ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497503

www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers

Jinky Leilanie Del Prado-Lua,b,
a

National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines Manila, Pedro Gil Street, Ermita, Manila, Philippines
Research Division, Bureau of Working Conditions, Department of Labor and Employment, Intramuros, Metro Manila, Philippines

Received 29 May 2006; received in revised form 31 January 2007; accepted 6 February 2007
Available online 28 March 2007

Abstract
This study conducted anthropometric measurements among 1805 Filipino workers in 31 manufacturing industries. Anthropometric
data were measured for standing, sitting, hand and foot dimensions, breadth and circumference of the various body parts, and grip
strength. The workplace assessment survey was also done among respondents coming from the subject population to look into the
common work and health problems that may be associated with ergonomic hazards at work. The data gathered can be applied for the
ergonomic design of workstations, personal protective equipment, tools, interface systems, and furniture that aid in providing a safer,
more productive, and user-friendly workplace for the Filipino working population. This is the rst ever comprehensive anthropometric
measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers in the country which is seen as a signicant contribution to the Filipino labor force who
are increasingly employed by both domestic and foreign multinationals.
r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anthropometric measurements; Ergonomic design; Workplace assessment; Health and safety of workers

1. Introduction
Anthropometry is the science of measurement and
the art of application that establishes the physical
geometry, mass properties, and strength capabilities of
the human body. The uses of anthropometry in the
workplace include: (1) to evaluate postures and distances
to reach controls; (2) to specify clearances separating the
body from hazards such as surrounding equipments; (3) to
identify objects or elements that constrict movement; and
(4) to assist in the biomechanical analysis of forces and
torque.
The anthropometric measurements performed in this
study can be used as a basis for the ergonomic design of
PPEs and workstations that can make work environments
safer and more user-friendly. Currently, there is increasing
demand for this kind of information among those who
develop measures to prevent occupational injuries. In the
United States, the body size or body segment measureMailing address. Unit 1514 President tower, 81 Timog Avenue,
Quezon City, Philippines. Tel.: +63 2 526 4266; fax: +63 2 259 9356.
E-mail address: [email protected].

0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.02.004

ments of some occupational groups differ signicantly

compared to others. This implies that caution must be
exercised in selecting databases for the design and
evaluation of machinery, humanmachine interfaces and
PPEs (Hsieh et al., 2002).
This is the rst ever comprehensive anthropometric
measurement of Filipino workers in the country which is
seen as a signicant contribution to the Filipino labor force
who are increasingly employed both in the local and
international market, and by both domestic and foreign
multinationals who put up their subsidiary plants in the
Philippines. In fact, the top revenue export of the
Philippines comes from electronics which is part of the
study population.
The workplace assessment survey was also used to look
into the common work and health problems that may be
associated with ergonomic hazards at work. The data will
assist regulatory bodies and manufacturers for an overview
of health and work issues in the manufacturing sector
which should be addressed to obtain both healthy work
environment and productivity. The baseline study on
anthropometry could be correlated with workplace assessment in future studies.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
498

J.L. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497503

2. Materials and methods

From the sampling plan provided by the export zones, 31
different kinds of manufacturing industries were randomly
selected. Export zones host multinational companies that
operate and hire Filipino laborers at lower wages, and better
investment and trading benets not readily available outside
the zone. This is a strategy adopted by the government to
attract multinational investment in the country. Export zones
are special economic and social enclaves in developing
countries. The benets given to transnational corporations
(TNCs) in export zones in the Philippines include: 100%
ownership, no duties, no taxes nor license fees on imports to
the zone, the privilege to borrow from Philippine banks, no
taxes on exports, no minimum investment requirement, and
unrestricted repatriation of capital and prots (Rowbotham
and Mitter, 1994).
A proportionate random sampling was done from each
industry based on the existing workforce involving only the
assembly-line production workers. The sample population
was 1805. Experimenters were all researchers from the
occupational health and safety research division. Training
of experimenters and observers were done rigorously for 2
months before the conduct of the study involving orientation on the objectives and methodology of the study,
lecture series on the measurement protocol using body
landmarks which are stable, series of pre-measurements
among experimenters to establish accuracy of measurement, and correct body positioning. They were trained on
how to conduct the measurement in reference to stable
body landmarks used in biomechanics. Labeling landmarks
before taking measurements improved precision, as was
also shown in the study of Weinberg et al. in 2004. For
instance, upper arm length was measured from the
acromial process to the tip of the elbow. Measurement
on one subject was done twice by the same person, and as
such intrareliability measured was r 0.8.
Body physique or anthropometric measurements were done
using tape measure, a goniometer, calipers and anthropometers to measure body segment length, height, breadth,
depth, and circumference. Examples of such measurements
are hip breadth, crotch length, functional leg length, buttock
knee length, knee height, popliteal height and others.
After the anthropometric measurement, a workplace
assessment survey was conducted among 520 respondents
coming from the subject population to investigate the most
common hazard exposures, ergonomic problems, and
safety issues. The survey questionnaire also investigated
pain, discomfort, limitation of motion, and affectation of
activities of daily living. Data were encoded using word
and SPSS 9.0. Statistical analyses were descriptive and
inferential statistics.
3. Results
Among the 1805 individuals selected, 53.3% were
females while 46.7% were males. Majority of them were

