmets offer people protection from falling objects (Brauer, 2006). Simple versions, such as caps and hats, are more of a fashion item than a practical form of protection, though some offer protection from the sun's rays. In days of old, helmets protected the wearer's head from the enemy's sword and arrows. Today soldiers wear helmets to protect themselves from small calibre bullets and flying metal fragments. People working in construction site and in many industrial settings wear plastics helmets for protection from falling objects. Impact hazards are particularly significant in the construction industry, but may be a problem elsewhere. The helmet is supposed to deflect falling objects or absorb the energy and distribute it over the entire head.
Most helmets include an adjustable band that circles the head at the crown. Webbing within the helmet goes over the head and connects to the band. The rigid outer shell of the helmet is design to prevent penetration by sharp objects and resist impacts. The outer shell is attached to the band and webbing in a way that provides space between the outer shell of the helmet and the wearer's head. Downwards movement of the outer shell towards the wearer's head caused by an object striking against the helmet tightens the band around the head and transfers force to the webbing. Energy is absorbed during this process, and the forces are spread out over time and over a larger area. For smaller impacts, this prevents the outer shell of the helmet from hitting the head. Most helmets are also designed to assure sufficient air space around the head to let air flow and cool the head. In colder settings, caps may be worn under the straps. Although it may seem otherwise, one size of a helmet does not fit all people. The adjustability of the band reduces the number of different helmet sizes needed. Different helmet manufacturers change the amount of band adjustability and hence the number of different sizes needed for the population.
1.2.1.3 Protective Gloves
Gloves are a piece of clothing particularly important in industry because people use their hands for so many purposes. Hands also need the same protection as other parts of the human body, in fact, probably more so because of their dexterity and probable exposure in maintenance and repair operation. In addition it is the hands that hold hand tools or handles of machines. Accordingly, hand anthropometry is particularly important to the design of gloves, and those dimensions, in turn, are important to the design of hand tools, control devices, machine handles, and gloves.
Gloves keep peoples' hands warm in cold environments and protect them from sharp, hot, or cold objects. Gloves also offer protection from the vibrations of tools and machines. Vibration arresting gloves have cushioning materials at specified locations within the gloves. For some equipment example jack hammers, it is important to cover all or at least most of the inner hand, particularly the palm. Other tools may require cushioning at the palm of the hand. Although gloves improve safety, they can interfere with movements. They also increase the effective size of the hand, and in some cases can reduce the force exerted.
1.2.1.4 Eye Protection and Spectacles
Eye shields, goggles, glasses, or spectacles are devices to aid and/or protect the eyes from flying particles, chemical sprays, ultraviolet light, and other hazards. Combining eye protection with visual correction provides an interesting challenge. Spectacles place a transparent material in front of the eyes that refocuses images onto the human retina. Anything that holds that material in the correct orientation is a potential design solution for spectacle frames. Aside from fashion consideration, spectacles should:
Be comfortable.
Protect the eyes from the lens breaking.
Give freedom from fogging.
Minimally obstruct the visual field of view.
Allow easy, secure removal or installation, and safe handling.
Offer proper eye ventilation.
Some people have additional needs. For example, athletes need highly secured spectacles because of the physical nature of many sports. Many older people need multifocal lenses. Different occupations have different visual needs.
Anthropometric measurements are needed to design spectacles. The width of a person's face is obviously important. This value is approximately equal to the byzytgomatic breadth. Nose dimensions are important, as is the distance between the pupils (interpupillary breadth), and the distance between the outer extremes of the eye balls. Another important dimension is the distance along the sagittal plane from the back of the ears to the bridge of the nose. All of these dimensions are needed to design traditional forms of eye spectacles.
1.2.1.5 Hearing Protection
Earplugs and earmuffs are commonly used in loud environments to protect people from excessive exposure to noise. Earplugs are made out of soft materials, such as cotton, wool, plastic, or wax. When inserted into the ear, earplugs significantly reduce the amplitude of particular sounds. The amount of reduction, in decibels (dB) is given by the Noise Reduction Rating (NRR). For example, if the NRR is 10 dB, then wearing the plugs in a 90 dBA noise environment would reduce the exposure to 80 dBA, assuming the earplugs fit properly. The earplug should fit snugly in the outer ear entrance without leaving any openings around the plug through which sound might intrude. Earplugs also should have a retaining ring, protrusion, or other feature to both keep them from being inserted too far into the ear, and make it easier to remove them. Along these lines, some designs attach a cord or bracket to the plug, which allows them to be easily removed.
There are a number of ergonomics issues associated with the use of hearing protection. A particular concern is that human heads and ears vary in size and shape. This variability can make it difficult to fit certain people. A poor fit may allow much of the sound to leak in and also affects the comfort of hearing protection.
1.2.1.6 Soft Body Armor
Textile-based soft body armor offers significant contribution to ballistic protection for military and law enforcement personnel by their lightweight structures. The present systems, constructed from conventional textile materials including woven fabrics and laid-up filament composites, have become relatively thicker and heavier to meet increasing protection requirements against more effective threats. Hence, it is desirable to construct ballistic protective system providing higher protection without sacrificing mobility and comfort.
