Design and Development of an Ergonomic Chair for Students in

Educational Settings
1. Abstract

Background: Proper designing of chairs based on ergonomics increases efficiency, promotes

quality of education, leads to correct posture in students, and reduces risk of musculoskeletal
disorders.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to design and develop an ergonomic chair, based on
anthropometric data of students in educational settings.
Methods: Anthropometric parameters were obtained from a stratified-random sample of
207 students. The data were analyzed using the SPSS 20 software, and the results were
extracted as mean, standard deviation, and percentiles. The chair was planned in the CATIA
software and developed by a three-dimensional print.
Results: In this study, an ergonomic chair was designed based on anthropometric data from
students. The seat height, depth, and width of the chair were determined as 44 cm, 42 cm,
and 42.15 cm, respectively. The height of the desk was adjustable in 19 to 29 cm, and the
depth and length of the desk were considered as 51 cm and 65 cm. The width and height of
the backrest were also 54 cm and 44 cm, and the backrest angle was adjustable in 95° to
105°.
Conclusions: An ergonomic chair with adjustable parts was designed to achieve a well-match
between anthropometric characteristics of students and the furniture. Such chair can reduce
musculoskeletal disorders in students. Some ergonomic characteristics of this chair include
adjustability of footrest, backrest, armrests, and desk. A chair with such characteristic can be
used by many students with different body sizes.

