International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics


j our nal h omepage: ww w. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ ergon




Hand anthropometry of the Colombian oriculture workers of the Bogota plateau

Rafael Guillermo Garca-Cceres
a,
*
, Sarah Felknor
a,1
, Jorge E. Crdoba
b
, Juan P. Caballero
b
,
Lope H. Barrero
b


a
Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniera Julio Garavito, School of Engineering, Ak 45 No 205-59, Building C Second oor Bogot, Cundinamarca Colombia
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, Ponticia Universidad Javeriana, Bogot, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 4 February 2010
Received in revised form
7 October 2011
Accepted 13 December 2011
Available online 27 January 2012

Keywords:
Hand anthropometry
Tool design
Agriculture
Floriculture
Female workers
a b s t r a c t

The use of hand tools that t users characteristics is essential for task productivity and prevention of
musculoskeletal disorders in industry. In Colombia, workers in the oriculture industry use a wide range
of hand tools in cultivation tasks. However, little is known about the correspondence between the
employed tools and hand dimensions of this population. The present article studies the hand anthro-
pometry (HA) of a sample of 120 adult female workers of the Colombian ower industry located in the
Bogota plateau. In total thirty-three HA measures were studied. A survey of the tasks and hand tools used
in this population was also conducted. Detailed descriptive statistics were estimated for the assessed HA
measures; and a comparative statistical analysis with other worker female populations reported in the
literature was conducted. We found that the surveyed oriculture workers are systematically using tools
with dimensions that do not adequately t their HA and that may impose unnecessary mechanical loads
to the users. HA in the present study population appear to be signicantly different from other
populations HA, which suggest the need to promote the acquisition, design or re-design of manual tools
specically thought for this working population.
Relevance to industry: Hand anthropometry is a necessary input for tool design that promotes task
productivity and workers health. The detailed HA information presented in this study can be used by
tool manufacturers to design tools that are suitable for workers of the Colombian oriculture industry.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


1. Introduction and background

There is ample evidence in the literature linking anthropo-
metrically unadapted manual tools and implements to musculo-
skeletal injuries and disorders resulting from cumulative trauma,
fatigue and biomechanical stress (Aghazadeh and Mital, 1987;
Moore et al., 1991; Kelly et al., 1995; Botha and Bridger, 1998;
Gordon and Weinstein, 1998; Sjgaard and Sgaard, 1998; Keir and
Wells, 1999; Chao et al., 2000; Sande et al., 2001; Mirka et al., 2002;
Boyles et al., 2003). A surveillance study conducted by NIOSH
(1993) reported that musculoskeletal injuries accounted for 24%
of all injuries caused by power and non-power hand tools.
However, this estimate is probably low compared to what the
actual situation of a worker population in a developing country
could be.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 571 6683600; fax: 571 6762340.
E-mail addresses: rafael.garcia@escuelaing.edu.co (R.G. Garca-Cceres),
SFelknor@cdc.gov (S. Felknor).
1
Associate Director for Research Integration and Extramural Performance,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-E-20, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States.
Tel.: 1 404 498 2530 (Ofce), 1 404 498 1354 (Direct).
The evidence on the relationship between musculoskeletal
injuries and disorders resulting from cumulative trauma and
occupational risk factors is supported in biomechanics, which
relates the Hand Anthropometry (HA) of an individual with the
mechanical demands associated with the use of a hand tool (Grant
et al., 1992; Rempel et al., 1997; Kattel et al., 1996; Martin et al.,
1996; Imrhan and Farahmand, 1999; Gerard et al., 1999; Radwin
et al., 2002; Radwin and Jeng, 1997; Espaa-Romero et al., 2008).
Some reported occupational risk factors accounting for upper limb
cumulative trauma disorders (CTD) are: hands held in xed posi-
tion over long periods; repetitive exertions and motion with exed
or hyperextended hand or wrist; pressure at the base of the palm;
persistent strain, gripping, jolting, vibration; forearm pronation or
supination; and extreme hand and wrist postures, among others
(Armstrong and Silverstein, 1987). These risk factors can produce
internal reactions within the workers upper limb such as
compression of nerves, deformation of tissues or decreased circu-
lation (Martin et al., 1996). Examples of resulting diseases are:
tenosynovitis, tendinitis, DeQuervains syndrome, peritendinitis,
carpal tunnel syndrome, ulnar nerve entrapment, perineural
brosis, posterior interosseous nerve syndrome, and trigger nger
(Armstrong and Silverstein, 1987; Moore and Garg, 1994).

0169-8141/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2011.12.002
184
184
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 184
184


Previous studies have veried, for example, the relation
between hand anthropometry and maximum pinch strength
(Eksioglu et al., 1996); hand anthropometry and optimal grip-span
for maximum grip force (Eksioglu, 2004); hand anthropometry,
tool design and productivity (Eksioglu, 2006); hand anthropometry
and optimal cylindrical handle diameter for maximal torque
strength (Imrhan and Farahmand, 1999); hand anthropometry and
optimal cylindrical handle diameter for maximal grip strength
(Grant et al., 1992), and nally, hand anthropometry and optimal
workerest cycles for an isometric intermittent gripping task as
a function of force, posture and grip-span (Eksioglu, 2006).
According to Norris and Wilson (1997), among other authors, the
design of safe tools and implements requires anthropometric data
as an essential input. In sum, this information is considered
a fundamental reference for those involved in the development and
manufacture of manual tools and in the selection of appropriate
manual implements for specic tasks and populations. Thus, with
the aim of contributing to the prevention of distal disorders, the
present work not only compares the HA of the oriculture worker
population of the Bogota plateau to those of reference populations
reported in the literature, but describes the tools utilized by these
workers as well.
There has been an important amount of work regarding hand
anthropometry worldwide. The Table 1 contains general descrip-
tions of some of the most relevant works that have included
measures on hand anthropometry. We could only nd two local
studies on HA (Ruiz, 2001; Estrada, 1995) although one of these
studies included only children (Ruiz, 2001). In turn, the work of
Estrada constitutes the most complete reference on anthropometry
of Colombian workers. Yet, it does not focus on a specic body
member, as is the case of the present survey, with which it only has
six anthropometric hand measures in common. Also, it is notable
that there are only a few efforts aimed at establishing a detailed
assessment of HA of a female population. Furthermore, only two of
the studies correspond to agricultural workers (Okunribido, 2000;
Kar et al., 2003); and only one of them is most comparable to our
study population based on the age range of the persons included in
the sample (Kar et al., 2003).
In the present work, we also compared HA of our population to
HA other populations of women that have similar age distributions
(Dewangan et al., 2008; Estrada, 1995; Kar et al., 2003; Mandahawi
et al., 2008; Nag et al., 2003; Imrhan et al., 1993). The number of
anthropometric measures included in the study is only exceeded by
those reported by Garrett (1971) and Nag et al. (2003). Regarding
female population sample size, the present research is only over-
come by those of Dewangan et al. (2008) and Estrada (1995),
although we included many more anthropometric measures, and it
can be considered to be specic of the oriculture worker pop-
ulation of the Cundinamarca region of Colombia.


