Abstract

In-ear dosimetry and noise exposure feedback were used to modify worker attitude and behavior regarding hearing protection use. The study specifically addressed whether providing in-ear noise exposure data to workers resulted in a reduction in average noise dose rate equivalent continuous levels. Nineteen combat arms instructors (impulse noise group) and heavy equipment operators (continuous noise group) working for the United States Air Force volunteered to participate in a six-month field study using in-ear dosimeters to collect daily noise level data. Participants served as their own control group, receiving periodic noise exposure feedback reports in the latter half of the study only. The control and feedback phase noise exposure data were examined using analysis of variance for differences that could be indicative of more effective hearing protection device use. Additionally, a 7-point Likert survey was used to monitor worker attitude towards hearing protection use, and worker medical histories were examined for evidence of previous hearing loss. Overall, this research found a significant reduction in noise dose rate equivalent continuous level (-2.5 dB with p = 0.019) for the continuous noise group following periodic noise exposure feedback on in-ear noise levels. This effect was not detected at the individual level due to limited samples. No effect was detected in the impulse noise population, likely due to limitations of dosimeter technology in response to impulse noise. No correlation between worker attitudes towards hearing protection and noise dose rate equivalent continuous level was detected for either group (continuous p = 0.249; impulse p = 0.478). While workers reported that in-ear dosimeters and noise exposure feedback helped them control their exposures, few reported using immediate feedback functions to control noise exposures within a work shift. These results indicate that in-ear dosimetry and noise exposure feedback could provide an effective tool to reduce worker noise exposures over time. However, advances in dosimeter technology are necessary before it can be evaluated for impulse noise. Additionally, further research is necessary to understand the link between worker attitude and hearing protection device use.

Highlights

  • The overall prevalence of noise-related illnesses among United States Air Force personnel could partly be attributed to the limitations of using noise reduction ratings (NRRs) to estimate at-ear noise levels under hearing protection devices (HPDs); the Air Force does not currently have an established procedure for performing measurement of at-ear noise levels directly

  • The results of this study showed that the average threshold shift was reduced from 1.7 to −0.5 dB/year after beginning continuous monitoring utilizing Field Microphone in Real Ear (F-MIRE) dosimetry, which indicates that use of this method assisted in mitigating exposures to the point that even temporary threshold shifts (TTSs) were being addressed

  • In-ear noise dosimetry and noise exposure feedback could provide a useful tool for evaluating occupational noise exposures and motivating individuals to improve their HPD use in a well-structured hearing conservation program (HCP)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The overall prevalence of noise-related illnesses among United States Air Force personnel could partly be attributed to the limitations of using noise reduction ratings (NRRs) to estimate at-ear noise levels under hearing protection devices (HPDs); the Air Force does not currently have an established procedure for performing measurement of at-ear noise levels directly. Given the current inaccuracies of the models for impulse and complex noise and conflicting auditory risk approximations, there has been increased interest in at-ear dosimetry measured at the eardrum This measurement location bypasses the need for assumptions and correction factors for microphone placement, potentially providing a more accurate representation of auditory risk of hearing loss [2]. Smalt et al [2] described the assumptions required to estimate at-the-eardrum hearing risk from HPD attenuation data applied to area or personal noise exposure. They recognized the utility of in-ear noise dosimetry to estimate risk at the eardrum, bypassing the transfer function calculations [2]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call