Keywords: Design, Ergonomic, Chair, Educational Setting

2. Background Physical environments of classrooms have a
vital role in student’s satisfaction (6), and a
Education is the most effective means to higher level of satisfaction can increase the
ensure economic growth and national level of skills, mentality, and knowledge of
development in countries (1). University is one students (7). University is the workplace of
of the educational settings in training of many students around the world, and chairs
students. Effective training can be achieved in a have become an important physical element of
safe and stress-free space in classrooms (2). the classroom and learning environment (2, 8).
Physical environment of educational facilities Educational furniture is used in classrooms of
can help teaching, learning, and academic many colleges, institutes, and universities (9,
performance (3, 4), while inadequate facilities 10), and students spend a major part of their
can cause stress and agitated behaviors in time sitting on this furniture in classrooms(9,
students (5). 11-13). Therefore, they are exposed to risks
 Ansari S et al.
associated
with prolonged sitting in a static and awkward Recent studies have also revealed that
posture (13). These risk factors are generally disproportion between users’
created with inappropriate chairs (14). anthropometricdimensionsandavailablefurni
tureisoneof thefactors that reduces
Improper design of chairs is one of the
reasons of inappropriate sitting positions concentration and increases fidgeting in
individuals (24).
(15), which can lead to bad
posture,fatigue,severepsychologicalstress,an According to statistics, over 4 400 000
deffectsonstudents’ performance (9, 14, 16). students are studying in Iran; therefore, lack
The relationship between awkward body of standard desks and chairs can influence
posture and cognitive issues, such as health of this stratum (25). Using
consciousness, discomfort, and reaction appropriatelydesignedfurnituremayreducefa
time has also been investigated by some tigueanddiscomfort in sitting posture and
studies (17). Many complications can arise allows students to sit comfortably for longer
from using inappropriate chairs, such as periods of time, consequently increases
lower back pain, pain in the spine, neck, concentration and learning (13). Efficient
shoulders, arms, and paralysis of muscles furniture is expected to help learning by
(15, 18). providing a stress-free and comfortable
workstation (8).
Equipment should be designed based on
Copyright © 2018, Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
anthropometry and ergonomics principles to
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
reduce accidents and symptoms in order to
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the
increase efficiency (26). Anthropometry is
material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
defined as measuring dimensions of the
Also, static posture reduces flexibility and
body, including body size, shape, strength,
softness of intervertebral discs (19) and
capacity, and volume for designing aims (9,
causes severe muscle tension due to
27, 28). Dimensions of the body in users
reduced disk feeding and limitation of blood
have an important role in designing
flow
workstations that fit the normal posture
(20, 21).
(29). True size of desk and chair
Studieshaveshownthatinappropriatedesigno
hasbeendeterminedbymeasurementof
f chairs and their disproportion with body
bodydimensions in users (22). Studies have
dimensions in the long-term not only
shown that anthropometric parameters are
influences physical growth, poor postures,
important factors in designing desks and
and musculoskeletal disorders, yet also
chairs for students (8, 26). This furniture has
decreases student’s learning interest, even
a low comfort for students as
during the most stimulating and interesting
anthropometric data were not used in its
lessons (8, 22), and indirectly effects
design (9, 10). Using anthropometric
educational efficiency and focus (13, 23).
 measurements in design improves students’ students (38). Other studies revealed a
comfort (8, 30) and reduces mismatch between characteristics of existing
musculoskeletaldisorders(MSDs)(18, 31), chairs and anthropometric dimensions of
andconsequentlyimproves their students (13, 39). Although there are a large
performance (10, 32). Furthermore, MSDs number of studies, worldwide, in which
are defined as injuries in the muscular and classroom furniture has been designed and
nervous systems, including muscles, bones, developed for students, few studies have been
joints, tendons and ligaments, nerves, and conducted on designing furniture for
blood vessels, which can limit usual activities universities in Iran. Khanam et al. designed
of students(33-35). Work- seating furniture for classroom settings based
relatedMSDsareoneof theconsequences of on anthropometric data of undergraduate
awkward posture that can influence students (40), and MokdadandAl-
efficiency, performance, well-being, and Ansaridesignedergonomicschoolfurniturefor
quality of work (36). Bahraini students (32). In some studies,
Designing comfortable furniture (28) leads researchers designed ergonomic chairs and
to health, safety, productivity, well-being, furniture for university students in Sri Lankan
and motivation to study (16, 31, 37). Thus, and India (8, 9, 16). Oyewole et al. designed
proper designing of chairs based on ergonomic and adjustable classroom furniture
ergonomics and anthropometric for first graders at an elementary school (22).
characteristic increases efficiency and
promotes quality of education, leads to In these studies, designing of school furniture
correct posture in students, and reduces has been traditionally based on anthropometry
musculoskeletal disorders (2). and biomechanics of the human body. Few
A large number of studies, worldwide, have studies have been conducted on designing
shown a mismatch between students’ ergonomic furniture for educational settings in
anthropometric characteristics and dimensions this field, in Iran. Many aspects of design,
of classroom furniture. For example, including comments and suggestions from
Panagiotopoulou et al. reported that classroom users of this furniture have not been
chairs are too high and too deep; desks are also considered. It should also be noted that no
too high for pupils (20). specific software has been used for designing in
GouvaliandBoudolosfoundthatdeskandseatheig these studies and only the dimensions and
ht were larger than accepted limits for most features of the chair are presented.
children (26). In Iran, studies have also shown
mismatch between students’ body dimensions Anthropometry has three basic principles that
and classroom chairs and desks. In a study are being considered in designing various
conducted by Zarei et al., seat dimension and furniture, depending on their type. These
students’ dimensions matched only in desk principles include: “Design for extreme”, which
length parameters (2). Bayatkashkoli and can be designed based on the 95th percentile
Nazerian reported that dimensions of chairs male or design based on the 5th percentile
were greater than acceptable limits for most female; “design for an adjustable range”, which
Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 3
 Ansari S et al.
can be
4.2.Anthropometric Measurements
considered both 5th female and 95th male and
this principle has been suggested by many Static anthropometry was used to measure
researchers in designing; “design for the dimensions of the body. Data of static
average”, which is used whenever the use of anthropometry are related
adjustability is impractical (9). This study used todimensionsandsizesof
principles of “design for extreme” and “design thebodyinafixedstructuralposition that are
for an adjustable range” for designing different measured by specific anatomical points in a
parts of a chair. specific condition.
3. Objectives An anthropometer with adjustable chair and
footrest, digital calipers with precision of 0.1
This study aimed at designing and developing and 0.5 mm, plastic ruler,
an ergonomic and anthropometric chair for flexiblemeasuringtape,
students in educational settings based on andagoniometerwereused to measure the body
standard dimensions. dimensions of students. Then, the results were
recorded in an anthropometric checklist.
4. Methods Subjects wore a light dress with no shoes. All
measurements were taken when the subjects
4.1. Participants and Sample Size were sitting in a full straight posture, so that
In this study, anthropometric parameters were the knees and ankles formed right angles and
obtained from students of Qazvin University of with feet on the floor. The recorded
Medical Sciences. The total number of students anthropometric measurements were stature,
was 2563. Based on previous studies (2) and sitting height, shoulder height (sitting), elbow
Equation 1, sample size was calculated as 132. height (sitting), shoulder breadth, popliteal
However, collected data exceeded the height, knee height, hip width, elbow to elbow
calculated sample size, and 207 students width, elbow-fingertip length, buttock-popliteal
participated in the study. In this study, male length, buttock-knee length, abdominal depth,
and female students at the age of 18to27years, forearm width, thigh thickness, and weight.
studyingatundergraduateandpostgraduate Definitions of the abovementioned
levels, were selected through stratified-random anthropometric dimensions are presented in
sampling. Table 1.
(1) Figure 1 shows 15 dimensions of the body used
for designing of the chair.
4.3.Data Analysis
This study was approved by the Ethical
The data were analyzed using the SPSS 20
Committee with a proprietary ID of
software, and the results were extracted as
IR.QUMS.REC.1395.187. Informed consent form
mean, standard deviation, and percentiles.
was obtained from all participants.
Thereafter, standard dimensions for
designing an ergonomic chair were adjustable range”. For example, principle of
estimated. Then, the “design for an adjustable range” was used
chairwasplannedintheCATIAsoftware, for designing the height of the desk. It
andtheprototype of should be noted that in this study, different
thechairwasdevelopedbythree- dimensions of the designed chair
dimensionalprint. The material used for werecomparedwithstandardsISIRI9697-1,
developing this model was PLA bioplastic. ISIRI7494, and BS5874.
Also, in this planning, the needs of the chair The data collected in this study can be used
design wereidentifiedusingstudents’ for designing adjustable and non-adjustable
andexpertprofessors’ suggestions and chairs for students. In many researches it
opinions to improve the design and increase has been recommended to design
the perfection and popularity of the adjustable furniture whenever possible.
designed chair. However, factors, such as cost, difficulty to
prepare, mechanism of adjustability and
5. Results time make limitations in designing and
development of adjustable furniture (9). In
According to the results, 82 (39.6%) of cases this study, some parts of the chair were
were male, and 125 (60.4%) were female; designed to be adjustable in order to allow
46.4% were studying health, 33.8% comfort and flexibility.
paramedical, 15.5% nursing and midwifery, Figure 2 shows the designed chair from
and 4.3% medicine and dentistry. Mean and different sides.
standard deviation of age was 20.82 ± 1.55
years. Descriptive statistics of
6. Discussion
anthropometric parameters for males and
females and all students are presented in Long-term inappropriate posture and
Tables 2 and 3. discomfort, associated with improper design
Table 4 shows various criteria, which have of chairs and desks used at schools and
been suggested to determine the universities, are factors that may affect
dimensions for designing chairs for students. learning and academic performance and
Two principles of anthropometry were used physical growth of students. Therefore,
to determine these criteria, which include chairs should be designed based
“design for extreme” and “design for an

Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 5

 Ansari S et al.

Figure 1. Anthropometric dimensions required in chair design. Abbreviations: S, stature; SH,

sitting height; SHH, shoulder height; EHS, elbow height sitting; SHB, shoulder breadth; PH,
popliteal height; KH, knee height; HW, hip width; EW, elbow to elbow width; EFL, elbow-
fingertip length; BPL, buttock-popliteal length; BKL, buttock-knee length; ABD, abdominal
depth; FW, forearm width; TT, thigh thickness.
 Figure 2. Designed chair from different sides
Table 1. Description of Dimensions of the Body for Design of the Classroom Chair
Body Description of Body Dimensions of Students
Dimensions
Stature Vertical distance from the floor to the top of the head, and measured with
the subject erect and looking straight.
Vertical distance between the top of head and the surface of the seat
Sitting height
surface that measured with the subject erect and looking straight ahead.
Shoulder height Vertical distance from the top of the shoulder at the acromion to seat
sitting surface.
Elbow height Vertical distance from the bottom of the tip of the elbow to the seat surface
sitting and taken with a 90° angle elbow flexion.
Shoulder Maximum horizontal breadth across the shoulders.
breadth
Popliteal height Vertical distance from the floor to the posterior surface of the knee with 90°
knee flexion.
Knee height Vertical distance from the floor to the top of the knee cap.
Hip width Horizontal distance measured in the widest points of the hips in the sitting
position.
Elbow to elbow Horizontal distance across the lateral surfaces of the elbows.
length
Elbow-fingertip Horizontal distance from the outer surface of the elbow to the tip of the
length tallest finger.

Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 7

 Ansari S et al.

