scholarly journals Combined effect of smoking and occupational exposure to noise on hearing loss in steel factory workers

2003 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Mizoue
Author(s):  
Maryam Saraei ◽  
Roya Omidi ◽  
Omid Aminian ◽  
Nazanin Izadi ◽  
Samaneh Akbarpour ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Layla O. Khalid ◽  
Ghania S. Thaher ◽  
Hiathem J. Kadhum

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaurav Agarwal ◽  
Prakash S. Nagpure ◽  
Shweta V. Gadge

Background: Industrial noise is usually considered mainly from the point of view of environmental health and safety, rather than nuisance, as sustained exposure can cause permanent hearing damage. Objective: To assess the Noise induced hearing loss in steel factory workers.Methods: It was a cross sectional study done to evaluate the hearing status of factory workers, working nearby a rural hospital, which were then correlated with the duration of work and SPL (in dBA) of exposure at their workplace. Results: In this study, Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) was calculated in the workers by taking the average of the 4 frequencies i.e. 500Hz, 1000Hz, 2000Hz and 4000Hz in right and left ear separately. Results showed that 129 (37.83%) workers were having Mild SNHL in Right ear i.e. between 26- 40 dB. 203 (59.54%) of the workers were having normal hearing i.e. hearing loss not exceeding 25 dB. Only 9 (2.63%) workers had moderate (41-60 dB) hearing loss in right ears. Whereas in case of left ears results showed that 145 (42.52%) workers were having Mild SNHL in left ear i.e. between 26- 40 dB. 185 (54.25%) of the workers were having normal hearing i.e. hearing loss not exceeding 25 dB. Only 11 (3.23%) workers had moderate (41-60 dB) hearing loss.Conclusion: Duration of exposure of individuals was found in the range from 6 years to 20 years. Maximum number of workers i.e. 235 (68.92%) were exposed to a time duration of 16 to 20 years followed by 96 (28.15%) who were exposed to 11-15 years. There were 10 (2.93) workers who were having the exposure of 6 to 10 years.International Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, Vol 4 No 2(2015) 34 – 43


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Nakashima ◽  
Oshin Vartanian ◽  
Shawn G Rhind ◽  
Kristen King ◽  
Catherine Tenn ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Introduction Recently, there has been increasing concern about the adverse health effects of long-term occupational exposure to low-level blast in military personnel. Occupational blast exposure occurs routinely in garrison through use of armaments and controlled blast detonations. In the current study, we focused on a population of breaching instructors and range staff. Breaching is a tactical technique that is used to gain entry into closed spaces, often through the use of explosives. Materials and Methods Initial measurements of blast overpressure collected during breaching courses found that up to 10% of the blasts for range staff and up to 32% of the blasts for instructors exceeded the recommended 3 psi exposure limit. Using a cross-sectional design, we used tests of balance, ataxia, and hearing to compare a sample of breachers (n = 19) to age-and sex-matched military controls (n = 19). Results There were no significant differences between the two groups on the balance and ataxia tests, although the average scores of both groups were lower than would be expected in a normative population. The prevalence of hearing loss was low in the breacher group (4 of 19), and hearing thresholds were not significantly different from the controls. However, the prevalence of self-reported tinnitus was significantly higher in the breacher group (12 of 19) compared with the controls (4 of 19), and all breachers who were identified as having hearing loss also reported tinnitus. Conclusions Our results suggest that basic tests of balance, ataxia, and hearing on their own were not sensitive to the effects of long-term occupational exposure to low-level blast. Some of the blast exposure levels exceeded limits, and there was a significant association of exposure with tinnitus. Future studies should supplement with additional information including exposure history and functional hearing assessments. These findings should be considered in the design of future acute and longitudinal studies of low-level blast exposure.


1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert J. Arkebauer ◽  
George T. Mencher ◽  
Carol McCall

Ten patients with bilateral asymmetrical hearing losses were tested for differences in speech discrimination scores under the following listening conditions: poorer ear under earphone; better ear under earphone; sound field, ears unoccluded; and sound field, poorer ear occluded. A patient manifesting a bilateral asymmetrical hearing loss may not be able to either separate or integrate two speech signals; however, occlusion of the poorer ear may be an advantageous means of obtaining maximum speech discrimination. Examination of the speech discrimination scores indicates the existence of detrimental interaction between ears exhibiting bilateral asymmetrical hearing loss. These findings also indicate that when the difference between ears is greater, speech discrimination is better than when asymmetry approximates symmetry. Apparently, the greater the impairment in the better ear, the greater the results to be gained by occluding the poorer ear. These findings were interpreted as being relevant in determining candidacy for binaural amplification. Such candidacy should be determined on the basis of speech discrimination scores obtained from each ear independently, and the combined effect of both aids.


2021 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel P. Nyarubeli ◽  
Magne Bråtveit ◽  
Alexander Mtemi Tungu ◽  
Simon H. Mamuya ◽  
Bente E. Moen

1976 ◽  
Vol 85 (6) ◽  
pp. 776-790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric A. Quick

Hearing loss in renal dialysis and renal transplant patients occurs quite frequently. An assessment of the likely etiological factors is nearly impossible in a retrospective analysis of any one patient because many factors exist simultaneously. In a prospective study of a large series of patients an identification of factors contributing to the hearing loss was possible in the majority of patients. During the study it became increasingly apparent that what was observed at any one time was the combined effect of many factors. Although one factor seemed to precipitate the hearing loss it was inadvisable to attribute total responsibility to that agent or circumstance. Further, this combined effect was not a simple addition of effects but potentiation. The serious implications of this phenomenon are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document