ERGO-ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FURNITURE IN USE BY SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51406/jnset.v10i1.1358Keywords:
Anthropometry, Ergonomics, FurnitureAbstract
The anthropometric data of the students in secondary schools was obtained and possible mismatch between the relevant dimensions of students and the classroom furniture they use were examined.
A total of 480 students in Junior Secondary 1 through Senior Secondary 3 in sixteen (Eight Public and Eight Private) Secondary Schools participated in the study with ages ranging from 10 years to 18 years. Fourteen anthropometric measurements and the dimensions of four types of chairs and four types of desks prevalent in the students' classrooms were measured. The means, standard deviations, fifth, fiftieth and ninety fifth percentiles were calculated. The anthropometric dimensions of the students in the public schools were statistically compared with those in the private schools with use of SPSS 16.0 Statistical Package. Moreover, the student body dimensions and furniture dimensions were compared. The results show that that all the measured dimensions of the students in the public schools (Popliteal Height: 39.5 cm, Sitting Height: 77.3 cm, Knee Height: 53.0 cm, Elbow Height Sitting: 16.0 cm, Buttock-Popliteal Length: 43.8 cm; using the 50th percentiles) and private schools (Popliteal Height: 40.2 cm, Sitting Height: 80.3 cm, Knee Height: 53.3 cm, Elbow Height Sitting: 16.5 cm, Buttock-Popliteal Length: 44.0 cm; using the 50th percentiles) were not significantly different (p = 0.00) except Buttock-Popliteal Length (p = 0.08) and Hip Breadth (p = 0.12). Moreover, a degree of mismatch between the students' bodily dimensions and the classroom furniture available to them was established.Â
It was concluded that the anthropometric data of the .Nigerian Students were not employed in the manufacture of the school furniture and may be an indication that school furniture and students anthropometric dimensions are at variant nationwide.
References
Barroso, M.P., Arezes, P.M., Costa, L.G. and Miguel, A.S. 2005. Anthropometric Study of Portuguese Workers, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35: 401-410
Bridger, R.S. 1995. Introduction to Ergonomics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chaffin, D, Anderson, G. 1991. Occupational Biomechanics. New York: Wiley.
Chaffin, D.B., Gunnar, B.J., Bernard, J.M. 1999. Occupational biomechanics, Ed Wiley Interscience, 377-379
Deros, M.B., Mohamad, D., Ismail, R.A., Soon, W.O., Lee, C.K., Nordin, S.M. 2009. Recommended Chair and Work Surfaces Dimensions of VDT Tasks for Malaysian Citizens. European Journal of Scientific Research, 34(2): 156-167
Igboanugo, A.C., Egharevba, F., Ibhadode, A.O.A. 2002. Anthropometric Survey of Nigeria Adult Working Class. Nigerian Journal of Engineering Management, 3: 7-21.
Ismaila, S.O., Akanbi, O.G., Oderinu, S.O. 2010. Anthropometric Survey and Appraisal of Furniture for Nigerian Primary School Pupils. e-Journal of Science and Technology, 4(5): 29-36.
Ismaila, S.O. 2008. Anthropometric Data of the Foot of Nigerian University Students. Ergonomics SA 20 (2): 45-50.
Jeong, B.Y., Park, K.S. 1990. Sex Differences in Anthropometry for School Furniture Design. Ergonomics, 33: 1511-1521
Knight, G., Noyes, J. 1999. Children’s Behaviour and the Design of School Furniture. Ergonomics, 42(5): 747-760.
Koskelo, R., Vuorikari, K., Hänninen, O. 2007. Sitting and Standing Postures are Corrected by Adjustable Furniture with Lowered Muscle Tension in High-School Students. Ergonomics, 50(10): 1643-56.
Lin, R., Kang, Y.Y. 2000. Ergonomic Design for Senior High School Furniture in Taiwan. Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association/Human Factors Society Congress, San Diego, USA, 6: 39-42.
Mandahawi, N., Imrhan, S., Al-Shobaki, S., Sarder B. 2008. Hand Anthropometry Survey for the Jordian Population. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics ,38: 966–976
Mandal, A.L. 1991.Investigation of the Lumbar Flexion of the Seated Man. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 8: 75-87.
Molenbroek, J.F., Kroon-Ramaekers, N., Snidjers, C.J. 2003. Revision of the Design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture. Ergonomics, 46(7): 681-694.
Oguntona, C.R.B., Kuku, O. 2000. Anthropometric survey of the elderly in South Western Nigeria. Annals of Human Biology, 27(3): 257-262.
Okunribido, O.O. 2000. A Survey of Hand Anthropometry of Female Rural Farm Workers in Ibadan, Western Nigeria. Ergonomics, 43: 282-292.
Panero, J., Zeinik, M. 1979. Human Dimension and Interior Space. New York: Watson-Guptill.
Parcells, C., Stommel, M., Hubbard, R.P. 1999. Mismatch of Classroom Furniture and student body dimensions. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24: 265-273.
Robinette, K.M., Daanen, H., Paquet, L. 1999. The Caeser Project: A 3-D Surface Anthropometry Survey. Proceedings of IEEE Second International Conference on 3-D Imaging and Modelling, 380-386.
Troussier, B., Tesniere, C., Fauconnier, J., Grison J., Juvin R., Phelip X. 1999. Comparative Study of two Different kinds of School Furniture among Children. Ergonomics, 42(3): 516-526.
Tunay, M., Melemez, K. 2008. An analysis of Biomechanical and Anthropometric parameters on Class-room Furniture Design. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(8): 1081-1086.
Zacharkow, D. 1988. Posture: sitting, chair design and exercise. Springfield, IL: CC Thomas.