2. Relevance to industry

2.1. World market

The international demand for owers is characterized by
continuous growth and intense offer and demand concentration. In
Europe, Holland is the main supplier for Germany, Switzerland,
France and the UK. In America, Ecuador follows Colombia as the
main supplier for the USA. In Asia, for its part, Japan receives
owers from China, New Zealand and Europe. The main ower
producers worldwide are the Holland, with 7378 ha, the United
States (20,181 ha), and Japan (17,569 ha). These three countries
control about 50% of the world production on about 20% of the
planted area. Considering that among them only Holland generates
export surplus, Colombia is the second fresh ower exporter of the
world (Asocolores, 2007).
2


2.2. The situation in Colombia

After more than 30 years of entrepreneurial history in Colombia,
owers have been ranked as the main non-traditional export
product of the country, holding 14% of the world market. The
country counts with 7266 ha of ower crops, mainly located in the
Bogota plateau (79%), Antioquia (17%) and the central/west regions
(4%). The cultivated owers include roses (29.7% of the cultivated
area), carnations (12.7%), mini carnations (6.7%), chrysanthemums
and pompons (7.5%), bouquets (32.4%), and a series of other owers
with lower percentages. The sector is oriented to the international
market, some companies reaching export percentages up to 98% of
their production. In 2007, the sector sold approximately US$
1,114,000,000. In sum, this activity can be said to be consolidated
and capable of sustainably generating employment and currencies
(Asocolores, 2007).
In spite of all this, the sector has been undergoing a very con-
cerning health situation that might eventually put its competi-
tiveness at risk. The most recent report of the Ministry of Health
and Social Protection on professional disease (corresponding to the
period from years 2003 to 2005) presents Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
(CTS) as the most prevalent (32%) of all occupational illness diag-
noses, out of which 82% correspond to musculoskeletal disorders
(MPS, 2007). Although this situation is not exclusive of the sector, it
is particularly intense there due to activities that imply forceful
frequent use of hand tools and implements. Deterioration of the
workers wellbeing due to hand disease prevalence has a negative
impact on the productivity and sustainability of the sector, there-
fore affecting its development, and consequently, that of the
country. Respectively in 2000 and 2001, the US National Research
Council and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
concluded that job-related musculoskeletal injuries continue to
account for about one-third of all workers compensation costs.
This gure has not yet been estimated for Colombia, but based on
the mentioned references it can be reasonably supposed to repre-
sent a considerable expenditure for the country.
The population under study comes from the harvest and
post-harvest areas of the oriculture sector of the Bogota plateau,
whose production responds for 79% of the fresh ower exports of
the country (Asocolores, 2007). It is a particularly vulnerable
social sector, as far as it is mainly constituted by women that are
frequently head of household. The current research is intended as
an anthropometric guide for the development of hand occupational
disease reducing interventions on the studied population, espe-
cially regarding the design and (eventually industrial) production
of adequate manual tools and implements.

3. Methods

3.1. Study population

The study was carried out in the rural zones of the Bogota
plateau, whose populations occupation is mainly agricultural, in
many occasions involving harvest and post-harvest labors in ower
growing industries. The people who participate of these activities
have low educational levels (usually not more than primary
studies) and come from large families in which they have had
contact with country labors since their childhood. The Colombian


2
Referenced as Asociacin Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores, which translates
as Colombian Association of Flower Exporters.
185
185
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 185
185


Author Population Country Age Gender AM HAM AMN AMC AMI
(mean, range) (women, men)
Courtney and Ng (1984) Clothes manufacturing apprentices Hong Kong (-, 15e33)

(100, -) 24 24 16 8 25
Davies et al. (1980) Industry workers UK Not reported

(92,-) 28 28 21 7 26
Dewangan et al. (2008) Adults India (-, 18e60)

(400,-) 76 12 9 3 30
Espaa-Romero et al. (2008) Boys and girls Spain (-, 6e12)

(70,123) 2 1 1 0 33
Estrada (1995) Employees of industries with Colombia (-, 20e59)

(840,1260) 69 6 1 5 28

more than 100 workers.

Garrett (1971) Air force workers USA Not reported

(23, 26) 56 56 23 33 0
Imrhan et al. (1993) Vietnamese university students USA (24.8, 17e56.1)

(30, 41) 24 24 14 10 23

Imrhan et al. (2005)
and home helpers.
Ofce and industry workers,

Bangladesh

(32.2, -)


(32, -)

23

23

15

8

25

university students and home helpers.

Japanese Committee Not reported Japan Not reported

(768, -) 3 3 1 2 31
Kar et al. (2003) Agricultural workers India (-, 18e65)

(204, 200) 8 8 4 4 27
Klamklay et al. (2008) Students from South Thailand Thailand (-, 18e25)

(150, 15) 39 2 0 2 31
Mandahawi et al., 2008 Industry workers, secretaries, Jordan (-, 18e59)

(120, 115) 24 24 15 9 24

nurses, students and teachers of four cities.

Nag et al., 2003 Industry workers India (-, 16e58)

(95, -) 51 51 18 33 0
Okunribido, 2000 Workers of a farm Nigeria (-, 9e60)

(37, -) 18 18 10 8 25
Prado-Leon et al., 2001 Not reported Mexico (-, 6e11)

(2387, 2371) 50 5 3 2 31
Imrhan and Contreras, 2005 Mexicans in the USA border, USA (32, -)

(25, 25) 23 23 15 8 25

industry workers,


university students and home helpers.

Ruiz, 2001 Male and female students Colombia (-, 5e10)

(250, 25) 30 4 2 2 31

of public schools of Bogota


from strata 1 and 2.



Table 1
Review of works on hand anthropometry. AM: Number of anthropometric measures of the reference work. HAM: Number of hand anthropometric measures of the reference
work. AMN: Number of hand anthropometric measures of the reference work that are not considered in the present work. AMC: Number of hand anthropometric measures
that are common to the reference and the present work. AMI: Number of hand anthropometric measures that have been included in the current work, but not in the reference
one.













of Anthropometry (1967)












population is of mixed race, but the phenotypes vary among
regions. In the particular case of the surveyed region, it is close to
the original native population. Due to ower delicacy, oriculture
companies prefer to hire women, thus determining the population
under study to be mainly female. The age of the sampled workers
ranged between 18 and 59, thus conforming to the Colombian labor
regulations (Cdigo sustantivo del trabajo de la Repblica de
Colombia, 1950).
3

The sample size of this study was 120 which result in different
precision of the estimated means depending on the expected
variance of specic anthropometric measures. For variances of
4 and 64 mm
2
(SD 2 mm and 8 mm, respectively), which include
most typically observed variances in HA measures (Garrett, 1971;
Courtney and Ng, 1984; Imrhan et al., 2005; Estrada, 1995;
Okunribido, 2000; Nag et al., 2003; Imrhan and Contreras, 2005;
Mandahawi et al., 2008); an error of 2 mm and a 95% condence,
a sample size of 63 would be required. For the sample size used in
the present study (n 120), keeping the same condence level and
for variances of HA measures as large as 225 mm
2
(SD 15 mm),
we expect a maximum error of 2.7 mm in the measures.
The ower plantations were chosen at random and the data
collection process was coordinated with their administrators, who
granted the corresponding temporary permissions for the workers
to participate in the data collection process.

3.2. Measuring instruments

The instruments used for the anthropometric data collection
included: a small metallic anthropometer to measure each hands
breadth, length and depth, equipped with curved sliding branches
providing direct readings to the nearest millimeter over a range of
30 cm; an anthropometric grid (a 25 25 cm board with a 5 cm


3
Substantive labor code of the Republic of Colombia.
square grid on its surface) was used as an extra measurement aid;
and nally, circumference measurements were taken with
a measuring fabric tape also calibrated in centimeters and
millimeters over a range of 1.5 m. These measuring instruments are
entirely analog and manual, do not require calibration, and are
similar to those used in previous studies (Nag et al., 2003) (Fig. 1).
As a result, the accuracy of data collection depends on the
methodology and the ability of the person doing the measurement.
In this case, the measuring team had received special training in
order to ensure a standardized process.
Additionally, it was necessary to use a form to collect basic
information from workers including personal identication,
contact and socio-cultural information, and an informed consent.
The data collection procedure was approved by the Research and
Ethics Committee of the School of Medicine of Ponticia Uni-
versidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia.


3.3. Data capturing and processing

The data collection process was carried out as follows. All
workers included in the sample were interviewed at the work place,
i.e., the ower-growing farms of the Bogota plateau. They were told
about the purpose of the project and how their cooperation would
represent a fundamental contribution to such development. We
made emphasis on the strict need to follow the instructions of the
interviewer to ensure the collection of reliable information. The
measurement process was carried out by a ve member research
team on two groups of workers. The members of the measuring team
had received preliminary training in a Gesell chamber,
4
after which


4
The Gesell chamber is a two-compartment room disposed to facilitate the
observation of peoples performance. A one-way vision glass separates the two
compartments and allows observers on one side to watch what goes on the other
side. An audiovisual system records the experiment.
186
186
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 186
186




Fig. 1. Hand anthropometry measuring instruments. A: Spreading caliper; B: Anthropometric grid; C: Measuring tape.

they were asked to proceed with the measuring as indicated, in
order to conrm and revise their learning. This process also allowed
adjusting the time each measurement session would take.
Each measurement session was conducted with two seated
persons: the worker and an interviewer from the research team;
and a supervisor from the research team. We then proceeded to
make the length measurements with the anthropometric grid, the
width measurements with the curved arm anthropometer, and
circumference measurements with the tape. During the sessions,
after asking the worker to adopt the posture dened for the
measurement, the interviewer read aloud the measured value,
which was entered into the corresponding form by the supervisor.
The latter was in charge of verifying that the procedure conformed
to the established protocol; he was authorized to order the repe-
tition of the measurement as many times as he deemed necessary
to ensure the reliability of the information.

