Advertisement

Anthropometric Characteristics of Chilean University Students and Their Relation with the Dimensions of the Furniture of the Lecture Rooms

  • J. Freire
  • E. Apud
  • F. Meyer
  • J. Espinoza
  • E. Oñate
  • F. Maureira
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)

Abstract

The present study has the objective of associating the anthropometric dimensions of a sample of Chilean university students with the furniture used in classrooms. The ultimate goal is to propose suitable standards for Chilean universities. 17 body dimensions were measured in a sample of 176 students, using a Harpenden anthropometer Holtain. For the evaluation of the furniture, a metallic metric tape was used. To date, the furniture of 35 university classrooms has been evaluated. Mean values, standard deviations and percentile 5 and 95 were calculated for males and females and for the whole group. Average stature was 160.1 cm for women and 174.0 cm for men. The analysis of the relationship between body size of the students and the furniture they use, showed deficiencies not only in size of computer stations, chairs, and tables, but also in the design and maintenance making them even more uncomfortable, particularly for those students who spend a long time in sitting posture. Furthermore, all students use the same furniture without any consideration for differences in body size. In this respect, the discussion is centered on the need to take as reference the extremes of 5th and 95th percentile of the students’ population, but more important is to establish the distribution of body dimensions, at least for a basic set of measurements for seats and tables design, also with inclusive criteria for populations with special needs.

Keywords

Anthropometric Furniture Students 

References

  1. 1.
    Mandal AC (1981) The seated man (Homo Sedens) the seated work and practice. Appl Ergon 12(1):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Wely P (1970) Design and disease. Appl Ergon, 262–267Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apud E, Meyer F, Espinoza J, Oñate E, Freire J, Maureira F (2016) Ergonomics and labour in forestry. In: Pancel L, Köhl M (eds) Tropical Forestry Handbook. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Castellucci H, Arezes PM, Viviani CA (2010) Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools. Appl Ergon 41(4):563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Apud E, Gutiérrez M (1997) Diseño ergonómico y características antropométricas de mujeres y hombres adultos chilenos. Primeras Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Prevención de Riesgos OcupacionalesGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jalil N, Iman D, Mohamad A (2013) Student’s Body Dimensions in Relation to Classroom Furniture Samira Baharampourl. Health Promot Perspect 3(2):165–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Freire
    • 1
  • E. Apud
    • 1
  • F. Meyer
    • 1
  • J. Espinoza
    • 1
  • E. Oñate
    • 1
  • F. Maureira
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit of ErgonomicsUniversity of ConcepciónConcepciónChile

Personalised recommendations