Modern body armor systems are divided into two main categories as hard body armor and soft body armor systems. The hard body armor system, made of thick ceramic or metal plates, functions similar to as the iron suits worn by medieval knights. It is hard enough to deflect a bullet and prevents penetration. Typically, hard body armor offers more protection than soft body armor, but it is much heavier and reduces its wearer's mobility and comfort. Police officers and military personnel may wear this sort of protection when there is a high risk of attack. For daily use, they generally prefer to wear soft body armor which offers flexible protection although it is stiffer and heavier than an ordinary shirt or jacket (Kocer, 2007)
Generally, a soft body armor system is constructed by multiple layers of ballistic fabrics and a carrier made of conventional garment fabric. Its functionally differs from hard body armor; soft body armor gradually slows the projectile and finally catches it during a ballistic impact event. The impact energy is absorbed by different energy absorbing mechanisms. The impact resistance of a soft armor depends on its capability to absorb energy locally at the impact zone and disperse energy rapidly out of the impact zone. These characteristics are determined by a number of factors; fiber intrinsic physical properties, fabric structure characteristics, number of fabric layers, projectile shape, mass and material properties, impact velocity, and interfacial friction characteristics within impact system.
To create suitable body armor for the population, anthropometry is playing a main role in the design development. Appropriate use of anthropometry in product design may improve well-being, health, comfort and safety of human as the user.
1.3 Anthropometric of Human
1.3.1 Body Section
In 2004, Lin et al., studied the equivalences of ethnic dissimilarity in anthropometric characteristics between Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean in East Asia. The averages of 31 bodily sizes and 33 body dimensions are measured. In addition, 15 segmental proportions are represented. Table 1 showed some of the result of these anthropometric analyses. The results of analyses indicated that there is a morphological difference amongst these populates in the same neighbourhood. Hence, for torso measurements, the Taiwanese have the widest and highest shoulder however a narrower hip. The Koreans have a normal torso including a lower shoulder. The Japanese have a relatively broader torso related with the widest hip and the broader shoulder. For the Mainland Chinese, the torso tends to be a little smaller than those of the other groups. The ethnic variety in bodily proportions must be considered including the mean dimensions.
Table 1 The anthropometric data of body section.
Japanese
Chinese
Taiwanese
Korean
American
Reference
Lin et al.,(2004)
Yasuto et al.,(1998)
Kagawa et al.,(2007)
China Standards., (1988)
Wang et al.,(1999, 2001)
Lee., (2000)
Yasuto et al.,(1998)
Stature (cm)
169.0
171.8
172
167.8
169.9
170.7
180.6
Weight (kg)
65.5
62.1
N/A
59.0
67.5
66.0
78.6
Shoulder breadth (cm)
44.9
N/A
N/A
43.1
45.3
45.1
N/A
Chest breadth (cm)
31.2
N/A
N/A
28.0
32.2
30.5
N/A
Waist height (cm)
98.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
100.0
102.6
N/A
Sitting height (cm)
90.9
92.7
N/A
90.8
90.7
92.1
94.5
Chest girth (cm)
N/A
87.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100.1
Forearm girth (cm)
N/A
25.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
29.2
Abdominal girth (cm)
N/A
72.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
84.9
Buttock girth (cm)
N/A
90.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
98.9
BMI (kg/m2)
N/A
N/A
21.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Percent body fat (%)
N/A
N/A
15.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bone mineral density (g/cm2)
N/A
N/A
1.10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Waist circumference (cm)
N/A
N/A
76.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
99.2
Sum of skinfolds (mm)
N/A
N/A
73.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yasuto et al., (1998) who made extensive studies on the anthropometric differences between the American Caucasian and Japanese male students on a variation of anthropometric characteristics in order to learn and compute the size of some physical dissimilarity among both of the races. Results in Table 1 also revealed that the Japanese were shorter and lighter than the Americans. It can be successfully concluded that shorter standing height, longer trunk relative to standing height, and shorter arms are physical characteristics that clearly differentiate the Japanese from the Americans. Results in Table 1 also showed the various data for the Japanese. It is because of the studies done in the different area, ethnic and range of age. Environmental and cultural aspects also influenced the results of the anthropometric studies.
Kagawa et al., (2007) has studied body composition and anthropometry among Japanese and Australian Caucasian to examine body fat deposition outlines. Body composition of 45 Japanese males and 42 Australian Caucasian males living in Australia (aged 18-40 years) were measured using whole-body scanning and anthropometry. Different ethnic and gender (p<0.05) in waist circumference and density of bone were examined but no gender dissimilarities in BMI and no ethnic differences and bone mineral content in ΣSF and %BF. Japanese males indicated a greater %BF at given ΣSF values, WC, and BMI (p<0.05). The results in Table 1 showed dissimilarities in relations between anthropometric measures in Japanese compared to Australian Caucasians. These outcomes also have consequences for the improvement of further research and chronic disease, as well as studies in other Asian states, is recommended.
In a field study carried out amongst the field hockey teams of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, Singh et al., (2009) stated that there were many differences in various variables among the players of the three teams. The results in Table 2 indicated the Sri Lanka team had significantly less hand width (p<0.05), lean body mass (p<0.05), and wrist circumference (p<0.05) as compared to the Pakistan and the India teams. The Pakistan team had a significantly higher bi-humerus diameter (p<0.05) and upper arm length (p<0.05) as compared to the Sri Lanka and the India teams. The India team had significantly less % body fat (p<0.05) than the other two teams.
