I.

Objectives
The main objective of this experiment is to evaluate the dimensions of different elements
of a home computer workstation. To specify, this study aims:
1. To gather anthropometric data of a chair, computer table, computer, and mouse.
2. To utilize anthropometry in determining and evaluating the suitable dimensions of
the different elements.
3. To formulate recommendations from the evaluations made.

II. Methodology
A. Materials
1. Tape measure
2. Ballpen
3. Bond paper (8.5 x11)

B. Experimental Procedure
The researchers chose to adopt the specific criteria detailed from the study by Taifa &
Desai (2017) in determining the parameters considered in designing a student’s ergonomic
workstation.

Figure 1. Body dimensions of an individual (Taifa & Desai, 2017)

Only numbers three to eleven were taken into consideration in this study. In this order, the
criteria are sitting shoulder height, popliteal height, sitting hip breadth, elbow height, buttock-
popliteal height, buttock knee height, thigh clearance, sitting eye height, and shoulder breadth.
Computer workplace criteria were adopted from these measurements in reference to the criteria
utilized in the BIFMA guidelines (Openshaw & Taylor, 2006) as well as the grip breadth of the
individual to gauge the suitability of the mouse to the person. The figure below depicts the grip
breadth measure.

Figure 2. Grip breadth (Khayal, 2019)

The researchers then gathered anthropometric data from eight individuals. Each researcher
was tasked to gather one male and one female measurement. A tape measure was utilized to
estimate the measurements for the specific criterion. These were written down in a bond paper.
From the gathered data, the mean, standard deviation, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile were
calculated for each criterion. The gathered data and in turn, these computations were used to
determine the suitability of the participants in the present design of the workplace. The workplace
is composed of the chair, the computer table, and the computer workstation. The present design of
the workstation, chair, table were based on designs found online. The researchers then created a
more suitable design of each workplace component in reference to the 5th and 95th percentile of
the gathered data.

III. Results
A. Anthropometric Data of 8 Individuals
Table 1.1. Anthropometric Data Average and Range (in cm) of Male Users
Sitting Buttock- Buttock Sitting
Popliteal Sitting Hip Elbow Thigh Shoulder Grip
Shoulder Popliteal Knee Eye
Height Breadth Height Clearance Breadth breadth
Height Length Length Height

Average 60.5 44.5 35.5 20.45 47.125 58.625 14.55 77.75 46.5 5.05
Standard
Deviation 2.0817 3.3166 4.6547 2.1626 3.0104 4.4977 1.7916 1.8930 3.8730 0.1732
5th
Percentile 55.6018 36.6960 24.5474 15.3615 40.0415 48.0419 10.3343 73.2958 37.3869 4.6424
95th
Percentile 65.3982 52.3040 46.4526 25.5385 54.2085 69.2081 18.7657 82.2042 55.6131 5.4576
 Table 1.2. Anthropometric Data Average and Range (in cm) of Female Users
Sitting Buttock- Buttock Sitting
Popliteal Sitting Hip Elbow Thigh Shoulder Grip
Shoulder Popliteal Knee Eye
Height Breadth Height Clearance Breadth breadth
Height Length Length Height

Average 57 42.875 36.5 21.875 46 53.25 13 72 43 3.175

Standard
Deviation 3.1623 0.8539 6.8557 1.4361 4.5461 4.7170 3.6515 4.2426 3.3665 0.2062
5th
Percentile 49.5592 40.8657 20.3686 18.4958 35.3031 42.1509 4.4081 62.0171 35.0786 0.1897
95th
Percentile 64.4408 44.8843 52.6314 25.2542 56.6969 64.3491 21.5919 81.9829 50.9214 3.6601

Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 display the average, standard deviation, 5th percentile, and 95th
percentile of the corresponding measurements from 4 male and 4 female users. Since the sample
size for each gender is less than 30, the t-distribution was utilized. The t-values to be used for the
ranges — 5th and 95th percentiles — were -2.353 and 2.353 respectively. From there, the formula
to compute for the 5th and 95th percentiles is as follows:
𝑋(𝑝) = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 + 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∗ (±2.353)

B. Designs
The following figures represent the current and proposed measurements for male
and female users. Moreover, the basis for the proposed measurements is the anthropometric
data average acquired from the 8 test subjects.

