A case for using A-weighted equivalent energy as a damage risk criterion for impulse noise exposure

2012 ◽  
Vol 131 (4) ◽  
pp. 3532-3532 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Murphy ◽  
Richard L. McKinley
Keyword(s):  
Impulse Noise ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Risk Criterion ◽  
Damage Risk

Criteria for Assessing Hearing Damage Risk from Impulse‐Noise Exposure

1969 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 1062-1062
Author(s):  
R. Ross ◽  
A. Coles ◽  
Christopher G. Rice ◽  
Georges R. Garinther ◽  
David C. Hodge
Keyword(s):  
Impulse Noise ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Hearing Damage ◽  
Damage Risk

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING HEARING DAMAGE RISK FROM IMPULSE-NOISE EXPOSURE.

1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. ROSS COLES ◽  
GEORGES R. GARINTHER ◽  
DAVID C. HODGE
Keyword(s):  
Impulse Noise ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Hearing Damage ◽  
Damage Risk

Damage Risk: An Evaluation of the Effects of Exposure to 85 versus 90 dBA of Noise

1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. Yates ◽  
Jerry D. Ramsey ◽  
Jay W. Holland
Keyword(s):  
White Noise ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Threshold Shift ◽  
Temporary Threshold Shift ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Potential Damage ◽  
Full Day ◽  
Damage Risk

The purpose of this study was to compare the damage risk of 85 and 90 dBA of white noise for equivalent full-day exposures. The damage risk of the two noise levels was determined by comparing the temporary threshold shift (TTS) of 12 subjects exposed to either 85 or 90 dBA of white noise for equivalent half- and full-day exposures. TTS was determined by comparing the pre- and postexposure binaural audiograms of each subject at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz. It was concluded that the potential damage risk, that is, hazardous effect, of 90 dBA is greater than 85 dBA of noise for equivalent full-day exposures. The statistical difference between the overall effects of equivalent exposures to 85 dBA as compared to 90 dBA of noise could not be traced to any one frequency. The damage risk of a full-day exposure to 85 dBA is equivalent to that of a half-day exposure to 90 dBA of noise. Within the limits of this study, TTS t was as effective as TTS 2 for estimating the damage risk of noise exposure.

Applicability of the Leq as a damage‐risk criterion: An animal experiment

1996 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 1621-1632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Lataye ◽  
Pierre Campo
Keyword(s):  
Animal Experiment ◽  
Risk Criterion ◽  
Damage Risk

scholarly journals Comparison of Vocal Vibration-Dose Measures for Potential-Damage Risk Criteria

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 1425-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo R. Titze ◽  
Eric J. Hunter
Keyword(s):  
Energy Dissipation ◽  
Dose Calculations ◽  
Equal Energy ◽  
Vocal Fold Vibration ◽  
Risk Criterion ◽  
Time Cycle ◽  
Vocal Intensity ◽  
Potential Damage ◽  
Voice Use ◽  
Damage Risk

Purpose Schoolteachers have become a benchmark population for the study of occupational voice use. A decade of vibration-dose studies on the teacher population allows a comparison to be made between specific dose measures for eventual assessment of damage risk. Method Vibration dosimetry is reformulated with the inclusion of collision stress. Two methods of estimating amplitude of vocal-fold vibration are compared to capture variations in vocal intensity. Energy loss from collision is added to the energy-dissipation dose. An equal-energy-dissipation criterion is defined and used on the teacher corpus as a potential-damage risk criterion. Results Comparison of time-, cycle-, distance-, and energy-dose calculations for 57 teachers reveals a progression in information content in the ability to capture variations in duration, speaking pitch, and vocal intensity. The energy-dissipation dose carries the greatest promise in capturing excessive tissue stress and collision but also the greatest liability, due to uncertainty in parameters. Cycle dose is least correlated with the other doses. Conclusion As a first guide to damage risk in excessive voice use, the equal-energy-dissipation dose criterion can be used to structure trade-off relations between loudness, adduction, and duration of speech.

A Review of Gunshot Noise as Factor in Hearing Disorders

2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (6) ◽  
pp. 904-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Skrodzka ◽  
Andrzej Wicher ◽  
Roman Gołe¸biewski
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hair Cells ◽  
Impulse Noise ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Single Shot ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Sport Training ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Auditory Systems

The impulse noise produced by personal weapons (guns, rifles, shotguns) during military activity, and while people engage in sport, training and hunting, is a threat to the auditory systems of soldiers, civilians, policemen, hunters, forest officers, sportspeople and bystanders not actively engaged in professional or recreational firing. An overview of noise levels generated by different types of weapon is provided, and potential short-term and long-term consequences for the human auditory system are described. The mean values of LC, peak sound pressure level during the shot, at the shooter's ears, for various types of weapons are approximately 160 dB SPL. These are levels that can cause permanent, irreversible negative effects on hearing (hearing loss, tinnitus, etc.) even as a result of a single shot being fired. One of the largest groups of weapon users in Poland (about 120 thousand) are hunters and field masters. They are not obligated by any regulations to protect their auditory systems from impulse noise. This means that this group of firearm users is at particularly high risk of hearing damage. On the basis of the literature review, it is shown that hearing exposure to high-level impulse noise such as a gunshot can result in such consequences as damage to the middle ear and destruction of the outer/inner hair cells in the cochlea. Especially difficult to diagnose is 'hidden hearing loss', i.e. damage to the synaptic connections between the hair cells of the inner ear and the auditory nerve fibres, which is not reflected in the results of basic audiometric testing and can cause hearing problems many years after impulse noise exposure. The wide range of negative consequences of gunfire noise clearly indicates the need for the hearing of the shooters to be protected.

scholarly journals Damage‐Risk Criterion for Steady‐State Noise

1963 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 777-777
Author(s):  
Kalr D. Kryter
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Risk Criterion ◽  
Damage Risk
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document