Typical noise exposure in daily life.

Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5355, USA.
International journal of audiology (Impact Factor: 1.43). 02/2012; 51 Suppl 1(S1):S3-11. DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2011.635316
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Identify the distribution of typical noise levels present in daily life and identify factors associated with average sound levels.
This was an observational study.
Participants (N = 286) were 20 to 68 year old men and women, drawn from the general population of Kalamazoo County, Michigan. A total of 73 000 person-hours of noise monitoring were conducted.
Median overall daily average levels were 79 and 77 dBLeq(A,8,equiv), with average levels exceeding EPA recommended levels for 70% of participants. Median levels were similar between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m., and varied little across days of the week. Gender, occupational classification, and history of occupational noise exposure were related to average noise levels, but age, educational attainment, and non-occupational noise exposures were not.
A large portion of the general population is exposed to noise levels that could result in long-term adverse effects on hearing. Gender and occupation were most strongly related to exposure, though most participants in this study had occupations that are not conventionally considered noisy.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study was conducted to evaluate noise exposures and the contributions of occupational and nonoccupational activities among three groups of Swedish workers (office workers, day care workers, and military flight technicians), and to evaluate risk factors for elevated hearing threshold levels. Forty-five subjects were recruited across the three groups. Each subject completed a risk factor questionnaire along with Békésy audiometry at frequencies between 125 and 8000 Hz. Subjects also wore a noise dosimeter continuously for 1 week, and documented their occupational and nonoccupational activities using a time-activity log. Subjects in all groups completed >7400 h of dosimetry, and had weekly exposures between 76 and 81 dBA. Day care workers had the highest daily exposures, and flight technicians had the highest weekly exposures. Most daily and weekly exposures exceeded the 70 dBA exposure limit recommended for prevention of any hearing loss. Subjects' perceptions of their exposures generally agreed well with measured noise levels. Among office workers, exposures were predominately nonoccupational, while among flight technicians nonoccupational and occupational activities contributed roughly equally, and among day care workers occupational exposures were dominant. Extreme exposures and cumulative noise exposure were associated with an increased risk of hearing threshold levels >10 dB hearing level. Effective hearing loss prevention programs may be needed in occupations not historically considered to be at high risk of noise-induced hearing loss (e.g., day care workers). Prevention efforts need to address nonoccupational exposures as well as occupational exposures, as nonoccupational activities may present the dominant risk of noise-induced hearing loss for some workers.
    Noise and Health 09/2014; 16(72):270-8. DOI:10.4103/1463-1741.140503 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: To estimate the short-term variability and correlates of variability in pure-tone thresholds obtained using audiometric equipment designed for occupational use, and to examine the justification for excluding 8 kHz as a mandatory threshold in occupational hearing conservation programs. Method: Pure-tone thresholds and other hearing-related tests (e.g. noise dosimetry, otoscopy, middle-ear assessment) were conducted with a group of 527 adults between 20 and 69 years of age. Five measurement visits were completed by participants within 14 days. Results: The 50% critical difference boundaries were - 5 and 0 dB at 4 kHz and below and - 5 and 5 dB at 6 and 8 kHz. The likelihood of spurious notches due to test-retest variability was substantially lower than the likelihood of failing to detect a notched configuration when present. Correlates of variability included stimulus frequency, baseline threshold, acoustic reflectance of the ear, average noise exposure during the previous eight hours, age, and the tester's level of education in audiology. Conclusion: The short-term variability in 8-kHz pure-tone thresholds obtained with the TDH-39P earphone was slightly greater than at other frequencies, but this difference was not large enough to justify the disadvantages stemming from the inability to detect a 6-kHz notch.
    International journal of audiology 03/2014; 53 Suppl 2(S2):S5-S15. DOI:10.3109/14992027.2013.857435 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tens of millions of Americans suffer from a range of adverse health outcomes due to noise exposure, including heart disease and hearing loss. Reducing environmental noise pollution is achievable and consistent with national prevention goals, and yet there is no national plan to reduce environmental noise pollution. In this paper, we describe some of the most serious health effects associated with noise, summarize exposures from several highly prevalent noise sources based on published estimates as well as extrapolations made using these estimates, and lay out proven mechanisms and strategies to reduce noise by incorporating scientific insight and technological innovations into existing public health infrastructure. We estimate that 104 million individuals had annual LEQ(24) levels > 70 dBA in 2013 and were at risk of noise-induced hearing loss, heart disease, and other noise-related health effects. Direct regulation, altering the informational environment, and altering the built environment are the least costly, most logistically feasible, and most effective noise reduction interventions. Significant public health benefit can be achieved by integrating interventions that reduce environmental noise levels and exposures into the federal public health agenda.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 12/2013; 122(2). DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307272 · 7.26 Impact Factor