Occupational Noise Exposure of Traffic Enforcers in Selected Streets in the City of Manila

Abstract

Objective. The study aimed to evaluate the sound pressure levels of selected traffic enforcer sites in the City of Manila. Methods. A Brüel & Kjaer Integrating Sound Level Meter type 2225 was used to measure sound pressure levels in dB(A) to estimate personal noise exposure of traffic enforcers designated at Quezon Boulevard near Quiapo Church and Recto-Rizal Avenue on a weekday and a weekend. Graphs were generated while appropriate measures were calculated for the noise exposure levels. The mean exposure levels were compared with the Philippine Occupational Safety and Health standards by computing the corresponding permissible exposure limit for each work shift using the Equal Energy Principle. 17 Results. Noise exposure levels at Quezon Boulevard ranged from 75.0 dB(A) to 91.5 dB(A) with mean noise exposure level of 84.3 ± 3.7 dB(A) and 82.5 ± 2.6 dB(A) for the weekday AM and PM shift, respectively. The mean noise exposure level at Quezon Boulevard for the weekend AM shift was 82.4 ± 2.6, whereas 80.4 ± 2.8 for the PM shift. The noise exposure levels at Recto-Rizal Avenue ranged from 81.5 dB(A) to 99.3 dB(A) with mean noise exposure level of 86.7 ± 2.6 dB(A) and 86.0 ± 2.1 dB(A) for the weekday AM and PM shift, respectively. The mean noise exposure level at Recto-Rizal Avenue for the weekend AM shift was 86.7 ± 2.3, whereas 89.0 ± 4.0 for the PM shift. Conclusion. The study showed that traffic enforcers designated at Quezon Boulevard and Recto-Rizal Avenue are exposed to noise levels that do not exceed the Philippine Occupational Safety and Health standards.

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Occupational Noise Exposure of Traffic Enforcers
in Selected Streets in the City of Manila
Louise Elinor R. Dulay,1 Ma. Danica Katrina P. Galvan,1 Rio Joana M. Puyaoan,1
Angel Abraham Y. Sison,1 Nicole S. Natanauan1 and Paul Michael R. Hernandez2
1College of Public Health, University of the Philippines Manila
2Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, College of Public Health, University of the Philippines Manila
ABSTRACT
Objecve. The study aimed to evaluate the sound pressure levels of selected trac enforcer sites in the City of Manila.
Methods. A Brüel & Kjær Integrang Sound Level Meter type 2225 was used to measure sound pressure levels in
dB(A) to esmate personal noise exposure of trac enforcers designated at Quezon Boulevard near Quiapo Church
and Recto – Rizal Avenue on a weekday and a weekend. Graphs were generated while appropriate measures were
calculated for the noise exposure levels. The mean exposure levels were compared with the Philippine Occupaonal
Safety and Health standards by compung the corresponding permissible exposure limit for each work shi using
the Equal Energy Principle.17
Results. Noise exposure levels at Quezon Boulevard ranged from 75.0 dB(A) to 91.5 dB(A) with mean noise exposure
level of 84.3 ± 3.7 dB(A) and 82.5 ± 2.6 dB(A) for the weekday AM and PM shi, respecvely. The mean noise
exposure level at Quezon Boulevard for the weekend AM shi was 82.4 ± 2.6, whereas 80.4 ± 2.8 for the PM shi.
The noise exposure levels at Recto – Rizal Avenue ranged from 81.5 dB(A) to 99.3 dB(A) with mean noise exposure
level of 86.7 ± 2.6 dB(A) and 86.0 ± 2.1 dB(A) for the weekday AM and PM shi, respecvely. The mean noise
exposure level at Recto – Rizal Avenue for the weekend AM shi was 86.7 ± 2.3, whereas 89.0 ± 4.0 for the PM shi.
Conclusion. The study showed that trac enforcers designated at Quezon Boulevard and Recto – Rizal Avenue are
exposed to noise levels that do not exceed the Philippine Occupaonal Safety and Health standards.
