Development and application of a noise‐hazard scheme for road maintainers

Abstract

Background Transportation road maintenance and repair workers, or “maintainers,” are exposed to hazardous and variable noise levels and often rely on hearing protection devices (HPD) to reduce noise‐exposure levels. We aimed to improve upon HPD use as part of the HearWell program that used a Total Worker Health, participatory approach to hearing conservation. Methods Full‐shift, personal noise sampling was performed during the routine task of brush cutting. Work activities and equipment were recorded and combined with 1‐min noise measures to summarize personal noise‐exposure levels by equipment. Using noise‐monitoring results, HPD noise reduction ratings, and input from worker‐based design teams, a noise‐hazard scheme was developed and applied to the task and equipment used during brush cutting. Results Average (standard deviation) and maximum Leq 1‐minute, personal noise‐exposure levels recorded during brush cutting included chainsaws at 92.1 (7.6) and max of 111 dBA, leaf blowers at 91.2 (7.5) and max 107 dBA, and wood chipper at 90.3 (7.3) and max of 104 dBA. The worker‐designed noise‐hazard scheme breaks down noise exposures into one of three color bands and exposure ranges: red (over 105 dBA), orange (90‐105 dBA), or yellow (85‐90 dBA). The scheme simplifies the identification of noise levels, assessment of noise‐hazard, and choice of appropriate hearing protection for workers. Conclusion Combining noise‐exposure assessment with intervention development using participatory methods, we characterized noise exposure and developed an intervention to educate and assist in protecting workers as they perform noisy tasks.

Evaluation of the HearWell Pilot Program: A Participatory Total Worker Health® Approach to Hearing Conservation

“…The goal of the noise hazard management scheme was to easily identify noise levels of individual equipment models and indicate the required HPD for each. The Design Team, Steering Committee and researchers developed a color-coded noise hazard scheme that allows workers to recognize equipment and task noise levels and choose the appropriate HPD [ 21 ]. Briefly, the noise hazard scheme identified noise level ranges (red, above 105 dBA; orange, 90–105 dBA; and yellow, 85–90 dBA) and the corresponding HPD required (red, muffs and plugs; orange, muffs or plugs; yellow, muffs or plugs or ear caps).…”

“…At-home HPD use for chainsaw use was high at pre-intervention and changed little post-intervention. However, prior to the pre-intervention survey, researchers conducted in-depth noise survey monitoring during tree removal [ 21 ], which includes chainsaw use, which may have contributed to the increase in at-home HPD use during this task at this time. Nevertheless, it is unclear why all arms showed an increase in at-home HPD use.…”

“…We engaged workers within a New England state’s Department of Transportation (DOT), specifically highway “maintainers” who are involved in road construction and maintenance activities and are regularly exposed to high noise levels. For example, during the routine task of cutting brush, we observed a mean (standard deviation) noise exposure of 86.2 (2.6) dBA TWA 8hr over the work shift and 92.1 (7.6) dBA L eq while using the chainsaw [ 21 ]. Maintainers work out of regionally located maintenance garages.…”

“…Each survey included items to assess demographics and job history, as well as the frequency of HPD use [ 21 ]. Workers were asked “If you use noisy tools or are in noisy areas, do you use hearing protectors (e.g., earplugs or earmuffs)?” rated on a 6–point frequency scale from rarely or never (1) to always (6).…”

Precarious Work Schedules and Sleep: A Study of Unionized Full-Time Workers

“…In this cross-sectional study, we examine two unionized workforces in the public sector − corrections and transportation − who experience extended and irregular schedules in the context of their full-time employment, to understand how schedules affect their well-being. Over our many years of using participatory action research (PAR) with these populations (Cavallari et al, 2019 , 2020a , b , 2021 ; Cherniack et al, 2016 ; Dugan et al, 2016 , 2021 , 2022 ), the topic of extended and irregular work schedules has consistently emerged as a worker health concern, both due to prolonged exposure to workplace hazards and adverse effects on health, including sleep (Suleiman et al, 2021 ). In addition to this study being observational, it is a rare example of translational PAR research in which the selection of study variables was informed by worker input with the intent of identifying and testing modifiable factors that, if found to ameliorate the adverse effects of schedules on sleep and well-being, may serve as the basis for occupational health interventions.…”