Figure - uploaded by Oscar Rikhotso
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
![Hearing conservation and control levels [45].](profile/Oscar-Rikhotso/publication/335438499/figure/tbl2/AS:796677690626054@1566954171346/Hearing-conservation-and-control-levels-45_Q320.jpg)
The chemical manufacturing industry employs sophisticated mechanical equipment to process feedstock such as natural gas by transforming it to usable raw material in downstream sectors. Workers employed at these facilities are exposed to inherent occupational health hazards, including occupational noise. An online and grey literature search on Scien...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... emitted noise levels expose a great percentage of the workforce employed in the sector [23]. Table 1 shows the reported average noise levels in literature, with references, within the manufacturing sector inclusive of the chemical manufacturing industry. ...Context 2
... 1979 to 2013, noise measurements recorded in the OSHA database show that the majority of noise levels exceeding the permissible exposure level were from the manufacturing industry [24]. In general, data in Table 1 show that noise records from the manufacturing sector were mainly from the textile industry and emanated from different geographies. The noise records from the US date back to the 1970s, the period around which the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act was initiated. ...Context 3
... average noise levels across the manufacturing industry ranges between 81-115 dBA inclusive of the petroleum, chemical and plastics manufacturing which are sub-categories of the chemical manufacturing sector [1]. Average noise levels noted in Table 1 which are at and/or above 85 and/or 90 dBA would require implementation of hearing conservation or control measures depending on the domicile (country) of the industry where the noise was measured [10][11][12]. The hearing conservation and noise control levels currently used in SA, US and the UK are shown in Table 2. ...Context 4
... proximity of bigger and smaller noise sources adjacent to each other can however mask the noise emitted by the smaller equipment [7,9,22,47,48,50,51]. The reported noise levels in both Tables 1 and 2 were derived and recorded through workplace noise surveys [60,61]. The logarithmic averages of noise levels in Table 3 adds up to reflect those indicated in Table 1 in a case of chemical manufacturing plants. ...Context 5
... reported noise levels in both Tables 1 and 2 were derived and recorded through workplace noise surveys [60,61]. The logarithmic averages of noise levels in Table 3 adds up to reflect those indicated in Table 1 in a case of chemical manufacturing plants. ...Context 6
... exposure groups in chemical manufacturing plants are exposed to both the average and composite noise levels highlighted in Tables 1 and 3. Some job categories, due to proximity to noise sources, task duration and movement patterns in relation to exposure sources, will only be exposed to the average or a fraction of the average noise levels. ...Context 7
... emitted noise levels expose a great percentage of the workforce employed in the sector [23]. Table 1 shows the reported average noise levels in literature, with references, within the manufacturing sector inclusive of the chemical manufacturing industry. ...Context 8
... 1979 to 2013, noise measurements recorded in the OSHA database show that the majority of noise levels exceeding the permissible exposure level were from the manufacturing industry [24]. In general, data in Table 1 show that noise records from the manufacturing sector were mainly from the textile industry and emanated from different geographies. The noise records from the US date back to the 1970s, the period around which the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act was initiated. ...Context 9
... average noise levels across the manufacturing industry ranges between 81-115 dBA inclusive of the petroleum, chemical and plastics manufacturing which are sub-categories of the chemical manufacturing sector [1]. Average noise levels noted in Table 1 which are at and/or above 85 and/or 90 dBA would require implementation of hearing conservation or control measures depending on the domicile (country) of the industry where the noise was measured [10][11][12]. The hearing conservation and noise control levels currently used in SA, US and the UK are shown in Table 2. 1 C-weighted peak noise level (dBC). ...Context 10
... proximity of bigger and smaller noise sources adjacent to each other can however mask the noise emitted by the smaller equipment [7,9,22,47,48,50,51]. The reported noise levels in both Tables 1 and 2 were derived and recorded through workplace noise surveys [60,61]. The logarithmic averages of noise levels in Table 3 adds up to reflect those indicated in Table 1 ...Context 11
... reported noise levels in both Tables 1 and 2 were derived and recorded through workplace noise surveys [60,61]. The logarithmic averages of noise levels in Table 3 adds up to reflect those indicated in Table 1 ...Context 12
... exposure groups in chemical manufacturing plants are exposed to both the average and composite noise levels highlighted in Tables 1 and 3. Some job categories, due to proximity to noise sources, task duration and movement patterns in relation to exposure sources, will only be exposed to the average or a fraction of the average noise levels. ...Citations
... Examples of effective cost saving strategies achieved by noise control includes buying quite equipment and machinery (Nelson, 2011;Beamer et al., 2016). Uncontrolled noise in industry, a result of insufficient engineering control solutions (Veebeek et al., 2014;Rikhotso et al., 2019), imposes financial costs on workers, employers, and compensation systems (Leigh et al., 2003;Leigh et al., 2004;Leigh, 2006Leigh, , 2011. Consequently, companies rely on the use of HPDs as a primary control measure, which has a number of inherent shortcomings such as incorrect selection (Rikhotso et al., 2018), uncertain regulatory guidance on labelling requirements (Rikhotso et al., 2021), improper fit and use (Maisarah and Said, 1993;Canetto et al., 2009;Balkhyour et al., 2019). ...