Key Words: occupaonal noise, trac enforcers, occupaonal health and safety, occupaonal noise exposure,
industrial hygiene
INTRODUCTION
Noise is an unwanted and unpleasant sound1 that can
disrupt individuals’ activity and deteriorate their quality of life
by aecting how they normally function – psychologically,
physiologically or socially.2 It can be classied into either
occupational or environmental noise. Occupational noise
includes all unwanted sounds in the workplace while
environmental noise comes from all sources of noise
excluding those that are from the workplace.3-4 Exposure to
noise can be aected by the following factors: intensity of
noise (sound pressure level), frequency distribution of the
noise, time pattern and duration of exposure.5 As the levels
of these factors increase, the greater is the damage that can be
inicted on the exposed individual.6
In order to limit noise exposure of individuals in
the environment and workplace, standards have been
developed by dierent institutions such as World Health
Organization (WHO), United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) and Occupational Safety and
Corresponding Author: Louise Elinor R. Dulay
College of Public Health
University of the Philippines Manila
625 Pedro Gil Street Ermita, Manila 1000 Philippines
Mobile Phone: +63 9453381635
Email: lrdulay@up.edu.ph
VOL. 52 NO. 3 2018 ACTA MEDICA PHILIPPINA 261

Health Administration (OSHA). In the Philippines, the
institutions that set the standards include the Department
of Health (DOH) and the Occupational Safety and Health
Center (OSHC) under the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE).
Awareness on pollution brought about by noise has
always been limited due to its unnoticeable eects but
recently, noise is becoming a more prominent social,
environmental and health problem due to the increasing
urbanization.1-2,6 Road trac, one of the dominant sources
of noise in urban and rural environment, continuously rises
with the increasing number of people and vehicles, as well
as congestion of trac.7 Trac enforcers, who spend most
of their time in roads directing trac, are at the forefront of
exposure to road trac noise.
A study on the noise exposure among trac police ocers
conducted in Sudan reported that the noise levels measured
using a dosimeter were high at all points which in turn have
led to annoyance and tinnitus among the trac enforcers.8
Worse eect, such as hearing loss, may also be induced by
occupational noise exposure according to the audiometric
results of the study conducted among French motorcycle
police ocers.9 Despite the alarming health eects of trac
noise exposure, there are however no published studies in the
Philippines that focus on this subject.10
In line with this pressing concern, this study aimed to
evaluate the noise exposures of trac enforcers in selected
streets in the City of Manila, Philippines to act as a guide
for the formulation and implementation of control measures
designed to protect these workers from the harmful health
eects of occupational noise. is study specically intended
to describe the weekday and weekend sound pressure levels
of selected trac enforcer sites and to compare the sound
pressure levels to the Philippine Occupational Safety and
Health (OSH) standards.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A descriptive study design was used to measure the
sound pressure levels of selected trac enforcer sites in the
City of Manila for the estimation of the noise exposure of the
trac enforcers in these areas.
Study Populaon
e study population was composed of trac enforcers
employed by the Manila Trac and Parking Bureau (MTPB)
of the City of Manila. Specically, trac enforcers who: (1)
worked from 6:30AM – 12:00PM or 12:30PM – 7:00PM,
or within these specied time in the selected busiest streets
of Manila from the list provided by MTPB;11 (2) were
permanently assigned to the area; (3) did not frequently leave
their posts except for restroom breaks; and (4) have consented
to participate in the study. ey were not characterized
according to age, sex, and years of employment because noise
exposure levels are independent of these variables.
MTPB11 specied eight streets in Manila that are
considered busiest in terms of vehicular and pedestrian volume
among all areas where the trac enforcers are deployed. ese
sites are: Divisoria (Recto – Abad Santos), Lawton (Park
and Ride), Quezon Boulevard in front of Quiapo Church,
Quirino, Ramon Magsaysay Boulevard (Ramon Magsaysay –
V. Mapa), España – Lacson, Recto – Rizal Avenue, and Taft
Avenue (United Nations Ave. – Kalaw).
An ocular survey was conducted to identify the study sites.
