Noise Levels And Hearing Protection Devices: Effect On Student Welding Performance

1990 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-28
Author(s):  
Carl Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Protection Devices

scholarly journals Cochrane method for systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss – abridged

CoDAS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Tikka ◽  
Jos Verbeek ◽  
Erik Kateman ◽  
Thais Catalani Morata ◽  
Wouter Dreschler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Loss Prevention ◽  
Engineering Controls ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Quality Evidence

ABSTRACT Purpose Assess the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions at work on noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no or alternative interventions. Research strategies Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, OSHupdate, Cochrane Central and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched. Selection criteria Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), Controlled Before-After studies (CBA) and Interrupted Time-Series studies (ITS) evaluating engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance were included. Case studies of engineering controls were collected. Data analysis Cochrane methods for systematic reviews, including meta-analysis, were followed. Results 29 studies were included. Stricter legislation can reduce noise levels by 4.5 dB(A) (very low-quality evidence). Engineering controls can immediately reduce noise (107 cases). Eleven RCTs and CBA studies (3725 participants) were evaluated through Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs). Training of earplug insertion reduces noise exposure at short term follow-up (moderate quality evidence). Earmuffs might perform better than earplugs in high noise levels but worse in low noise levels (very low-quality evidence). HPDs might reduce hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Seventeen studies (84028 participants) evaluated hearing loss prevention programs. Better use of HPDs might reduce hearing loss but other components not (very low-quality evidence). Conclusion Hearing loss prevention and interventions modestly reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. Better quality studies and better implementation of noise control measures and HPDs is needed.

scholarly journals Predictors of Hearing Protection Use Among Industrial Workers

2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (8) ◽  
pp. 365-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunlayanee Tantranont ◽  
Nuntanat Codchanak
Keyword(s):  
Role Modeling ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Industrial Workers ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Manufacturing Plants ◽  
Interpersonal Support ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Interpersonal Factors ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Excessive Noise

Promoting the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) can prevent noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) among workers who are exposed to excessive noise. In the present study, the authors examine factors that may explain HPD use among industrial workers from 15 manufacturing plants in Thailand. Participants consisted of 268 randomly selected workers exposed to harmful noise levels for which routine HPD use was required. Logistic regression analysis of study variables revealed the most powerful predictors of HPD use were perceived hearing status ( b = 0.66, p < .001) and interpersonal factors (i.e., role modeling and interpersonal support; b = 0.20, p < .001). Together, these variables correctly classified 63.4% of the cases. These findings have implications for interventions aimed at motivating workers to use HPDs regularly.

scholarly journals Factors influencing the use of hearing protection devices in Irish mine workers

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-61
Author(s):  
Patrick McGuinn ◽  
Conor Buggy ◽  
Anne Drummond ◽  
Penpatra Sripaiboonkij
Keyword(s):  
Safety Management ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Binary Regression Analysis ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Self Administered Questionnaire

Background: Workers who are exposed to high levels of noise should consider wearing HPDs when elimination of noise cannot be put in place. There are several factors including health and safety management systems, peers and policy that could influence workers to either use or not use HPDs. Objectives: To determine worker’s perception of noise risk in a mining setting and to determine if there is an association between organisational rules, knowledge, and the wearing of Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs). Methods: A cross- sectional study was conducted at a mining setting in Ireland in which 116 workers participated; a self-administered questionnaire survey was used. Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics and binary regression analysis. Results: The study had a response rate of 94% of the entire population. The mean exposure to noise levels that require HPDs is 5.32 hours. The results showed an association between using HPDs and organisation rules; and no association between preventing abnormal hearing, perceived influences in the workplace, knowledge and information. Conclusion: Factors that can influence workers likelihood to wear HPDs are organisation rules; this is unaffected by the influence of colleagues. Each company should have a clear policy to encourage workers to wear HPDs for preventing Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL). Application: The findings highlighted that a company’s health and safety policy is important to encourage employees to wear HPDs. Mine settings or noisy workplaces should have transparent policies for employees to follow and benefit their hearing health, even if an employee is not aware of the full content of a policy, aspects are known.

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