Table 2 Anthropometric measurements of field hockey players. (Singh et al., 2009)
India
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Height (cm)
172.6
171.05
172.18
Weight (kg)
66.58
65.44
71.91
Shoulder width (cm)
42.3
42.5
43.0
Upper arm circumference (cm)
25.21
25.39
26.27
Chest circumference (cm)
89.90
87.05
90.6
Hip circumference (cm)
91.70
89.61
93.4
1.3.2 Head and Facial Section
There have several study has been made in the ergonomics aspects such as seat, helmet, boot, grip strength etc. Yokota, (2005) have done with anthropometry study of facial and head of multiracial US Army male soldiers. The anthropometry data will be used in designing and fabricating protective helmet, respirators and eyewear in the US Army. The results in Figure 1 showed that modifications or additional sizing for admixed populations are not compulsory if anthropometric distributions of one population that include admixed populations are identified. He also have examined the effect that a progressively of US Army populace could have on present and future design statistics and equipment sizing. He argued that a larger and more sample size is needed to enhance and prove the results in an anthropometric study.
Figure 1 Descriptive summary of craniofacial measurements (cm) (Yokota., 2005)
1.3.3 Hand and Grip Section
Additionally, Mandahawi et al., (2008) have studied anthropometry analysis of hand for the Jordan people. This analysis gives anthropometry data that would be advantageous used for the fabrication of hand equipment's for Jordanian, and also to import choosing suitably equipment's from the industrial countries for use in the Jordanian industrial workstation. The results in Table 3 showed several significant dissimilarities between Jordanians and other populations, but it was hard to represent wide simplifications.
Table 3 The mean and standard deviation for the Jordanian males compare with other nationalities (Mandahawi et al., 2008)
Population
Jordanian
Vietnamese
Bangladesh
Mexican
Reference
(Mandahawi et al., 2008)
(Imrhan et al.,1993)
(Imrhan et al., 2006)
(Imrhan and Contreras., 2005)
Hand dimension (cm)
Fingertip to root digit 5
6.112
6.79
5.81
5.79
Fingertip to root digit 3
8.126
7.82
7.64
7.85
First joint to root digit 5
3.656
3.58
3.51
3.35
First joint to root digit 3
5.508
5.16
5.08
5.19
Second joint to root digit 5
1.905
2.05
1.89
1.74
Second joint to root digit 3
2.775
2.68
2.65
2.76
Breadth at tip of digit 5
1.228
1.37
1.27
1.23
Breadth at tip of digit 3
1.580
1.67
1.47
1.50
Breadth at first joint of digit 5
1.540
1.48
1.42
1.50
Breadth at first joint of digit 3
1.765
1.75
1.73
1.70
Breadth at second joint of digit 5
1.740
1.69
1.71
1.73
Breadth at second joint of digit 3
2.041
2.03
1.95
2.00
Depth at tip digit 5
1.204
1.03
0.95
1.05
Depth at tip digit 3
1.384
1.23
1.16
1.22
Depth at first joint digit 5
1.258
1.07
1.11
1.30
Depth at first joint digit 3
1.465
1.27
1.34
1.46
Depth at second joint digit 5
1.535
1.33
1.44
1.82
Depth at second joint digit 3
1.858
1.62
1.69
N/A
Maximum breadth of the hand
10.420
10.03
9.84
10.26
Breadth of the knuckles
8.770
7.92
8.01
8.53
Length of the hand
19.120
17.70
17.40
18.55
Third digit to base of the thumb
13.770
12.47
13.10
13.07
Depth of the knuckles
3.031
2.82
2.83
3.52
Maximum depth of the hand
4.390
4.58
4.66
4.82
Rafael et al., (2012) have done the hand anthropometry of the Colombian workers. It is important for prevention of musculoskeletal disorders and task productivity in industry. The samples of this study are 120 adult female workers of the industry. The result in Table 4 indicates that the surveyed workers are systematically using tools with dimensions that do not adequately fit their hand anthropometry and that may impose unnecessary mechanical loads to the users.
Table 4 Hand anthropometry of surveyed workers. (Rafael et al., 2012)
Anthropometric Dimension
Mean
Height (cm)
154.60
Weight (kg)
59.70
Hand length (cm)
16.73
Wrist width (cm)
5.65
Hand circumference (cm)
22.40
Fist circumference (cm)
25.03
Wrist circumference (cm)
15.80
Hand depth (cm)
4.32
1.3.4 Foot Section
Kanchan et al., (2010) have studied the relationship of foot and hand dimensions for personal documentation in mass tragedies in North India. They aimed at analyzing the anthropometrical relationships within and between foot and hand dimensions. The result in Table 5 showed a significant correlation between and within the dimensions of feet and hands. The study may also have significance in reconstructive and plastic surgery.
Table 5 Descriptive statistics: hand and foot length and hand and foot breadth in males and females (Kanchan et al., 2010)
Dimension (cm)
Males
Females
t-value
Right hand length
18.3
16.8
12.876
Left hand length
18.2
16.8
12.310
Right hand breadth
8.2
7.4
15.746
Left hand breadth
8.1
7.3
14.490
Right foot length
24.7
22.7
14.384
Left foot length
24.7
22.6
14.451
Right foot breadth
9.6
8.6
15.351
Left foot breadth
9.5
8.5
15.275
1.4 Anthropometry Study in Malaysia
Some previous works were presented in this section to explain the anthropometry studies that have been done in Malaysia whether in civilian or military perspective. Even though the significance of anthropometric database is acknowledged, a published anthropometric database for Malaysian population is unavailable until now.
