ISAK Home

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026): Volume 6, Issue 1, Year 2026

Articles

Fitting Workplace Furniture Ergonomics to Human Anthropometric Characteristics for Decent Work Systems Among Nigerian University Employees

  • Celestine Nnaemeka Achebe,
  • Stephen Chijioke Nwanya,
  • Chidera Emmanuel Eze,
  • Chukwuemeka Emmanuel Ifeabunike,
  • Nelson Echezona Ekechukwu
Celestine Nnaemeka Achebe
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.
Stephen Chijioke Nwanya
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.
Chidera Emmanuel Eze
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.
Chukwuemeka Emmanuel Ifeabunike
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.
Nelson Echezona Ekechukwu
Department of Medical Rehabilitation, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.
PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34256/ijk2611

Published 31-03-2026

Keywords

  • Anthropometric Data,
  • Decent Work,
  • Ergonomic Furniture,
  • Musculoskeletal Disorder,
  • University Employee

How to Cite

Achebe, C. N., Nwanya, S. C., Eze, C. E., Ifeabunike, C. E., & Ekechukwu, N. E. (2026). Fitting Workplace Furniture Ergonomics to Human Anthropometric Characteristics for Decent Work Systems Among Nigerian University Employees. International Journal of Kinanthropometry, 6(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.34256/ijk2611

Copyright (c) 2026 Celestine Nnaemeka Achebe, Stephen Chijioke Nwanya, Chidera Emmanuel Eze, Chukwuemeka Emmanuel Ifeabunike, Nelson Echezona Ekechukwu

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Dimensions

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Introduction: Access to a comfortable furniture in the office is a right enforceable by the worker, but it cannot be achieved without personal anthropometric data. This study aims to ameliorate the paucity of a representative anthropometric database on which furniture designs and procurement orders would have been based for workers. The specific objectives were to determine seating anthropometrical body parts dimensions for university staff; develop a databank of measured data; and calculate basic anthropometric indices for decent work benchmarks. Methods: In achieving these objectives, both quantitative and qualitative systematic research methods were employed. In addition, structured questionnaires with imbedded relevant ergonomic queries were administered on respondents through participatory survey method.  This study developed an anthropometric database and determined some indices. Results: For perfect decision situations, the percentiles of the indices were calculated. The calculated metrics aligned with standard guidelines in both 5th and 95th percentile values for seat height (40 cm – 55cm), seat depth (49.8cm maximum), seat width (45 cm) and armrest height (17.3 – 27 cm) requirements for optimal comfort depending on body stature of adult user sitting upright. In addition, 70 % of the sampled staff experienced body discomfort after using their office furniture. This issue constitutes a serious ergonomic concern necessitating holistic ergonomic assessment and interventions. Conclusion: The findings of this study will benefit the university by providing information on anthropometric data for furniture procurement.