single (60.4%) and below 30 years old (77%), indicating a

relatively young working population. Forty-one percent of
the workers were high-school graduates, followed by
workers who nished vocational school (23.3%). Only
16% of the workers nished college education.
Majority (80.50%) of the subjects were between 150 and
174 cm in height (s.d. 8), with the shortest at 54 in and
the tallest at 71 in. Most of respondents (92.7%) weighed
less than 80 kg, with measurements ranging from 40 to
170 kg.
Tables 19 show the anthropometric measurements of
the workers. It shows that the mean standing height for
males is higher than for females at 167.0 cm (s.d. 8.03)
and 153.9 (s.d. 8.08) cm, respectively. Meanwhile, the
mean sitting height is 84.8 cm for males (s.d. 5.81) and
79.9(s.d. 4.5) cm for females.
Many establishments and industries have yet to recognize the importance of ergonomics and anthropometry in
the workplace. In the study conducted by Ijadunola et al. in
2003, they found that the design and layout of ofces and
workstations and access to equipment were suboptimal and
promoted unnecessary physical efforts, decreasing the
efciency and productivity of workers. Two-thirds of these
workers also complained of work-related backache.
In this study, similar problems were noted among the
respondents. The top ve hazards identied were poor
posture leading to backache (72.2%), heat (66.6%), overwork (66.6%), poor ventilation (54.8%), and chemical
exposure (50.8%). Among physical and psychomotor
stresses, the top three were visual strain, overtime,
and overwork. The most common illnesses related to
ergonomic problems were backache (56%), fatigue and
weakness (53.2%). Cuts (46.8%) topped the list of
common injuries followed by slipping injury (23.2%).
Using logistic regression, cuts and bruises were signicantly associated with slippery oors. Cuts and bruises
were 1.8 times more likely to occur with both slippery
oors and narrow storage rooms, and 0.49 times
more likely among males. Falls were more likely to occur
with slippery and uneven oors, while head trauma was
more likely to occur in small and narrow storage
rooms, more likely among males, and with work overload.
(Table 10).
Table 11 shows the comparative frequencies of symptoms with respect to the different body areas investigated.
Pain was the most commonly reported symptom across all
body areas, followed by discomfort and limitation of
motion. All were most commonly seen in the upper trunk
and lower back (18.1%, 8.1%, and 7.9%, respectively).
4. Discussion
For the past few years, ergonomic initiatives have been
growing in Asia due to increasing local needs. A number of
studies in some developing countries in the region has
contributed in improving the working conditions of locals
in terms of materials handling, workstation design, work

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497503

499

Table 1
Anthropometric measurement for standing
Anthropometric
measurement (cm)
standing height

Standing height
Eye height
Shoulder height
Shoulder width
Shoulder elbow length
Length of upper arm
Length of lower arm
Forearm hand length
Length of arm and hand
Elbow height
Knuckle height
Chest height
Chest breadth
Waist height
Waist hip length
Hip width
Hip height
Knee height
Popliteal height
Upper reach
Overhead ngertip reach
Arm span

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

167.01
155.01
137.45
44.67
33.05
25.99
25.83
44.06
72.60
104.14
72.51
123.36
36.35
97.32
10.11
43.50
87.66
49.73
46.35
193.40
212.08
167.92

157.00
145.00
128.00
39.00
28.00
20.00
21.10
40.00
67.00
96.50
66.00
114.0
29.00
90.00
5.00
31.00
81.00
44.00
41.50
175.00
195.00
154.20

167.00
155.00
137.00
44.00
33.00
26.00
25.00
44.00
73.00
104.00
73.00
123.00
35.50
98.00
9.00
44.00
89.00
50.00
47.00
190.00
213.00
169.00