Buttock-
Horizontal distance from the posterior surface of the buttock to the
popliteal length
popliteal surface.
Buttock-knee Horizontal distance from the back of the buttock to the front of the knee
length cap.
Abdominal Horizontal distance from vertical reference plate to front of the abdomen in
depth standard sitting position.
Forearm width Maximum width of the forearm when it is straight.
Thigh thickness Vertical distance from the highest point of thigh to the seat surface.
on anthropometric dimensions of users. consistent with findings of similar studies (2,
Matching between dimensions of chairs and 41). Furthermore, with 3 cm for heel height
users’ anthropometric dimensions and and 8 cm for the height of footrest, the seat
ergonomics indices leads to more comfort for height was considered 44 cm, which is in
consumers. Standard design of chairs can accordance with BS5873 and standard ISIRI
promote anatomical postures and comfort, 7494. In the study of Thariq et al., this
which prevent inappropriate body postures. dimensionwas considered44.5 cm, whichis
This factor can also reduce the risk of similar to the present study (8). The footrest
musculoskeletal disorders and increases of the designed chair was adjustable for short
efficiency and concentration of students at persons, who cannot fully fit their legs on the
classrooms (13, 23, 26). In this study, an floor, if they want to place their legs on this
ergonomic chair was designed based on footrest. Also, tall persons can fully close it if
ergonomics principles and anthropometric they do not want to use the footrest. A basket
data obtained from students to allow comfort is also available under the chair for additional
and productivity. equipment.
Anthropometric dimensions that form the The seat depth was calculated 42 cm based on
basis for the dimension of seat height was the 5th percentile of buttock-popliteal length,
popliteal height and the seat height of which matches the standard BS5873 and ISIRI
standard chair in this study was determined 7494. This figure was reported as 40.9 cm (2)
based on the 5th percentile of females’ and 40 cm (40) in other studies, which are less
popliteal height. The seat height of the chair than that obtained in the current study. In
should be matched with 5th percentile of contrast, some studies reported this
users’ popliteal height so that short dimension as 43.4 cm (8), 44.81 cm (16), and
personsarealsoabletoputtheirfeetonthefloore 45 cm (9), respectively, which is more than
asilyand do not feel pressure in different parts the current study. Mismatch between seat
of their body when sitting on the chair. In this depth and buttock-popliteal length of users
study, standard seat height without can lead to bending of the trunk and head and
considering shoes was 33 cm, which is extending the arm forward and, consequently,
leading to pain in the back, shoulders, and different parts of the feet. This feature is in
arms in the long term and also creating accordance with the ISIRI 9697 - 1 standard.
problems in using the backrest. The high The hip width was considered for determining
depth of seat leads to pressure on the thighs the dimension of the seat width. The standard
and disruption of the circulatory system; the seat width was determined based on the 95th
low depth of the seat leads to pressure on percentile of hip width that was reported as
back and knees to avoid falling (42). The front 42.15 cm. This figure in the study of Zarei et
edge of the seat has a curvature that protects al. (2) and Kashif et al. (16) was reported as 41
the underlying thighs, and the casualty in cm and
front of the seat prevents from pressure to 30.03 cm, respectively, which is less than
those calculated
Table 2. Anthropometric
Indices of Male and Female
Students
Anthropometric Male Female
Parametersa
5th 50th 95th Mean ± 5th 50th 95th Mean ±
SD SD
Stature 164 177 186 176.5 ± 154 162 170 162.6 ±
6.66 5.32
Sitting height 86 92 98.8 92.2 ± 81 85 91 85.5 ±
38.2 3.08
Shoulder height 57.15 64 68.5 63.3 ± 54.65 58 62.85 58.4 ±
(sitting) 3.15 2.52
Elbow height (sitting) 18.65 25 29 24.9 ± 19.3 24 29 24.2 ±
3.15 2.57
Popliteal height 36 41 44.5 40.9 ± 33 38 41 37.5 ±
3.43 2.54
Knee height 47 51.75 62.85 51.7 ± 44 48 53 48.4 ±
2.85 2.42
Shoulder breadth 34.09 37.42 42.39 37.8 ± 32.18 35.62 38.55 35.6 ±
2.27 2.01
Hip width 32.37 36.5 40.6 36.5 ± 32.92 36.9 42.15 36.9 ±
2.27 2.69
Elbow-fingertip 44.13 47.2 51.18 47.4 ± 38.8 42.2 45.6 42.4 ±
length 2.07 2.17
Buttock-popliteal 46.15 50 58 50.4 ± 42 47 52 46.8 ±
length 3.28 2.95

Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 9

 Ansari S et al.

