J. Human Ergol.

, 38: 27-32, 2009

Communications

A STUDY OF ANTHROPOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN

MALAYSIAN AND SAUDI ARABIAN MALES AGED 20 TO 30 YEARS
ZAHARI TAHA1*, IBRAHIM M. JOMOAH2, HILMA RAIMONA ZADRY1
1
Dept. Engineering Design and Manufacture, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*Email: zahari_taha@um.edu.my
2
King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

This study presents a comparison of the anthropometric characteristics of 241 Malaysian

and 646 Saudi Arabian males aged 20 to 30 years. The mean values, standard deviation
(SD), and 5th and 95th percentile values of 26 measurements and 22 proportions of each
group were given. The results showed that there were significant differences in a number of
body dimensions between these populations, except for eye height and elbow height (stand-
ing) and height, eye height, shoulder height, and elbow height (sitting). These results are
important for the ergonomic design of workstations, personal protective equipment, tools,
interface systems and furniture: The presented data may be useful for providing a safer,
more productive and user-friendly workplace for Malaysian and Saudi Arabian populations.
Key words: Anthropometric data; Malaysian male; Saudi Arabian male; ethnic difference

INTRODUCTION

Anthropometric data are very important for product designing and other applications (Lin et al.,
2004). As for product designing, it is indispensable to know the body dimensions of the potential
users and factory workers. There is a good reason to obtain the correct dimensional information on
both users and workers since many accidents are caused by incorrect product sizes that do not fit in
with the users’ and workers’ dimensions, and since health problems such as musculoskeletal, visual,
and circulatory diseases are associated with the lack of dimensional fitness.
Because of these reasons, many countries have made great efforts in establish an anthropometric
database for different population groups such as civilians (Klamklay et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2004;
Kadambande et al., 2006), military personnel (Yokota, 2005), athletes (Reeves et al. 1999; Ridge et
al. 2004), students (Ghazilla et al. 2000; Prado-Leon et al. 2001), and workers (Barroso et al., 2005;
Bolstad et al., 2001; Prado-Lu, 2007). Some researches were also conducted comparing anthropomet-
ric data between different countries (Kadambande et al., 2006; Reeves et al., 1999), ethnic groups
(Lin et al, 2004), normal population and athletes (Uth, 2005) and different reference-standards (Al-
Nuaim and Bamgboye, 1998). All these studies have aimed at designing products or workplaces fit
with the users’ dimensions.
Ethnic diversity is always a significant factor that may relate to differences in the body dimen-
sions and the scopes of their applications. Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are two countries greatly sepa-
rated geographically. Moreover, these two countries are quite different from the genetic point of
view. Malaysians consist of three ethnic groups of Malays, Chinese and Indians, while the main
group in Saudi Arabian is Arabians. Their natural environments are also quite different: one is in the
tropical forest rain zone and the other is in the hot and dry desert zone. Only one common feature of
the peoples in both countries is their sociocultural/religious background: the majority of the peoples
are Moslems. It is possible that they have different anthropometric characteristics due to genetic dif-
Received 29 July 2008; accepted 16 Jun 2009.
28 Z. TAHA et al.

ferences. The aim of this study was therefore to define the differences in anthropometric characteris-
tics between Malaysian and Saudi Arabian males.