The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993 and its attending Regulations in South Africa, require employers to conduct cost analysis studies to inform decision-making related to exposure control for occupational health hazard such as noise. Cost analysis, as per South African National Standard/ISO 31000 risk assessment guideline, is an important input for the decision-making process of the risk management process. The costs of administrating a hearing conservation programme intended to minimise noise-induced hearing loss is an example of a cost analysis. This study enrolled four companies from the South African manufacturing and utilities sectors with the aim of establishing whether cost analysis is included during the noise risk assessment process; and determining administration costs of HCP administration. A HCP cost questionnaire was completed by each company's occupational hygiene professionals and risk officers. None of the companies in the study included cost analysis in their respective risk assessment processes. The overall costs, derived from the HCP cost item questionnaire, was much greater for Company A (4 290 014 Rands) than all of the other companies combined (970 685 Rands). Hearing protection device expenditures across the four companies were the greatest expense, while audiometry was the smallest expense owing to service internalisation. The HCP expenditures are incurred on periodic basis, yearly or biennial, and are internalised in companies as direct costs. Cost analysis can enhance the noise risk assessment process by providing additional input to support the decision-making process related to noise control. This challenges the occupational hygiene profession to pursue new frontiers and decision-making models in the scope of noise risk management, beyond noise measurements and hearing protection device use recommendation.
... For example, the increased use of hand tools (electric, combustion, pneumatic and hydraulic) causes exposure to noise and HAV. For this reason, their effects have been analysed in many productive sectors such as construction [12,13], agriculture [14][15][16], forestry [17,18], metallurgy [19], textile industry [20], chemical manufacturing [21], automobile manufacturing [22], mining [23], the mining industry and mechanical engineering [24] etc. The issue of occupational noise and vibration exposure is so relevant that the Sixth European working conditions survey [25] reports that 28% of all workers are exposed to high noise levels for more than a quarter of the working day in different labour sectors. ...
... As can be expected, if we take into account both exposures, the recommended combined exposure time T CexpMax is less than T CexpVibMax or T CexpNoiseMax . Table 5 lists the values of the Dvibration and Dnoise for this combined recommended exposure time T CexpMax , by ensuring that the sum of both noise and HAV doses becomes equal to Equation (21). Table 5. Dvibration and Dnoise achieved for the combined recommended maximum exposure time T CexpMax . ...
In many production and industrial sectors, workers are exposed to noise and hand-arm vibrations (HAV). European directives have established the maximum limit values or exposure action values for noise and vibration independently. However, in many cases, workers who endure hand-arm vibration also receive high noise levels. This research suggests a procedure to aid the establishment of precautionary measures for workers with simultaneous exposure to both physical agents. This procedure defines a combined index based on the energy doses for both noise and HAV. From this combined index, the suggested methodology allows a recommended exposure time for workers with simultaneous noise and HAV exposure to be calculated. This methodology can be adapted to tackle the relative importance assigned to both agents according to the safety manager and new knowledge on combined health effects. To test this method, a measurement campaign under real working conditions was conducted with workers from the olive fruit-harvesting sector, where a variety of hand-held machinery is used. The results of the study case show that the suggested procedure can obtain reliable exposure time recommendations for simultaneous noise and HAV exposures and is therefore a useful tool for establishing prevention measures.