178.00
166.00
148.00
49.40
37.00
31.00
30.00
48.00
79.00
112.80
79.00
134.00
47.00
105.00
15.00
54.80
96.00
55.00
51.00
208.00
224.90
181.00

8.03
6.92
6.07
7.33
3.97
4.54
4.41
4.12
6.35
6.72
5.80
7.22
6.17
8.43
6.44
8.33
8.57
5.99
2.99
10.8
9.10
9.15

153.92
143.05
127.21
40.24
31.39
24.92
24.16
40.47
66.04
96.28
67.77
111.28
32.63
95.47
10.19
43.38
85.34
45.88
42.05
190.19
196.46
153.18

143.00
134.00
118.00
34.00
27.00
20.00
20.00
36.00
59.00
89.00
62.00
102.50
25.00
88.58
6.00
32.00
79.00
41.00
37.00
177.00
183.00
141.00

155.00
143.00
127.00
40.00
31.00
25.00
24.00
41.00
67.00
97.00
68.00
112.00
31.00
96.00
9.00
44.00
86.00
46.00
42.00
191.00
196.00
153.00

165.00
153.00
136.00
46.00
35.00
29.00
30.70
45.00
72.00
104.00
74.00
121.00
47.43
103.00
14.00
52.93
94.00
50.00
47.00
204.00
211.00
165.00

8.28
6.15
5.80
8.29
10.28
8.38
4.18
5.39
5.77
7.39
6.33
10.50
7.22
6.09
6.32
7.10
9.01
3.09
4.02
10.28
8.91
8.53

Table 2
Anthropometric measurement for sitting
Anthropometric measurement
(cm) sitting height

Sitting height
Eye height
Elbow height
Waist height, sitting
Hip height
Hip breadth, sitting
Thigh clearance height
Buttock knee length
Buttock popliteal length
Knee height, sitting
Popliteal height
Buttock width
Length of upper leg
Length of lower leg and foot
Thumbtip reach
Overhead ngertip reach, sitting

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

84.84
73.36
22.23
19.44
13.28
35.60
13.49
54.80
46.40
50.03
43.33
48.45
36.80
45.27
71.30
127.92

78.00
67.00
17.00
15.00
10.00
31.00
10.50
49.00
41.00
45.00
39.00
35.10
29.20
38.00
61.00
117.00

85.00
73.00
22.00
19.00
13.00
35.00
13.00
55.00
46.00
50.00
43.00
48.00
36.00
46.00
72.00
128.00

92.00
80.00
27.00
24.00
18.00
41.00
16.50
61.90
52.00
55.90
47.00
59.00
46.50
52.00
79.00
138.00

5.81
3.83
4.21
6.15
4.06
4.19
4.45
5.21
3.72
3.99
2.57
7.40
6.12
4.53
7.12
7.81

79.92
68.38
21.89
22.41
15.29
36.39
12.82
52.73
45.14
46.98
40.34
47.66
35.96
42.14
65.44
116.87

73.00
62.00
17.00
18.00
11.00
31.00
10.00
47.00
40.00
42.15
36.00
35.00
28.00
35.00
56.00
108.00

80.00
69.00
22.00
22.00
15.00
36.00
12.00
53.00
45.00
47.00
40.50
48.25
36.00
42.50
66.00
117.00

87.00
74.00
26.43
27.00
20.00
42.43
16.00
59.00
51.00
52.00
44.00
58.00
45.00
48.00
74.00
128.00

4.50
4.85
4.09
3.21
6.71
4.83
6.97
4.56
3.69
4.43
2.90
6.85
5.25
4.31
7.63
9.77

organization and work environment through utilization of

locally available resources. In these countries, varied
sectors which include local government units, trade unions,
industrial associations and the agricultural sector have
participated actively in action-oriented ergonomic training
programs (Chan and Jiao, 1996). This was also evident in

Mexico where the growing manufacturing sector necessitated the need for an anthropometric database for the
working population (Lavender et al., 2002). In HongKong,
the increasing popularity of using computer-aided
design (CAD) prompted investigators to look into the
design of a suitable workplace for CAD operators by using

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497503

500

Table 3
Circumference anthropometric measurement
Anthropometric
measurement (cm)
circumference