Criteria for choosing these included the following: (1) noise
levels as perceived by the MTPB; (2) if the trac enforcers
stay on the site throughout their entire shift; and (3) safety
considerations of the investigators (e.g. being hit by vehicles).
Only two sites qualied for the study: Quezon Boulevard in
front of Quiapo Church and Recto - Rizal Avenue.
Preliminary Assessment
Preliminary assessment was done on the two selected
streets to identify the sampling points where trac enforcers
are positioned. e dierent sources of noise present in the
area such as trains, vehicles, people, and construction activities
were identied but were not quantied.
Esmang Personal Noise Exposure
Participants were rst briefed about the study and the
content of the informed consent form at their outposts before
the start of their shift and the actual data collection.
Upon consultation with the OSHC DOLE regarding
the methodology,12 the investigators used an analog
integrating sound level meter (Brüel & Kjær Integrating
Sound Level Meter type 2225) to measure sound pressure
levels (in dB(A)) at selected trac enforcer sites. To account
for variations in noise intensities throughout the monitoring
period, readings were taken using the slow response setting
of the sound level meter.13
In measuring occupational noise exposure, the
recommendations set forth by OSHA of the United States
Department of Labor 14,15 were employed. e sound level
meter was calibrated using a Brüel & Kjær Sound Level
Calibrator type 4230 prior to data collection. e instrument’s
microphone was positioned within the hearing zone of the
trac enforcer, which is around two feet diameter surrounding
the head of the enforcer14 (refer to Figures 1 and 2).
Readings were taken for one minute at 10-minute
intervals for the entire shift (5.5 hours for morning and 6.5
hours for afternoon); hence, the number of measurements
was expected to be 33 recordings in the AM shift and 39
recordings in the PM shift. Since the analog integrating sound
level meter displays sound pressure levels instantaneously,
a video camera was used to record the readings generated
by the integrating sound level meter during the 1-minute
measurement. Data collection in each street was done for
two days, Monday or Friday, and Saturday, which were
identied as busy days by OSHC.12 Table 1 shows the dates
on which the measurements were taken.
ACTA MEDICA PHILIPPINA VOL. 52 NO. 3 2018262
Noise Exposure among Manila Trac Enforcers

Safety precautions such as wearing of masks and reective
vests, keeping close to the trac enforcer, and crossing the
street only when the green light is on for pedestrians were
observed by the investigators during data collection.
Data Processing and Analysis
e videos of the recorded measurements were viewed by
the investigators to determine the highest and lowest values
of each 1-minute measurement. ere were non-continuous
levels of noise in the area while measuring the noise exposure
of the trac enforcers hence the arithmetic average of the
highest and lowest values obtained during the 1-minute
measuring time was computed.
To account for variations in the duration of noise
measurements, the mean exposure levels were compared
with the Philippine OSH16 standards by computing the
corresponding permissible exposure limit for each work shift
using the Equal Energy Principle17 equation
where T is the hours of shi and Lexposure limit is the standard value.
Using Microsoft Excel 2013, graphs were generated to
present the sound pressure levels of the sites for each day. All
the values obtained for a workshift (AM/PM) of a specic
site (Quezon Boulevard/ Recto – Rizal Avenue) for each
day of measurement were utilized to compute for the mean,
standard deviation, and range of the noise level to which
trac enforcers were exposed to. Furthermore, the mean
levels were compared to the Philippine OSH Standards.
Ethical/Biosafety clearance
Ethical clearance was provided by the College of Public
Health Ethics Review Board.
RESULTS
e sites selected for the study were the portion of
Quezon Boulevard in front of Quiapo Church, and Recto
– Rizal Avenue. Upon initial survey of the study sites, the
investigators noted that the sources of noise at Quezon
Boulevard were the vehicular trac, the trac enforcers’
whistling, the numerous parishioners attending mass in
Quiapo Church, the priest’s sermon blaring from the
public address system stationed outside the church, and the
vendors and commuters present in the area. In Recto – Rizal
Avenue, aside from the vehicles and whistles, noise sources
include the music being played outside the malls, shouting
pedestrians and barkers of jeepneys, and the trains that were
plying the overhead railways. In both study sites, there were
instances that the investigators had to speak louder in order
to hear each other.