... This then points to OD prevalence being a result of neglected unsafe working conditions and a deterioration of implemented exposure control measures [125], including by companies listed in Table 1. With regard to shortcomings in NIHL prevention efforts specifically, the incorrect selection of hearing protection devices, inadequate noise training programmes, and lack of implementing noise engineering controls have been showed as contributory factors in its prevalence from a study conducted at a South African chemical manufacturing company [126][127][128]. ...
This paper explores the potential of Corporate Social Responsibility disclosures in providing alternative information on the extent of occupational health hazard impact on workers, by selected South African companies operating within the manufacturing and utilities sectors amidst an absent national occupational disease surveillance system. An online internet search was used to retrieve publicly available national occupational disease statistics published between 2001 and 2020, and Corporate Social Responsibility reports of selected South African case companies, published between 2015 and 2020. Content analysis was used to analyse the retrieved documents for both descriptive and numeric data. The collection and reporting of occupational disease data in South Africa is inconsistent. Corporate Social Responsibility disclosures related to occupational health metrics vary between companies. Occupational disease incidence was the least reported of the social aspects in Corporate Social Responsibility disclosures, and/or were reported as a single statistic or combined into occupational safety incidence rates in some instances, obfuscating the true extent of the impact caused by occupational health hazards on workers. Furthermore, noise-induced hearing loss remains the most prevalently reported occupational disease, in general. Corporate Social Responsibility reports point to occupational health hazards requiring regulatory intervention, whilst also providing an alternative information source for occupational disease statistics.
... However, the manufacturing, utilities, agriculture and trade sectors are often cited as the most hazardous [10], compared to office-based work associated with community service and finance. Employees at these industries are often exposed to physical, chemical and biological occupational health hazard types [10,19,[72][73][74][75], which are all linked to the ODs in Table 1. The paucity of the Compensation fund-derived OD and injury statistics complicates the process of attributing the specific sectors from which these accidents emanated. ...
... The manufacturing sector consequently has the highest number of noise-exposed workers [125,126]. Workers in different industries, such as coal-fuelled power plants, textile mills, chemical manufacturing plants and steel plants, are also exposed to noise levels above the regulated exposure limits during routine activities [19,74,112,[126][127][128][129][130]. Maximum noise levels measured in these sectors can reach 120 dB [128] and contain different spectral frequencies [131]. ...
Operations in general industry, including manufacturing, expose employees to a myriad of occupational health hazards. To prevent exposure, occupational health and safety regulations were enacted, with both employers and workers instituting various risk reduction measures. The analysis of available occupational disease and injury statistics (indicators of worker physical health) can be used to infer the effectiveness of risk reduction measures and regulations in preventing exposure. Thus, using the READ approach, analyses of occupational disease and injury statistics from South African industry, derived from annual reports of the Compensation Fund, were conducted. The publicly available database of occupational disease and injury statistics from the South African general industry is unstructured, and the data are inconsistently reported. This data scarcity, symptomatic of an absence of a functional occupational disease surveillance system, complicates judgement making regarding the effectiveness of implemented risk reduction measures, enacted occupational health and safety regulations and the status of worker physical health from exposure to workplace hazards. The statistics, where available, indicate that workers continue to be exposed to occupational health impacts within general industry, notwithstanding risk reduction measures and enacted regulations. In particular, worker physical health continues to be impacted by occupational injuries and noise-induced hearing loss. This is suggestive of shortcomings and inefficiencies in industry-implemented preventive measures and the regulatory state. A robust national occupational disease surveillance system is a regulatory tool that should detect and direct policy responses to identified occupational health hazards.
Research on noise studies informs that noise disturbance is caused by many sources which can come
from industrial and non-industrial categories. Noise is a study in the realm of ergonomics, so development to
take an important role in knowing the handling and preventing health problems in the future is needed. A data
collection of several journals indexed by Scopus and registered with Google Scholar with a total of 40 articles
on noise has been carried out with a period of publication over the last decade, 2011-2021. The results of the
analysis found that air pollution is part of the dominant noise effect from the non-industrial sector rather than
the industrial sector in ratio. Among the non-industrial categories include traffic density, airport activity, train
noise, and others. Meanwhile, industrial activities generally originate from the sound of machines that
produce or operate for the duration of the work. All sources of noise must be reduced as they can cause
hearing loss.