Head
Shoulder
Biceps
Lower arm
Buttock
Upper leg
Lower leg
Chest
Waist
Hips

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

55.28
106.67
28.10
25.62
92.69
46.14
35.68
86.66
79.42
88.34

53.00
96.00
23.50
22.00
83.00
37.00
30.00
76.10
66.00
79.00

55.50
106.00
27.50
25.00
93.00
46.00
35.00
87.00
79.00
88.00

58.00
120.00
33.00
29.00
105.00
54.40
42.00
100.80
94.00
100.00

3.086
9.243
5.499
4.794
9.035
6.401
5.292
9.344
8.566
7.934

53.88
94.52
25.28
22.28
92.53
45.46
33.83
84.42
72.74
86.64

51.00
85.00
21.00
19.00
83.00
38.00
29.00
74.00
60.00
75.00

54.00
95.00
25.00
22.00
92.00
45.00
33.00
84.00
71.00
86.00

56.43
107.85
30.50
25.50
104.85
54.00
39.00
98.43
90.00
101.00

2.63
10.86
3.97
4.45
7.52
5.21
4.59
9.31
9.05
9.44

Table 4
Grip strength measurement
Anthropometric
measurement (cm)
grip strength

Standing (left)
Standing (right)
Sitting (left)
Sitting (right)

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

38.53
40.64
38.60
40.41

23.00
25.200
24.00
27.00

39.00
41.00
39.00
40.00

53.00
54.80
52.00
55.00

8.56
9.35
8.40
8.46

20.72
22.36
20.21
21.84

11.00
13.00
12.00
12.00

20.85
22.00
20.00
22.00

29.00
31.00
29.00
31.00

7.00
8.89
5.66
5.72

Table 5
Depth anthropometric measurement
Anthropometric
measurement (cm)
depths

Forward reach,
functional

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

76.58

78.00

78.00

86.00

7.61

69.64

59.08

70.00

79.00

6.83

Table 6
Breadth anthropometric measurement
Anthropometric
measurement (cm)
breadths

Elbow to elbow
breadth

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

30.57

32.00

31.00

48.00

2.07

28.85

30.00

29.00

46.00

1.68

anthropometric data to enhance performance and reduce

musculoskeletal problems (Chan and Jiao, 1996). It is the
objective of this study to come up with a database of
anthropometric measurement of Filipino workers in the
manufacturing sector to aid in tool and working equip-

ment, personal protective equipment designs, and other

applications. These measurements can be given to the
regulatory body in the Philippines for adoption by
industries, or directly accessed by manufacturers prior to
plant design.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497503

501

Table 7
Head dimension anthropometric measurement
Anthropometric
measurement (cm)
head dimension

Head breadth
Head length
Interpupillary distance
Bitragion subnasale arc
Bitragion chin arc

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

17.22
20.53
7.74
28.62
30.57

14.60
17.50
6.50
25.00
27.00

17.00
20.00
7.50
29.00
31.00

19.40
26.00
8.00
31.00
33.40

6.21
7.48
4.63
3.03
2.07

16.50
19.23
7.37
27.09
28.85

14.00
16.50
6.00
25.00
26.00

16.00
19.00
7.00
27.00
29.00

18.50
23.00
8.00
29.00
31.00

6.96
2.76
5.18
1.43
1.68

Table 8
Hand anthropometric measurement
Anthropometric
measurement (cm)
hand dimension

Sleeve outseam
Hand length
Hand breadth
Hand circumference
Wrist center of grip
length

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

54.02

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

54.02
19.75
9.80
20.78
9.20

48.00
17.00
8.00
19.00
7.50

4.72
7.82
4.07
1.64
3.93

60.00
21.50
11.00
23.00
11.00

4.72
7.82
4.07
1.64
3.93

49.38
17.95
9.23
18.39
8.69

44.50
15.50
7.50
16.00
7.00

50.00
18.00
8.50
18.00
8.50

55.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00

4.65
3.44
6.97
7.44
4.10

Table 9
Foot anthropometric measurement
Anthropometric
measurement (cm) foot
dimension

Foot length
Foot breadth,
horizontal
Ankle circumference
Functional leg length
Step height

Male (n 843)

Female (962)