3.4. Description of the hand tools

The harvest activities of the studied population consist mainly
in ower gathering and plant pruning, whereas post-harvest
activities include ower preparation, bunching and packing in
different Stock Keep Units (SKUs). These two processes are per-
formed with the aid of different tools and manual implements
such as large and small blade pruners for rose and carnation
cutting, respectively; handicraft knife for mini carnations; and
trimming board to make the bunch stalks even during post-
harvest, as it can be seen in Fig. 2.
The Felco 2 pruner e designed in the 60s by the Swiss company
of the same name e is among the most widespread tools for the
pruning and harvesting of roses in the Colombian ower industry
(Figs. 2A and 3). Although it has been a long time since it was rst
conceived, this is still a highly appreciated tool and the best selling
one of its brand (www.felco.ch). Forged aluminum central pieces
support rubber coated handles held in place by a central steel
spring. The replaceable, steel made, by-pass cutting blades are
attached to the handles. The whole tool weights 250 g and has
a stalk cutting capacity up to 25 mm.
For the cutting of those ower stems that are softer and thinner
than roses, these industries use lighter shears generally of the
Bahco brand, weighting 120 g, with rigid plastic handles, steel xed
blades and stalk cutting capacity up to 20 mm (Fig. 2B).



Fig. 2. Manual tools and implements commonly used in the Colombian oriculture industry. A: Felco

pruning shears; B: Bahco

light shears for ower cutting; C: Pruning knife; D:
Handcrafted knife.
187
187
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 187
187




Fig. 3. Hand grip of the Felco 2 pruner. A: Open Felco 2

pruner exceeding the workers hand dimensions; B: Full hand grip with Felco 2 pruner.

The nal preparation of the owers takes place in specially
adapted rooms where all the stems that will make up a bouquet are
cut the same length. The cutting is done with a manual board
trimmer attached to a table. This implement involves the use of
a pivoted steel blade that is driven vertically along a horizontal
blade xed on tables edge as it cuts the stems for the bouquet
(Figs. 2D and 4). The pivot end of the blade is attached to the table
by a shaft that allows the necessary vertical movement to cut the
stems. The moving end has the handle on which the operator
applies hand and arm force.
Finally, for the collection of some varieties of owers, including
mini carnations and other varieties with thin and weak stems
growing close together, no scissors are used but a handcrafted
cutting tool developed by the workers, consisting in a hacksaw
blade segment sharpened at one end, and inserted in a piece of
plastic tube or rubber hose on the other end (Figs. 2C and 5). This
tool is not comparable with any other one in the oriculture
market, but it resembles a small light pocket knife.


3.5. Hand grip on each tool

The Felco 2 pruner allows a full hand grip, but in order to start
the closing movement the handles need to be held with the
ngertips. During the eld inspections we could observe that when
the workers manipulate this tool sometimes it falls down from their
relatively small hands (Fig. 3).
In the operation of the board trimmer its good sized handle
allows a full hand grip with no biomechanical disadvantages. The
maximum effort falls on the operators arm, particularly on the
wrist as the handle is rmly held while moving the blade down
(Fig. 4).
Lastly, the handicraft knife is a small tool apparently intended
for a full hand grip. In practice, though, it is almost held with the
ngers in a pincer grip by strongly pressing the thumb on the
knifes small handle (Fig. 5).

3.6. Selection, description and comparison of anthropometric
measures

The selection of the hand anthropometric measures studied in
the present work was based on three criteria: (i) measure repre-
sentativeness; (ii) measurement reliability with the available
instruments; and (iii) pertinence with regards to the object of
study. For the latter purpose, we analyzed the frequency of inclu-
sion of the anthropometric measures in the literature and their
relation to the tools and implements used in harvest and post-
harvest labors. Based on this selection process we discarded
measures such as the distance of each ngers phalange, width and
length of the ngertips, grip diameter (outside) and each ngers
maximum grip breadth, which have been included in previous
studies (e.g., Nag et al., 2003; Imrhan, et al. 1993).
In total, this work characterized 33 HA measures (Icon column
of Table 2 and Appendix A). All included measures were statistically
described as in previous studies by its mean, standard deviation
(DS), and percentiles 5, 10, 25, 75, 90 and 95 (e.g., Mandahawi et al.,
2008). Also, tests of normality were executed for each HA measure
using the Kolmogorov Smirnov and ShapiroeWilk statistical tests,
applied at a 95% condence level. Lastly, we conducted formal t-
tests of differences in the reported means between our study and
previous studies that shared the same anthropometric measures
and that reported information for women in a similar range of age.
However, as it has been discussed previously (Imrhan et al., 2009),
comparisons should be observed with care because there exists
a variety of factors related to instrumentation, measurement
technique and individual factors that can affect the comparability of
the samples and can confound differences that are due to ethnicity
or nationality.



Fig. 4. Grip on the board trimmer. A: Starting the board trimmer cut; B: Finishing the board trimmer cut.
188
188
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 188
188



























4. Results






















Fig. 5. Grip on the handicraft knife.
measures ranged between a minimum (hand breadth: 4.3%) and
a maximum (perpendicular height at wrist prolongation - thumb:
14.7%). Among the non-hand measures, the highest CV was that of
corporal weight (16.3%). These data showed no major deviations,
probably due to the phenotypic homogeneity of the studied
population. Also, we could not nd statistically signicant
differences between age groups (i.e., <30, 30 to <40, 40 to <50
and, <60, with sample sizes equal to 10, 38, 50 and 23 in each age
group, respectively) for most mean measures, except for the
thickness and circumference of the thumb at the joint, thickness
and circumference of the forenger at the distal joint, and the
circumference of the middle nger at the proximal joint. However,
this study was not designed to observed differences by age groups
and therefore this result is considered only descriptive of the
present population.
The tests of normality did not reject the null hypothesis of data
normality for most of the considered measures, except for hand
depth; thickness and depth of the thumb at the joint; thickness and
depth of the forenger and middle nger at the proximal and distal
joints; and the circumference of the forenger at the distal joint
(Table 2).


4.2. Comparative analysis
4.1. Descriptive analysis

Table 2 presents a descriptive analysis of the measures
considered in this work. The coefcient of variation (CV) of the HA
The means and standard deviations of previous studies on
female hand anthropometry are presented in Appendix B. The
formal tests of differences in hand anthropometry between our
study population and populations with similar age ranges reported

Table 2
Hand anthropometry of a sample of female workers of the oriculture sector of the Bogota plateau. See Appendix C for picture denitions of the ICON column. All measures are
in millimeters except where indicated. * Measures that did not t to the normal distribution.

