Relationship between risk perception toward hearing conservation and using hearing protection devices among offset printing workers in Tehran province, Iran

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Shahram Vosoughi ◽  
Iraj Alimohammadi ◽  
Agha Fatemeh Hosseini ◽  
Zhaleh Sedghi Noushabadi
Keyword(s):  
Risk Perception ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Offset Printing ◽  
Hearing Conservation ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Tehran Province

Noise Exposure Levels for Musicians During Rehearsal and Performance Times

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devon McIlvaine ◽  
Michael Stewart ◽  
Robert Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Safety ◽  
Occupational Safety And Health ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Conservation Programs ◽  
Hearing Conservation ◽  
Weighted Averages ◽  
Rock Band ◽  
Safety And Health ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
And Performance

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine daily noise doses and 8-hour time weighted averages for rock band musicians, crew members, and spectators during a typical rehearsal and performance using both Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) measurement criteria. DESIGN: Personal noise dosimetry was completed on five members of a rock band during one 2-hr rehearsal and one 4-hr performance. Time-weighted averages (TWA) and daily dose values were calculated using both OSHA and NIOSH criteria and compared to industry guidelines for enrollment in hearing conservation programs and the use of hearing protection devices. RESULTS: TWA values ranged from 84.3 to 90.4 dBA (OSHA) and from 90.0 to 96.4 dBA (NIOSH) during the rehearsal. The same values ranged from 91.0 to 99.7 dBA (OSHA) and 94.0 to 102.8 dBA (NIOSH) for the performance. During the rehearsal, daily noise doses ranged from 45.54% to 106.7% (OSHA) and from 317.74% to 1396.07% (NIOSH). During the performance, doses ranged from 114.66% to 382.49% (OSHA) and from 793.31% to 5970.15% (NIOSH). CONCLUSIONS: The musicians in this study were exposed to dangerously high levels of noise and should be enrolled in a hearing conservation programs. Hearing protection devices should be worn, especially during performances. The OSHA measurement criteria yielded values significantly more conservative than those produced by NIOSH criteria. Audiologists should counsel musician-patients about the hazards of excessive noise (music) exposure and how to protect their hearing.

scholarly journals Relationship Between Noise-Related Risk Perception, Knowledge, and the Use of Hearing Protection Devices Among Para Rubber Wood Sawmill Workers

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phayong Thepaksorn ◽  
Wattasit Siriwong ◽  
Richard L. Neitzel ◽  
Ratana Somrongthong ◽  
Teeranee Techasrivichien
Keyword(s):  
Risk Perception ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Rubber Wood ◽  
Related Risk ◽  
Sawmill Workers ◽  
Protection Devices

scholarly journals Gender and other factors associated with the use of hearing protection devices at work

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiane Costa Meira ◽  
Vilma Sousa Santana ◽  
Silvia Ferrite
Keyword(s):  
Workplace Safety ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Northeastern Brazil ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hearing Conservation ◽  
Perceived Safety ◽  
Related Data ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Protection Devices

OBJECTIVE To analyze whether sociodemographic, occupational, and health-related data are associated with the use of hearing protection devices at work, according to gender. METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2006, using a random sample of 2,429 workers, aged between 18 and 65 years old, from residential sub-areas in Salvador, BA, Northeastern Brazil. Questionnaires were used to obtain sociodemographic, occupational, and health-related data. Workers who reported that they worked in places where they needed to shout in order to be heard were considered to be exposed to noise. Exposed workers were asked whether they used hearing protection devices, and if so, how frequently. Analyses were conducted according to gender, with estimates made about prevalence of the use of hearing protection devices, prevalence ratios, and their respective 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS Twelve percent (12.3%) of study subjects reported that they were exposed to noise while working. Prevalence of the use of hearing protection devices was 59.3% for men and 21.4% for women. Men from higher socioeconomic levels (PR = 1.47; 95%CI 1.14;1.90) and who had previous audiometric tests (PR = 1.47; 95%CI 1.15;1.88) were more likely to use hearing protection devices. For women, greater perceived safety was associated with the use of protection devices (PR = 2.92; 95%CI 1.34;6.34). This perception was specifically related to the presence of supervisors committed to safety (PR = 2.09; 95%CI 1.04;4.21), the existence of clear rules to prevent workplace injuries (PR = 2.81; 95%CI 1.41;5.59), and whether they were informed about workplace safety (PR = 2.42; 95%CI 1.23;4.76). CONCLUSIONS There is a gender bias regarding the use of hearing protection devices that is less favorable to women. The use of such devices among women is positively influenced by their perception of a safe workplace, suggesting that gender should be considered as a factor in hearing conservation programs.