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

25.42
10.52

23.00
8.50

25.50
10.00

24.18
93.34
27.67

21.00
88.00
16.00

24.00
93.00
28.00

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

Mean

5th
Percentile

Median

95th
Percentile

Std.
Dev

28.00
11.50

1.67
6.37

22.63
9.50

20.00
8.00

23.00
9.00

25.00
11.00

1.64
4.41

27.00
100.00
40.00

2.23
4.08
7.79

21.93
90.70
25.63

19.00
83.00
14.58

22.00
90.00
25.00

25.00
98.00
37.00

2.80
4.60
9.11

In the light of global industrialization, much attention is

demanded to deal with occupational factors and their
inuence on health and safety of workers. Previous
studies have correlated such factors with a wide variety
of physical and psychophysiological disorders that
impair human well-being and hamper ones ability to
carry out responsibilities at work (DOLE, 1998; ILO,
1998). In particular, investigators have turned their
attention to organizational variables and work hazards
as possible sources of illness and distress among the
working population. Both have been documented to
be signicant sources of occupational stress (van Vegchel
et al., 2001; Mironov et al., 1994) and predictors

of the occurrence of occupational injuries (Melamed

et al., 1999).
This study has shown that signicant associations exist
between certain occupational factors and work-related
injuries. These ndings are similar to the work of Lee and
Karusse (2002) where physical job demands and constant
pressure led to work-related pain and disability. Torp et al.
in 2001 also reported that social and organizational factors
contributed to the development of musculoskeletal disorders among workers. Musculoskeletal disorders such as
back pain, shoulder pain and carpal tunnel syndrome have
been related to occupational factors, most of them
ergonomic and psychosocial in nature. These include

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497503

502

Table 10
Odds ratio of factors associated with certain injuries in the workplace
(n 500)
Risk factors

Injuries
Cuts/Bruises

1. Sex
2. Slippery oors
3. Narrow, small
storage room
4. No machine guards
5. Uneven oors
6. Work overload

0.498
(0.025)a
1.860 (0.009)
1.898 (0.005)

Falls

Head trauma
0.220 (0.040)

2.021 (0.018)
0.156 (0.040)

1.872 (0.047)
12.204 (.001)

Level of signicance originally set at 95% CI for all estimates.

a
Number with parenthesisodds ratio; ( ) in parenthesissignicance
level.

Table 11
Descriptive statistics of symptoms per body area (n 520)
Frequency

Percentage

Pain
Head and neck
Hands, wrists and shoulders
Upper trunk and lower back
Legs

69
53
94
63

13.3
10.2
18.1
12.1

Limitation of motion
Head and neck
Hands, wrists and shoulders
Upper trunk and lower back
Legs

21
11
41
29

4.0
2.1
7.9
5.6

Affectation of daily living

Head and neck
Hands, wrists and shoulders
Upper trunk and lower back
Legs

21
12
42
26

4.0
2.3
8.1
5.0

Discomfort
Head and neck
Hands, wrists and shoulders
Upper trunk and lower back
Legs

23
16
42
35

4.4
3.1
8.1
6.7

repetition, force, static posture, dynamic movement

(Schierhout et al., 1995), physically demanding job, poor
workplace, social environment, inconsistency between job
and education level, low job satisfaction, and low coworker
support (Kerr et al., 2001).
Industrial ergonomics and anthropometry are now used
to confront the above problems at work. As such, this
study was conducted to come up with baseline data on
both anthropometry and workplace ergonomic issues
which may shed light on controlling occupational illnesses
and injuries. Since mismatches in anthropometric dimensions has been postulated to be one of the main causes of
work-related fatigue and occupational illness (Chan and
Jiao, 1996), steps must be taken to gather anthropometric