Previous anthropometric studies among Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) personnel, as reported by Khoo et al., (1976) were focused only on the personnel's physical aspects. Isa., (1991) conducted an energy requirement study which involved only a small group of MAF personnel. An anthropometric study which focuses on details of body composition among the MAF personnel has not yet been reported in Malaysia. This measurement is an important criterion in nutritional status assessment (Deurenberg et al., 2000).
Ngoh et al., (2011) have researched the age variations of anthropometric characteristic and the magnitude of under nutrition among elderly men in Northern Peninsular Malaysia. Overall of 135 male citizens take part in the study. The study revealed that as age increased, the mean anthropometric measurements have declined. This result also indicated that body weight declined progressively with age.
Furthermore, Karmegam et al., (2011) have determined the differences of anthropometrics data amongst three ethnic in Malaysia. Measurements were gathered amongst 150 males and 150 females varying from the age 18 to 24 years. The result indicates that the major dissimilarities (p < 0.05) in nearly all of the measurements obtained between the three ethnics and the different genders correspondingly. The statistical analysis result in Table 6 showed that amongst the three ethnics, the Malay males have the largest body size compared to the Chinese and Indian. Additionally, in the female and male populations, Malay and Indian have the smallest body size respectively. As a conclusion, the results showed that there are various body dimension differences between the ethnics in Malaysian population and there is a concern to be considered about ethnicity characteristic when designing for the Malaysian population.
Table 6 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for Malays, Chinese and Indians (male and female) (Karmegam et al., 2011)
Measurement
Male (n=150)
Female (n=150)
df1
df2
F
Sig
df1
df2
F
1
Weight (kg)
2
147
4.256
0.016*
2
147
0.478
2
Stature
2
147
47.64
0.000*
2
147
6.109
3
Eye height (standing)
2
147
29.309
0.000*
2
147
10.774
4
Shoulder height (standing)
2
147
0.965
0.384
2
147
8.741
5
Elbow height (standing)
2
147
26.115
0.000*
2
147
9.710
6
Fist height (standing)
2
147
7.148
0.001*
2
147
3.872
7
Vertical grip reach (standing)
2
147
23.105
0.000*
2
147
8.225
8
Shoulder breadth (sitting)
2
147
10.661
0.000*
2
147
0.553
9
Elbow breath (sitting)
2
147
4.646
0.011*
2
147
1.831
10
Thigh thickness (sitting)
2
147
0.272
0.762
2
147
11.378
11
Abdominal depth (sitting)
2
147
1.145
0.321
2
147
1.333
12
Hip breadth (sitting)
2
147
4.182
0.017*
2
147
3.364
13
Crown buttock height (sitting)
2
147
33.387
0.000*
2
147
15.963
14
Eye height (sitting)
2
147
28.715
0.000*
2
147
5.705
15
Shoulder height (sitting)
2
147
24.732
0.000*
2
147
3.743
16
Elbow height (sitting)
2
147
4.654
0.011*
2
147
9.868
17
Elbow grip length (sitting)
2
147
10.121
0.000*
2
147
3.521
18
Forward grip reach (sitting)
2
147
7.015
0.001*
2
147
4.663
19
Buttock popliteal length (sitting)
2
147
13.771
0.000*
2
147
4.991
20
Buttock knee length (sitting)
2
147
10.78
0.000*
2
147
3.274
21
Buttock heel length (sitting)
2
147
15.893
0.000*
2
147
7.354
22
Popliteal height (sitting)
2
147
1.641
0.197
2
147
6.549
23
Hand length
2
147
25.313
0.000*
2
147
1.232
24
Hand breadth
2
147
1.68
0.19
2
147
4.861
25
Hand thickness
2
147
4.36
0.014*
2
147
0.226
26
Thumb breath
2
147
5.637
0.004*
2
147
0.044
27
Forefinger tip breadth
2
147
6.032
0.003*
2
147
5.609
28
Foot length
2
147
18.973
0.000*
2
147
6.627
29
Foot breadth
2
147
0.789
0.456
2
147
0.519
30
Head length
2
147
0.487
0.616
2
147
1.226
31
Head breadth
2
147
1.367
0.258
2
147
5.097
32
Head height
2
147
22.232
0.000*
2
147
3.387
33
Circumference
2
147
6.199
0.003*
2
147
1.843
A brief statistics of a Malaysian population anthropometric study have been presented by Mohamad et al., (2010). The reason of the study was to develop an anthropometric database for Malaysian population. The study was done using anthropometric data of 1,007 respondents including of 516 males and 491 females. The study had effectively produced a detailed and general anthropometric database for Malaysian population which can be benefitted by all designer and engineers in designing procedure as shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Anthropometric data for overall Malaysian citizen, all units are in cm. (Mohamad et al., 2010)
No
Anthropometric Dimensions
Mean
SD
1
Stature
156.50
5.96
2
Chest circumference
84.37
13.24
3
Waist circumference
75.13
12.79
4
Calf circumference
34.59
4.84
5
Sitting height
79.28
7.62
6
Hand length
17.34
1.52
7
Grip diameter
4.86
1.58
8
Foot length
22.57
2.67
9
Head length
19.49
3.37
10
Upper arm length
32.55
5.08
11
Weight (kg)
60.40
52.41
Sedek et al., (2010) have determined the occurrence of overweight and obesity among Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) persons and discovered their relationship with significant socio-demographic aspects. They also studied the body fat proportion and abdominal obesity among the persons. Anthropometric measurements were gathered following the standardized procedures. Factors measured consist of body weight, height, body composition, waist circumferences (WC), and hip circumferences. Based on the result in Table 8, they concluded that more than one-third of the RMN personnel were either obese or overweight and a quartile of them was at larger risk of non-communicable illnesses.
