China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Canine Audiology
Published in Stavros Hatzopoulos, Andrea Ciorba, Mark Krumm, Advances in Audiology and Hearing Science, 2020
Kristine E. Sonstrom, Peter M. Scheifele
Finally, dogs that are placed in acoustically stressful environments (e.g., kennels) have been shown to have measurable changes in hearing over time (Scheifele et al., 2012). Preliminary evidence further suggests that temporary and permanent threshold shifts secondary to significant sources of noise exposure exist in military dogs (Scheifele, 2014; Sonstrom, 2015). Given the substantial amount of evidence regarding noise-induced hearing loss in many species, it is inevitable that there are comparable effects to the canine auditory system when working under similar situations. In the absence of hearing screening or monitoring programs and hearing protection devices, these effects can certainly impact a dog’s ability to hear. This negatively affects their ability to effectively respond to their handler’s commands, especially in challenging acoustic environments. There is abundant evidence indicating that all levels of hearing loss affect speech recognition in humans, especially in the presence of background noise (Flexer, 1999). The outcome of noise effects on the auditory system has resulted in an emphasis on hearing protection devices in different environments, when and where applicable. The goal is to reduce the risk of damage to the auditory system without reducing situational awareness, though this can be a challenging task. Furthermore, attention should be placed on the development of hearing screening and monitoring programs, especially for working canines.
Employment Law and Occupational Health and Safety
Published in Julie Dickinson, Anne Meyer, Karen J. Huff, Deborah A. Wipf, Elizabeth K. Zorn, Kathy G. Ferrell, Lisa Mancuso, Marjorie Berg Pugatch, Joanne Walker, Karen Wilkinson, Legal Nurse Consulting Principles and Practices, 2019
Kathleen P. Buckheit, Moniaree Parker Jones
Hearing conservation programs aim to prevent initial occupational hearing loss; preserve and protect remaining hearing; and equip workers with the knowledge and hearing protection devices necessary to safeguard themselves. Employers must measure noise levels; provide free annual hearing exams, hearing protection, and training; and evaluate the adequacy of the protectors being used (U.S. DOL, OSHA, n.d.-f). A hearing conservation program requires five components: (1) sound exposure monitoring, (2) noise controls, (3) education and motivation, (4) hearing protection, and (5) audiometric monitoring. Sound exposure monitoring must be conducted during a typical work situation and include all continuous, intermittent, and impulsive noise within an 80 dB to 130 dB range (U.S. DOL, OSHA, 2002).
Exposure to Noise at the Workplace
Published in Gaetano Licitra, Giovanni d'Amore, Mauro Magnoni, Physical Agents in the Environment and Workplace, 2018
Compliance of calculated noise exposure values with both the lower and the higher exposure action values must be established using measurements which do not take into account the effect of any personal hearing protector device (HPD). This is in line with the Directive's approach that the worker's protection against noise should fundamentally be handled by improving environmental conditions, not by the use of HPDs. On the other hand, compliance with the exposure limit value must be checked, considering that ‘the determination of the worker's effective exposure shall take account of the attenuation provided by the individual hearing protectors worn by the worker’ (article 3.2). This has a twofold consequence: With respect to the noise exposure level, because the effectiveness of hearing protectors is routinely assessed by means of the experimenter-fit method (ISO 4869-1, ISO 4869-2), which usually provides insertion loss values ranging from 25 to 35 dB (see Section 3.6), a situation of non-compliance with the 87 dB(A) exposure limit value is indeed hardly conceivable.With respect to the peak sound pressure level, this makes compliance with the limit value extremely hard to check, given the large uncertainties on the attenuation provided by HPDs to the peak SPL.
Listening effort in individuals with noise-induced hearing loss
Published in Hearing, Balance and Communication, 2022
Hemanth Narayan Shetty, Suma Raju, Yashwanth Kumar, Sanjana S. Singh
We recruited 40 males with hearing loss in the age range of 40 to 60 years. The participants were grouped into control and clinical group. The control group comprised 20 participants with acquired bilateral gradually sloping mild sensorineural hearing loss in the age range from 40 to 60 years (mean = 46.75, SD = 5.07), with a mean pure tone average of 36.25 dBHL; SD = 4.5 dB HL. The possible causes could be genetic and age-related hearing loss in the control group. Age and gender-matched 20 participants (mean = 45.05, SD = 3.78) with hearing loss working in the industry exposed to noise were involved in the clinical group. The participants of the clinical group had a bilateral gradually sloping mild sensorineural hearing loss with a mean pure tone average of 35.5 dB HL; SD = 5.5 dB HL. The participant’s audiogram had a typical notch at 4 kHz and relatively better hearing at 8 kHz than at 3 and 6 kHz. The hearing thresholds at 8 kHz were better in the clinical group than in the control group. The participants were working in the spinning and weaving section with exposure to continuous noise of 90 dB (A) Leq with at least eight hours of work for a minimum of 10 years. All the participants regularly used hearing protection devices at the workplace.
Hearing threshold levels of Australian coal mine workers: a retrospective cross-sectional study of 64196 audiograms
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2021
Adelle Liebenberg, Alan M. Brichta, Valerie M. Nie, Sima Ahmadi, Carole L. James
In the current study, the lower (better) HTL findings in cohort 3 compared with cohort 2, may result from advances in management strategies for noise control and hearing conservation. Improvements in noise control and hearing protection have been driven by legislative requirements, advances in engineering practices and hearing protection devices, and increased awareness of the impact of noise exposure on hearing health. Many effective community hearing loss prevention programs have been developed, including programs for the general public, children and young adults such as Dangerous Decibels (Dangerous Decibels. Dangerous Decibels [Internet] 2019) in the United States, and Australian programs such as the Sonic Silence exhibit, Cheers for Ears, Getting Heard and Hear Today, Hear Tomorrow (Hearing Services 2015). Workplaces have also developed targeted Hearing Conservation Programs (HCPs) for their workers. In Australia, the development of these HCPs are guided by the Code of Practice for managing noise and preventing hearing loss at work (Safe Work Australia 2011; Griest, Folmer, and Martin 2007; Davies, Marion, and Teschke 2008) found these type of programs are effective in changing behaviours and attitudes of the community and workers towards hearing loss prevention, whereas two systematics reviews, Verbeek et al. (2012) and Khan, Bielko, and McCullagh (2018), found the evidence to be inconclusive.
Clinical audiometric patterns of hearing loss following blast-related injury in U.S. military personnel
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2020
Antony R. Joseph, Jaime L. Shaw, Mary C. Clouser, Andrew J. MacGregor, Amber L. Dougherty, Michael R. Galarneau
Noise has been cited in government surveys (Institute of Medicine 2006; U.S. Government Accountability Office 2011) as a common occupational health hazard for military personnel that should be mitigated by consistent use of hearing protection, as well as continuous improvement of audiometric monitoring programme compliance. It might be prudent for blast-exposed personnel to be granted some noise-free time because this method has been shown to reduce progressive loss of hearing (Melinek, Naggan, and Altman 1976). To increase hearing loss prevention, another strategy could be to provide coordinated audiometric screenings before and after combat deployment that include diagnostic otologic follow-up care for blast-exposed individuals. Ideally, to be even more proactive, training should be aimed at improving hearing protection device fittings, including fit-testing procedures, which, in turn, could be expected to prevent hearing loss for new personnel exposed to blast as well as continuous hazardous noise.