China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Hearing, Sound, Noise, and Vibration
Published in R. S. Bridger, Introduction to Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2017
The costs associated with hearing conservation programs are due to Noise assessment. This consists of the equipment and labor needed to carry out a survey either by in-company personnel or by external consultants.PPE and its use. This includes the cost of earmuffs (and their replacement every 2 years) and earplugs as well as a hearing conservation education program (including instruction on the correct use of hearing protection).Job rotation. There may be costs associated with changing the work organization so as to rotate workers from noisy to quiet areas (these may be offset by unexpected benefits such as reduced fatigue and fewer injuries).Retrofitting of noisy machines.Audiometric testing. The costs include the audiometrist's fees and lost production (since workers are tested during working hours).Administration of the noise control program. This includes the salary of the person managing the program plus sundry costs.
The work and leisure environments
Published in Stephen Battersby, Clay's Handbook of Environmental Health, 2016
Jonathan Hayes, Stuart Wiggans
Hearing protection can be divided into two main types: earplugs and earmuffs. Earplugs are designed to be inserted into the ear canal. Those that are designed to be disposed of after use are usually made from either mineral down, which is an extremely fine glass down, or from polyurethane foam. Reusable earplugs are made of soft rubber or plastic. They must be thoroughly washed after use. Reusable plugs should be fitted in the first instance by a trained person who should provide advice to the wearer about the correct method of inserting the plugs. BS EN 352–2:2002,44 gives an appropriate specification for earplugs.
Documentation and General Calibration
Published in Howard E. Hesketh, Air And Waste Management, 2019
There are several basic kinds of hearing protection, including: fixed size ear plugs, malleable ear plugs, and earmuffs. When used properly, any of these can reduce levels of noise 30 to 50 dB in the frequency range of 1000 to 4000 Hz. Obtaining a proper fit with a tight acoustical seal is very important.
Hearing loss, lead (Pb) exposure, and noise: a sound approach to ototoxicity exploration
Published in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 2018
Krystin Carlson, Richard L. Neitzel
Factors which could improve the health of the hearing system and/or lower levels of Pb in the system must also be accounted for in human studies. High dietary intakes of iron and zinc have been shown to decrease the absorption of Pb (Goyer 1997). This may modify the effects of exposure to Pb in the ambient environment. Chuang et al. (2007) examined possible protective levels of selenium and found them significant. Araki et al. (1992) and Hwang et al. (2009) both accounted for levels of zinc and copper in the blood, which are essential metals and can limit uptake of more non-essential metal uptake by the body. To account for these dietary factors, a dietary survey must be used, as levels of zinc and iron in the blood are generally held in strict homeostatis and are not reflective of intake. Hearing protection offers workers and other exposed individuals protection against high noise, and can dramatically modify ambient exposure levels. None of the studies in this review accounted for hearing protection, even though this can attenuate exposures over 30 dB (Sayler et al. 2018). Therefore, assessment of exposure attenuation provided by hearing protectors must be included in epidemiological studies.
A path analysis model for explaining unsafe behavior in workplaces: the effect of perceived work pressure
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2018
Fakhradin Ghasemi, Omid Kalatpour, Abbas Moghimbeigi, Iraj Mohhamadfam
Perceived hazard level (PHL) is a factor explained by many studies as a determinant of safe/unsafe behavior in workplaces. It is reasonable to assume that people have a natural inclination to not behave in a manner that may hurt them. Several studies have demonstrated a link between perceived risk/hazard and safety behavior. According to Tomás et al. [13], perceived hazard level has a direct influence on safety-related behavior of employees. Arezes and Miguel [14] illustrated that the perception of employees about the hazards of occupational noise exposure and the benefits of hearing preservation have a significant influence on the use of hearing protection equipment. According to Kuttschreuter [15], risk perception is the main psychological determinant causing individuals to avoid consuming contaminated foods. Ji et al. [16] demonstrated that risk perception had a significant effect on the behavior of airline pilots.
Noise exposures and perceptions of hearing conservation programs among wildland firefighters
Published in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2019
George Broyles, Chucri A. Kardous, Peter B. Shaw, Edward F. Krieg
Statistical analysis determined which of the explanatory variables had a significant impact on the outcome variables, the TWA for noise for OSHA’s PEL and for NIOSH’s REL. The explanatory variables were noise perception (very low, low, moderate, high, and very high) by the firefighter, type of HPD (earplugs, earmuffs, double protection, or other forms of protection), received training in HPD use (yes/no), having a baseline test (yes/no), having a yearly audiogram (yes/no), and participating in a hearing conservation program (yes/no). Hearing protection devices were categorized based on the response of WLFFs into five different categories: insert earplugs; banded or canal earplugs; earmuffs; double hearing protection such as earmuffs worn over earplugs; and other for electronic or level-dependent hearing protectors). The data were modeled using SAS’s PROC MIXED procedure (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The reason for employing mixed models was that, in a number of instances, the same firefighter received repeated measurements. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation was used with the Kenward-Roger denominator degrees of freedom; the covariance structure was variance components. Initially researchers ran the full model with all six explanatory variables; then this model was reduced by eliminating terms for which p > 0.10 as judged by F-tests. The results were based on 134 observations; the rest were not used due to missing data. Mixed models were used for individual observations. However, for the box plots in Figure1, with repeated noise exposure for an individual WLFF within the same work category, individual WLFF’s exposure measurements were averaged so that there was only one data point for each individual in each separate work category.