Table 8 Mean physical characteristics and body composition of the RMN personnel. (Sedek et al., 2010)
Anthropometric characteristics and body composition
Lumut
Kuantan
Kota Tinggi
Age (years)
29.50
25.40
22.50
Height (cm)
167.80
167.40
165.30
Weight (kg)
68.80
64.00
59.10
BMI (kg/m2)
24.40
22.70
21.50
Waist circumference (cm)
84.30
78.80
71.80
Hip circumference (cm)
94.40
91.20
88.00
Waist: Hip
0.89
0.86
0.81
Body fat (%)
23.50
24.20
16.80
Fat mass (kg)
16.90
14.00
10.20
Free fat mass (kg)
52.00
49.60
48.50
Moreover, Deros et al., (2009) also proposed the outline of home furniture that includes the Malaysian anthropometric data. An anthropometric database of Malaysian populations with 62 anthropometric dimensions was successfully obtained from the measurement of 1007 Malaysian populations. Besides that, an appropriate and comprehensive ergonomically design of home furniture that consists of coffee table and sofa was presented. In conclusion, the home furniture designed using Malaysian anthropometrics data would appropriate, fit, comfortable to at best 90% of the Malaysian population regarding to ergonomics and helps to decrease the pains and risks of injuries amongst Malaysian home furniture consumers.
Ngeow et al., (2009) have established the craniofacial anthropometric standards of young adult Malaysian Malays. Their respondents involved of 100 young adult Malays. Generally, it can be noticed that the minimum measurements are regularly caused by the female Malays, excluding for the nose height, lower width of the face, and mouth width measurements in the males. A p < 0.05 was observed in all measurements except for the (left) eye fissure height. It can be conclude that Malays distributed several similar sizes of craniofacial measurements with the Singaporean Chinese.
Besides, Deros et al., (2009) have established a fundamental sitting anthropometric and differences among Malaysian Malays, Indians and Chinese. Focus is aimed to seat design conditions for example buttock to popliteal length for thigh support, sitting shoulder height for seatback horizontal support, and sitting hip breadth for cushion width. There are significant dissimilarities between some body segments amongst the three races mainly in the lower body part and height the proportion of the upper part, which are extremely associated to body height.
Chee et al., (1996) carried out studies in estates to illustrate the dietary patterns and anthropometry of 334 Malaysian estate labors. Anthropometric results indicated that the rate of overweight (25% in women, 26% in men) and obesity (11% in women, 5% in men) were greater compared to rate of underweight (9% in women, 11% in men) in these labors even though being engrossed in normal to heavy activities. The conclusions of this study showed that there is a suggestion for increasing the quality of their dietetic intakes.
From the literature, there are some comparison data between the different countries. Table 9 showed the comparison data from the Japan, America, India, Pakistan, Thailand and Turkey. Figure 2 also showed the clear differentiation view among these populations. This evidence proved that the American's body circumferences are larger and wider than the Asian. Most of the measurements of body dimensions showed that the Americans are larger than other populations. That also showed that the Asian have smaller body circumference than the Caucasian.
Table 9 Comparison data of the anthropometry study between the different populations.
Chest
Shoulder
Waist
Buttock
Neck
Reference
Japan
87.00 cm
N/A
76.50 cm
90.20 cm
35.90 cm
Yasuto et al.,(1998)
Lin et al.,(2004)
Kagawa et al.,(2007)
American
100.10 cm
N/A
99.20 cm
98.90 cm
38.60 cm
Yasuto et al.,(1998)
India
89.90 cm
42.30 cm
73.10 cm
91.70 cm
N/A
Singh et al.,(2009)
Dewangan et al.,(2005)
Pakistan
90.60 cm
43.00 cm
N/A
93.40 cm
N/A
Singh et al.,(2009)
Thailand
89.60 cm
45.20 cm
77.10 cm
84.14 cm
34.80 cm
Klamklay et al.,(2007)
Turkey
93.40 cm
47.20 cm
86.70 cm
96.80 cm
37.90 cm
Kayis et al., (1991)
Figure 2 Comparison figure of the anthropometry study between the different populations based on Table 9.
1.5 Anthropometry Study in Defence Application
In 1844, Adolpe Quetelet has published a statistical study of the chest circumference of 5000 Scottish security agencies personnel. This was the starting of the science of anthropometry. In 1853 he organized the first international statistics conference, and afterward developed the Quetelet index (also called body mass index) which is used to measure obesity.