METHODS

Two groups of subjects were measured. The first group was the Malaysian male workers, and
their anthropometric measurements were conducted in 2001 by the Centre of Product Design and
Manufacturing (CPDM), Faculty of the Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia. The second
group was the Saudi Arabian male workers, and their anthropometric measurements were conducted
by King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The subject samples were collected randomly
using a multi-stage sampling technique. Socio-demographic data such as occupation, family back-
ground and past medical history data were obtained by a self-administered questionnaire.
Two hundred and forty-one Malaysian male workers aged 20 to 30 years were from large and
medium-sized industries in Malaysia. The subjects having Malay parents born in Malaysia only were
included in this study. The reason why the Malays were chosen among various peoples in Malaysia is
that they are the largest ethnic group, i.e. 58% of the Malaysian population. The second largest group
is Chinese amounting to 26% of the population; Indian descendants amounting to 7%, and other
groups account together for the remaining 9% of the Malaysians. The reason why the factory workers
were chosen is that approximately 35% of active population in Malaysia worked in factories (ILO,
2002). Six large and medium-sized factories of automobile, electronics, chemical and other sectors in
the Peninsula of Malaysia collaborated on the data collection.
The Saudi Arabian subjects were 646 males from two states, Al Ula and Taif. Their ages were
also between 20 to 30 years. The sample is representative of various socioeconomic strata in this
country. Anthropometric data collection was executed by house-to-house visits.
The measuring methods were based on Pheasant (1996) and ISO-7250 (1996), and the standard
apparatus for anthropometry were used such as a measuring tape, calipers and an anthropometer. The
following 26 measurements were obtained. The right side was chosen for the measurements on the
limbs:
1. Weight (kg): with the subject dressed in undershorts, measured to the nearest kilograms on
spring platform scale.
2. Height, standing: vertical distance from the floor to the top of the head.
3. Eye height, standing: vertical distance from the floor to the level of the inner corner of the right
eye.
4. Shoulder height, standing: vertical distance from the floor to the right acromion.
5. Elbow height, standing: vertical distance from the floor to the right elbow with the flexed arm.
6. Waist height, standing: vertical distance from the floor to the top of the right hip bone.
7. Hip breadth, standing: maximum breadth across the hips.
8. Sitting height: vertical distance from table surface where subject sits to the top of the head.
9. Eye height, sitting: vertical distance from the table surface where subject sits to the level of the
inner corner of the right eye.
10. Shoulder height, sitting: vertical distance from the table surface where the subject sits to the
right acromion.
11. Shoulder-elbow length, sitting: with the right arm held to form a right angle at the elbow, meas-
ured as distance from the elbow to the acromion.
12. Shoulder breadth, sitting: maximum breadth across the shoulders, including upper arm muscles.
13. Elbow height, sitting: vertical distance from the table surface where the subject sits to the right
elbow with the flexed arm.
14. Forearm-hand length, sitting: distance from the back of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger,
with the right arm held to form a right angle at the elbow and with the hand extended.
15. Buttock-knee length, sitting: horizontal distance from the rearmost projection of the buttock
 ANTHROPOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MALAYSIAN AND SAUDIARABIAN MALES 29

while the subject sits, to the front of the kneecap.

16. Buttock-popliteal length, sitting: horizontal distance from the rearmost projection of the buttock
while the subject sits to the underside of the tendon of the right biceps femoris muscle
(popliteal).
17. Knee height, sitting: vertical distance from the surface of the footrest to the top of the right knee.
18. Popliteal height, sitting: vertical distance from the surface of the footrest to the underside of the
tendon of the right biceps femoris muscle (popliteal).
19. Chest circumference, standing: circumference of the chest during normal breathing, with the
tape at the level of the nipples.
20. Waist circumference, standing: circumference at the level of the umbilicus, with the abdomen
relaxed.
21. Head length: maximum length of the head from the middle of the forehead just above the eyes to
the back of the head.
22. Head breadth: maximum breadth of the head above and behind the ears.
23. Hand length: distance from the palmar carpal ligament to the tip of the middle finger.
24. Hand breadth: with the right hand extended with the palm up, measured as the maximum
breadth across the base of the fingers (metacarpal-phalangeal joint).
25. Foot length, standing: direct distance from the back of the right heel to the tip of the longest toe.
26. Foot breadth, standing: maximum breadth of the right foot.
Descriptive statistics and the independent t-test were conducted using the Statistical Package for
the Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 for processing the anthropometric data.

