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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Van den Hurk K, van Dommelen, P, van Buuren, S, Verkerk, PH, HiraSing, RA, 2007, Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the Netherlands in 2003 compared to 1980 and 1997, Arch Dis Child. 92, 992- 995. Von Hofsten, C. 1993. Prospective control: a basic aspect of action development. Human Development, 36, 253–270. References for the sources of data in Table 1: Germany 1981 UK 2000 USA 1975 USA 1977 (1) USA 1977 (2) NL 1993 DIN 33402: Body dimensions of people, June 1981, Deutsches Institut fur Normung e.V., Berlin, Germany. Porter, ML, 2000, The anthropometry of the fingers of children. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, pp6-27-6-30. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Snyder, R.G., Spencer ML, Owings, C.L., Schneider, L.W., 1975, Physical characteristics of children as related to death and injury for consumer product design and use. Report no. UM-HSRI-B1-75-5. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD. Snyder, R.G., Schneider, L.W., Owings, C.L., Reynolds, H.M., Golomb, D.H. and Schork, M.A.,1977, Anthropometry of infants, children and youths to age 18 for product safety design.Report no. UM-HSRI-77-17, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD. Owings CL, Norcutt RH, Snyder RG, Golomb DH and Lloyd, KY, 1977, Gripping strength measurements of children for product safety design, Report no. 014926-F, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC, USA. Steenbekkers, LPA, 1993, Child development, design implications and accident prevention. Delft University Press, The Netherlands. 42
Appendix 1 – Anthropometric data tables Illustrations of finger dimensions 1 16 1 13 1 5 1 12 1 14 17 1 18 9 1 6 8 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 15 1 Note: The diameter of the middle joint of the index and middle fingers is not illustrated 43
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 and 38: Thumb Thumb tip only inserted Thumb
Page 39 and 40: 6 Discussion and conclusions An obs
Page 41: 7 References Adolph, K. E., Eppler,
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?