Vaidya et al., (2009) have developed anthropometric measurements of 902 healthy Indian Armed Forces personnel aged range 28 to 52 years. The study also intends to compare different anthropometric parameters as indices of obesity. They obtained mean values, medians, standard deviation and percentiles from the measurements. Anthropometric measurement including weight, height, waist circumference and hip circumference were recorded for these personnel. The weight of these subjects ranged from 49 kg to 96.80 kg with a mean of 70.16 kg. All other anthropometric measurements like BMI, weight, waist-hip ratio, waist circumference and were found to increase with increasing age except the height.
Further research, (Kayis et al., 1991) studied the anthropometry data for 5109 randomly selected respondents of Turkish soldier aged between 18-26 years intended for the development of anthropometry standard for the Turkish. The measurements of 51 dimensions were obtained using a universal anthropometer and a flexible rigid right-angled seat. The respondents were clothed in underclothing and bare-footed. The anthropometric dimensions of Turkish men soldiers showed significant differences compared to other populations such as US Armed Forces, British RAF, Italian army, German army and civilian Japanese.
In 1972, Ince et al., have studied the anthropometry of 500 Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) servicemen at Farnborough. The anthropometric data for 500 RAC servicemen is showed in a percentile form. The measurements and sampling procedures are explained. The data is compared with the earlier anthropometric data standard. An anthropometry study of US Army aviators have been conducted at Fort Rucker, Alabama at 1970 by Churchill et al. Data for 85 body size dimensions and for some variables explaining the socio-military surroundings of the survey respondents were collected on a sample of 1482 personnel. Statistical reviews are stated for each dimension for the entire respondent and for five working groups. Percentiles and summary statistics computed from 80 anthropometric dimensions are given. Unfortunately in Malaysia, not many anthropometric studies have been done in the field of security personnel aspects.
Furthermore, Grien et al., (2011) have done with the footwear characteristics study in the United States Army Band for injury incidence and risk factors related to foot pain. The result of this study indicate that higher risk of foot pain was related with 95% confidence interval, band unit, orthotic use, shoe cushioning rating, and how frequently band members changed their shoes.
2. The Study
2.1 Data Collection Methodology
Data collection plays most important part to obtain the information and to make decision in research. In this particular research, the data collection will involve with respondents, body dimensions, equipment and statistical analysis. The research data was analyzed with the aid of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software using the following procedures.
2.1.1 Respondents
For the respondent characteristic, Yasuto et al., (1998) have randomly selected forty young Japanese and Caucasian American who were born and raised in Japan and in American respectively. Furthermore, Deros et al., (2009) have made a study on 226 respondents. Karmegam et al., (2011) have collected anthropometrics data among 300 respondents. Singh et al., (2009) have conducted a study of 53 field hockey players from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Chuan et al., (2010) have studied the anthropometry of the Indonesia and Singapore populations. The data was collected from 245 male and 132 female respondents from Indonesia and 206 male and 109 female respondents from Singapore. This study will focused on the body circumference for Malaysian security agencies personnel and concentrate on the chest circumference, shoulder circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference and neck circumference.
Before commencing with data collection, formal consent was obtained from Usahawan PSE Sdn Bhd. The data was randomly selected from the measurements collection. A group of 450 male respondents was enrolled in this research. Their ages vary between 20 and 57 years, and were categorized into 5-year intervals (20-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50 and 51+) (Letho et al., 2008). The age distribution among the respondents was normal based on a frequencies analysis. Figure 3 shows the summary of age distribution categorized by groups.
Figure 3 The normal distribution of age in Malaysian security agencies personnel
2.1.2 Body Dimensions
Recent research (Hu et al., 2007; Pheasant, 1986; Roebuck et al., 1975) claims that it might need over 300 dimensions to get a whole human body dimensions. Karmegam et al., (2011) and Singh et al., (2009) have used 33 and 14 anthropometrical dimensions respectively. Yasuto et al.,(1998) have used anthropometric dimensions consist of body fat percentage, weight, height, total limb and limb segment length (elbow-wrist length, shoulder-elbow length, thigh length, foot length, and calf length) and body segment girth (neck, biceps, chest, abdominal, thigh, hip, and calf). Deros et al., (1998) have used 16 dimensions for get a fundamental sitting anthropometric database among Malaysian Malays, Chinese and Indians. Chuan et al., (2010) used 36 measurements dimensions. Each measurement was taken 3 times and the mean value was recorded. Throughout the measurement, respondents were required to wear light clothes.
For this study, anthropometric measurements of chest circumference, shoulder circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference and neck circumference were carried out by a professional tailor to ensure better validity. The measurements procedures were shown in Figure 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) and 4(e).Each measurement was taken 3 times and the mean value was recorded. Throughout the procedure of measurement, respondents were needed to wear light clothes.
Figure 4(a) Measurement of chest Figure 4(b) Measurement of shoulder
Figure 4(c) Measurement of waist Figure 4(d) Measurement of hip
Figure 4(e) Measurement of neck
2.1.3 Equipment
Recent research (Karmegam et al., 2011; Mokdad and Ansari, 2009; Ghoddousi et al., 2007) were argues that traditional methods similarly generates data as consistent and precise as those got from the high-technology methods. Karmegam et al., (2011) have used Harpenden standard anthropometer in the study to measure the body dimensions. Singh et al., (2009) used Harpenden Skinfold Caliper, standard anthropometric rod, portable weighing machine, and digital caliper steel tape in the measurement procedures. But due to the financial limitations, the simple traditional anthropometric tools which less expensive were used in this study. In the design for the soft body armor vest, the range of this study was limited to anthropometry of body dimensions.