Measure ICON SD P5 P10 P25 Mean P75 P90 P95
Height (cm) e 9.6 145.0 146.0 150.0 154.6 159.3 162.9 167.9
Weight (Kg) e 9.8 44.0 47.1 53.8 59.7 66.0 72.7 78.5
Age (years) e 8.3 28 30.2 35 41.2 48 53 54.9
Hand length 1 8.0 153.6 156.1 160.8 167.3 173.0 178.0 180.4
Hand width 2 3.4 74.0 75.0 76.0 78.8 81.0 83.9 84.5
Wrist width 3 3.3 51.1 52.0 54.0 56.5 59.0 60.0 61.9
Metacarpal hand circumference 4 9.6 178.7 180.1 185.8 192.5 199.0 204.9 209.2
Hand circumference holding ngertips together 5 13.6 207.2 210.0 219.0 224.9 235.0 239.8 246.0
Fist circumference 6 12.8 228.8 232.3 239.8 250.3 258.0 269.9 273.9
Wrist circumference 7 8.4 145.6 147.0 151.0 158.0 165.0 168.0 172.0
Hand thickness 8 1.7 22.0 23.0 24.0 24.7 26.0 27.0 27.5
Hand depth* 9 3.4 36.2 41.0 41.0 43.2 45.0 47.9 50.0
Joint: thickness (thumb)* 10 1.1 15.0 16.0 17.0 17.1 18.0 18.0 19.0
Joint: depth (thumb)* 11 1.1 18.0 19.1 20.0 20.5 21.0 22.0 22.0
Joint: circumference (thumb) 12 3.7 57.0 58.1 60.0 62.4 64.0 66.0 67.9
Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (thumb) 13 11.2 56.7 60.1 65.0 75.6 84.3 89.9 92.5
Distance from ngertip to vertex (thumb) 14 3.81 49.55 51.0 54.8 56.8 60.0 61.0 62.0
Distal Joint: thickness (forenger)* 15 0.9 15.0 15.0 16.0 16.4 17.0 17.9 18.0
Distal Joint: Depth (forenger)* 16 0.9 12.0 12.0 13.0 13.1 14.0 14.0 14.5
Distal Joint Circumference (forenger)* 17 2.6 49.0 50.0 51.0 52.9 55.0 56.0 58.0
Proximal Joint thickness (forenger)* 18 1.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.6 19.0 20.0 20.0
Proximal Joint depth (forenger)* 19 0.9 15.0 15.0 16.0 16.4 17.0 18.0 18.0
Proximal Joint Circumference (forenger) 20 3.2 56.1 58.0 59.0 61.3 63.0 67.0 68.0
Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (forenger) 21 8.3 138.1 147.0 152.0 156.6 162.3 167.0 169.5
Distance from ngertip to vertex (forenger) 22 3.7 58.6 61.0 64.0 66.2 69.0 70.9 73.0
Distal Joint: thickness (middle nger)* 23 1.0 14.6 15.0 16.0 16.4 17.0 17.0 18.0
Distal Joint: depth (middle nger)* 24 0.9 12.0 12.0 13.0 13.5 14.0 15.0 15.0
Distal Joint: circumference (middle nger) 25 2.3 49.0 50.0 51.0 52.4 54.0 56.0 57.0
Proximal Joint: thickness (middle nger)* 26 1.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.4 19.0 20.0 20.0
Proximal Joint: depth (middle nger)* 27 1.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 16.6 17.0 18.0 18.0
Proximal Joint: circumference (middle nger) 28 3.1 55.6 57.0 58.0 60.8 63.0 64.9 66.0
Distance from ngertip to vertex (middle nger) 29 4.3 66.0 68.0 70.8 73.4 76.0 79.0 81.0
Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (annular) 30 8.8 142.6 147.1 153.0 160.0 166.0 170.9 173.9
Distance from ngertip to vertex (annular) 31 4.2 61.0 63.0 66.0 68.6 71.0 73.9 75.9
Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (little nger) 32 9.5 104.9 110.0 114.0 121.6 128.0 134.0 135.9
Distance from ngertip to vertex (little nger) 33 3.9 47.6 49.0 52.0 54.4 57.0 59.9 60.5
189
189
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 189
189



Table 3
Comparison summary of comparable HA measures reported in studies with female populations. N: number of comparable measures of the reference study. MS: number of
comparable measures whose mean value was lower than the present studys. ML: number of comparable measures whose mean value was larger than the present studys.

Comparison population Length Width Depth WidtheDepth
N MS ML N MS ML N MS ML N MS ML
Colombian (Estrada, 1995) 1 0 0

2 2 0

0 0 0

2 2 0
Indian (Kar et al., 2003) 1 0 1

1 0 1

0 0 0

2 0 2
Indian (Nag et al., 2003) 10 3 6

7 7 0

7 6 1

9 9 0
Indian (Dewangan et al., 2008) 1 1 0

1 1 0

1 0 1

0 0 0
Jordanian (Mandahawi et al., 2008) 3 0 3

3 1 0

3 2 0

0 0 0
Vietnamese (Imrhan et al., 1993) 3 0 0

3 1 0

3 2 0

1 1 0

in previous studies are presented in Appendix C, and are summa-
rized in Table 3.
The small number of measures taken in other reference
populations both hindered and dened the extent to which their
HA can be compared to our study population. Depending on the
number of HA measures in the reference populations that were
found statistically different from the Colombian population, we
attempted to classify those reference female populations in one of
three groups: Reference populations that are different (1), similar
(2) or show no tendency (3) with respect to the Colombian workers
in the present study (Table 3). Nevertheless, none of the reference
comparable populations showed denite similarities in HA with the
Colombian female workers of the present study, except for the
Colombian general population reported previously (Estrada, 1995)
that appear to have thinner but otherwise similar hands to our
study population.
In the group 1, we found four populations that were mostly
different from our population: (i) Indian workers (Nag et al., 2003)
with slender (less wide), thinner (less deep) hands and generally
longer hands compared to our population; (ii) Adult Indian females
(Dewangan et al., 2008) came from a population with shorter,
slenderer and deeper hands than workers in our study population;
(iii) Indian agricultural workers (Kar et al., 2003) who appear to have
longer and wider hands than workers in our study population (iv)
Jordanians (Mandahawi et al., 2008) came from a population with
longer, slenderer and thinner hands than our study population.
In group 3, we found one additional population that shows some
similarities but also some important differences with our study
population (Imrhan et al., 1993). The Vietnamese Americans
reported in that study were similar to our study population
regarding length but appeared to be slenderer and thinner than our
study population.

5. Conclusions

The article contributes to the characterization of a series of hand
anthropometric measures in the oriculture worker population of
the Bogota plateau. Due to the features of the sample, such
characterization can be useful in the development or selection of
work tools and implements.
Given the small number of comparable measures, no denite
statements can be made about hand anthropometric differences
between this study population and most comparable reference
populations found in the literature. Furthermore, comparability
may be confounded by potential differences in the methods of
various studies and individual factors (Imrhan et al., 2009).
However, in spite of these possible issues, some differences can be
noted. Our results suggest that the HA of this Colombian oricul-
ture worker population does not resemble markedly to any
particular population in other country; and is characterized by
wider and shorter hands than most of the populations to which it
was contrasted.
The results also showed that the surveyed oriculture workers
are systematically using tools with designs that do not adequately
t their HA. In the context provided by the literature, the muscu-
loskeletal disorders suffered by these workers could be considered
to be at least partially the result of this mismatch. A preventive
approach would aim to design and develop tools that conform to
the HA of the population. As established by Law 100 of the Republic
of Colombia, this duty corresponds to the oriculture companies
themselves, Workers Insurance Companies in Colombia (ARPs
5
)
and the Ministry of Health and Social Protection.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded in part by grant 5D43TW000644-14
from the National Institute of Health, sub-award 0005919B.
This work would not have been possible without the people
who participated and collaborated in its realization. We are grateful
to both the workers of the oriculture plantations of the Bogota
plateau, and the administrative staff who facilitated the capture of
the information.
Special thanks to the Director of the Center for Ergonomics
Studies at Ponticia Universidad Javeriana, Bogot, Colombia,
Dr. Leonardo Quintana Jimnez, and to Dr. Augusto Len, occupa-
tional health physician with specialty in oriculture, for their initial
contributions and logistical support in project design.

Appendix A. Explanatory gures and denitions for the icon
column in Table 2





Hand length: Hand is in neutral posture (in line with the fore-
arm) with extended ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is
measured from the wrist crease directly below the pad of muscle at
the base of the thumb to the tip of the middle nger (Described as
in Garrett, 1971 (Hand length; wrist crease); Estrada, 1995 (#39 in
Table 3); Kar et al., 2003 (#1); Dewangan et al., 2008 (#59); Nag
et al., 2003 (#1); Klamklay et al., 2008 (#22 in Table 1); Imrhan
et al., 2009 (#21); Mandahawi et al., 2008 (#21)).


5
ARP stands for Administradora de Riesgos Profesionales.
190
190
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 190
190





Hand width: Hand is in neutral posture (in line with the fore-
arm) with extended ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is
measured across the palm of the hand at the junction between the
palm and the ngers, not including the thumb. The hand and
ngers must be held at (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Hand
breadth; metacarpale); Estrada, 1995 (#31); Kar et al., 2003 (#3);
Nag et al., 2003 (#13); Dewangan et al., 2008 (#60); Klamklay et al.,
2008 (#21 in Table 1); Imrhan et al., 2009 (#20)).


Wrist width: Hand is in neutral posture (in line with the fore-
arm) with extended ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is
measured across the wrist at the crease between the hand and the
forearm below the pad of muscle at the base of the thumb. The
hand must be held at as a direct extension of the forearm
(Described as in Garrett, 1971 (wrist breadth); Estrada, 1995 (#30);
Nag et al., 2003 (#19)).