RESULTS

Mean values, standard deviations (SD), 5%tile and 95%tile values of the Malaysian and Saudi
Arabian male groups, and the results of the t-test between these groups are presented in Table 1. The
results of t-test in the table showed that there were significant differences in most of the body dimen-
sions between the Malaysian and Saudi Arabian males. Namely, the Saudi Arabians were significant-
ly greater than the Malaysians for heights and weight, circumferences and hand and foot measure-
ments. For eye height, elbow height, and shoulder height sitting, however, the Saudi Arabians were
greater than Malaysians without statistically significant difference. On the contrary, Malaysians were
significantly greater than Saudi Arabians for shoulder-elbow length, head length and breadth and foot
length.
Table 2 present body proportions calculated on each mean value to mean height in the
Malaysian and Saudi Arabian subjects, independently.

DISCUSSION

The largest differences of these anthropometric data between the Malaysian and Saudi Arabian
populations were found in weight and waist circumference. The difference in weight was almost 9 kg
(p<0.01), while that in waist circumference was about 11 cm (p<0.01) between both populations.
Lean et al. (1995) reported that the waist circumference is a good measurement indicating the need
for weight management, because waist circumference has strong correlation with weight.
Body mass index (BMI), which is defined as weight (kg)/height (m)2, was calculated for each
subject in the Malaysian and Saudi Arabian populations. The mean BMI was 22.9 in the Malaysians
and 24.8 in the Saudi Arabians. Both mean values were close to each other, and remain in the normal
range of BMI.
Al-Nuaim (1997) and El-Hazmi and Warsy (1997) found a high prevalence of overweight and
obesity in the Saudi Arabian population. The results in this study that the Saudi Arabian males of age
30 Z. TAHA et al.

Table 1. Descriptive statistic and independent t-test results of Malaysian and Saudi Arabian males aged 20-30
years (n malaysia = 241, n Saudi Arabia = 646).

20s had significantly greater weight and BMI than the Malaysian counterparts support well these
authors’ results. The differences between the Malaysians and Saudi Arabians can be attributed to the
lifestyle difference such as social, cultural, and religious behaviours including dietary habits and the
economic level. Saudi Arabia is an oil-producing country that has the long history of adopting west-
ern lifestyles. Especially, Saudi Arabians’ dietary habits, i.e. liking for meat, soft drinks, sweets, and
fast food, may relate to produce the different physical characteristics from Malaysians.
The data of the studied groups were compared with those of Japanese and white American male
student groups reported by Nakanishi and Nethery (1999). Results of the comparison of weight,
height, sitting height, shoulder-elbow distance, chest circumference, and foot length among these
four groups are given in Figure 1.
Anthropologically, the Malaysians and Japanese are classified into the Mongoloid population
while Saudi Arabians and white Americans are classified as Caucasoid population. We observed in
this figure that the Malaysians and Japanese are lighter in weight than the Saudi Arabians and white
Americans. The Malaysians are the smallest in height and chest circumference among these four
groups. The group showing the greatest body size was the white Americans. However, it is interest-
ing to observe that the Japanese height, sitting height, shoulder-elbow length and foot length
appeared to be greater than the Saudi Arabians. This may be attributed to the socioeconomic
improvement of Japan according to the industrialization after World War II. This social change
brought the westernization of lifestyles, especially of dietary habits in addition to the traditional ones.
We have also to notice the difference of social strata of the Saudi Arabians and Japanese; they were
 ANTHROPOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MALAYSIAN AND SAUDIARABIAN MALES 31

Table 2. The body proportions to the mean stature of Malaysian and Saudi Arabian
males aged 20-30 years (n malaysia = 241, n Saudi Arabia = 646).