2.2 Statistical Data Analysis
SPSS were used to determine the descriptive statistics with the purpose to find out the anthropometric dimensions of the samples (Karmegam et al., 2011). Singh et al., (2009) have analyzed the data using Microsoft Excel 2003 and analysis of variances (ANOVA) to compare the result between the teams. Yasuto et al., (1998) have used a series of independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney's U test to compare the data for the physical features of the Japanese and Americans. Statistical analyses were executed using the SPSS version 16.0. Chuan et al., (2010) used The Mann-Whitney U test to access whether the anthropometric data of Indonesian and Singaporean samples are different.
Descriptive analysis was performed to distribute means, standard deviations, and analysis of variances of the measurements. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. One way Anova analysis was used to test for differences in mean circumference of chest, shoulder, waist, hip and neck across group of ages. ANOVA uses the notion of variability. This total variability can be split into two pieces, the good stuff and the bad stuff. As a general rule, we want the bad variability to be very small and the good variability to be very large. As for correlation, regression is also used to study relationships between interval-ratio variables in which a single dependent variable is regressed with one independent variable.
This one-way ANOVA analysis was used to determine which group means are significantly different from one or more other group means. In this study, the one way ANOVA was used to examine whether there are significant differences in the body anthropometric measurement of Malaysian security agencies personnel from different age groups (Hair et al., 2006; Yaacob, 2008). The dependent variables were chest circumference, shoulder circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference, and neck circumference. The independent variable was age group. The results of variance analysis are useful to understand the significant differences between variables (Hair et al., 2006; Yaacob, 2008).
Figure 5 Dependent Variable and Independent Variable of One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
2.3 Results and Discussion
The preceding subtopic provided an outline of the research methodology and procedures used to conduct this study. This chapter aims to discuss the results and outcomes of the analysis of body anthropometric measurement data using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS/version 16).
2.3.1 Data Screening
This study used five variables: chest circumference, shoulder circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference, and neck circumference. The variables had Skewness value of less than ± 2.0 and Kurtosis value less than ± 5.0 (Kendall & Stuart, 1958; Curran et al., 1996), therefore it could be generalized that the variables had satisfactorily met the requirements of univariate normality assumption as show in Table 10.
Table 10 The Results of Normal Distribution Test
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std Error
Statistic
Chest Circumference
450
24.500
50.500
39.012
2.87410
0.018
0.115
2.021
Shoulder Circumference
450
14.500
22.000
18.049
1.03180
-0.037
0.115
0.589
Waist Circumference
450
19.500
48.500
35.361
3.65230
-0.165
0.115
1.058
Hip Circumference
450
27.000
53.000
40.727
2.71990
-0.084
0.115
2.746
Neck Circumference
450
12.500
19.000
15.829
0.85863
0.239
0.115
0.813
2.3.2 One-Way ANOVA Analysis
ANOVA used to test whether there are significant differences in the means of body circumferences between personnel of different age groups. Table 11 shows age group was found to have a significant different with chest circumference (F = 8.494, p < 0.05), waist circumference (F = 13.095, p < 0.05), hip circumference (F = 4.614, p < 0.05) and neck circumference (F = 8.305, p < 0.05), signifying that chest circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference and neck circumference are found to be differently viewed by age group. Age group found not to have a significant different with shoulder circumference (F = 1.654, p > 0.05), showing that shoulder circumference was found not to be differently perceived by age groups.
Table 11 The Results of One-Way ANOVA for the Difference between Age Groups
Variable
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Chest Circumference
Between Groups
382.682
6
63.780
8.494*
Within Groups
3326.501
443
7.509
Total
3709.183
449
Shoulder Circumference
Between Groups
10.475
6
1.746
1.654
Within Groups
467.612
443
1.056
Total
478.087
449
Waist Circumference
Between Groups
902.265
6
150.377
13.095*
Within Groups
5087.312
443
11.484
Total
5989.576
449
Hip Circumference
Between Groups
195.363
6
32.560
4.614*
Within Groups
3126.466
443
7.057
Total
3321.829
449
Neck Circumference
Between Groups
33.468
6
5.578
8.305*
Within Groups
297.555
443
0.672
Total
331.023
449
Note: Significant at *p < 0.05
Furthermore, in Table 12 showed that the mean anthropometric measurements increased as age increased. The mean values of chest circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference and neck circumference differed significantly among each group of age (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Age-related differences in shoulder circumference were not statistically significant (P = 0.13).