During the data collection, the rumbling from an outside
broadcasting vehicle’s generator added to the noise produced
by the sources initially identied at Quezon Boulevard.
In Recto – Rizal Avenue, on the other hand, there were
more noise sources present than previously noted – sidewalk
T
8
Limit for a given shi = Lexposure limit — 10log , (1)
Figure 1. Noise Exposure Measurement, Quezon Boulevard,
Manila, Philippines, December 2013.
Figure 2. Noise Exposure Measurement, Recto-Rizal Avenue,
Manila, Philippines, December 2013.
Table 1. Noise measurement, shift duration and number of readings according to site and day, City of Manila, December 2013
Site Weekday Weekend
Quezon Boulevard 12/13/2013 (Friday) 12/14/2013 (Saturday)
Shi duraon (hours) No. of readings Shi duraon (hours) No. of readings
AM Shi 5.5 29 5.5 32
PM Shi 6 32 6.67 38
Recto – Rizal Avenue 12/16/2013 (Monday) 12/28/2013 (Saturday)
Shi duraon (hours) No. of readings Shi duraon (hours) No. of readings
AM Shi 4.17 25 4.58 27
PM Shi 5.67 34 5.17 29
VOL. 52 NO. 3 2018 ACTA MEDICA PHILIPPINA 263
Noise Exposure among Manila Trac Enforcers

vendors were blowing air horns (torotot) throughout the shift,
shops were playing Christmas songs more frequently and
loudly, a mass of people was joining a protest demonstration
going to Mendiola, and re engines and ambulances with
their blaring sirens were passing through Recto – Rizal
Avenue to respond to an emergency.
ere was a total of nine trac enforcers who were
eligible to participate but only seven enforcers were included
in the study. Two trac enforcers were excluded because
they did not give consent to join the study.
Only one enforcer was enrolled for each shift during
both days of data collection in each study site. e enforcers
assigned at Quezon Boulevard directed trac at the middle
of the road, near the side entrances of the church, and at the
yover going to Quiapo Bridge. In Recto – Rizal Avenue,
the enforcers performed their duties at the middle of the
intersection and at an area near the sidewalk where jeepneys
are likely to pick up passengers.
e noise exposure levels for both days in each site
showed no conclusive trends throughout the entire AM
and PM shifts. e readings at Recto – Rizal Avenue were
higher compared to the Quezon Boulevard readings (see
Figures 3 and 4).
As seen in the graphs, the shift duration varied between
days and sites. is is also shown in Table 1. e shift
duration of the trac enforcers ranged from 4.17 to 6.67
hours while the corresponding number of readings ranged
from 25 to 38.
Figure 3. Noise exposure levels of weekday AM and PM shis in Quezon Boulevard and Recto – Rizal Avenue, City of Manila,
December 2013.
Figure 4. Noise exposure levels of weekend AM and PM shis in Quezon Boulevard and Recto – Rizal Avenue, City of Manila,
December 2013.
| 24
Figure 2. Noise Exposure Measurement, Recto-Rizal Avenue, Manila, Philippines, December 2013.
Figure 3. Noise exposure levels of weekday AM and PM shifts in Quezon Boulevard and
Recto – Rizal Avenue, City of Manila, December 2013.
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
6:00
6:20
6:40
7:00
7:20
7:40
8:00
8:20
8:40
9:00
9:20
9:40
10:00
10:20
10:40
11:00
11:20
11:40
12:00
12:20
12:40
13:00
13:20
13:40
14:00
14:20
14:40
15:00
15:20
15:40
16:00
16:20
16:40
17:00
17:20
17:40
18:00
18:20
18:40
Noise Exposure Level (dB(A))
Time(24-hour)
Quezon
Boulevard
Recto - Rizal
Avenue
| 25
Figure 4. Noise exposure levels of weekend AM and PM shifts in Quezon Boulevard and
Recto – Rizal Avenue, City of Manila, December 2013.
