The Performance of Circumaural Hearing Protectors by Dosimetry

Dy, Chung; Hardie, R.; Rp, Gannon

doi:10.1097/00043764-198309000-00016

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At present, the earmuff usage time is estimated to be 79 070 for forest workers and 93 % for shipyard workers. The attenuation of earmuffs under work conditions is not well known (2,6,10,15). In this study it was measured with a miniature microphone method with an estimated error of only ± 2 dB in frequency response, due to the positioning of the microphone close to the ear canal entrance (4, 6, 7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impulse noise and hand-arm vibration in relation to sensory neural hearing loss.

Starck¹,

Pekkarinen²,

Pyykkö³

1988

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MSc,' Ilmari Pyykko, MD2 STARCK J, PEKKARINEN J, PYYKKO 1. Impulse noise and hand-arm vibration in relation to sensory neural hearing loss. Scand J Work Environ Health 14 (1988) 265-271. The present study was carried out to determine whether impulse noise and simultaneous exposure to noise and vibration can aggravate sensory neural hearing loss (SNHL) among forest (N = 199) and shipyard (N = 171) workers. The average level of exposure to noise outside the used earmuffs and the average exposure over time were nearly equal for the two groups. The impulsiveness of the noise and the average exposure level inside the earmuffs were measured with a miniature microphone. The hearing threshold of the workers was measured at 4 kHz and then estimated according to Robinson's model to compare the observed and expected hearing loss. The impulsiveness ofthe noise was greater both outside and inside the earmuffs in shipyard work than in forest work. The average SNHL was higher than predicted for the shipyard workers and about the same as predicted for the forest workers. The total exposure level inside the earmuffs was influenced by the total wearing time. The low frequencies of the chain-saw noise were not attenuated sufficiently by the earmuffs to protect the workers' hearing. The present study suggests that exposure to impulse noise increases the risk of SNHL, but that simultaneous exposure to hand-arm vibration and noise does not.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impulse noise and hand-arm vibration in relation to sensory neural hearing loss.

Starck¹,

Pekkarinen²,

Pyykkö³

1988

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In truck drivers, asymmetrical hearing loss has been attributed to noise and air rushing from the opened window [96]. Chung et al showed that intensity of noise exposure from sawing wooden blocks into shingles was comparable between both ears, but their data also showed a small but significant asymmetric hearing loss, worse on the left side, that correlated with age and lifetime noise exposure when compared to the industrial population [97]. In addition, a significant asymmetrical hearing loss of up to a >20 dB difference was found in different studies of populations evaluating symmetrical noise exposure [98–100].…”

Section: Asymmetric Nihlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, correlation studies looking at 2 kHz asymmetry suggest that as more frequencies are considered, more patients with asymmetrical hearing loss are likely to be found, and the degree of asymmetry can be more precisely delineated [95]. Chung et al reported the left ear to be most susceptible to noise at 2 kHz, which may account for a small but significant interaural threshold difference [95, 97]. Pirila et al reported damage to the left ear to be more prominent in men than in women [107, 108], whereas Nageris et al found no such difference.…”

Section: Asymmetric Nihlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current insights in noise-induced hearing loss: A literature review of the underlying mechanism, pathophysiology, asymmetry, and management options

Le¹,

Straatman²,

Lea³

et al. 2017

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

328

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNoise-induced hearing loss is one of the most common forms of sensorineural hearing loss, is a major health problem, is largely preventable and is probably more widespread than revealed by conventional pure tone threshold testing. Noise-induced damage to the cochlea is traditionally considered to be associated with symmetrical mild to moderate hearing loss with associated tinnitus; however, there is a significant number of patients with asymmetrical thresholds and, depending on the exposure, severe to profound hearing loss as well.Main bodyRecent epidemiology and animal studies have provided further insight into the pathophysiology, clinical findings, social and economic impacts of noise-induced hearing loss. Furthermore, it is recently shown that acoustic trauma is associated with vestibular dysfunction, with associated dizziness that is not always measurable with current techniques. Deliberation of the prevalence, treatment and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss is important and timely. Currently, prevention and protection are the first lines of defence, although promising protective effects are emerging from multiple different pharmaceutical agents, such as steroids, antioxidants and neurotrophins.ConclusionThis review provides a comprehensive update on the pathophysiology, investigations, prevalence of asymmetry, associated symptoms, and current strategies on the prevention and treatment of noise-induced hearing loss.

show abstract

“…Since then, at least 21 additional studies of which the authors are aware have become available worldwide ͑Abel et al., 1982;Behar, 1985;Berger and Kieper, 1991;Casali and Park, 1991;Chung et al, 1983;Crawford and Nozza, 1981;Durkt, 1993;Edwards et al, 1983;Edwards and Green, 1987;Edwards et al, 1978;Fleming, 1980;Goff and Blank, 1984;Hachey and Roberts, 1983;Hempstock and Hill, 1990;Mendez et al, 1986;Padilla, 1976;Pekkarinen, 1987;Pfeiffer et al, 1989;Royster et al, 1991;Passchier-Vermeer et al, 1993;and Smoorenburg et al, 1986͒. The total data base of 22 studies comprises results from over 90 different industries, in seven countries ͑Argentina, Canada, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, UK, and U.S.͒ with a total of approximately 2900 subjects.…”

Section: B the Real-world Data Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data

Berger¹,

Franks

Behar³

et al. 1998

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mandate of ASA Working Group S12/WG11 has been to develop ''laboratory and/or field procedure͑s͒ that yield useful estimates of field performance'' of hearing protection devices ͑HPDs͒. A real-ear attenuation at threshold procedure was selected, devised, tested via an interlaboratory study, and incorporated into a draft standard that was approved in 1997 ͓J. D. Royster et al., ''Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part I. Research of Working Group 11, Accredited Standards Committee S12, Noise,'' J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 1506-1526 ͑1996͒; ANSI S12.6-1997, ''American National Standard Methods for Measuring Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors'' ͑American National Standards Institute, New York, 1997͔͒. The real-world estimation procedure utilizes a subject-fit methodology with listeners who are audiometrically proficient, but inexperienced in the use of HPDs. A key factor in the decision to utilize the subject-fit method was an evaluation of the representativeness of the laboratory data vis-à-vis attenuation values achieved by workers in practice. Twenty-two field studies were reviewed to develop a data base for comparison purposes. Results indicated that laboratory subject-fit attenuation values were typically equivalent to or greater than the field attenuation values, and yielded a better estimate of those values than did a͒ This paper is the last of three parts of a body of work that represents the research and analyses of S12/WG11 in conjunction with the development of ANSI S12.6-1997. Part I appeared in 1996 in J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 1506-1526 ͑1996͒. It referenced two succeeding parts, one of which Part II is still in press and hence will appear out of chronological order. Additionally the advance citation of this paper in Part I, listed the first two authors in the reverse order from that which appears above. b͒ ''Selected research articles'' are ones chosen occasionally by the Editor-in-Chief that are judged ͑a͒ to have a subject of wide acoustical interest, and ͑b͒ to be written for understanding by broad acoustical readership.665 665

show abstract

The Performance of Circumaural Hearing Protectors by Dosimetry

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Impulse noise and hand-arm vibration in relation to sensory neural hearing loss.

Impulse noise and hand-arm vibration in relation to sensory neural hearing loss.

Current insights in noise-induced hearing loss: A literature review of the underlying mechanism, pathophysiology, asymmetry, and management options

Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About