Metacarpal hand circumference: Hand is in neutral posture (in
line with the forearm) with extended ngers and palm is facing up.
This dimension is measured with a tape along the circumference of
the palm of the hand over the junction between the palm and the
ngers (palmar side) and over the knuckles (dorsal side). The hand
and ngers must be held at (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Hand
circumference; metacarpale); Estrada, 1995 (#55); Kar et al., 2003
(#6); Nag et al., 2003 (#23)).


Hand circumference holding ngertips: The 5 ngertips of the
hand are held together. The ngertip of the ring nger rests above
the pinkie nger; and the ngertip of the thumb faces up opposite
to the index, middle and ring ngers. This dimension is measured
with a tape along the circumference that goes over halfway of the
proximal phalanges of the ngers (Described as in Garrett, 1971
(Hand circumference; ngertips even); Nag et al., 2003 (#24)).


Fist circumference: Hand is closed making a st with the thumb
resting over the second phalanges of the index and middle ngers.
This dimension is measured with a tape along the circumference
over the knuckles at the metacarpophalangeal joints (Described as
in Garrett, 1971 (st circumference); Kar et al., 2003 (#7); Nag et al.,
2003 (#25)).


Wrist circumference: Hand is extended and palm is facing up.
This dimension is measured with a tape along the circumference
over the wrist joint, at the crease between the hand and the fore-
arm (palmar side). The hand must be held at as a direct extension
of the forearm (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (wrist circumference);
Estrada, 1995 (#54); Nag et al., 2003 (#26)).


Hand thickness: Hand is extended; thumb extended held away
from the hand but the other ngers close together. This measure-
ment is taken as the depth of the hand at the distal ends of the
metacarpals of digits 2e5 (index, middle, ring and pinky)
(Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Hand thickness; metacarpal III); Nag
et al., 2003 (#34); Imrhan et al., 2009 (#23 at digit 2); Dewangan
et al., 2008 (#62); Mandahawi et al., 2008 (#23)).


Hand depth: Hand is extended with the index, middle, ring and
pinky ngers close together; thumb held halfway exed and
adducted, closed together with the other ngers in a way that the
191
191
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 191
191


nail of the thumb is in line with the side of the palm and index
nger. This dimension is measured between the lowest part of the
interphalangeal joint of the thumb and the upper-most part of the
metacarpophalangeal joint of the index nger (Described as in
Garrett, 1971 (Hand depth; thenar pad)).


Joint: thickness (thumb): Hand is extended; thumb extended
and abducted just below the palm in a way that the nail of the
thumb is held vertical. This measure is taken from side to side of the
interphalangeal joint of the thumb across the crease of the joint
facing the nail of the thumb (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 1;
interphalangeal joint; breadth); Nag et al., 2003 (#14)).


Joint: depth (thumb): Hand is extended; thumb extended and
abducted. This measure is taken from the dorsal to the palmar side
of the thumb at the interphalangeal joint (Described as in Garrett,
1971 (Digit 1; interphalangeal joint; depth); Nag et al., 2003 (#36)).


Joint: circumference (thumb): Hand is extended; thumb
extended and abducted. This dimension is measured with a tape
around the circumference of the interphalangeal joint of the wrist
(Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 1; interphalangeal joint;
circumference); Nag et al., 2003 (#27)).


Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (thumb): Hand is in
neutral posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and
abducted ngers and palm is facing down and supported over
a grid. The forearm is in line with the middle nger. On the grid, the
wrist crease between the hand and the forearm is made to coincide
with one of the horizontal lines of the grid. Also, a horizontal line on
the grid is marked in a way that it coincides with the thumb
ngertip (ngerprint side). The measure is taken as the vertical
distance between the two horizontal lines, i.e., the horizontal line
of the wrist crease and the horizontal line of the thumb ngertip
(Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 1 height; perpendicular to
wrist crease); Nag et al., 2003 (#2)).



Distance from ngertip to vertex (thumb): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured between
the creases of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb (palmar
side) to the ngertip of the thumb along the middle line of the
nger (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 1 length; ngertip to
crotch level); Nag et al., 2003 (#7)).



Distal Joint: thickness (forenger): Hand is in neutral posture (in
line with the forearm) with extended and abducted ngers and
palm is facing up. This measure is taken from side to side of the
interphalangeal distal joint of the index nger across the crease of
the joint (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 2; distal interpha-
langeal joint; breadth); Nag et al., 2003 (#7)).



Distal Joint: Depth (forenger): Hand is closed with the index
nger extended and the thumb exed over the middle nger (as
pointing out with the index nger). This measure is taken from the
dorsal to the palmar side of the index nger at the distal inter-
phalangeal joint (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 2; distal
interphalangeal joint; depth); Nag et al., 2003 (#36)).
192
192
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 192
192








Distal Joint Circumference (forenger): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured with
a tape around the circumference of the interphalangeal distal joint
of the index nger (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 2; distal
interphalangeal joint; circumference); Nag et al., 2003 (#28)).






Proximal Joint thickness (forenger): Hand is in neutral posture
(in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted ngers and
palm is facing up. This measure is taken from side to side of the
interphalangeal middle joint of the index nger across the crease of
the joint (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 2; proximal inter-
phalangeal joint; breadth); Nag et al., 2003 (#16)).






Proximal Joint depth (forenger): Hand is closed with the index
nger extended and the thumb exed over the middle nger (as
pointing out with the index nger). This measure is taken from the
dorsal to the palmar side of the index nger at the middle inter-
phalangeal joint (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 2; proximal
interphalangeal joint; depth); Nag et al., 2003 (#38)).
Proximal Joint Circumference (forenger): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured with
a tape around the circumference of the interphalangeal middle
joint of the index nger (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 2;
proximal interphalangeal joint; circumference); Nag et al., 2003
(#29)).


Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (forenger): Hand is in
neutral posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and
abducted ngers and palm is facing down and supported over
a grid. The forearm is in line with the middle nger. On the grid, the
wrist crease between the hand and the forearm is made to coincide
with one of the horizontal lines of the grid. Also, a horizontal line on
the grid is marked in a way that it coincides with the index
ngertip. The measure is taken as the vertical distance between the
two horizontal lines, i.e., the horizontal line of the wrist crease and
the horizontal line of the index ngertip (Described as in Garrett,
1971 (Digit 2 height; perpendicular to wrist crease); Nag et al.,
2003 (#3)).


Distance from ngertip to vertex (forenger): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured between
the creases of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the index nger
(palmar side) to the ngertip of the index nger along the middle
193
193
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 193
193



line of the nger ((Digit 2 length; ngertip to crotch level); Nag
et al., 2003 (#8)).




Distal Joint: thickness (middle nger): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This measure is taken from side to
side of the interphalangeal distal joint of the middle nger across
the crease of the joint (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 3; distal
interphalangeal joint; breadth); Nag et al., 2003 (#17); Mandahawi
et al., 2008 (#10); Imrhan et al., 2009 (#10)).




Distal Joint: depth (middle nger): Hand is semi-closed (meta-
carpophalangeal and interphalangeal joints of the ngers but the
middle nger exed, as pointing out with the middle nger). This
measure is taken from the dorsal to the palmar side of the middle
nger at the distal interphalangeal joint (Described as in Garrett,
1971 (Digit 3; distal interphalangeal joint; depth); Nag et al.,
2003 (#39); Mandahawi et al., 2008 (#16); Imrhan et al., 2009
(#16)).




Distal Joint: circumference (middle nger): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured with
a tape around the circumference of the interphalangeal distal joint
of the middle nger (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 3; distal
interphalangeal joint; circumference); Nag et al., 2003 (#30)).





Proximal Joint: thickness (middle nger): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This measure is taken from side to
side of the interphalangeal middle joint of the middle nger across
the crease of the joint (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 3;
proximal interphalangeal joint; breadth); Nag et al., 2003 (#18);
Mandahawi et al., 2008 (#12); Imrhan et al., 2009 (#12)).





Proximal Joint: depth (middle nger): Hand is semi-closed
(metacarpophalangeal and interphalangeal joints of the ngers
but the middle nger exed, as pointing out with the middle
nger). This measure is taken from the dorsal to the palmar side of
the middle nger at the middle interphalangeal joint (Described as
in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 3; proximal interphalangeal joint; depth);
Nag et al., 2003 (#40); Mandahawi et al., 2008 (#18); Imrhan et al.,
2009 (#18)).





