Do thoracoabdominal organ boundaries differ between males and females? Implications for body armour coverage and design

• Published in: Applied ergonomics Vol. 106; p. 103891
• Main Authors: Summers, S.J., Laing, S.N., Davidson, R.A., Jaffrey, M.A., Zhou, A., Coltman, C.E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01-01-2023
• Subjects: Essential organs; Military; Protective equipment; Sex; Soldier; Soldier; Essential organs; Protective equipment; Sex; Military
• ISSN: 0003-6870; 1872-9126
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103891

To optimise fit and protection of body armour systems, knowledge of the location of thoracoabdominal organ boundaries is required. The aims of this study were (i) determine the effect of sex on essential and desirable thoracoabdominal organ boundaries, and (ii) compare essential thoracoabdominal organ boundaries with small and large hard ballistic plate sizes from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and determine if coverage requirements differ between sexes. 33 males and 33 females underwent supine magnetic resonance imaging of their thoracoabdominal organs. Male participants on average displayed more laterally and inferiorly positioned essential and desirable organ boundaries than females. Based on NIJ plate sizes, insufficient coverage of essential organs was identified for male and female participants. A greater range of body armour sizes and designs that better cater to the diverse anatomy of soldier populations is warranted, but must be considered in the context of ergonomic and performance implications.
•Males had more laterally and inferiorly positioned organ boundaries than females.•Using template HBP sizes, inadequate coverage of essential organs was identified.•Increased sizing for armour that accounts for the anatomy of soldiers is warranted.