Noise Exposure and Hearing Disorders

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Byrne ◽  
Thais C. Morata
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Noise Induced Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Disorders ◽  
Industrial Noise ◽  
Significant Impairment ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Occupational Hearing Loss

Exposure to industrial noise and the resulting effect of occupational hearing loss is a common problem in nearly all industries. This chapter describes industrial noise exposure, its assessment, and hearing disorders that result from overexposure to noise. Beginning with the properties of sound, noise-induced hearing loss and other effects of noise exposure are discussed. The impact of hearing disorders and the influence of other factors on hearing loss are described. Typically, noise-induced hearing loss develops slowly, and usually goes unnoticed until a significant impairment has occurred. Fortunately, occupational hearing loss is nearly always preventable. Therefore, this chapter gives particular attention to recommendations for measures to prevent occupational hearing loss such as engineering noise controls and hearing protection devices.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11693
Author(s):  
Chanbeom Kwak ◽  
Woojae Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Sound Attenuation ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Protection Devices

To prevent intensive noise exposure in advance and be safely controlled during such exposure, hearing protection devices (HPDs) have been widely used by workers. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of these HPDs, partitioned into three different outcomes, such as sound attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception. Seven electronic journal databases were used to search for published articles from 2000 to 2021. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. For a systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model. The funnel plot and Egger’s regression analysis were conducted to assess the risk of bias. From the overall results of the included 20 articles, we found that the HPD function performed significantly well for their users (SMDs: 0.457, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.034–0.881, p < 0.05). Specifically, a subgroup analysis showed a meaningful difference in sound attenuation (SMDs: 1.080, 95% CI: 0.167–1.993, p < 0.05) when to wear and not to wear HPDs, but indicated no significance between the groups for sound localization (SMDs: 0.177, 95% CI: 0.540–0.894, p = 0.628) and speech perception (SMDs: 0.366, 95% CI: −0.100–1.086, p = 0.103). The HPDs work well for their originally designated purposes without interfering to find the location of the sound sources and for talking between the workers. Taking into account various factors, such as the characteristics of the users, selection of appropriate types, and fitting methods for wearing in different circumstances, seems to be necessary for a reliable systematic analysis in terms of offering the most useful information to the workers.

Comparative study of attenuation measurement of hearing protection devices by real ear attenuation at threshold method

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noorain Alam ◽  
Vikas Sinha ◽  
Rajiv Jalvi ◽  
Deepanshu Gurnani ◽  
DilavarA Barot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Threshold Method ◽  
Attenuation Measurement ◽  
Protection Devices

scholarly journals Noise Exposure and Use of Hearing Protection Among Adolescents in Rural Areas

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Leigh Ann Reel ◽  
Candace Bourland Hicks ◽  
Courtney Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Rural Areas ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Rural Adolescents ◽  
Rural Children ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Heavy Machinery ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Power Tools

Purpose: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) has been found in rural children, potentially due to occupational and recreational noise exposure without consistent use of hearing protection devices (HPDs). However, questions remain regarding the specifics of rural adolescents' noise exposure and use of hearing protection around different types of noise. As such, the purpose of the current study was to provide preliminary results on rural adolescents' noise exposure and use of hearing protection for gunfire, heavy machinery, power tools, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and music. Method: A questionnaire was administered to 197 students (seventh to 12th grade) from rural schools in West Texas. Questions were related to noise exposure and use of HPDs for specific categories of noise. Testing was performed at the schools, with an investigator recording each student's responses. Results: Approximately 18%–44% of adolescents reported exposure 12 or more times a year to gunfire, heavy machinery, power tools, and ATVs. Only 1%–18% of the adolescents reported never being exposed to such noise sources. Almost half of rural adolescents never used hearing protection around gunfire, and 77%–91% reported never wearing hearing protection when exposed to heavy machinery, power tools, and ATVs. Conclusions: The current study revealed that rural adolescents are exposed to noise sources that could damage their hearing. However, the majority of rural adolescents do not consistently wear hearing protection. Additional research is now needed to extend these findings by assessing rural adolescents' duration of exposure to different noise sources, in addition to investigating prevention of NIHL in this population. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17139335

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document