Circumference (middle nger): Hand is in neutral posture (in
line with the forearm) with extended and abducted ngers and
palm is facing up. This dimension is measured with a tape around
the circumference of the interphalangeal middle joint of the middle
nger (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 3; proximal interpha-
langeal joint; circumference); Nag et al., 2003 (#31)).
194
194
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 194
194






Distance from ngertip to vertex (middle nger): Hand is in
neutral posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and
abducted ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured
between the creases of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the
middle nger (palmar side) to the ngertip of the middle nger
along the middle line of the nger ((Digit 3 length; ngertip to
crotch level); Nag et al., 2003 (#4); Mandahawi et al., 2008 (#2);
Imrhan et al., 2009 (#2)).



Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (annular): Hand is in
neutral posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and
abducted ngers and palm is facing down and supported over a grid.
The forearm is in line with the middle nger. On the grid, the wrist
crease between the hand and the forearm is made to coincide with
one of the horizontal lines of the grid. Also, a horizontal line on the
grid is marked in a way that it coincides with the ring ngertip. The
measure is taken as the vertical distance between the two horizontal
lines, i.e., the horizontal line of the wrist crease and the horizontal
line of the ring ngertip (Described as in Garrett, 1971 (Digit 4
height; perpendicular to wrist crease); Nag et al., 2003 (#5)).

Distance from ngertip to vertex (annular): Hand is in neutral
posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and abducted
ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured between
the creases of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the ring nger
(palmar side) to the ngertip of the ring nger along the middle
line of the nger ((Digit 4 length; ngertip to crotch level); Nag
et al., 2003 (#10)).






Perpendicular height, wrist prolongation (little nger): Hand is
in neutral posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and
abducted ngers and palm is facing down and supported over
a grid. The forearm is in line with the middle nger. On the grid, the
wrist crease between the hand and the forearm is made to coincide
with one of the horizontal lines of the grid. Also, a horizontal line on
the grid is marked in a way that it coincides with the pinky
ngertip. The measure is taken as the vertical distance between the
two horizontal lines, i.e., the horizontal line of the wrist crease and
the horizontal line of the pinky ngertip (Described as in Garrett,
1971 (Digit 5 height; perpendicular to wrist crease); Nag et al.,
2003 (#6)).









Distance from ngertip to vertex (little nger): Hand is in
neutral posture (in line with the forearm) with extended and
abducted ngers and palm is facing up. This dimension is measured
between the creases of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the pinky
nger (palmar side) to the ngertip of the pinky nger along the
middle line of the nger ((Digit 5 length; ngertip to crotch level);
Nag et al., 2003 (#11); Mandahawi et al., 2008 (#1); Imrhan et al.,
2009 (#1)).
195
195
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 195
195







Appendix B. Means and standard deviations of previous studies reporting hand anthropometry with female populations

Measure American
(Garrett, 1971)
(n 23)
Bangladeshi
(Imrhan et al., 2005)
(n 32)
Colombian
(Estrada, 1995)
(n 840)
Hongkonger Chinese
(Courtney
and Ng, 1984)
(n 100)
Indian
(Nag et al., 2003)
(n 95)
Indian
(Dewangan
et al., 2008)
(n 400)
Indian
(Kar et al., 2003)
(n 204)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Age (year) e e 32.2 e e e e e 32.2 10.1 e e e e
Height (cm) e e 128 e 155.8 5.9 e e 149.8 6.3 153.3 5.5 e e
Weight (kg) e e 63.4 e 59.8 9.4 e e 45.3 8.5 48.0 4.4 e e
Hand measures (mm)

1. Hand length 179.3 8.6 175.1 11.07 166 7.9 e e 169.6 9.4 165.3 7.3 175.1 8.5
2. Hand width 77.0 3.8 75.8 5.17 74 3.6 e e 68 5.1 64.9 3 82.3 4.4
3. Wrist width 58.2 3.3 e e 49 3 e e 46.1 4.8 e e e e
4. Metacarpal Hand 187.2 8.4 e e 179 8.9 e e 188.6 10.2 e e 194.4 9.5
circumference

5. Hand circumference 214.6 12.2 e e e e e e 182.5 21.6 e e e e
holding ngertips together

6. Fist circumference 248.4 13.2 e e e e e e 235.1 12.3 e e 263.5 13.3
7. Wrist circumference 149.9 7.1 e e 146 8 e e 143.6 6.9 e e e e
8. Hand thickness 27.7 1.8 e e e e 24.4 1.47 22.2 2.4 26.8 2.4 e e
9. Hand depth 51.6 3.8 e e e e 29.7 2.82 64.2 7.1 e e e e
10. Joint: thickness (thumb) 19.1 1.3 e e e e e e 14.7 2.1 e e e e
11. Joint: depth (thumb) 16.8 1.0 e e e e e e 11.5 1.6 e e e e
12. Joint: circumference (thumb) 56.1 3.3 e e e e e e 60.6 3 e e e e
13. Perpendicular Height 86.4 8.4 e e e e e e 82.1 11.2 e e e e
at wrist prolongation (thumb)

14. Distance from 53.8 4.3 e e e e e e 64.1 6.3 e e e e
ngertip to vertex (thumb)

15. Distal Joint: 15.5 1.0 e e e e e e 10.4 1.6 e e e e
thickness (forenger)

16. Distal Joint: 13.0 1.0 e e e e e e 7.8 1.5 e e e e
Depth (forenger)

17. Distal Joint 44.7 2.5 e e e e e e 48 4.2 e e e e
Circumference (forenger)

18. Proximal Joint 18.3 1.0 e e e e e e 13 1.7 e e e e
thickness (forenger)

19. Proximal Joint 16.3 1.0 e e e e e e 11.3 1.5 e e e e
depth (forenger)

20. Proximal Joint 53.8 2.8 e e e e e e 57 3.1 e e e e
Circumference (forenger)

21. Perpendicular height 164.3 9.1 e e e e e e 152.2 9.6 e e e e
at wrist prolongation (forenger)
22. Distance from ngertip 69.1 5.1 e e e e e e 69.2 5.5 e e e e
to vertex (forenger)

23. Distal Joint: 15.2 1.0 14.8 2.05 e e 14.9 0.83 10.4 1.5 e e e e
thickness (middle nger)

24. Distal Joint: 13.2 1.0 12.2 1.5 e e 12.2 0.82 7.9 1.3 e e e e
depth (middle nger)

25. Distal Joint: 44.7 2.5 e e e e e e 49.1 2.5 e e e e
circumference (middle nger)

26. Proximal Joint: 18.3 1.0 17.9 1.95 e e 17.4 0.97 13.3 1.5 e e e e
thickness (middle nger)

27. Proximal Joint: 16.8 1.0 15.5 1.7 e e 15.7 0.84 11.3 1.3 e e e e
depth (middle nger)

28. Proximal Joint: 55.1 2.8 e e e e e e 59.2 3.6 e e e e
circumference (middle nger)

29. Distance from ngertip 78.0 5.1 74.2 5.49 e e 77.5 3.7 76 5.7 e e e e
to vertex (middle nger)

30. Perpendicular height 163.6 8.9 e e e e e e 153.7 9 e e e e
at wrist prolongation (annular)

31. Distance from 73.2 5.1 e e e e e e 70.2 5.4 e e e e
ngertip to vertex (annular)

32. Perpendicular height 130.0 8.9 e e e e e e 113.9 12 e e e e
at wrist prolongation (little nger)
33. Distance from 54.6 4.3 54.2 4.93 e e 55.7 3.88 56.3 5.4 e e e e
ngertip to vertex (little nger)
196
196
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 196
196


24. Distal Joint: depth e e 13.2 0.96 12.4 1 e e e e 12.6 1.1 10.7 2.5
(middle nger)
25. Distal Joint:

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

29. Distance from ngertip 73 4 75.2 3.62 72.9 5.1 74.2 5.4 e e 77.8 5.3 72.3 4.6
to vertex (middle nger)
30. Perpendicular height

