Requirements for finger entrapment in European safety ... - ANEC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Thumb Thumb tip only inserted Thumb tip inserted not as far as… Thumb joint inserted Thumb inserted past first joint Thumb inserted past first joint… First (index) finger First (index) tip only inserted First (index) tip inserted not as far… First (index) joint inserted First (index) inserted past first joint First (index) inserted past first… Middle finger Middle tip only inserted Middle tip inserted not as far as… Middle joint inserted Middle inserted past first joint Middle inserted past first joint… Third (ring) finger Third (ring) finger tip only inserted Third (ring) finger tip inserted not… Third (ring) finger joint inserted Third (ring) finger inserted past… Third (ring) finger inserted past… Little finger Little finger tip only inserted Little finger tip inserted not as far… Little finger joint inserted Little finger inserted past first joint Little finger inserted past first… Figure 11 Intentional occurrences of insertion for all toys 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Ball - Intentional - Right hand Ball - Intentional - Left hand Book - Intentional - Right hand Book - Intentional - Left hand Activity panel - Intentional - Right hand Activity panel - Intentional - Left hand 38
6 Discussion and conclusions An observation study of 28 children aged 5 to 18 months showed that children aged 6 months can accidentally insert their fingers into openings in toys as they explore. Also, children as young as 7 months were observed intentionally inserting their fingers into openings. Intentional insertions resulted in a ‘deeper’ insertion with the child more likely to insert the finger up to and past the distal joint. The index finger was most commonly (intentionally) inserted finger although all fingers were inserted, including the thumb and little finger. This study shows that requirements to protect children from finger entrapment should therefore be based on the finger sizes of children from 6 months. A literature review in this study found that the majority of available anthropometric data on children’s fingers was measured between the 1970s and 1990s. There has been an increase in children’s body sizes since this time, but there are no data to specify exactly how this may affect the finger sizes of children as young as 6 months, the age at which finger entrapment becomes a risk. One recent study was found (measured on UK children in 1999) and from this data and other literature it is probably right to assume that there will have been an increase in finger size from the older published data, but this may be within the accuracy levels with which data are measured (e.g. 0.5-1mm intervals). The published finger data were therefore reviewed, and some estimations were carried out to produce missing data, e.g. for the finger tip length of children under two years old. The current dimensional requirements for static openings to protect children under 4 years of age were then reviewed in the light of the observation study and the published and estimated anthropometric data. The following recommendations are made: Minimum diameter requirement: Maximum diameter requirement: Minimum depth requirement Current requirement: 5 mm 12 mm 10mm Recommendations No change for round or oval openings; reduce to 3 mm for slots, but as a guide only Increase to 15.5 mm (to exclude entrapment of the thumb for four year olds) OR Increase to 14.5 mm (to exclude entrapment of the fingers only for four year olds) 10 mm is unlikely to protect children 2.5 years and younger. This should therefore be decreased to 3.5 mm to protect the smallest child in the youngest age group at risk (1 st percentile infant aged 4-6 months) based on the tip length of the little finger, or 6 mm based on the finger tip of the middle finger
Page 1 and 2: Requirements for tests of child fin
Page 3 and 4: Contents Executive Summary ........
Page 5 and 6: that the proportion of the populati
Page 7 and 8: 1 Introduction This is the final re
Page 9 and 10: 3 Assessment of anthropometric data
Page 11 and 12: percentile values were calculated f
Page 13 and 14: 3.4 Static entrapment - the data Th
Page 15 and 16: openings to prevent the little fing
Page 17 and 18: Table 12: THUMB: distal joint DIAME
Page 19 and 20: Table 14: Calculation of 1 st perce
Page 21 and 22: Table 18: Calculation of 99 th perc
Page 23 and 24: Using the data in Table 21 above, t
Page 25 and 26: Figure 3: The hand of the participa
Page 27 and 28: The feasibility trial shows that as
Page 29 and 30: Seventeen children were observed in
Page 31 and 32: Table 27: Ages of children in month
Page 33 and 34: NUmber of insertions Figure 8: Numb
Page 35 and 36: Table 30: Degree of insertion (all
Page 37: Thumb Thumb tip only inserted Thumb
Page 41 and 42: 7 References Adolph, K. E., Eppler,
Page 43 and 44: Appendix 1 - Anthropometric data ta
Page 45 and 46: US males and females AGE Mean SD 5t
Page 47 and 48: 3-5mo 7.6 0.6 6.3 8.3 6.20 9.00 6-8
Page 49 and 50: Dimension 10. MIDDLE FINGER length:
Page 51 and 52: LITTLE FINGER Dimension 12. Distal
Page 53 and 54: Dimension 14. Middle joint BREADTH
Page 55 and 56: Dimension 18. Middle joint BREADTH
Page 57 and 58: a. Finger tip only inserted 1 2 3 4

Requirements for finger entrapment in European safety ... - ANEC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?