Figure 3.1. Current Chair with Measurements

 Figure 3.2. Proposed Chair with Measurements for Male Users

Figure 3.3. Proposed Chair with Measurements for Female Users

Figure 4.1. Current Computer Table with Measurements

Figure 4.2. Proposed Computer Table with Measurements for Male Users
 Figure 4.3. Proposed Computer Table with Measurements for Female Users

Figure 5.1. Current Computer Workstation with Measurements

Figure 5.2. Proposed Computer Workstation with Measurements for Male Users
 Figure 5.3. Proposed Computer Workstation with Measurements for Female Users

IV. Discussion
A. Is the design desirable for the selected subjects? Do all the users fit in the workstation?
The following tables show the comparison of each element of the current workstation with
the anthropometric data of female and male users. The standard measurement value range used
was the 5th to 95th percentile calculated.

Table 2.1. Current Chair Measurements with the Anthropometric Data of Male Users (in cm)

Workstation Measurement Standard Measurement Anthropometric Is the standard

Measurements Values Value Range Measurements met?

Seat Height 45cm 36.696cm - 52.3040cm Popliteal Height YES

Seat Width 46cm 24.5474cm - 46.4526cm Sitting hip breath YES

Height of Backrest 54cm 55.6018cm - 65.3982cm Sitting Shoulder NO

Height

Elbow Rest Height of 19cm 15.3615cm - 25.5385cm Elbow Height YES

the Chair
Table 2.1 shows the current chair measurements which was compared to the male user
anthropometric data. Based on the results, there were 3 out of 4 standards were met. The height of
the backrest was the only factor that was not within the range for male users.

Table 2.2. Current Chair Measurements with the Anthropometric Data of Female Users (in cm)

Workstation Measurement Standard Measurement Anthropometric Is the standard

Measurements Values Value Range Measurements met?
 Seat Height 45cm 40.865cm - 52.3040cm Popliteal Height YES

Seat Width 46cm 20.3686cm - 52.6314cm Sitting hip breath YES

Height of Backrest 54cm 49.5592cm - 64.4408cm Sitting Shoulder YES

Height

Elbow Rest Height of 19cm 18.4958cm - 25.2542cm Elbow Height YES

the Chair

On the other hand, Table 2.2 shows the current chair measurements in comparison to the
female user anthropometric data. It can be seen that the standard was met for all workstation
measurements. With this being said, it is desirable for the female subjects since the users fit the
workstation.

Table 3.1. Current Table Measurements with the Anthropometric Data of Male Users (in cm)

Workstation Measurement Standard Measurement Anthropometric Is the standard

Measurements Values Value Range Measurements met?

Table Height 73cm 52.0575cm - 77.8426cm Popliteal Height + YES

Elbow Height

Table Depth 58cm 48.041cm - 69.2081cm Buttock Knee YES

Length

Table Width 119cm ≥ 55.6131cm Shoulder Breadth YES

Table 3.2. Current Table Measurements with the Anthropometric Data of Female Users (in cm)

Workstation Measurement Standard Measurement Anthropometric Is the standard

Measurements Values Value Range Measurements met?

Table Height 73cm 59.3615cm - 70.1385cm Popliteal Height + NO

Elbow Height

Table Depth 58cm 42.1509cm - 64.3491cm Buttock Knee YES

Length

Table Width 119cm ≥ 50.9214cm Shoulder Breadth YES

Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 exhibit the measurements from the table along with its
corresponding anthropometric data from both male and female. Based on the tables, almost all the
standard measurements were met for both genders. The table height was the only measurement
that was not within the range of female users. With regards to the table width, it is still considered
acceptable if it is at least the 95th percentile value.

Table 4.1. Current Computer Workstation Measurements with the Anthropometric Data of Male Users (in
cm)

Workstation Measurement Standard Measurement Anthropometric Is the standard

Measurements Values Value Range Measurements met?