Buttock-
57.15 61 69.7 62.2 ± 54 59 64 58.6 ±
knee length
3.42 3.19
Abdominal depth 21 24 28 24.3 ± 19.3 22 28 22.9 ±
2.15 2.81
Forearm width 6.8 8.05 9.49 8.1 ± 6.09 7.1 8.5 7.19 ±
0.8 0.73
Thigh thickness 13 16 20.42 16.1 ± 11 14 18 13.9 ± 2
2.34
Elbow to elbow 35.76 43.46 53.93 43.7 ± 34.64 39.91 46.85 40.22 ±
width 5.37 3.83
Weight 55 70 87.82 70.3 ± 44 57 74.1 57.8 ±
9.6 9.73
a
All dimensions are in
cm.
Table 3.
Anthropometric
Indices of Students
All Students
Anthropometric
Parametersa 5th 50th 95th Min Max Mean ±
SD
Stature 155.2 166.5 184 149 203 168.1 ±
9.01
Sitting height 81 88 96.8 78 103 88.1 ±
4.73
Shoulder height 55 60 67 52.5 70 60.4 ±
(sitting) 3.75
Elbow height (sitting) 19.2 24.5 29 17 36 24.5 ±
2.83
Popliteal height 33.7 39 43.5 29 63 38.9 ±
3.36
Knee height 45 50 55 43 59 49.7 ±
3.08
 Shoulder breadth 32.41 36.44 40.74 31.3 44.42 36.46 ±
2.36
Hip width 32.68 36.73 41.33 31.2 45.24 36.76 ±
2.54
Elbow-fingertip 39.3 44.15 49.76 34.2 52.36 44.37 ±
length 2.23
Buttock-popliteal 43 48 55 38 61 48.31 ±
length 3.57
Buttock-knee length 54.5 60 66.3 49.1 72 60.1 ±
3.71
Abdominal depth 20 23 28 16 34 23.47 ±
2.66
Forearm width 6.28 7.47 9.27 4.46 9.96 7.6±0.88

Thigh thickness 11.5 14.93 19.18 9 23 14.78 ±

2.4
Elbow to elbow 35.17 40.92 51.08 25.53 56.15 41.58 ±
width 4.8
Weight 44.4 62 80.9 41 99 62.8 ±
11.45
a
All dimensions are in cm.
Table 4. Recommended Dimensions for Armrest width Forearm width 9.49
Design of the Chair
Chair Features Anthropometric Design Backrest height Shoulder height 54
Data Dimension (Cm) (sitting)
Seat height Popliteal height 44 Backrest width Shoulder breadth 44