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
7:15
7:35
7:55
8:15
8:35
8:55
9:15
9:35
9:55
10:15
10:35
10:55
11:15
11:35
11:55
12:15
12:30
12:40
13:00
13:20
13:40
14:00
14:20
14:40
15:00
15:20
15:40
16:00
16:20
16:40
17:00
17:20
17:40
18:00
18:20
18:40
19:00
Noise Exposure Level (dB(A))
Time (24-hour)
Quezon
Boulevard
Recto - Rizal
Avenue
ACTA MEDICA PHILIPPINA VOL. 52 NO. 3 2018264
Noise Exposure among Manila Trac Enforcers

e noise exposure levels of trac enforcers ranged
from 75.0 to 99.3 dB(A). e mean noise exposure levels
measured at Recto – Rizal Avenue were higher compared to
the levels in Quezon Boulevard. Mean noise exposure levels
during the weekend at Recto – Rizal Avenue were higher
than its weekday measurements. is was contrary to the
averages in Quezon Boulevard where the weekday mean was
higher compared to that of the weekend (see Table 2).
e mean exposure levels were compared with the
Philippine OSH standards by computing the corresponding
permissible exposure limit (PEL) for each work shift using
the Equal Energy Principle (see equation (1)). Philippine
OSH PELs were computed based on the specic duration
of exposure of each trac enforcer. All the noise exposure
levels of the trac enforcers in Quezon Boulevard and
Recto-Rizal Avenue were within permissible exposure limits
(see Table 3).
DISCUSSION
e results of this study showed that there were variations
in the noise exposure levels of trac enforcers. At Quezon
Boulevard near Quiapo Church, noise exposure levels ranged
from 75.0 dB(A) to 91.5 dB(A); whereas, in Recto-Rizal
Avenue, the levels ranged from 81.5 dB(A) to 99.3 dB(A).
ese variations may be attributed to the dierent kinds of
noise sources in the study sites and the changing intensities
of noise they produce. Both have huge vehicular volume
and establishments surrounding the areas but Recto-Rizal
Avenue is a busier area (an intersection compared to a street)
with trains plying the overhead railways. In both study sites,
there were instances that the investigators had to speak
louder in order to hear each other.
Fajardo et al2 in 1999 measured noise level values in
other busy streets in the City of Manila such as Taft Avenue,
where levels ranged from 76 dB(A) to 83 dB(A), and Quirino
Avenue, where levels ranged from 67 dB(A) to 77 dB(A). e
maximum and minimum values recorded in the said study
were lower than those obtained in this study. ese disparities
may be due to the dierence in study sites, which have varying
noise sources. It may also be attributed to the increased
number of registered vehicles in the National Capital Region
and the increased population in the City of Manila.18
In other countries, there were also studies that evaluated
the noise exposure among trac enforcers designated in
busy streets. In the cross-sectional study by Sliman, et al8 in
Khartoum (Sudan) locality roads, the noise exposure levels
ranged from 74.5 dB(A) to 86.7 dB(A). Meanwhile, in the
study of Leong et al19 in 2003 in various trac zones of
Bangkok Metropolitan Region, the noise levels measured
ranged from 72.8 dB(A) to 83.0 dB(A) during day time, and
59.5 dB(A) to 74.5 dB(A) during night time. It can be noted
that the maximum and minimum values of noise exposure
levels in both aforementioned international studies were
lower than those recorded at Quezon Boulevard and Recto-
Rizal Avenue. Furthermore, the noise exposure levels obtained
among trac policemen in Jalgaon City in the study of Ingle
et al20 in 2005 ranged from 79.9 dB(A) to 95.4 dB(A). ese
values are higher than the minimum and maximum values
obtained at Quezon Boulevard, but still lower than those
obtained at Recto-Rizal Avenue.
