依據印尼中爪哇省農民人體計測研究 – 研擬與建議農具新國家標準

Anthropometric Study of Indonesian Farmers in Central Java, Indonesia – toward evaluation and propose the newly dimensions of national standard of agriculture tools

張濤(Yanto)

指導教授 ： 呂志維

中原大學/電機資訊學院/工業與系統工程研究所/博士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201800005

摘要

本研究人體計測數據來源為印尼中爪哇省三個聚落鄉村的農民，參與研究受測者共有314位，每位受測者共需要測量69項人體計測，測量內容包含三種握力方式與肺活量，在受測過程中受測者均以站姿及坐姿姿勢進行測量。在69項人體計測中，其中25項屬於手部的人體計測，計測數值將以表格的方式呈現出印尼男性與女性受測者的最小值、最大值、平均值、標準誤差(SD)、平均標準誤差(SEM)、變異係數(CV)，與身體每項部位的第5百分位數以及第95百分位數。
本研究樣本皆取自於職業屬性相同之農民，根據男、女性統計分析的結果，我們可以觀察到43項測量值中有40項是有顯著差異的， 在這40項測量內，男性農民有38項人體計測值較為顯著，其餘2項(大腿厚度與胸部深度)女性農民較為顯著；至於手部測量，除了拇指厚度、食指寬度和厚度、拇指間的手部厚度、手腕寬度之外，男性的測量結果也相對顯著於女性計測值。研究中考量到平均值百分比的差異性，本研究將參照國內人體計測資料庫的參考計測值與印尼從事相關研究者之文獻與研究。
　　在本研究中，農民之間的人體計測值也相對與其他族群進行比較，如印度人、阿爾及利亞人、尼日利亞人、菲律賓人和葡萄牙人，以下為印尼農民於各族群間的平均差異百分比：印尼之於印度平均差異百分比為0%~18%，阿爾及利亞為1.1%~21.4%，尼日利亞為0.5%~24.4%，菲律賓為0.3%~12.7% ，葡萄牙為0.6%~27.4%，因此得出結論，印尼與印度男、女性農民之間的人體計測值、特徵是較為相近的；然而，以整體身形比較來說，印尼的男、女性農民相較於其他族群顯得較為矮小。
　　至於應用人體計測值給予評估與建議於農業工具尺寸，本研究將國家標準中鐮刀(SNI 02-1456-1989)、斧頭(SNI 05-0551 -1989)的數據加以評估而提出建議尺寸，並額外提出鋤頭的建議尺寸於國家標準尺寸。透過人體計測數據的參考與應用，發現讓使用者感到其安全度、舒適度、有效率之原因在於農用工具的握把長度與握柄直徑，本研究將會針對鐮刀、斧頭、鋤頭個別提出適當的握把長度與握柄直徑進行探討。對於鐮刀，本研究因考量到拇指間手部厚度的95百分位數，提出握把適當長度為12公分到22公分；則握把直徑部分，因拇指和食指之間會有重疊交錯的部分考量，因此將握把直徑建議三種不同尺寸分別為小(2.9~3.3公分)、中(3.3~3.8公分)、大(3.8~4.2公分)。對於斧頭，本研究因考量到拇指間手部厚度的95百分位數與額外增加的容許值，提出斧頭握把適當長度為15公分到22公分；則握把直徑部分，握把的設計是需要符合使用者的，使用時手指間沒有重疊交錯，可有效地降低抓握時所需要出的力量，因此將握把直徑建議三種不同尺寸分別為小(3.5~4公分)、中(4~4.6公分)、大(4.6~5公分)。對於鋤頭，以站姿人體計測尺寸作為考量，鋤柄的建議適當長度為76公分到106公分；則鋤柄直徑之建議值與斧頭相同。
　　由於人體間的尺寸會隨著時間而改變，本研究在此建議政府主管機關能夠定期評估與修改農業工具相關的尺寸標準，也希望政府主管機關能夠修訂與採納經由本研究發現的建議人體計測值於國家標準尺寸。

