Methods for evaluating temporal trends in noise exposure

Neitzel, Richard L.; Galusha, Deron; Dixon‐Ernst, Christine; Rabinowitz, Peter

doi:10.3109/14992027.2013.857438

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 2 illustrates that some industries (eg, utilities and construction) appeared to have minimal reductions in noise levels over time, and some even had apparent increases (eg, transportation and warehousing and agricultural industries). These results are consistent with those found by Middendorf in his earlier assessment of OSHA compliance measurements,22 as well as evaluations of noise in construction23 and manufacturing 24. This is of particular concern, since the prevalence of NIHL in many industries remains high (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, 11.1%; construction, 16.3%; manufacturing, 13.7%; transportation, warehousing and utilities, 7.9%) 35…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Middendorf showed a decrease in non-compliant measurements (those exceeding 90 dBA using PEL criteria, and 85 dBA using AL criteria) between 1989 and 1998, but the final 5 years of the analysis indicated increasing PEL levels within manufacturing 22. No other large-scale longitudinal analyses of trends in US occupational noise exposures appear to have been published, and comprehensive industry-specific temporal analyses appear to be available for only two industries: construction23 and metals manufacturing 24…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patterns and trends in OSHA occupational noise exposure measurements from 1979 to 2013

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesNoise is one of the most common exposures, and occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is highly prevalent. In addition to NIHL, noise is linked to numerous non-auditory health effects. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) maintains the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) database of compliance-related measurements performed in various industries across the USA. The goal of the current study was to describe and analyse personal noise measurements available through the OSHA IMIS, identifying industries with elevated personal noise levels or increasing trends in worker exposure over time.MethodsThrough a Freedom of Information Act request, we obtained OSHA’s noise measurements collected and stored in IMIS between 1979 and 2013 and analysed permissible exposure limit (PEL) and action level (AL) criteria measurements by two-digit industry code.ResultsThe manufacturing industry represented 87.8% of the 93 920 PEL measurements and 84.6% of the 58 073 AL measurements. The highest mean noise levels were found among the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry for PEL (93.1 dBA) and the mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction group for AL (93.3 dBA). Overall, measurements generally showed a decreasing trend in noise levels and exceedances of AL and PEL by year, although this was not true for all industries.ConclusionsOur results suggest that, despite reductions in noise over time, further noise control interventions are warranted both inside and outside of the manufacturing industry. Further reductions in occupational noise exposures across many industries are necessary to continue to reduce the risk of occupational NIHL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns and trends in OSHA occupational noise exposure measurements from 1979 to 2013

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A comprehensive study estimated historical levels and long-term trends in occupational exposures, and found that most exposures declined between 4% and 14% per year, with a median value of 8% per year influenced by exposure factors including type of monitoring, historical changes in the threshold limit values (TLVs), and period of sampling (Symanski et al, 1998). Several other papers have documented the same decreasing trend in occupational noise exposure (Joy and Middendorf, 2007;Middendorf, 2004;Neitzel et al, 2014;Neitzel et al, 2011;Sayler et al, 2019). Roberts et al, also reported decreasing occupational noise exposures in 40.9% of the major classification groups (Roberts et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

A Quantitative General Population Job Exposure Matrix for Occupational Noise Exposure

Stokholm

Erlandsen

Schlünssen

et al. 2020

Annals of Work Exposures and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Occupational noise exposure is a known risk factor for hearing loss and also adverse cardiovascular effects have been suggested. A job exposure matrix (JEM) would enable studies of noise and health on a large scale. The objective of this study was to create a quantitative JEM for occupational noise exposure assessment of the general working population. Between 2001–2003 and 2009–2010, we recruited workers from companies within the 10 industries with the highest reporting of noise-induced hearing loss according to the Danish Working Environment Authority and in addition workers of financial services and children day care to optimize the range in exposure levels. We obtained 1343 personal occupational noise dosimeter measurements among 1140 workers representing 100 different jobs according to the Danish version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1988 (DISCO 88). Four experts used 35 of these jobs as benchmarks and rated noise levels for the remaining 337 jobs within DISCO 88. To estimate noise levels for all 372 jobs, we included expert ratings together with sex, age, occupational class, and calendar year as fixed effects, while job and worker were included as random effects in a linear mixed regression model. The fixed effects explained 40% of the total variance: 72% of the between-jobs variance, −6% of the between-workers variance and 4% of the within-worker variance. Modelled noise levels showed a monotonic increase with increasing expert score and a 20 dB difference between the highest and lowest exposed jobs. Based on the JEM estimates, metal wheel-grinders were among the highest and finance and sales professionals among the lowest exposed. This JEM of occupational noise exposure can be used to prioritize preventive efforts of occupational noise exposure and to provide quantitative estimates of contemporary exposure levels in epidemiological studies of health effects potentially associated with noise exposure.

show abstract

“…The largest effort to address the limitations of current methods of performing noise exposure assessments has been through a series of studies at Alcoa Incorporated, an aluminum manufacturing company operating across the United States. Prior to 2005, Alcoa utilized a hearing conservation program (HCP) that exceeded the requirements dictated by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), to include yearly fit tests for earplug-type HPDs and an Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology action level of 82 dBA in an attempt to control worker noise exposures [3] [4]. Despite these efforts, threshold shifts continued to occur at an average rate of 1.7 dB per year [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Noise Dose Reduction via Behavior Modification Using In-Ear Dosimetry among United States Air Force Personnel Exposed to Continuous and Impulse Noise

Trawick¹,

Slagley²,

Eninger³

2019

OJSST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In-ear dosimetry and noise exposure feedback were used to modify worker attitude and behavior regarding hearing protection use. The study specifically addressed whether providing in-ear noise exposure data to workers resulted in a reduction in average noise dose rate equivalent continuous levels. Nineteen combat arms instructors (impulse noise group) and heavy equipment operators (continuous noise group) working for the United States Air Force volunteered to participate in a six-month field study using in-ear dosimeters to collect daily noise level data. Participants served as their own control group, receiving periodic noise exposure feedback reports in the latter half of the study only. The control and feedback phase noise exposure data were examined using analysis of variance for differences that could be indicative of more effective hearing protection device use. Additionally, a 7-point Likert survey was used to monitor worker attitude towards hearing protection use, and worker medical histories were examined for evidence of previous hearing loss. Overall, this research found a significant reduction in noise dose rate equivalent continuous level (−2.5 dB with p = 0.019) for the continuous noise group following periodic noise exposure feedback on in-ear noise levels. This effect was not detected at the individual level due to limited samples. No effect was detected in the impulse noise population, likely due to limitations of dosimeter technology in response to impulse noise. No correlation between worker attitudes towards hearing protection and noise dose rate equivalent continuous level was detected for either group (continuous p = 0.249; impulse p = 0.478).

show abstract

Methods for evaluating temporal trends in noise exposure

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Patterns and trends in OSHA occupational noise exposure measurements from 1979 to 2013

Patterns and trends in OSHA occupational noise exposure measurements from 1979 to 2013

A Quantitative General Population Job Exposure Matrix for Occupational Noise Exposure

Occupational Noise Dose Reduction via Behavior Modification Using In-Ear Dosimetry among United States Air Force Personnel Exposed to Continuous and Impulse Noise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About