Aside from the dierences in the range, variations in
the computed mean exposure levels between days of data
collection were also evident. As shown in Table 2, the mean
noise exposure levels of trac enforcers in Quezon Boulevard
for both shifts of the weekday were higher than those of the
weekend. is may be due to the larger volume of people
attending mass on the selected weekday for data collection
that resulted to heavier trac; thus, more noise sources and
greater noise intensities. On the other hand, for Recto – Rizal
Table 2. Mean, maximum and minimum sound pressure levels according to site, day and shift, City of Manila, December 2013
Site Day Shi x̄ ± s Max. (dB(A)) Min. (dB(A))
Quezon Boulevard
Weekday AM 84.3 ± 3.7 90.8 75.0
PM 82.5 ± 2.6 91.5 76.8
Weekend AM 82.4 ± 2.6 88.3 78.5
PM 80.4 ± 2.8 86.0 75.0
Recto – Rizal Avenue
Weekday AM 86.7 ± 2.6 94.5 82.5
PM 86.0 ± 2.1 90.5 82.8
Weekend AM 86.7 ± 2.3 92.0 82.8
PM 89.0 ± 4.0 99.3 81.5
Table 3. Interpretation of the mean noise exposure level according to site, shift and day, City of Manila, December 2013
Site Day Shi Mean Noise
Exposure Level
Computed
POSH PEL Interpretaon Computed
NIOSH REL Interpretaon
Quezon
Boulevard
Weekday AM 84.3 92.2 Within limits 87.2 Within limits
PM 82.5 91.8 Within limits 86.8 Within limits
Weekend AM 82.4 91.8 Within limits 86.8 Within limits
PM 80.4 91.0 Within limits 86.0 Within limits
Recto-Rizal
Avenue
Weekday AM 86.7 92.8 Within limits 87.8 Within limits
PM 86.0 91.5 Within limits 86.5 Within limits
Weekend AM 86.7 92.5 Within limits 87.5 Within limits
PM 89.0 92.2 Within limits 87.2 Greater than permissible limits
VOL. 52 NO. 3 2018 ACTA MEDICA PHILIPPINA 265
Noise Exposure among Manila Trac Enforcers

Avenue, the mean noise exposure levels measured for both
shifts on the weekday were lower compared to the levels
obtained during the weekend. Possible reason is the increased
number of people going to the malls within the vicinity
during weekends which contributed to the higher noise levels
in the area.
Moreover, upon analysis of the results using the
Philippine OSH standards, all the noise exposure levels of
the trac enforcers in Quezon Boulevard and Recto-Rizal
Avenue were all within permissible limits. is is based
on the comparison of the mean exposure levels with the
Philippine OSH standards through the computation of the
corresponding permissible exposure limit for each work shift
using the Equal Energy Principle17.
Since OSHA, from which the Philippine OSH
standards of OSHC – DOLE was based, recognizes that a
number of its permissible exposure limits are outdated and
may be insucient in ensuring that workers are not exposed
to dangerous levels of physical hazards such as noise,21
comparison with standards from other institutions such as
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) were also considered. e comparison was done by
computing the corresponding recommended exposure limit
(REL) for each work shift using the Equal Energy Principle.
e noise exposure levels of all shifts at both sites are all
within their computed RELs except for the weekend PM
shift of Recto – Rizal Avenue. is entails the demand for
proper hearing protection for the trac enforcers designated
in this particular shift.
e sets of standards issued by OSHC – DOLE, OSHA,
and NIOSH are not absolute values and therefore should not
be considered as strict boundaries between levels that are
safe from possibly deleterious outcomes and levels that can
cause adverse health eects. Compliance with the Philippine
OSH Standards does not automatically mean that the trac
enforcers are safe22. ere are other factors that can increase
their susceptibility in developing NIHL, such as co-exposure
to ototoxic agents – solvents, heavy metals, tobacco smoke –
which may act in synergy with noise to cause hearing loss.23
Some biases, although tried to be minimized, may still
have been introduced. One of these was the limited number
of days on which data were collected. Also, the recordings
obtained did not completely show all noise levels for the
whole work shift since there was a ten-minute interval
between measurements. Furthermore, meteorological
conditions during the data collection were a source of
variation in measurements that cannot be controlled due
to the inherent limitation of the sound level meter. More
importantly, only estimation of personal exposure was
conducted. Additional monitoring strategies, which include
personal noise dosimetry, area noise monitoring, and
health surveillance will increase the strength of evidence in
establishing noise exposure levels and its health eects.24
In conclusion, the study has established that trac
enforcers who work in the AM and PM shifts at Quezon
Boulevard and Recto - Rizal Avenue are exposed to noise
levels that do not exceed the Philippine OSH standards; but
further analysis showed that noise levels during the weekend
PM shift in Recto – Rizal Avenue exceeded NIOSH RELs.