data that can aid in the formulation of ergonomic

interventions in the workplace.
Previous studies show the application of anthropometry.
McKay and Davies (2002) indicated the need for tness
testing of respirators based on anthropometry of the face.
In addition, ergonomic interventions applied upon return
of sicklisted workers suffering from chronic lower back
pain have also been found to be effective (Mironov et al.,
1994). Techniques such as occasionally changing posture,
taking walks or sitting during breaks, use of proper shoes
and footrests have been found to be effective in addressing
this problem (Melamed et al., 1999).
The anthropometric data in this study can have many
applications. It can be used as a reference for body mass index
(BMI) and obesity index. This was done in the study of
Eckhardt et al. in 2003 where they tried to look into the ability
of BMI to predict body fat (BF) among youths in four Asian
countries and to identify the degree to which additional
anthropometric measures improved this prediction. On the
other hand, Shiwaku et al. in 2005 suggested that BMI and
waist circumference were useful for predicting multiple
metabolic disorders in non-diabetic Mongolians and Japanese.
The anthropometric measurements gathered in this
study can be applied in the improvement of manual
materials handling, posture, interface and furniture design,
workplace design and workstation layout, among many
others. The use of anthropometry and ergonomics in
design systems has reduced human error in system
performance, minimized hazards to individuals in the work
environment, reduced adverse health effects and improved
system efciency (Anema et al., 2004).
5. Conclusion
The gathering of anthropometric data as well as workplace
health and safety assessment is a much needed and
worthwhile pursuit in light of the increasing incidence of
work-related illnesses and injuries. The gathered data from
the 1805 workers in this study will hopefully be applied in the
ergonomic design of workstations, tools, equipment, layout
designs and interventions that are uniquely well-suited for
Filipino workers. In addition, it is hoped that this information will be used in the improvement of local working
conditions, targeting key problem areas in order to minimize
ergonomic problems and related injuries and illnesses. Both
implementing government agencies and corporate management must work together in the design and implementation of
occupational health and ergonomic programs for the welfare
of workers in the manufacturing sector.
References
Anema, J., Cuelenaere, B., van der Beek, A., Knol, D., de Vet, H., van
Mechelen, W., 2004. The effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on
return-to-work after low back pain; a prospective two year cohort
study in six countries on low back pain patients sicklisted for 34
months. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 61 (4), 289294.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.L. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497503
Chan, H., Jiao, Y., 1996. Development of an anthropometric database for
Hong Kong Chinese CAD operators. Journal of Human Ergology 25
(1), 3843.
Department of Labor and Employment, 1998. Bureau of Labor and
Employment Statistics, Department of Labor and Employment
Occupational Injury Survey, BLES Report: p. 110.
Eckhardt, C., Adair, L., Caballero, B., Avila, J., Kon, I., Wang, J., et al.,
2003. Estimating body fat from anthropometry and isotopic dilution: a
four-country comparison. Obesity Research 11 (12), 15531562.
Ijadunola, K., Ijadunola, M., Onayade, A., Abiona, T., 2003. Perceptions
of occupational hazards amongst ofce workers at the Obafemi
Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. Nigerian Journal of Medicine 12 (3),
134139.
International Labor Organization, 1998. In: Stellman, G.M. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety: Mental Health,
Psychosocial and Organizational Factors. International Labour Ofce,
Geneva.
Kerr, M., Frank, J., Shannon, H., Norman, R., Wells, R., Neumann, W.,
Bombardier, C., 2001. Biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for
low back pain at work. American Journal of Public Health 91 (7),
10691075.
Lavender, S., Marras, W., Sabol, R., 2002. A study of female Mexican
anthropometric measures useful for workstation design in light
manufacturing facilities. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal 63 (3), 300304.
Lee, P., Karusse, N., 2002. The impact of a worker health study on
working conditions. Journal of Public Health Policy 23 (3), 268.
McKay, R., Davies, E., 2002. Capability of respirator wearers to detect
aerosolized qualitative t test agents (Sweetener and Bitrex) with

503

known xed leaks. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

15 (6), 479484.
Melamed, S., Kristal-Boneh, E., Froom, P., 1999. Industrial noise
exposure and risk factors for cardiovascular disease: ndings from
the CORDIS study. Noise Health 1 (4), 4956.
Mironov, A., Moikin, I., Blagodarnaia, O., Poberezhskaia, A., 1994.
Physiologic and hygienic evaluation of the job and health status in
workers of shoe factory. Med Tr Prom Ekol 11, 2933.
Rowbotham, S., Mitter, S., 1994. Dignity and daily bread: new forms of
economic organising among poor women in the Third World and the
First. Roultledge, London and New York, pp. 2030.
Schierhout, G., Meyers, J., Bridger, R., 1995. Work related musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic stressors in the South African workforce. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 52 (1), 4650.
Shiwaku, K., Anuurad, E., Enkhmaa, B., Nogi, A., Kitajima, K.,
Yamasaki, M., et al., 2005. Predictive values of anthropometric
measurements for multiple metabolic disorders in Asian populations.
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 69 (1), 5262.
Torp, S., Riise, T., Moen, B., 2001. The impact of social and
organizational factors on workers coping with musculoskeletal
symptoms. Physical Therapy 81 (7), 1328.
van Vegchel, N., de Jonge, J., Meijer, T., Hamers, J., 2001. Different effort
constructs and effort-reward imbalance: effects on employee well-being
in ancillary health care workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing 34 (1),
128136.
Weinberg, S., Scott, N., Neiswanger, K., Brandon, C., Marazita, M.,
2004. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of
anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera
system. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 41 (5), 507518.