Hearing Conservation for Farmers: Source Apportionment of Occupational and Environmental Factors Contributing to Hearing Loss

Abstract

Those who work on farms continue to have a strikingly high prevalence of hearing loss, despite efforts to promote hearing conservation in agriculture. To develop improved hearing conservation programs, we performed a source apportionment analysis for hearing loss in a large, multiphasic health survey, the New York Farm Family Health and Hazard Survey. We used information from audiometric, otoscopic, and tympanometric examinations; detailed general health and farm exposure interviews; and a second interview that focused on additional potential determinants of hearing loss. Hearing loss on audiometry was significantly associated with increased age, male gender, education through high school or less, lifetime years of hunting with guns, lifetime years of use of a grain dryer, and a history of spraying crops during the previous year. Hearing conservation programs for farmers should thus be directed toward reduction in noise exposure, both from occupational and non-occupational sources. Additional study is needed to evaluate the association seen between crop spraying and hearing loss.

Avaliação do sistema auditivo em agricultores expostos à agrotóxicos

“…increasing number of studies into the impacts of chemical exposure on auditory capacity, especially in workers [10][11][12][13] . Sensory processing disorders in the auditory system have been associated with prescription drugs, such as aminoglycosides, quinine and others…”

Effects of a low intensity intervention to increase hearing protector use among noise‐exposed workers

“…Although difficult to estimate the numbers of workers involved in farming, the USDA estimates there are about 3,281,000 farm operators [USDA, 2007]. A farm operator is the person who runs the farm, making the day-to-day decisions .Noise levels of common farm equipment are known to be high, and several recent studies [McCullagh, 1999;Beckett et al, 2000;McCullagh et al, 2002;McBride et al, 2003;Jenkins et al, 2007] document farmers' exposure to hazardous noise. In the only recent study involving direct noise measurement, mean noise levels of several common farm tasks were found to be well within the range considered to be hazardous (above 85 dB).…”

“…In the only recent study involving direct noise measurement, mean noise levels of several common farm tasks were found to be well within the range considered to be hazardous (above 85 dB). These noise sources included tractors (91 dB), vacuum pumps (91.9 dB), bedding choppers (93 dB), and feed unloaders (90.4 dB) [Beckett et al, 2000]. Farmers often work extended work days, resulting in longer noise exposures, and greater risk of NIHL and other negative effects of noise [Murphy, 1992].…”

Chemobrain: A translational challenge for neurotoxicology

“…It would also be quite useful to incorporate auditory tests into a battery without requiring the resources of an audiology clinic. A compact portable system, such as the Ear Scan (Beckett et al, 2000), which can provide frequencies up to 8,000 Hz would be a desirable adjunct to conventional test batteries.…”