Comparative pilot study of anthropometric measurements in standing position between the grid template and the anthropometer Harpenden
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/ri202348Keywords:
Anthropometry, Anthropometric Dimensions, Measuring Instruments, Anthropometer, The Grid TemplateAbstract
Introduction: anthropometric dimensions allow the world of work to adapt the means and the workplace to the workers' characteristics and improve their jobs. It is necessary to have alternatives to carry out anthropometric measurements, given the costs of measuring instruments and the limited availability of such instruments in occupational health and safety services.
Aim: to compare standing anthropometric measurements using anthropometric tables versus the Harpenden anthropometer.
Methods: a descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out with a population of 26 workers (11 men and 15 women). The following measurements were taken in a standing position with the anthropometric tables and the Holtein Harpenden anthropometer: height, shoulder height, height at the middle finger, and length of the upper limb, using the Student's t-hypothesis test to compare both measurements.
Results: the values of the anthropometric variables measured by both the anthropometric tables and the Harpenden anthropometer did not present significant statistical differences, both in men and women.
Conclusions: the pilot test showed that using anthropometric tables in anthropometric studies constitutes a low-cost alternative.
References
1. Valero E. Antropometría. España: Instituto De Seguridad E Higiene En El Trabajo. 2017. https://www.insst.es/documents/94886/524376/DTEAntropometriaDP.pdf/032e8c34-f059-4be6-8d49-4b00ea06b3e6
2. Panero J, Zelnik M. Dimensiones Humanas De Los Espacios Interiores. Estándares Antropométricos. Barcelona, España, editorial Gustavo Gili, S.A; 1996.
3. Carmona A. Aspectos antropométricos de la población laboral española, aplicados al diseño industrial. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo. Madrid, España; 2003. https://www.insst.es/documentacion/catalogo-de-publicaciones/-/asset_publisher/x10eMfRbZbxt/content/aspectos-antropometricos-de-la-poblacion-laboral-espanola-aplicados-al-diseno-industrial-ano-20-1
4. Carmanete L, Moncada F, Borjas E. Manual de medidas antropométricas. Universidad Nacional; 2014. https://repositorio.una.ac.cr/bitstream/handle/11056/8632/MANUAL%20ANTROPOMETRIA.pdf.
5. Nariño Lescay R, Alonso Becerra A, Hernández González A. Antropometría. Análisis comparativo de las tecnologías para la captación de las dimensiones antropométricas. Revista Eia. 2016;(26):47-59. https://doi.org/10.24050/reia.v13i26.799.
6. Morgan CT, Cook JS, Chapanis A, Lunk M. W. Human Engineering guide to equipment design. McGraw-hill Book Company. https://doi.org./10.1037/13113-000.
7. Secretaría de Salud, Hospital General "Dr. Manuel Gea González”. Guía para la elaboración de la carta de consentimiento informado para participar en una investigación clínica. Subdirección de Investigación Biométrica, División de investigación Clínica. 2014. México. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/622302/CARTA_CONSENTIMIENTO_INFORMADO.docx
8. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
9. Miller I, Freund JE. Probability and Statistics for Engineers. Prentice-Hall Inc. New Jersey, USA; 1965.
10. Ramírez ME, Ron M, Mago G, Hernandez–Runque E, Martínez MDC, Escalona E. Proposal for an epidemiological surveillance program for the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases in workers exposed to carbon dioxide (CO2) at a Venezuelan brewing company. Data & Metadata. 2023;2:55. https://doi.org/10.56294/dm202355
11. Trovat Ascanio V, Ron M, Hernández-Runque E, Sánchez-Tovar L, Hernández J, Jiménez M. Trabajadores con discapacidad y significación del proceso Salud-Trabajo. Visibilizando claves para la prevención. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología. 2022;2(S1):224. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2022224
12. Zea Quispe I, Ron M, Hernandéz-Runque E, Escalona E, Trovat-Ascanio V. Evaluación ergonómica del puesto de trabajo colgador de pollo en empresa beneficiadora de aves. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología. 2022;2(S1):217. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2022217
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Alejandro Labrador Parra, Evelin Escalona, Omaira Gollo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