Table 12 Anthropometric measurements of the military personnel by age groups
Measurements
Men (n = 450)
F
Mean
SD
Chest circumference (inch)
8.494*
20 to 25 (years)
36.6857E1
.302014
26 to 30 (years)
38.0074E1
.333341
31 to 35 (years)
39.3150E1
.340799
36 to 40 (years)
38.9755E1
.296421
41 to 45 (years)
39.5635E1
.248522
46 to 50 (years)
40.0204E1
.343476
51 and above (years)
40.1970E1
.361460
Shoulder circumference (inch)
1.654
20 to 25 (years)
17.7571
.168871
26 to 30 (years)
17.7978
.119932
31 to 35 (years)
18.1325
.121046
36 to 40 (years)
18.0613
.104815
41 to 45 (years)
18.1944
.104685
46 to 50 (years)
18.1122
.135617
51 and above (years)
18.2197
.150267
Waist circumference (inch)
13.095*
20 to 25 (years)
32.1571
.392563
26 to 30 (years)
33.9265
.412740
31 to 35 (years)
35.4150
.414635
36 to 40 (years)
35.2672
.353043
41 to 45 (years)
36.2222
.354327
46 to 50 (years)
36.7143
.395755
51 and above (years)
38.1970
.517652
Hip circumference (inch)
4.614*
20 to 25 (years)
39.1571
.450850
26 to 30 (years)
40.2794
.312243
31 to 35 (years)
41.2550
.323452
36 to 40 (years)
40.3088
.274635
41 to 45 (years)
41.0119
.268482
46 to 50 (years)
41.2347
.318139
51 and above (years)
41.7121
.319824
Neck circumference (inch)
20 to 25 (years)
26 to 30 (years)
31 to 35 (years)
36 to 40 (years)
41 to 45 (years)
46 to 50 (years)
51 and above (years)
15.1500
15.5331
15.8350
15.8971
16.0063
16.0408
16.2803
.108562
.086689
.093624
.086268
.096113
.117402
.128160
8.305*
Table 11 also shows that the mean circumferences of the six age groups are significantly different except for the shoulder circumference. Post hoc test will determine which group means are different. Post hoc tests are designed for situations in which the researcher has already obtained a significant omnibus F-test with a factor that consists of three or more means and additional exploration of the differences among means is needed to provide specific information on which means are significantly different from each other. In Post Hoc test, Tukey's HSD Multiple Comparisons test shows which group means are significantly different from each other, where the significant (or P) ≤ 0.05.
Table 13 The Results of Tukey's HSD Post Hoc Tests for the Chest Circumference
(I) Age Group Of Respondent
(years)
(J) Age Group Of Respondent
(years)
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
20 to 25
26 to 30
-1.321639
.570062
.237
-3.35431
31 to 35
-2.629286*
.538177
.000
-4.54826
36 to 40
-2.289776*
.536807
.000
-4.20387
41 to 45
-2.877778*
.577698
.000
-4.93768
46 to 50
-3.334694*
.606456
.000
-5.49714
51 and above
-3.511255*
.664899
.000
-5.88209
26 to 30
20 to 25
1.321639
.570062
.237
-.71103
31 to 35
-1.307647*
.430717
.040
-2.84346
36 to 40
-.968137
.429005
.268
-2.49784
41 to 45
-1.556139
.479185
.021
-3.26477
46 to 50
-2.013055*
.513490
.002
-3.84401
51 and above
-2.189617*
.581355
.004
-4.26256
31 to 35
20 to 25
2.629286*
.538177
.000
.71031
26 to 30
1.307647*
.430717
.040
-.22816
36 to 40
.339510
.385627
.975
-1.03552
41 to 45
-.248492
.440773
.998
-1.82016
46 to 50
-.705408
.477845
.759
-2.40926
51 and above
-.881970
.550124
.680
-2.84355
36 to 40
20 to 25
2.289776*
.536807
.000
.37568
26 to 30
.968137
.429005
.268
-.56157
31 to 35
-.339510
.385627
.975
-1.71454
41 to 45
-.588002
.439100
.833
-2.15370
46 to 50
-1.044918
.476302
.301
-2.74327
51 and above
-1.221480
.548784
.284
-3.17828
41 to 45
20 to 25
2.877778*
.577698
.000
.81788
26 to 30
1.556139
.479185
.021
-.15249
31 to 35
.248492
.440773
.998
-1.32318
36 to 40
.588002
.439100
.833
-.97770
46 to 50
-.456916
.521954
.976
-2.31805
51 and above
-.633478
.588844
.935
-2.73312
46 to 50
20 to 25
3.334694*
.606456
.000
1.17225
26 to 30
2.013055*
.513490
.002
.18210
31 to 35
.705408
.477845
.759
-.99845
36 to 40
1.044918
.476302
.301
-.65343
41 to 45
.456916
.521954
.976
-1.40422
51 and above
-.176562
.617083
1.000
-2.37690
51 and above
20 to 25
3.511255*
.664899
.000
1.14042
26 to 30
2.189617*
.581355
.004
.11668
31 to 35
.881970
.550124
.680
-1.07961
36 to 40
1.221480
.548784
.284
-.73532
41 to 45
.633478
.588844
.935
-1.46617
46 to 50
.176562
.617083
1.000
-2.02378
Note: *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 13 shows the results of Tukey's HSD Post Hoc test for the dependent variable of chest circumference. The results indicate that there are the significant differences in chest circumference between the age groups 20 to 25 years and the 31 to 35 years (P=.000), the age groups 20 to 25 years and the 36 to 40 years (P=.000), the age groups 20 to 25 years and the 41 to 45 years (P=.000), the age groups 20 to 25 years and the 46 to 50 years (P=.000), the age groups 20 to 25 years and the 51 and above (P=.000), the age groups 26 to 30 years and the 31 to 35 years (P=.040), the age groups 26 to 30 years and the 46 to 50 years (P=.020), and as well as between the age groups 26 to 30 years and the 51 and above (P=.040). However there was no difference between the other groups for the chest circumference and as well as for the shoulder circumference in Table 14 because of the shoulder circumference are not significant completely.
