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

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

On-site personal protective equipment signage and use by road construction workers in Ghana: a comparative study of foreign- and locally-owned companies

Background Road construction work has specific risks and safety issues which have not been adequately addressed in most low- and middle-income countries, especially Africa. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of personal protective equipment (PPE) use during road construction activities by workers in foreign- owned against locally-owned road construction companies in Ghana. Methods An institution-based cross-sectional survey was undertaken during January – March, 2020 to study 389 road construction workers who were actively working on site. They were unobtrusively observed to capture whether or not they wore the appropriate PPE at the time of the survey. The PPE of interest were: hard hat, goggles, shoes, nose masks, hearing protection, gloves and reflective vests/apparel. On-site posted PPE signage was also checked. Results Majority of workers were males (96.9%) and labourers (53.5%). Similar numbers of workers in locally-owned (195) and foreign-owned (194) companies were studied. Use of PPE varied considerably by type: shoes (78.7%), reflective vest (44.5%), gloves (30.6%), hard hat (27.0%), nose mask (17.2%), goggles (11.3%) and hearing protection (10.8%). For all types of PPE, use was higher for workers in foreign-owned companies compared with locally-owned companies: goggles (Odds ratio [OR] 55.2), hearing protection (OR 52.0), gloves (OR 23.7), hard hat (OR 20.2), nose mask (OR 17.8), reflective vest (OR 5.3) and shoes (OR 4.1), (p<0.001 for all ORs). No site had any signage to promote PPE use. Conclusions Majority of workers used shoes. Less than half of workers used other types of PPE and use of some types (goggles and hearing protection) was minimal. Workers in foreign-owned companies were significantly more likely to use all the seven types of PPE than locally-owned companies. Although there is still room for improvement in foreign-owned companies, locally-owned companies should be able to attain similar PPE use to that in foreign-owned companies. Necessary PPE should be provided and site supervisors should encourage workers to wear PPE when on site.

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

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.

Transfer function of open ear importance in assessment of hearing protection devices noise reduction

Introduction. Objective assessment of the noise redaction (NR) of individual hearing protection devices (HDP) in industrial conditions is actual problem despite numerous studies in this direction in many countries. This study aimed to implement the F-MIRE method for measuring the NR of HDPs, considering the transfer function of the outer ear. Materials and methods. HDP performance indicators measured by the real ear attenuation threshold (REAT) method in the free field, do not fully reflect the protective properties of HDP in specific production conditions and for a specific employee, according to many researchers. The measurement method using two microphones, called Field-MIRE (F-MIRE), allows you to determine NR as the difference in sound pressure, external noise and noise inside the external auditory meatus (EAM). But since these microphones are located in different acoustic conditions, it becomes necessary use at least two blocks of correction coefficients to get real results. One block - considering the properties of the acoustic probe, the second - should consider the transfer function of open ear. The measurements of the TFOE in 18 volunteers and the evaluation of the NR of the SOMZ-1 "Jaguar" earmuff in industrial conditions were carried out. Results. This study has shown the effectiveness of the implementation of the F-MIRE method for an adequate assessment of the NR of earmuff in industrial conditions. The special headband uses for measuring the TFOE allows you to standardize the location of measuring microphones relative to the volunteer's head and reduce the uncertainty of measurements. Unlike the REAT method with binaural listening in a free field, the F-MIRE method allows you to determine the TFOE for each ear of an employee. Our research has shown that TFOE differences between the right and left ears one-man can be significant. Conclusion. The NR determination by the difference of sound pressures measured by an external microphone and a MIRE microphone, without considering the acoustic properties of the outer ear underestimates both spectral and single-digit NR indicators.

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

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.

Situational Awareness: The Effect of Stimulus Type and Hearing Protection on Sound Localization

The purpose of the current study was to test sound localization of a spoken word, rarely studied in the context of localization, compared to pink noise and a gunshot, while taking into account the source position and the effect of different hearing protection devices (HPDs) used by the listener. Ninety participants were divided into three groups using different HPDs. Participants were tested twice, under with- and no-HPD conditions, and were requested to localize the different stimuli that were delivered from one of eight speakers evenly distributed around them (starting from 22.5°). Localization of the word stimulus was more difficult than that of the other stimuli. HPD usage resulted in a larger mean root-mean-square error (RMSE) and increased mirror image reversal errors for all stimuli. In addition, HPD usage increased the mean RMSE and mirror image reversal errors for stimuli delivered from the front and back, more than for stimuli delivered from the left and right. HPDs affect localization, both due to attenuation and to limitation of pinnae cues when using earmuffs. Difficulty localizing the spoken word should be considered when assessing auditory functionality and should be further investigated to include HPDs with different attenuation spectra and levels, and to further types of speech stimuli.