Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 9, Issue 2 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2021)
Iran J Ergon 2021, 9(2): 17-29 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ilbeigi S, Ebrahimi M, Afzalpour M E, Moazeni H. Do the Ergonomic Characteristics of Armpit and Aviation Park Sports Equipment Fits with the Anthropometric Parameters of Male Users?. Iran J Ergon 2021; 9 (2) :17-29
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-823-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-823-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Sports Biomechanics, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran , silbeigi@birjand.ac.ir
2- MSc, Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
3- Professor, Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
2- MSc, Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
3- Professor, Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
Abstract: (6036 Views)
Background & Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the ergonomics of armpits and aviators outdoor (park) based on anthropometry parameters of male users.
Methods: Among male users of these outdoor park equipment, 120 people from Tehran and in the age range over 20 years (48.38±16.27) were selected as a sample. The research variables were the dimensions of the devices and the anthropometry of the male users. The plumb line, engineering meter, ruler, goniometer and static anthropometer kit (caliper) were used to measure the dimensions of the devices and the anthropometry of the users (according to Pheasant instructions). Then, according to the standards of ergonomics and bodybuilding, the science of motor biomechanics and the way of installation on the devices, the fit of the devices was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data and single-group t-test (parametric statistics) and binomial statistics (non-parametric statistics) were used to test the hypotheses.
Results: The results showed that there was a significant difference between most of the desired dimensions of the devices with the relevant and optimal dimensions of users (P value<0.05). Therefore, from the anthropometric point of view, these devices are not ergonomic for male users, and it is necessary to adopt a method for the standardization of these devices.
Conclusion: Most dimensions of underarms and outdoor aviators are not ergonomic from the anthropometric point of view of male users. This mismatch can lead to complications and physical injuries to users. Therefore, users should be careful when using these devices and avoid working with devices that do not fit their physical dimensions.
Methods: Among male users of these outdoor park equipment, 120 people from Tehran and in the age range over 20 years (48.38±16.27) were selected as a sample. The research variables were the dimensions of the devices and the anthropometry of the male users. The plumb line, engineering meter, ruler, goniometer and static anthropometer kit (caliper) were used to measure the dimensions of the devices and the anthropometry of the users (according to Pheasant instructions). Then, according to the standards of ergonomics and bodybuilding, the science of motor biomechanics and the way of installation on the devices, the fit of the devices was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data and single-group t-test (parametric statistics) and binomial statistics (non-parametric statistics) were used to test the hypotheses.
Results: The results showed that there was a significant difference between most of the desired dimensions of the devices with the relevant and optimal dimensions of users (P value<0.05). Therefore, from the anthropometric point of view, these devices are not ergonomic for male users, and it is necessary to adopt a method for the standardization of these devices.
Conclusion: Most dimensions of underarms and outdoor aviators are not ergonomic from the anthropometric point of view of male users. This mismatch can lead to complications and physical injuries to users. Therefore, users should be careful when using these devices and avoid working with devices that do not fit their physical dimensions.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2021/06/20 | Accepted: 2021/08/18 | ePublished: 2021/09/21
Received: 2021/06/20 | Accepted: 2021/08/18 | ePublished: 2021/09/21
References
1. Entezari A. The role of park sports equipment in the health of citizens. 2009. [Google Scholar]
2. Gavial MK, Boudolos K. Match between school furniture dimension and children's anthropometry. Appl Ergon. 2006;37(6):765-73. [DOI]
3. Nejatiyan M. The role of park sports equipment in the health of citizens. 2009.
4. Manouchehri H, Moradpour P, Mououdi MA, Aga-Rafiei E. Designing Ergonomic Furniture Based on Students Anthropometry Attributes; College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran. Iran J Ergon. 2020;8(3):70-84. [DOI]
5. Fellow C. Total Skiing. Human Kinetics. Paper Book 264 pages. 2011.
6. Reilly T. Physical fitness-for whom and for what?. InSport for all. Proceedings of the World Congress on Sport for all, held in Tampere, Finland, 3-7 June 1990. 1991 (pp. 81-88). Elsevier Science Publishers BV. [Google Scholar]
7. Zangi Abadi A, Tajik Z, Gholami Y. Analysis of the spatial distribution of the sports furniture and its impact on citizen satisfaction -2010. Geog Environ Studies. 2(3);15-20.
8. Ivanz N. Body Building Anatomy, Translated by: Sabet P. Tehran, Bamdad Publication. 2010, 2nd Edition. [Google Scholar]
9. Tondnevis F. Kinesiology. Tehran: Teacher Training Tehran University Publication. 2004. [Google Scholar]
10. Ghobadi Ansroudi K, Farajpour b, Asadi Nia M. Powerlifting. Bamdad Book Publishing. 2006:31-39.
11. Pheasant S. Human, Anthropometry, Ergonomic and Design, Translated by: Choobineh A, Moedi M. Tehran, Markaz Publication. 1997, 4th Edition.
12. Jonidi JA, Sadeghi F. Determination of Static Anthropometrical in Labors 20-60 Years old. J Health Manag. 2009;32:11. [Google Scholar]
13. Habibi E, Hajsalehi E. Anthropometric assessment for designing primary school classroom desk and bench size. J Health Sys Res. 2011;6(2):186-93. [Google Scholar]
14. Bayat Kashkooli A, Nazerian M. The determination of the size of the chair students and compare with a chair in used. J Wood Sci. 2012;4(26):772-84. [Google Scholar]
15. Woodson WE, Tillman B, Tillman PL. Human factor design, United States and Canada: McGraw-Hill. 1992, 2nd Edition.
16. Motamed Zadeh M. Design and Structure of Ergonomic Chair appropriate to Anthropometrical Parameters in Iranian People, Zanjan. Med Sci Univ Publ. 2010;68(17):45-52. [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