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e



Measure Japanese (Japanese
Committee of
Anthropometry, 1967)
Jordanian
(Mandahawi
et al., 2008)
Mexican
(Imrhan and
Contreras, 2005)
Nigerian
(Okunribido, 2000)
(n 37)
Thai
(Klamklay
et al., 2008)
UK Resident
(Davies
et al., 1980)
Vietnamese
(Imrhan
et al., 1993)
(n 768)

(n 120)

(n 25)

(n 150)

(n 92)

(n 30)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Age (years) e e

28.0 9.2

32 11.4

33.5 15.4

e e

e e

24.8 7.79
Height (cm) e e

162.2 5.2

160.4 7.8

157.2 8.9

169.2 5.6

e e

155.9 6.1
Weight (kg) e e

63.5 12.3

64.2 14.6

52.7 12.1

59.7 8.5

e e

48.7 5.7
Hand measures (mm)

1. Hand length e e

171.3 7.4

171.8 10

175.1 11.1

179.8 1.5

e e

165 9
2. Hand width e e

77.8 3.9

77 4

75.8 5.2

83.6 0.5

e e

71 4.3
3. Wrist width e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
4. Metacarpal hand e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
circumference

5. Hand circumference e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
holding ngertips together

6. Fist circumference e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
7. Wrist circumference e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

154.1 6.9
8. Hand thickness e e

e e

e e

22.7 2.8

e e

e e

23.5 4
9. Hand depth e e

40.4 4.3

42.6 3.6

e e

e e

40.5 4.9

40.9 4.9
10. Joint: thickness (thumb) e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
11. Joint: depth (thumb) e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
12. Joint: circumference (thumb) e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
13. Perpendicular height at e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e
wrist prolongation (thumb)
14. Distance from
ngertip to vertex (thumb)

e e e e e e 61.1 5.1 e e e e e e
15. Distal Joint: thickness (forenger) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
16. Distal Joint: Depth (forenger) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
17. Distal Joint
Circumference (forenger)
18. Proximal Joint
thickness (forenger)
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
19. Proximal Joint depth (forenger) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
20. Proximal Joint
Circumference (forenger)
21. Perpendicular height
at wrist prolongation (forenger)
22. Distance from
ngertip to vertex (forenger)
23. Distal Joint:
thickness (middle nger)
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e e 15.8 0.99 14.8 1.1 14.8 2.1 e e 15.1 1.2 15.9 2.5

circumference (middle nger)
26. Proximal Joint:
thickness (middle nger)
27. Proximal Joint:
depth (middle nger)
28. Proximal Joint:
circumference (middle nger)
e e 18.1 1.1 17.6 1 17.9 2.0 e e 17.6 1.3 17.9 2.5
e e 16.4 1.24 e e e e e e 16.8 1.3 13.9 2.3
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

at wrist prolongation (annular)
31. Distance from
ngertip to vertex (annular)
32. Perpendicular height
at wrist prolongation (little nger)
33. Distance from ngertip
to vertex (little nger)

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
54 4 56.6 3.4 54.5 4.1 54.2 4.9 e e 56.9 4.4 54.5 4.5

Cases in which the anthropometric measures presented in this study are not found or do not match with measures in reference populations are marked with a dash.
197
197
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 197
197



Appendix C. Statistical comparison of HA measures reported in the present study Colombian population vs. reference female
populations


Measure Colombian
(Estrada, 1995)
Indian
(Nag et al., 2003)
Indian
(Dewangan
et al., 2008)
Indian
(Kar et al., 2003)
Jordanian
(Mandahawi
et al., 2008)
Vietnamese
(Imrhan et al., 1993)
(n 30)
%Diff t %Diff t %Diff t %Diff t %Diff t %Diff t
Height (cm) 0.8 1.3

3.1 4.4*

0.9 1.5

e e

e e

0.8 0.9
Weight (kg)
Hand measures (mm)
0.2 0.1

24.1 11.5*

19.6 12.7*

e e

6.41 2.7**

18.5 8.1*
1. Hand length 0.8 1.6

1.4 1.9

1.2 2.4**

4.7 8.3*

2.4 4.0*

1.4 1.3
2. Hand width 6.1 14.6*

13.7 17.8*

17.7 40.7*

4.4 8.0*

1.3 2.1

9.9 9.3*
3. Wrist width 13.2 23.2*

18.3 17.9*

e e

e e

e e

e e
4. Metacarpal hand circumference 7.0 14.5*

2.0 2.8*

e e

1.0 1.7

e e

e e
5. Hand circumference e e

18.9 16.7*

e e

e e

e e

e e
holding ngertips together

6. Fist circumference e e

6.1 8.8*

e e

5.3 8.8*

e e

e e
7. Wrist circumference 7.6 14.7*

9.1 13.8*

e e

e e

e e

2.5 2.6**
8. Hand thickness e e

10.2 8.7*

8.5 10.7*

e e

e e

4.9 1.6
9. Hand depth e e

48.6 26.6*

e e

e e

6.6 5.7*

e e
10. Joint: thickness (thumb) e e

14.0 10.2*

e e

e e

e e

e e
11. Joint: depth (thumb) e e

43.9 47.5*

e e

e e

e e

e e
12. Joint: circumference (thumb) e e

2.9 3.9*

e e

e e

e e

e e
13. Perpendicular height e e

8.6 4.2*

e e

e e

e e

e e
at wrist prolongation (thumb)

14. Distance from ngertip to vertex (thumb) e e

12.9 10.0*

e e

e e

e e

e e
15. Distal Joint: thickness (forenger) e e

36.4 32.5*

e e

e e

e e

e e
16. Distal Joint: Depth (forenger) e e

40.6 30.9*

e e

e e

e e

e e
17. Distal Joint Circumference (forenger) e e

9.2 9.9*

e e

e e

e e

e e
18. Proximal Joint thickness (forenger) e e

30.0 28.1*

e e

e e

e e

e e
19. Proximal Joint depth (forenger) e e

30.9 28.9*

e e

e e

e e

e e
20. Proximal Joint Circumference (forenger) e e

7.0 10.0*

e e

e e

e e

e e
21. Perpendicular height e e

2.8 3.5*

e e

e e

e e

e e
at wrist prolongation (forenger)

22. Distance from ngertip to vertex (forenger) e e

4.5 4.6*

e e

e e

e e

e e
23. Distal Joint: thickness (middle nger) e e

36.6 33.9*

e e

e e

3.5 4.5*

3.0 1.1
24. Distal Joint: depth (middle nger) e e

41.5 35.4*

e e

e e

2.4

20.8 6.1*
25. Distal Joint: circumference (middle nger) e e

6.3 10.0*

e e

e e

e e

e e
26. Proximal Joint: thickness (middle nger) e e

27.8 28.3*

e e

e e

1.6 2.2

2.8 1.1
27. Proximal Joint: depth (middle nger) e e

31.9 32.6*

e e

e e

1.4 1.6

16.3 6.3*
28. Proximal Joint: e e

2.6 3.4*

e e

e e

e e

e e
circumference (middle nger)

29. Distance from e e

3.6 4.5*

e e

e e

2.4 3.5*

1.4 1.1
ngertip to vertex (middle nger)

30. Perpendicular height e e

3.9 5.1*

e e

e e

e e

e e
at wrist prolongation (annular)

31. Distance from ngertip
to vertex (annular)
e e

2.4 2.4**

e e

e e

e e

e e
32. Perpendicular height e e

6.3 5.1*

e e

e e

e e

e e
at wrist prolongation (little nger)

33. Distance from ngertip
to vertex (little nger)
e e

3.6 2.9*

e e

e e

4.2 4.8*

0.3 0.2
%Diff 100 (mean of the Colombian e mean of the reference population)/mean of the Colombian population.
*Statistically signicant at a 0.01; **Statistically signicant at a 0.05.
Cases in which the anthropometric measures presented in this study are not found or do not match with measures in reference populations are marked with a dash.