Further studies that would use additional monitoring
and assessment strategies are warranted to determine if
the occupational noise exposures of the trac enforcers are
excessive and detrimental to health. It is also recommended
to increase sample size and study sites to improve external
validity of the study. Lastly, the employers of the trac
enforcers are advised to apply administrative controls, such as
(1) education and elevation of awareness of trac enforcers
on noise and its potential health impacts; (2) conduction of
baseline audiometry before deployment and every 3 years
thereafter to monitor any adverse eects of noise to the
trac enforcers’ hearing; (3) implementation of job rotation
wherein trac aides are required to rotate for a signicant
number of hours (e.g. 4 hours of an 8-hr shift) in less noisy
sites within the day, to reduce the trac enforcer’s risk of
developing NIHL.
Acknowledgments
e researchers would like to express their gratitude to:
Mr. Carter Don Y. Logica, the ocer-in-charge, and Mr.
Narciso Diokno III, the chief for operations, of Manila Trac
and Parking Bureau, and the sector leaders and trac enforcers
deployed in Quezon Boulevard and Recto—Rizal Avenue;
Engr. Rene N. Timbang, ocer of the Environmental and
Occupational Health Oce of the Department of Health;
Dr. Marissa L. San Jose, supervising occupational health
ocer, and Engr. Melba F. Marasigan, senior industrial
hygienist, of the Occupational Safety and Health Center of
the Department of Labor and Employment; PH 197/199
Committee chaired by Prof. Teresita S. de Guzman; and the
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health of
the College of Public Health.
Statement of Authorship
All authors have approved the nal version submitted.
Author Disclosure
All authors have declared no conict of interest.
Funding Source
No external funding.
REFERENCES
1. Vergel KN, Cacho FT, and Capiz CLE. A study on roadside
noise generated by tricycles. Philippine Journal of Engineering
2004; 25(2):1-22.
2. Fajardo, B. A study on individual perceptions of road trac.
MA thesis. School of Urban and Regional Planning, University
of the Philippines Diliman;1999. pp.1-21.
3. Concha-Barrientos M, Campbell-Lendrum D, and Steenland
K. Occupational noise: Assessing the burden of disease from
ACTA MEDICA PHILIPPINA VOL. 52 NO. 3 2018266
Noise Exposure among Manila Trac Enforcers

work-related hearing impairment at national and local levels.
Geneva: World Health Organization (SWTZ); 2004. 33 p. Report
No.: WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 9.
4. Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., and Schwela, D. (eds.) Guidelines for
community noise. [Online] Geneva: World Health Organization;
1999. p57. Available from: hp://www.who.int/docstore/peh/
noise/Comnoise-4.pdf[Accessed21stMay2014]
5. Johnson, D.L., Papadopoulos, P., Wafta, N. and Takala, J.
Exposure criteria, Occupational exposure levels. [Online]
Geneva: World Health Organization; 1995. p81. Available from:
hp://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/noise4.
pdf [Accessed 21st May 2014].
6. Singh, V.K., and Mehta, A.K. Prevalence of Occupational noise-
induced hearing loss amongst Trac Police Personnel. IJO &
HNS [Online] 1999; 51(2): 23-26. Available from: hp://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3451516/ [Accessed 21st
May 2014].
7. Hagler, L., and Goiner, L. Noise pollution: a modern plague.
Southern Medical Journal. [Online] 2007; 100(3):287-293.
Available from: hp://www.nonoise.org/library/smj/smj.htm
[Accessed 21st May 2014].