Seat depth Buttock-popliteal 42 Backrest angle - 95° - 105°

length in this study. This dimension was estimated as
Seat width Hip width 43 cm (9) and 43.6 cm in other similar studies
42.15
(8). The seat width in the designed chair in this
study was considered as 45.5 cm due to
Desk height Elbow height 19 – 29
increase in the thighs clearance, which is in
(sitting)
accordance with BS5873 and standard ISIRI
Desk length Elbow-fingertip 51
7494. This chair also has an armrest on both
length
sides; therefore, the seat width was considered
Desk width Elbow to elbow 65 larger so that it did not create any problem and
width limitation in sitting and standing up. Therefore,
Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 11
 Ansari S et al.
this factor
causes people to feel no pressure on their hip was different from the current study (8, 9). One
and the sides of thighs when sitting on it. of the reasons for this contradiction was the
difference in dimension and
The desk of the designed chair was adjustable,
percentileusedinthementionedstudies,
and adjustable height of this desk was
sothattheyused frombuttock-
determined by 5th to 95th percentile of sitting
kneelength(9)and50thpercentileof
elbow height of all students, which was 19 to
elbowfingertip length (8) for this purpose. The
29 cm. The height of the armrests and the desk
desk of the chair designed in the present study
of the chair were adjustable because different
had the ability to move forward and backward,
people can adjust the height of their elbows
which makes it easy for people to adjust the
and place it along their elbows so that they do
desk at the desired distance from their body.
not keep their shoulders up or down and feel
This also causes people with high abdominal
no pressure on the shoulders and various parts
depth to sit comfortably without pressure. This
of their hands. According to Grimes, mismatch
desk can be folded and steppedoutof
between the sitting elbow height and desk
thechairandthestudentscanclosethedesk if they
height can lead to pain in the shoulders and
do not want to use it.
neck (43). The adjustability of the desk in the
study of Kashif et al. was reported as 22.64 to Desk width was obtained as 53.93 cm based
24.26 cm (16), and in the study of Taifa and on 95th percentile of elbow to elbow width
Desai, it was reported as 15.6 to 24.5 cm (9), and due to the design requirements and
which are in contradiction with the present ensuring that the desk was placed on
study. One of the reasons for the conflict was thechair’sarmrests;
that these studies were conducted in different thisdimensionwasconsidered65cm. The
countries; consequently, the body dimensions surface of the desk was considered wide
of students were different from country to enough to be suitable for both right-handed
country. In some studies, such as Thariq et al.’s and left-handed students and the person
research, this dimension was not considered should not bend the waist and neck when
adjustable, and a fixed height of desk was writing. Also,
estimated as 22.9 cm (8). It should be noted therewasenoughspacetoputadditionalstatio
that the softness of hand placement on the nery, and it had a groove where students
elbow support in the designed chair is based on could put their pen and pencil.
the recommendation of Pheasant. Armrest width was determined based on
95th percentile of forearm width to the
The 95th percentile of elbow-fingertip length of
male students was used to determine length of elbows and forearms of the majority of
students was appropriately positioned on it.
the desk and this dimension was 51 cm. This
size in Zarei et al.’s study was 50 cm, which had On this chair two armrests were considered
to support both arms.
one centimeter difference with the current
study (2). In similar researches, this dimension
Shoulder height was used in determining the from 100° to 120° (16). These differences
height of backrest and the percentile used were due to used standards in these studies.
for this purpose was 5th percentile and this The desk angle in this research was
design facilitated the movement of the waist considered 0°, which is in line with Thariq et
and arms (32). Also, the upper part of the al.’s study (8) and is different from the study
backrest had two grooves to place the of Taifa and Desai that reported this angle as
students’ bag. The backrest height in the 0° to 20° (9). Also, in the study of Khanam et
study of Taifa and Desai was reported as 50 al., this angle was considered as 10 degrees,
cm, which was different from the current which is different from the current study
study (9) because of differences in studied (40).
countries and people. The upper and lower
edges of the backrest were considered in a 6.1. Conclusions
curved form, based on the ISIRI 9697 - 1
An ergonomic chair with adjustable parts
standard.
was designed to achieve a good match
The backrest width of the chair was
between anthropometric characteristics of
calculated as 44 cm based on 95th
students and used furniture. The size of the
percentile of student’s shoulder breadth and
chair was based on anthropometric
standard ISIRI 7494, and the curvature of
dimensions of students. Since most activities
this backrest supported the lumbar well. In
of students are done while sitting on the
some studies, this dimension was reported
chair, the ergonomic design of the chair is
as 43.6 cm (8) and 42 cm (9), which was
important for students. Thus, taking action
similar to the current study. Mismatch