關鍵字

印尼農民 ； 印尼國家標準尺寸 ； 人體計測值 ； 農業工具

並列摘要

This study collected anthropometric data of Indonesian farmers in Central Java Province, Indonesia. A number of 314 samples participated in this study. They were taken from three residencies in Central Java, Indonesia. A number of 69 anthropometric dimensions including three grip strengths and lung capacity were measured, taken when subject in the standing and sitting postures. Out of 69 dimensions, 25 dimensions were hand anthropometry presented in separate table. The values of minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error of mean (SEM), coefficient of variation (CV), 5th and 95th percentile values of each body dimension were presented for both males and females.
Based on statistical analysis between males and females, it can be observed that 40 0f 43 measurements were significantly different. Of these 40 measurements, female farmers are bigger in two dimensions (thigh thickness and chest depth); males are higher and bigger for the remaining 38 dimensions. As for hand anthropometry, males are significantly longer and bigger than females, except for thumb thickness, index finger breadth and thickness, hand thickness with thumb included, and wrist width.
The comparisons were also made between anthropometric data in this study with those of other studies by Indonesian researchers. Considering the percentage of mean differences, anthropometric dimensions of Indonesian farmers in this study are found to be similar with previous studies. This finding may be due to the fact that both studies involved samples with the same occupation as farmer. Anthropometric dimensions of farmers of the present study were also compared with those of other nationalities, namely Indian, Algerian, Nigerian, Filipino and Portuguese. From the stature comparisons, Indonesian farmers are shorter than those of other nationalities for both male and female. The percentage of mean differences between Indonesian farmers and those of other nationalities are ranging from 0% to 18% for Indian farmers, from 1.1% to 21.4% for Algerian farmers, from 0.5% to 24.4% for Nigerian farmers, from 0.3% to 12.7% for Filipino workers, and from 0.6% to 27.4% for Portuguese workers. Findings conclude that the general anthropometric characteristics of Indonesian farmers were found to be similar with Indian farmers for both male and female.
As for the application of anthropometric data to evaluate and propose the national standard dimensions of agriculture tools, this study highlighted the use of such data to evaluate and propose the dimensions of sickle (SNI 02-1456-1989), choppers (SNI 05-0551-1989), and to propose the national standard dimensions of hoe handle. Regarding those tools, two handle dimensions were identified as key dimensions for effective, safe and comfort use by the users i.e. the length and diameter of handle. For the sickle, this study proposed handle length of the sickle from 12.0 cm to 22.0 cm by considering the 95th percentile of hand breadth at thumb. For handle diameter, a-three sizes policy (small, medium and large) to accommodate most users within the population was proposed i.e. 2.9-3.3 cm, 3.3-3.8 cm, 3.8-4.2 respectively. For the chopper, this study proposed handle length of the sickle from 15.0 cm to 22.0 cm. Meanwhile for handle diameter a-three sizes policy was also proposed with the sizes are 3.5-4 cm (small), 4-4.6 cm (middle) and 4.6-5 cm (large). As for the hoe, this study also proposed the same three sizes of handle diameter as proposed for chopper. Meanwhile, by considering a few anthropometric dimensions in the standing posture, the recommended lengths of hoe handle are ranging from 76 cm to 106 cm. Further, findings in this study hopefully could be used by the responsible authority to revise and issue the newly dimensions of such national standard. This study also recommended to the authority to periodically evaluate and revise the dimensions of national standard of agriculture tools due to the fact that anthropometric dimensions might change over time.

並列關鍵字

Indonesian farmers ； anthropometric dimensions ； Indonesian national standard ； agriculture tools

參考文獻

1. Abeysekera, J., & Shahnawaz, H. (1989). Body size variability between people in developed and developing countries and its impact on the use of imported goods. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4, 139–149.

2. Barroso M.P., Arezes P.M., Luis G.C., & Miguel A.S. (2005). Anthropometric study of Portuguese workers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, 401–410.

3. Bolstad, G., Benum, B., & Rokne, A. (2001). Anthropometry of Norwegian light industry and office workers. Applied Ergonomics, 32, 239–246.

5. Chuan, T.K., Hartono, M., & Kumar, N. (2010). Anthropometry of the Singaporean and Indonesian populations. International Journals of Industrial Ergonomics, 40, 757–766.

6. Dewangan, K.N., Owarya, 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, 90–100.