PDF

References

  1. Baharampour, S., Nazari, J., Dianat, I., Asgharijafarabadi, M. (2013). Student’s body dimensions in relation to classroom furniture. Health Promotion Perspective, 3(2), 165-174. https://doi.org/10.5681/hpp.2013.020
  2. BIFMA (2025. Business and institutional furniture manufacturers, BIFMA (2025). Online available: https://www.core77.com/posts/43422/Reference-Common-Dimensions-Angles-and-Heights for-Seating-Designers
  3. Deros, B.M., Mohamad, M., Ismail, A.R., Soon, O.W., Lee, K.C., Nordin, M.S. (2009). Recommended chair and work surfaces dimensions of VDT tasks for Malaysian citizens. European Journal of Scientific, 34(2), 156-167.
  4. Ekechukwu, E.N.D., Anyaene, C.C., Ikefuna, O., Aguwa, E.N.A., Iroezindu, I.C.I., Okeke, T.A., Arinze-Onyia, S.U. (2022). Anthropometric Indices and Nutritional Status of Infants in Nigeria – A Preliminary Study. In: Black, N.L., Neumann, W.P., Noy, I. (eds) Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021). IEA 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 223. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74614-8_10
  5. Fidelis, O.P., Ogunlade, B., Adelakun, S.A., Adukwu, O. (2018). Ergonomic analysis of classroom furniture in a Nigerian University. Nigerian Journal of Technology, 37(4), 1154 – 1161. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njt.v37i4.40
  6. Goleij, N., Hafezi, P., Ahmadi, O. (2024). Investigating the trends and causes of changes in human anthropometric dimensions over the past three decades: a challenge for ergonomic design, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 30(2), 480-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2024.2318945.
  7. IEA (2010). International Ergonomics Association, IEA (2010). Principles and guides for human factor/ergonomics design and management of work systems, 2-4.
  8. IEC (2010). Published Standards from ISO Technical Committee 159 (Ergonomics), Subcommittee 3 (Anthropometry and Biomechanics). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2014) 191e195. Online available, Accessed June 20, 2025).
  9. Isapka, A.I., Omorodion,O.A. (2019). The Mismatch of Students Anthropometric Data with Ergonomic Designs of Learning Workstation is a Risk Factor for Musculoskeletal Disorders. International Journal of Sciences, 8(2), 105-110. https://doi.org/10.18483/ijSci.1913
  10. Ismaila, O.S. (2009). Anthropometric data of hand, foot and ear of University Students in Nigeria, Leonardo Journal of Sciences, 8(15), 15-20. http://ljs.academicdirect.org
  11. Ismaila, S.O., Odunlami, S.A., Kuye, S.I., Musa, A.I., Olayanju, A. (2021). Ergo - evaluation of urban bus driver’s workstations in South West Nigeria, Journal of Engineering Science, 28(2), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.52326/jes.utm.2021.28(2).04.
  12. Kallenberg, T. (2020). Differences in influence: different types of university employees compared. Tertiary Education and Management, 26, 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-020-09058-w
  13. Kang, J., Jeon, H., Kim, E., Kim, K., Jung, H., Lee, C. (2023). Cross-cultural comparison of body dimensions and trends: an analysis of ANSUR and Size Korea datasets for automotive seating design, Ergonomics, 67(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2206073
  14. Lee, Y.A. (2014). Computer design and digital fit of clothing. In Anthropometry, Apparel Sizing and Design Woodhead Publishing, 305-319. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096890.2.305
  15. Mbagwu, S.I., Obi, N.P., Okubike, E.A., Ezeuko, V.C., Anokwulu, I.O., Onyemunosa-Ibeabuchi, M.N. (2025). Socioeconomic disparities in adolescent growth: an anthropometric study of Nigerian school children in Lagos, BMC Public Health, 25(763), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22001-1
  16. Molenbroek, J.F.M., Kroon-Ramaekers, Y.M.T., Snijders, C.J. (2003). Revision of the design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture. Ergonomics, 46(7), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000085635
  17. NIOSH (2015). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2015).Keeping workers safet through anthropometric research, ; Online available; https://www.ishn.com/articles/102057-keeping-workers-safe-through-anthropometric-research.pdf. Retrieved; June 2, 2025.
  18. NUC (2025). National Universities Commission (NUC) Bulletin,( 2025). https://www.nuc.edu.ng/category/bulletin/nigerian-univerisities (accessed March, 2024).
  19. Nwanya, S.C., Achebe, C.N. (2023), Human factors issues at selected workplaces in Nigeria: practice, status and future research needs. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Safety, 7(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.24840/2184-0954_007-001_001812
  20. Nwanya, S.C., Ukoha, C.A. (2025). Ergonomic risk factors analysis for digitalizing work content and improving mechanic resilience in automobile repair workshops. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Safety, 9(1), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.24840/2184-0954_009.001_002677
  21. Occhipinti, E.D. Colombini,G., Molteni,A. & Grieco,A. (1993). Criteria for the ergonomic evaluation of work chairs. La Medicina del lavoro, 84(4), 274-285.
  22. Odunaiya, N.A., Owonuwa, D.D., Oguntibeju, O.O. (2014). Ergonomic suitability of educational furniture and possible health implications in a university Setting. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 5, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S38336
  23. Onawumi, A.S., Dunmade, I., Fajobi, M. (2016b). Anthropometry Survey of Nigerian Occupational Bus Drivers to Facilitate Sustainable Design of Driver's Workplace. World Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(02), 176 -182. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/wjet.2016.42016
  24. Onawumi, A.S., Oyawale, F.A., Dunmade, I.S. (2016a). Ergonomic Assessment of School Furniture in Primary Schools in Nigeria. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 6(1), 92-101.
  25. Parcells, C., Stommel, M., Hubbard, R.P. (1999). Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications, Journal of adolescent health, 24(4), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00113-X
  26. Realyvasquez-Vargas, A., Arredondo-Soto, K.C., Blanco-Fernandez, J., Sandoval Quintanilla, J.D., Jimenez-Macias, E., Garcia-Alcaraz, J.L. (2020). Work standardization and anthropometric workstation design as an integrated approach to sustainable workplaces in the manufacturing industry. Sustainability, 12(9), 3728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093728
  27. Saha, A.K. Jahin, A.Md., Rafiquzzaman, Md., Mridha, M.F. (2024). Ergonomic design of computer laboratory furniture: Mismatch analysis utilizing anthropometric data of university students, Heliyon, 10(14), e34063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34063
  28. Sambo, A.Y., Sahabo, M.M., Onuzulike, C.O. (2023). Prevalence and Pattern of Musculoskeletal Disorder in Panteka Mechanic Village, Kaduna. Environmental Technology and Science Journal, https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/etsj.v14i1.18
  29. Springer, T. (2010). The future of ergonomic office seating. Knoll Workplace Research, 11.
  30. Taifa, I.W., Desai, D.A. (2016). Anthropometric measurements for ergonomic design of students’ furniture in India. Engineering science and technology, an international journal, 20(1), 232-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.08.004
  31. Taiwo, E.O., Thanni, L.O.A. (2022). Baseline anthropometric measurements and Obesity among students in Sagamu, Ogun State, southwest, Nigeria: Baseline anthropometric measurements and Obesity among students. Babcock University Medical Journal, 5(2), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.38029/babcockunivmedj.v5i2.143
  32. Ugbenyen, A.M., Ajayi, O.O. (2023). Studying the anthropometric indices of university students at a Nigerian University. Journal of Nature and Science of Medicine, 6(4), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.4103/jnsm.jnsm_148_22
  33. Wang, E.M.Y., Wang, M.J., Yeh, W.Y., Shih, Y.C., Lin, Y.C. (1999). Development of anthropometric work environment for Taiwannesse workers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 23(1-2), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00095-4