Screen Height 122cm 109.9918cm - 134.5082cm Sitting Eye Height YES

+ Popliteal Height

Keyboard Height 77cm 52.0575cm - 77.8425cm Sitting Elbow YES

Height + Popliteal
Height

Mouse Height 2.65cm ≤ 5.4576cm Grip Breadth YES

Table 4.2. Current Computer Workstation Measurements with the Anthropometric Data of Female Users
(in cm)

Workstation Measurement Standard Measurement Anthropometric Is the standard

Measurements Values Value Range Measurements met?

Screen height 122cm 102.8828cm - 126.8672cm Sitting Eye Height YES

+ Popliteal Height

Keyboard height 77cm 59.3615cm - 70.1385cm Sitting Elbow NO

Height + Popliteal
Height

Mouse Height 2.65cm ≤ 3.6601cm Grip Breadth YES

Lastly, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 gives the measurements gathered from the computer
workstation along with the anthropometric data of the users. Only the keyboard height, in
comparison to the anthropometric data of female users, show a value that is not within its range.
As for the mouse height, the measurement acquired is acceptable because it is less than the 95th
percentile value.

B. What problems might be encountered by the users of this workstation design?

For the current chair design, the height of the backrest does not conform to the minimum
height requirement of males given the gathered anthropometric data. The 5th percentile of the
measurements is 55.6018 cm while the backrest of the chair design only measures to 54 cm. Note
that the main function of a backrest is to support the spine. Knowing that the backrest did not meet
the minimum standard, the back is not fully supported. Back pain, neck pain, and poor posture are
already common phenomena in prolonged sitting (Malanga, n.d.), and this chair design might just
enhance these problems. Other health concerns such as incontinence, constipation, heartburn, and
digestive problems may occur in the case of prolonged poor posture (Harvard Health, 2018). In
addition, studies (Grondin, 2013; Valachi, 2017) have already shown a decrease in these problems
with the use of lumbar support devices. This entails a backrest design supporting the natural
lordosis of the spine. The current design does not have a support mechanism dedicated to the
lumbar region of the spine.
The height of the current computer table does not satisfy the height requirement for the
female population of this study. The current computer design goes over the 95th percentile of the
female population where an increment of approximately 3cm is shown. The optimal table height
should allow the user’s forearm and upper arm to form a 90 degree angle. This will certainly be
impossible for the female population unless an adjustable chair or pillow and footrest will be
utilized to increase the height of the individual. Due to this problem, arm pain, shoulder pain, and
neck complications may occur to the lower end of the population (Asher, 2020).
The height of the keyboard in the current computer workstation design appears not to be
up to standards given the gathered anthropometric data for the female population. This is in relation
to the computer table height mentioned in the previous paragraph. Similar musculoskeletal
problems will also be experienced for the lower end of the population due to unsuitable keyboard
height.

V. Recommendations
Since there are certain workstation measurements that were considered undesirable for a
given gender, corrective actions may be needed to address the issue and avoid possible risks
associated with safety and health. For an average male user utilizing the workstation, the backrest
may be considered as inadequate in fully supporting his lumbar region. As such, it is advisable that
the chair be replaced with one that has a greater backrest height of at least 55.60 cm to
accommodate males that are in the 5th percentile and above. On the contrary, for an average
female, difficulties may be encountered with the height of the table in the workstation. Given the
experimental data, the current table’s height may be considered as too high for females belonging
in the 95th percentile and below. To address this issue, it would be beneficial if the table is replaced
with one that is shorter, preferably in the range of 59.36 cm to 70.14 cm, to be able to accommodate
females belonging in the 5th to 95th percentile.

VI. Conclusion
The chair, computer table, and computer workstation (computer and mouse) were the 3
elements assessed in this experiment. The current measurements were compared with the
anthropometric data of the users for each gender so as to see if it was desirable or not. The results
showed that there were designs that were not desirable for certain test subjects. Specifically for the
chair, the height of the backrest did not meet the standards for the male subject. As for the table
and the height and workstation's keyboard height, it did not meet the standards for the female
subjects. With this being said, the users may feel uncomfortable if they continue to use the object
without making some adjustments. Given this, the proposed designs were scaled to suit the user in
the workstation. Furthermore, these ergonomic designs will provide more comfort and better
usability to the people, lessening risks associated with their health and safety.