Fig. 1. Comparison of some anthropometric data between Malaysian, Saudi Arabian, Japanese and
American males for 20-30 years.
32 Z. TAHA et al.

factory workers in the former, and the university students in the latter.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-six body measurements of the Malaysian and Saudi Arabian male factory workers aged
20 to 30 years were obtained. These data will provide a great value for the design of workstations,
tools and protective equipment in both countries. However, we have to notice that they are static
anthropometric data. To be useful for practical designing of workstations, tools and so on, further
investigation including functional anthropometry has to be carried out. Moreover, more expended age
ranges, females, and subjects with different occupations have to be investigated to obtain appropriate
information for ergonomic design.

REFERENCES

Al-Nuaim, AR (1997) Population-based epidemiological study of the prevalence of overweight and obesity in Saudi Arabia,
regional variation. Ann. Saudi Med., 17: 195-199.
Al-Nuaim, AR and Bamgboye, EA (1998) Comparison of the Anthropometry of Saudi Arabian Male Children Aged 6-11
Years with the NCHS/CDC Reference Population. Med. Princ. Pract., 7: 96-103.
Barroso, MP, Arezes, PM, da Costa, LG, and Miguel, AS (2005) Anthropometric study of Portuguese workers. Int. J. Ind.
Ergon., 35: 401-410.
Bolstad, G, Benum, B, and Rokne, A (2001) Anthropometry of Norwegian light industry and office workers. Appl. Ergon.,
32: 239-246.
El-Hazmi, MAF Md and Warsy, AS Md. (1997) Prevalence of Obesity in the Saudi Population. Ann. Saudi Med., 17: 302-
306.
Ghazilla, RAR, Taha, Z, Rashid, SHA, Iskandar, Nazaruddin, and Sajeli, SH (2000) Calssroom furniture and student body
dimensions in East Malaysia Primary Schools. Indones Psychol. J., 21: 161-168.
ILO-International Labour Organization (2002). Decent Work and the Informal Economy. Report VI of the International
Labour Conference, 90th Session, Geneva: ILO. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/infeco/ilc2002.htm.
ISO 7250:1996 Basic human body measurements for technological design. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnum-
ber=13903
Kadambande, S, Khurana, A, Debnath, U, Bansal, M and Hariharan, K (2006). The Foot, 16: 188-191.
Klamklay, J, Sungkhapong, A, Yodpijit, N and Patterson, PE (2008) Anthropometry of the southern Thai Population. Int. J.
Ind. Ergon., 38: 111-118.
Lean, ME, Han, TS, and Morrison, CE (1995) Waist circumference as a measure for indicating need for weight management.
BMJ, 311: 158-61.
Lin, Y, Wang, MJ, and Wang, EM (2004) The comparisons of anthropometric characteristics among four peoples in East
Asia. Appl. Ergon., 35: 173-178.
Nakanishi, Y and Nethery, V (1999) Anthropometric Comparison between Japanese and Caucasian American Male
University Students. Appl. Human Sci.: J. Physiol.Anthropol., 18: 9-11.
Pheasant, S (1996) Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design of Work. Taylor & Francis, New York.
Prado-Leon, LR, Avila-Chaurand, R, and Gonzalez-Munoz, EL (2001) Anthropometric study of Mexican primary school
children. Appl. Ergon., 32: 339-345.
Prado-Lu, JLD (2007) Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 37: 497-503.
Reeves, SL, Poh, BK, Brown, M, Tizzard, NH, and Ismail, MN (1999) Anthropometric measurements and body composition
of English and Malaysia Footballers. Mal. J. Nutr., 5: 79-86.
Ridge, B, Papalia, S, and Honeysett, D (2004) Anthropometry and physical performance of talented adolescent athletes in a
sports high school setting adolescent athletes in a sports high school setting. J. Sci. Med. Sport, 7: 17.
Uth, N (2005) Anthropometric comparison of world-class Sprinters and normal populations. J. Sports Sci. Med., 4: 608-616.
Yokota, M (2005) Head and facial anthropometry of mixed-race US Army male soldiers for military design and sizing: A
pilot study. Appl. Ergon., 36: 379-383.