8. SlimanA,IbrahimO,Ahmed A.Noise exposureamong trac
policeocersinKhartoumLocality,Sudan.EuropeanScientic
Journal (2015); 11(6):131-5
9. Lesage, F., Jovenin, N., Deschamps, F., and Vincent, S. Noise-
induced hearing loss in French police ocers.Occupational
Medicine. [Online] 2009; 59: 483-486. Available from: doi:
10.1093/ocmed/kqp091
10. ShresthaI.,ShresthaBL.,PokhaelM.,AmatyaRCM.,andKarki
DR. Prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss among trac
police personnel of Kathmandu Metropolitan Police. Kathmandu
University Medical Journal. [Online] 2011; 9(36): 274-278.
Availablefrom:hp://www.kumj.com.no/issue/36/274-278.pdf.
11. Diokno III, N. Chief of operations, Manila Trac & Parking
Bureau, City of Manila. Personal communication. 5 Nov 2013.
12. Occupational Safety and Health Center. Rules and Regulations
Implementing Executive Order No. 307 Establishing an
Occupational Safety and Health Center in the Employees’
Compensation Commission. [Online] Available from: hp://
www.oshc.dole.gov.ph/122/[Accessed21stMay2014]
13. Pelton, H. Noise control management. New York, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1993; p.131.
14. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Appendix
III: A. instruments used to conduct a noise survey. [Online]
Available from: hp://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/
exposure/instrumentation.html[Accessed21stMay2014].
15. Occupational Safety & Health Administration United States
Department of Labor. Appendix III:B. General sampling
protocol. [Online] 1991. Available from: hp://www.osha.
gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/exposure/workshift_protocol.html
[Accessed 21st May 2014]
16. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA 1910.95.
Permissible Noise Exposures – Annotated Tables [Online].
Available from: hps://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.
show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9735 [Accessed
21st May 2014].
17. Lester H, Malchaire J, Arbey H, Thiery H. Strategies for Noise
Surveys. Occupational exposure to noise: evaluation, prevention,
and control. 1st ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001;
pp.141-182.
18. Astrera M. Statistical Reports [Online]. Lto.gov.ph. 2016 [cited 4
May2016].Availablefrom:hp://www.lto.gov.ph/publication/
statistical-reports
19. Leong SLaortanakul P. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment. 2003;85(1):69-85.
20. IngleS, PachpandeB, WaghN,PatelV,AardeS.Assessment
of Daily Noise Exposure and Prevalence of Hearing Loss in the
Shopkeepers Working Near National Highway No. 6: A Case
Study of Jalgaon City. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation. 2009;3(1):54-69.
21. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Permissible
Exposure Limits - Annotated Tables. [Online]. Available from:
hps://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/[Accessed 21stMay
2014].
22. Spellman FR. and Bieber RM. Environmental Health and
Science Desk Reference. [Online] Maryland: Government
Institutes;2012. p596.Availablefrom: hp://books.google.com.
ph/books?id=0_rz4HbovcsC&pg=PA596&lpg=PA596&dq=acgi
h+tlv+absolute+values&source=bl&ots=6r27XWoM3O&sig=Ye
UHC39EyQrIp2r10298L9aO53U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ONTXUrm
iEIiVkgXL3oGoAQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ac
gih%20tlv%20absolute%20values&f=false [Accessed 21st May
2014].
23. The American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine. Noise-induced Hearing Loss [Online]. Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2003.
pp579-581. Available from: hp://journals.lww.com/joem/
Fulltext/2003/06000/Noise_induced_Hearing_Loss.1.aspx
[Accessed 21st May 2014].
24. Safe Work Australia. Health Monitoring for Exposure to
Hazardous Chemicals: Guide for Persons Conducting a Business
or Undertaking. [Online] Australia: Safe Work Australia; 2013.
p6.Availablefrom: hp://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/
SWA/about/Publications/Documents/754/Guide-PCBU-Health-
Monitoring-Exposure-Hazardous-Chemicals.pdf [Accessed 21st
May 2014].
VOL. 52 NO. 3 2018 ACTA MEDICA PHILIPPINA 267
Noise Exposure among Manila Trac Enforcers