Table 2

Comparison of anthropometrics between gender and ethnicity groups

Studies, country	Comparison of anthropometric measurements
Studies, country	Between genders	Between ethnicities	To other populations/panels
Gross and Horstman, USA49	♀smaller dimensions for 11/12 FD	N/A	Comparable to US Air Force population
Oestenstad et al, USA50	N/A	No comparison made due to small sample size	Skewed distribution relative to LANL panel
Oestenstad and Perkins, USA27	♀smaller dimensions	No comparison made due to small sample size	Comparable to previous studies and US Air Force population
Brazile et al, USA51	♀smaller dimensions for 12/14 FD except binocular and NRB	Significant difference between ethnic groups except for FL	Comparable to previous studies and US Air Force population
Han, South Korea52	♀smaller dimensions separately screwed distribution of FD but with significant overlap	N/A	N/A
Han and Choi, South Korea29	♀smaller dimensions for all 10 FD	N/A	N/A
Kim et al, South Kore53	♀smaller dimensions for 11/12 FD except for NRB	N/A	Comparable to Korean cohorts. Different (smaller and wider faces) to American cohorts
Zhuang et al, USA54	♀ smaller dimension for 9/12 measurements except LW, NRB, NP	N/A	N/A
Oestenstad et al, USA55	♀smaller dimensions for 10/12 FD except LFL and NL	N/A	Comparable to previous studies
Wilkinson et al, Australia59	N/A	Facial characteristics were strongly associated with racial group	N/A
Spies et al, South Africa61	♀smaller and narrower dimensions	Comparison not made	Screwed distribution relative to LANL panel. Mean FD comparable to Korean and American cohorts but male FD different (smaller and wider) from American cohort
Yu et al, China63	♀smaller dimensions	N/A	Comparable to Chinese cohort. Different (smaller and wider) to American cohorts
Kim et al, South Korea65	♀smaller LW only	N/A	N/A
Manganyi et al, South Africa28	♀smaller dimensions	Asian♀: smaller dimensions African ♂: greater NRB	N/A
Lin and Chen, Taiwan66	♀smaller dimensions separately screwed distribution of FD	N/A	Screwed distribution relative to NIOSH panel. Difference to American cohorts (smaller)
Honarbakhsh et al, Iran67	N/A	N/A	Significant proportion outside RFTP. Different to South African, Korean and American cohorts (smaller FL and FW)
Fakherpour et al, Iran71	FD reported as similar but no comparison clearly reported	N/A	Skewed distribution relative to panel and significant proportion outside NIOSH RFTP
De‐Yñigo‐Mojado et al, Spain73	♀smaller dimensions	N/A	N/A

♀=female; ♂=male.
FD, facial dimensions; FL, face length; FW, face width; LANL, Los Alamos National Laboratory; LFL, lower face length; LW, lip width; N/A, not available/assessed or not reported; NIOSH, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; NL, nose length; NP, nose protrusion; NRB, nasal root breadth; RFTP, respirator fit test panel.