References

Aghazadeh, F., Mital, A., 1987. Injuries due to hand tools; results of a questionnaire.
Applied Ergonomics 18 (4), 273e278.
Armstrong, T.J., Silverstein, B.A., 1987. Upper extremity pain in the workplace e role
of usage in causality. In: Handler, N. (Ed.), Clinical Concepts in Regional
Musculoskeletal Illness. Grune and Stratton, New York, pp. 333e354.
Asociacin Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores, 2007. Estadsticas Bogota,
Colombia. www.asocolores.org.
Botha, W.E., Bridger, R.S., 1998. Anthropometric variability, equipment usability and
musculoskeletal pain in a group of nurses in the Western Cape. Applied Ergo-
nomics 229, 481e490.
Boyles, J.L., Yearout, R.D., Rys, M.J., 2003. Ergonomic scissors for hairdressing.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32, 199e207.
Chao, A., Kumar, A.J., Emery, C.T.N.D., Nagarajarao, K., You, H., 2000. An ergonomic eval-
uation of cleco pliers. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, 4-441e4-442.
Cdigo sustantivo del trabajo de la Repblica de Colombia, 1950. http://www.
secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/codigo/codigo_sustantivo_trabajo.html.
Courtney, A.J., Ng, M.K., 1984. Hong Kong female hand dimensions and machine
guarding. Ergonomics 27, 187e193.
Davies, B.T., Abada, A., Benson, K., Cournety, A., Minto, I., 1980. Female hand
dimensions and guarding of machines. Ergonomics 23, 79e84.
Dewangan, K.N., Owary, C., Datta, R.K., 2008. Anthropometric data of female farm
workers from north eastern India and design of hand tools of the hilly region.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (1), 90e100.
Eksioglu, M., 2004. Relative optimum grip span as a function of hand anthropom-
etry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 34 (1), 1e12.
Eksioglu, M., 2006. Optimal work e rest cycles for an isometric intermittent grip-
ping task as a function of force, posture and grip span. Ergonomics 49 (2),
180e201.
Eksioglu, M., Fernandez, J.E., Twomey, J.M., 1996. Predicting peak pinch strength:
articial neural networks vs. regression. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 18, 431e441.
Espaa-Romero, V., Artero, E., Santaliestra-Pasias, A., Gutirrez, A., Castillo, M.,
Ruiz, J., 2008. Hand span Inuences optimal grip span in Boys and Girls Aged 6
to 12 Years. The Journal of Hand Surgery 33, 378e384.
198
198
R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 R.G. Garca-Cceres et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 183e198 198
198


Estrada, J., 1995. Parmetros Antropomtricos de la Poblacin laboral Colombiana
ACOPLA-95, rst ed. Universidad de Antioquia and Instituto de Seguros Sociales,
Medelln, Colombia.
Garrett, J.W., 1971. The adult hand: some anthropometric and biomechanical
considerations. Human Factors 13, 117e131.
Gerard, M.J., Armstrong, T.J., Franzblau, A., Martin, B.J., Rempel, D.M., 1999. The effects
of keyswitch stiffness on typing force, nger electromyography, and subjective
discomfort. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 60 (6), 762e769.
Gordon, S.L., Weinstein, J.N., 1998. A review of basic science issues in low back pain.
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 9 (2), 323e342.
Grant, K.A., Habes, D.J., Steward, L.L., 1992. An analysis of handle designs for
reducing manual effort: the inuence of grip diameter. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 10, 199e206.
Imrhan, S.N., Farahmand, K., 1999. Male torque strength in simulated oil rig tasks:
the effects of grease-smeared gloves and handle length, diameter and orien-
tation. Applied Ergonomics 30, 455e462.
Imrhan, S.N., Contreras, M.G., 2005. Hand anthropometry in a sample of Mexicans
in the US Mexico border region. In: Proceedings of the XIX Annual occupational
Ergonomics and Safety Conference, pp. 589e593. Las Vegas, NE.
Imrhan, S.N., Nguyen, M., Nguyen, N., 1993. Hand anthropometry of Americans of
Vietnamese origin. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 12, 281e287.
Imrhan, S.N., Sarder, M.D., Mandahawi, N., 2005. Hand anthropometry in a sample
of Bangladesh females. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual International
Conference on Industrial Engineering-Theory. Applications and Practice,
Clearwater, FL, pp. 566e569.
Imrhan, S.N., Sheik, N., Sarder, M.D., Mandahawi, N., 2009. Hand anthropometry in
Bangladeshis living in America and comparisons with other populations.
Ergonomics 52, 987e998.
Japanese Editorial Committee of Anthropometry for Ergonomics, 1967. The measure
of man. Ergonomics association, Tokyo. In: Courtney, A.J. (Ed.), 1967. Hand
Anthropometry of Hong Kong Chinese Females Compared to Other Ethnic
Groups. Ergonomics, 27, pp. 1169e1180. 1984.
Kar, S.K., Ghosh, S., Manna, I., Banerjee, S., Dhara, P., 2003. An investigation of hand
anthropometry of agricultural workers. Journal of Human Ecology 14, 57e62.
Kattel, B.P., Fredericks, T.K., Fernandez, J.E., Lee, D.C., 1996. The effects of upper
extremity posture on maximum grip strength. International Journal of Indus-
trial Ergonomics 18, 423e429.
Keir, P.J., Wells, R.P., 1999. Changes in geometry of the nger exor tendons in the
carpal tunnel with wrist posture and tendon load: an MRI study on normal
wrists. Clinical Biomechanics 14, 635e645.
Kelly, B., Jackson, J., Yearout, R., Taylor, J., 1995. Carpal tunnel syndrome: case study of an
intercollegiate athlete. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15, 297e300.
Klamklay, J., Sungkhapong, A., Yodpijit, N., Patterson, P.E., 2008. Anthropometry of the
southern Thai population. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38, 111e118.
Mandahawi, N., Imrhan, S.N., Al-Shobaki, S., Sarder, B., 2008. Hand anthropometry
survey for the Jordanian population. International Journal of Industrial Ergo-
nomics 38, 966e976.
Martin, B.T., Armstrong, S., Ulin, S.S., 1996. A Conceptual Model to Analyze Hand-
Tool Selection and Design Processes. Proceedings of the IESC, Zurich,
448e453 pp.
Ministerio de la Proteccin Social, 2007. Informe de Enfermedad profesional en
Colombia 2003e2005, pp. 23e25.
Mirka, G.A., Shivers, C., Smith, C., Taylor, J., 2002. Ergonomic interventions for the
furniture manufacturing industry Part IIdHand tools. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 29, 275e287.
Moore, J.S., Garg, A., 1994. Upper extremity disorders in a pork plant: relationship
between task risk factors and morbidity. American Industrial Hygiene Associ-
ation Journal 55, 703e715.
Moore, A., Wells, R., Ranney, D., 1991. Quantifying exposure in occupational
manual tasks with cumulative trauma disorder potential. Ergonomics 34,
1433e1453.
Nag, A., Nag, P.K., Desai, H., 2003. Hand anthropometry of Indian women. Indian
Journal of Medical Research 117, 260e269.
NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 1997. Musculoskel-
etal Disorders and Workplace Factors. NIOSH, Cincinnati, OH.
Norris, B.J., Wilson, J.R., 1997. Designing Safety into Products Making Ergonomics
Evaluation a Part of the Design Process. The University of Nottingham, Not-
tingham, UK.
Okunribido, O.O., 2000. A survey of hand anthropometry of female rural farm
workers in Ibadan, Western Nigeria. Ergonomics 43, 282e292.
Prado-Leon, L.R., Avila-Chaurand, R., Gonzles-Muoz, L., 20 01. Anthropometric
study of Mexican primary school children. Applied Ergonomics 32,
339e345.
Radwin, R.G., Jeng, O.J., 1997. Activation force and travel effects on overexertion in
repetitive key tapping. Human Factors 39 (1), 130e140.
Radwin, R.G., Marras, W.S., Lavendertheor, S.A., 2002. Biomechanical aspects of
work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics
Science 2 (2), 153e217.
Rempel, D., Serina, E., Kleinenberg, E., Martin, B.J., Armstrong, T.J., Foulke, J.A.,
Natarajan, S., 1997. The effect of keyboard keyswitch make force on applied
force and nger exor muscle activity. Ergonomics 40 (8), 800e808.
Ruiz, M.R., 2001. Tablas Antropomtricas Infantiles. Universidad Nacional, Bogota e
Colombia.
Sande, L.P., Coury, H.J.C.G., Oishi, J., Kumar, S., 2001. Effect of musculoskeletal
disorders on prehension strength. Applied Ergonomics 32, 609e619.
Sjgaard, G., Sgaard, K., 1998. Muscle injury in repetitive motion disorders.
Current Orthopaedic Practice: A Review and Research Journal 351 (June),
2e270.