A laboratory study on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep: results of the polysomnographic WiTNES study

Abstract

Study Objectives Assess the physiologic and self-reported effects of wind turbine noise (WTN) on sleep. Methods Laboratory sleep study (n = 50 participants: n = 24 living close to wind turbines and n = 26 as a reference group) using polysomnography, electrocardiography, salivary cortisol, and questionnaire endpoints. Three consecutive nights (23:00–07:00): one habituation followed by a randomized quiet Control and an intervention night with synthesized 32 dB LAEq WTN. Noise in WTN nights simulated closed and ajar windows and low and high amplitude modulation depth. Results There was a longer rapid eye movement (REM) sleep latency (+16.8 min) and lower amount of REM sleep (−11.1 min, −2.2%) in WTN nights. Other measures of objective sleep did not differ significantly between nights, including key indicators of sleep disturbance (sleep efficiency: Control 86.6%, WTN 84.2%; wakefulness after sleep onset: Control 45.2 min, WTN 52.3 min; awakenings: Control n = 11.4, WTN n = 11.5) or the cortisol awakening response. Self-reported sleep was consistently rated as worse following WTN nights, and individuals living close to wind turbines had worse self-reported sleep in both the Control and WTN nights than the reference group. Conclusions Amplitude-modulated continuous WTN may impact on self-assessed and some aspects of physiologic sleep. Future studies are needed to generalize these findings outside of the laboratory and should include more exposure nights and further examine possible habituation or sensitization.

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of wind turbine noise effects on sleep using validated objective and subjective sleep assessments

“…In all, 1,517 participants were assessed in the nine included studies. Three experimental laboratory studies were conducted in Sweden (Ageborg Morsing et al., 2018a; Ageborg Morsing et al, 2018b; Smith et al., 2020), two cross‐sectional and two longitudinal studies in Canada (Jalali et al., 2016a; Jalali et al., 2016b; Lane et al., 2016; Michaud et al., 2016) one cross‐sectional study in Iran (Abbasi et al., 2015) and one cross‐sectional study in the USA (Nissenbaum et al., 2012). Topography varied between the non‐laboratory studies, with two study locations being in mountainous areas, (Abbasi et al., 2015; Nissenbaum et al., 2012) and four Canadian studies in rural areas with flat, open fields (Jalali et al., 2016a; Jalali et al., 2016b; Lane et al., 2016; Michaud et al., 2016).…”

“…It is worth noting that studies included not only individuals who lived near wind turbines, but also individuals with no prior exposure to WTN and those who worked on wind farms. Three studies used synthesised WTN recordings, (Ageborg Morsing et al., 2018a; Ageborg Morsing et al, 2018b; Smith et al., 2020), four studies used 8–10 hr recordings of WTN measured inside participants’ homes (Abbasi et al., 2015; Jalali et al., 2016a; Jalali et al., 2016b; Lane et al., 2016), and two studies used estimations/predictions of WTN using International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) models (Michaud et al., 2016; Nissenbaum et al., 2012). Five of the nine studies assessed SOL, TST, WASO and sleep efficiency using objective measures of sleep, which included one actigraphy‐based study and four PSG studies that were included in the meta‐analysis (Ageborg Morsing et al., 2018a; Ageborg Morsing et al, 2018b; Jalali et al., 2016a; Lane et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2020).…”

“…As shown in Table 4, all studies used appropriate statistical methods to compare groups and associations, and used relevant and appropriate, objective or psychologically validated self‐report outcome measures, as per the study selection criteria (Table 1). Four of the studies used the “gold‐standard” PSG to assess sleep outcomes objectively (Ageborg Morsing et al., 2018a; Ageborg Morsing et al, 2018b; Jalali et al., 2016a; Smith et al., 2020), two used actigraphy to assess sleep objectively (Lane et al., 2016; Michaud et al., 2016), and the remaining three used psychometrically validated subjective sleep questionnaires including the PSQI, ESS and ISI (Abbasi et al., 2015; Jalali et al., 2016b; Nissenbaum et al., 2012). One of the actigraphy‐based studies also used the PSQI to assess self‐reported sleep quality (Michaud et al., 2016) and the other actigraphy study also used a sleep diary to assess self‐reported perception of sleep in addition to objective sleep outcomes (Lane et al., 2016).…”

“…One of the actigraphy‐based studies also used the PSQI to assess self‐reported sleep quality (Michaud et al., 2016) and the other actigraphy study also used a sleep diary to assess self‐reported perception of sleep in addition to objective sleep outcomes (Lane et al., 2016). The four remaining objective studies (Ageborg Morsing et al., 2018a; Ageborg Morsing et al, 2018b; Jalali et al., 2016a; Smith et al., 2020) also used a sleep diary or morning questionnaire to assess self‐reported sleep outcomes.…”

“…2016b). The three experimental studies (Ageborg Morsing et al., 2018a; Ageborg Morsing et al, 2018b; Smith et al., 2020) also utilised advertising and detailed exclusion/inclusion criteria, and all adopted a counterbalanced design. Smith et al.…”