to correct the
between the backrest width and shoulder
existingchairsisimportantintermsof
breadth can lead to fatigue of the scapula
physicalhealthof students and economic
and pain in the shoulders (2).
sentiment as physical problems associated
The backrest angle should be adjustable to with improper sitting conditions would lead
provide full lumbar support and posture of to financial and medicinal costs.
students can be proper and varied (16).
The chair designed and developed in this
Therefore, one of the features of this chair
study was ergonomic and helped to reduce
was its ability of adjustment to the backrest
musculoskeletal disorders in students. Some
angle, which has a pin for the person to
ergonomic characteristics of this chair
adjust the backrest at the desired angle for
included adjustability of footrest, backrest,
comfort. The adjustable angle of backrest
armrests, and desk and these factors led to
was considered from 95° to 105°, based on
the use of this chair by many students with
British Standard (BS5873) and standard
different body sizes. The edges of the seat
ANSI-HFES 100/1988. Backrest angle in
had a curvature that prevented pressure to
other similar studies was 96° (8), 100° (40),
different parts of the body and created
and 110° (9) and was not adjustable. This
comfort for users. Other advantages of this
adjustability in the study of Kashif et al. was
chair that distinguished it from other
educational chairs include adjustable
Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 13
 Ansari S et al.
footrest so
that legs can be fully fitted, adjustable climate, and student achievement. J Educ
height of desk and left armrest, desk Admin. 2008;46(1):55–73. doi:
rotation in two axes of X and Y, adjustability 10.1108/09578230810849817.
of angle between the backrest and seat in 4. Temple P. Learning spaces in higher education:
four degrees, large surface of the desk, An underresearched topic. Lond Rev Educ.
grooves on the backrest to place bags, a 2008;6(3):229–41. doi:
groove on the desk to place pens and 10.1080/14748460802489363.
pencils. 5. Abdullahi I, Yusoff WZW, Gwamna E. A review
One of the limitations of this study was the of physical and nonphysical facilities
inability of seat height adjustment and lack of performance on student satisfaction in
angle adjustability in the desk, which are Northern Nigerian Universities. Soc Sci.
technical limitations in constructing the chair. 2017;12(4):600–8.
6. Han H, Kiatkawsin K, Kim W, Hong JH. Physical
7. Acknowledgments classroom environment and student
satisfaction with courses. Assess Eval High Edu.
The authors thank everyone, who contributed 2018;43(1):110–25. doi:
to this research and also students of Qazvin 10.1080/02602938.2017.1299855 .
University of Medical Sciences and experts of 7. Oluwunmi AO, Ajibola M, Iroham C, Eluyele P.
laboratories of Department of Occupational [Students’ satisfaction with major academic
Health Engineering, who participated in the facilities in private universities in Ogun State,
sampling. Nigeria]. Covenant J Bus Soc Sci. 2017;8(1):43–
59. Persian.
8. References 8. Thariq MM, Munasinghe H, Abeysekara J.
Designing chairs with mounted desktop for
1. Odediran SJ, Gbadegesin JT, Babalola MO.
university students: Ergonomics and comfort.
Facilities management practices in the Nigerian
Int J Ind Ergonom. 2010;40(1):8–18. doi:
public universities. J Facilities Manage.
10.1016/j.ergon.2009.10.003.
2015;13(1):5–26. doi: 10.1108/JFM-11-2013-
0058. 9. Taifa IW, Desai DA. Anthropometric
measurements for ergonomic design of
2. Zarei F, Rajaei B, Nikpey A, Varmazyar S, Safari-
students’ furniture in India. Eng SciTech Int J.
Variani A. Review the proportion of university
2017;20(1):232–9. doi:
seats with body dimensions of students at the
10.1016/j.jestch.2016.08.004.
school of public health of Qazvin university of
medical sciences in 1388. Iran Occupational 10. Musa A. Anthropometric evaluations and
Health. 2011;8(3). assessment of school furniture design in
Nigeria: A case study of secondary schools in
3. Uline C, Tschannen-Moran M. The walls speak:
rural area of Odeda, Nigeria. Int J Ind Eng
The interplay of quality facilities, school
 Comp. 2011;2(3):499–508. doi: 19. Holm S, Nachemson A. Variations in the
10.5267/j.ijiec.2011.03.006. nutrition of the canine intervertebral disc
11. Agha SR, Alnahhal MJ. Neural network and induced by motion. Spine. 1983;8(8):866–74.
multiple linear regression to predict school doi: 10.1097/00007632-198311000-00009 .
children dimensions for ergonomic school [PubMed: 6670021].
furniture design. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(6):979– 20. Panagiotopoulou G, Christoulas K,
84. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.01.007 . Papanckolaou A, Mandroukas K. Classroom
[PubMed: 22365329]. furniture dimensions and anthropometric
12. AbdoliEramakiM.[Ergonomics]. measures in primary school. Appl Ergon.
Ergonomics.Tehran: OmidMajdPublisher; 1994. 2004;35(2):121–8. doi:
p. 275–305. Persian. 10.1016/j.apergo.2003.11.002.
13. Dianat I, Karimi MA, Asl Hashemi A, 21. Bendix T. Adjustment of the seated workplace
Bahrampour S. Classroom furniture and with special reference to heights and
anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high inclinations of seat and table. Dan Med Bull.
school students: Proposed dimensions based 1987;34(3):125–39. [PubMed: 2954773].
on anthropometric data. Appl Ergon. 22. Oyewole SA, Haight JM, Freivalds A. The