VII. Bibliography
Asher, A. (2020). Got the Office Worker's Scrunch? Retrieved from
https://www.verywellhealth.com/desk-height-and-neck-pain-296794
Grondin, D. E., Triano, J. J., Tran, S., & Soave, D. (2013). The effect of a lumbar support pillow
on lumbar posture and comfort during a prolonged seated task. Chiropractic & Manual
Therapies, 21(1). doi:10.1186/2045-709x-21-21
Harvard Health. (2018). 3 surprising risks of poor posture. Retrieved from
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/3-surprising-risks-of-poor-posture
Taifa, I. W., & Desai, D. A. (2017). Anthropometric measurements for ergonomic design of
students’ furniture in India. Engineering Science and Technology, an International
Journal, 20(1), 232-239. doi:10.1016/j.jestch.2016.08.004
Khayal, O. (2019). Industrial Guide to Ergonomics Engineering. doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.13522.71366
Malanga, G. (n.d.). Sitting Disease and Its Impact on Your Spine. Retrieved from
https://www.spineuniverse.com/wellness/ergonomics/sitting-disease-its-impact-your-spine
 Openshaw, S., & Taylor, E. (2006). Ergonomics and Design: A Reference Guide. Retrieved from
https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/sites/ehs.oregonstate.edu/files/pdf/ergo/ergonomicsanddesi
gnreferenceguidewhitepaper.pdf
Valachi, B. (2017). Backrests and your health: What does the research say? Retrieved from
https://www.dentalproductsreport.com/view/backrests-and-your-health-what-does-
research-say

VIII. Appendix
Table 5.1. Anthropometric Data (in cm) of Male Users
Sitting Buttock- Buttock
Popliteal Sitting Hip Elbow Thigh Sitting Eye Shoulder Grip
Shoulder Popliteal Knee
Height Breadth Height Clearance Height Breadth breadth
Height Length Length

1 58 40 30 20 43 52 15 75 42 4.8

2 61 47 34 23 47 62 12 78 48 5.1

3 63 44 37 21 50 60 15 79 51 5.2

4 60 47 41 17.8 48.5 60.5 16.2 79 45 5.1

Average 60.5 44.5 35.5 20.45 47.125 58.625 14.55 77.75 46.5 5.05
Standard
Deviation 2.0817 3.3166 4.6547 2.1626 3.0104 4.4977 1.7916 1.8930 3.8730 0.1732
36.696
5th Percentile 55.6018 0 24.5474 15.3615 40.0415 48.0419 10.3343 73.2958 37.3869 4.6424
52.304
95th Percentile 65.3982 0 46.4526 25.5385 54.2085 69.2081 18.7657 82.2042 55.6131 5.4576

Table 5.2. Anthropometric Data (in cm) of Female Users

Sitting Sitting Buttock- Buttock

Popliteal Elbow Thigh Sitting Eye Shoulder Grip
Shoulder Hip Popliteal Knee
Height Height Clearance Height Breadth breadth
Height Breadth Length Length

1 59 43 32 22 47 53 9 71 44 3.3

2 56 42 31 20 40 50 11 71 39 3

3 60 44 46 22 51 60 17 78 47 3.4

4 53 42.5 37 23.5 46 50 15 68 42 3

Average 57 42.875 36.5 21.875 46 53.25 13 72 43 3.175

Standard
Deviation 3.1623 0.8539 6.8557 1.4361 4.5461 4.7170 3.6515 4.2426 3.3665 0.2062

5th Percentile 49.5592 40.8657 20.3686 18.4958 35.3031 42.1509 4.4081 62.0171 3.3040 0.1897
95th Percentile 64.4408 44.8843 52.6314 25.2542 56.6969 64.3491 21.5919 81.9829 50.9214 3.6601