2013;44(1):101–8. doi: ergonomic design of classroom
10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.004. furniture/computer work station for first
[PubMed: 22695080]. graders in the elementary school. Int J Ind
14. Choobineh A. [Principles of educational Ergon. 2010;40(4):437–47. doi:
furniture design]. Newsl Iran Erg Soc. 10.1016/j.ergon.2010.02.002.
2004;16:3–12. Persian. 23. Jung HS. A prototype of an adjustable table and
15. Huang YD, Wang S, Wang T, He LH. Effects of an adjustable chair for schools. Int J Ind Ergon.
backrest density on lumbar load and comfort 2005;35(10):955–69. doi:
during seated work. Chin Med J. 10.1016/j.ergon.2005.04.007.
2012;125(19):3505–8. [PubMed: 23044314]. 24. Habibi E, Hoseini M, Asaad Z. [Match between
16. Kashif M, Bhattacharya A, Banerjee D. Design of school furniture dimensions and children’s
adjustable desks and anthropometry in Isfahan schools]. Iran Occup
chairsforuniversityclassroomssuitableforstuden Health J. 2009;6(2):51–61. Persian.
tsof JadavpurUniversity, India. Ergon Rural Dev. 25. Hosseini MH, Khodadadi M, Hoshiar H,
2015:238–43. Noorbakhsh AH. [The effect of different
17. Abedi M. An evaluation of combined effect’s of classroom chairs on the prevalence of
backrest inclination and whole body vibration musculoskeletal problems and the rate of
on vehicle driver’s reaction time and workload students’ satisfaction]. J Health Dev.
[master’s thesis]. 2011. 2015;4(3):209–2018. Persian.
18. Sepehri S, Habibi AH, Shakerian S. The 26. Gouvali MK, Boudolos K. Match between
relationship between ergonomic chair and school furniture dimensions and children’s
musculoskeletal disorders in north of anthropometry. Appl Ergon. 2006;37(6):765–
Khuzestan’s students. Eur J Exp Biol. 73. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.11.009 .
2013;3(4):181–7. [PubMed: 16442494].
Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 15
 Ansari S et al.
27. Shiru JJ,
Abubakar S. Anthropometry in engineering 34. Seifi S, Eftekharian S, Sarrafan N, Gholinia H.
design (a case study of cassava grating Ergonomic evaluation of frequency and risk
machines installed in Doko and Kutigi factors of musculoskeletal disorder of specialist
metropolis of Lavun local government areas of dentists of Babol dentistry faculty. J Urmia Univ
Niger state). Niger Acad Forum. Med Sci. 2016;27(4):330–5.
2012;22(1):132–9. 35. Mirzaei R, Najarkola SAM, Khanoki BA, Ansari
28. Dawal SZ, Zadry HR, Azmi SN, Rohim SR, Sartika H. Comparative assessment of upper limbs
SJ. Anthropometric database for the learning musculoskeletal disorders by rapid upper limb
environment of high school and university assessment among computer users of Zahedan
students. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. universities. Health Scope. 2014;3(4). doi:
2012;18(4):461–72. doi: 10.17795/jhealthscope-15226.
10.1080/10803548.2012.11076953 . 36. Moussavi-Najarkola SA, Mirzaei R. Assessment
[PubMed: 23294660]. of musculoskeletal loads of electric factory
29. Helander MG, Czaja SJ, Drury CG, Cary JM, Burri workers by rapid entire body assessment.
G. An ergonomic evaluation of office chairs. Health Scope. 2012;1(2):71–9. doi:
Office Tech People. 1987;3(3):247–63. doi: 10.5812/jhs.6654.
10.1108/eb022651. 37. Tunay M, Melemez K. An analysis of
30. Adu G, Adu S, Effah B, Frimpong-Mensah K, biomechanical and anthropometric parameters
Darkwa NA. Office furniture design–correlation on classroom furniture design. Afr J Biotech.
of worker and chair dimensions. Int J Sci Res 2008;7(8):1081–6.
(IJSR). 2014;3(3):709–15. 38. Bayatkashkoli A, Nazerian M. [Determination of
31. Salunke P, Kallurkar S, Nemade . Identifying proper college student chair dimension and
anthropometric parameters considered for the comparison with the prevalent model]. Iran J
improvement in ergonomic design of classroom Wood Pap Sci Res. 2012;26:772–84. Persian.
furniture. Int J Ind Eng Res Dev(IJIERD). 39. FalahatiM,ZokaeiM,SadeghiNaeiniH,MoradiGR.
2015;6(1):1–13. [Determinationof variables and anthropometric
32. Mokdad M, Al-Ansari M. Anthropometrics for indicators for classroom chair design (Study
the design of Bahraini school furniture. Int JInd group: Tehran University Medicine Science–
Ergon. 2009;39(5):728–35. doi: 2011)]. Iran Occup Health. 2013;10(2):99–108.
10.1016/j.ergon.2009.02.006. Persian.
33. Choobineh A, Soleimani E, Daneshmandi H, 40. Khanam CN, Reddy MV, Mrunalini A. Designing
Mohamadbeigi A, Izadi K. student’s seating furniture for classroom
Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders environment. J Hum Ecol. 2006;20(4):241–8.
and posture analysis using doi: 10.1080/09709274.2006.11905935 .
RULAmethodinShirazgeneraldentistsin20 41. SadeghzadP.Studystudentsbodydimensionswith
10. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran. existchairdimension in the health faculty of
2012;24(4):310–7.
 Qazvin University of Medical Sciences. Edrak J 43. Grimes P, Legg S. Musculoskeletal disorders
Student Res Committee. 2007;5:42–6. (MSD) in school students as a risk factor for
42. Heidarimoghadam R, Golmohammadi R, adult MSD: A review of the multiple factors
Roshanaei G, Zare R. [Assessing the match affecting posture, comfort and health in
between female primary students’ classroom environments. J Hum
anthropometric dimensions and furniture Environment System. 2004;7(1):1–9. doi:
dimensions in Hamadan schools in 10.1618/jhes.7.1.
2013]. Health Saf Work. 2015;5(1):47–56.
Persian.

Health Scope. In Press(In Press):e60531. 17