The need for a participatory conservation programme for the reduction of noise exposure to Thai female workers

Hearing loss induced in thirty female workers because of exposure to continuous noise was studied in a plastic bag plant in Samutprakarn Province, the largest industrial zone in Thailand. The sound level in this plant was 98.5 dBA., 94.0 dBA. and 93.0 dBA. in the weaving, winding and warping sections, respectively. Results of an audiometric test showed a significant relationship between high noise level and hearing loss at frequency 4,000 Hz. A questionnaire survey found that a relatively high number of workers had various symptoms such as: 76.7% general fatigue, 70% headache, 63.3% ear distension and 56.7% vertigo. Concerning the usage of ear protective devices, it was found that 80% of the workers have never used such devices, 16.7% occasionally used them, and 3.3% have always used cotton wool to reduce the high noise level. Their reasons for non-use of ear protective devices were 1) not provided by the employer (86.7%), 2) not necessary (83.3%), 3) accustomed to the noise (63.3%), 4) nobody uses (56.7%), and 5) no loud noise (16.7%). These results point to the need for improving the work conditions and welfare services of the workers at this plant. Also, hearing conservation programmes can be instituted in developing countries through cooperation among the safety inspectorate, the employer and the workers.     

Surveillance of hearing loss among older construction and trade workers at Department of Energy nuclear sites

BACKGROUND: Medical screening programs at three Departments of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons facilities (Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Oak Ridge, and the Savannah River Site) have included audiometric testing since approximately 1996. This report summarizes hearing evaluations through March 31, 2003. METHODS: Occupational examinations included a medical history, limited physical examination, and tests for medical effects from specific hazards, including audiometric testing. Hearing thresholds by frequency for DOE workers were compared to age-standardized thresholds among an external comparison population of industrial workers with noise exposures <80 dBA. Multivariate analyses were used to explore the risk of hearing impairment by duration of construction trade work and self-reported noise exposure, while controlling for potential confounders such as age, race, sex, smoking, elevated serum cholesterol, hypertension, solvent exposures, and recreational noise exposures. RESULTS: Hearing thresholds among DOE workers were much higher than observed in a comparison population of industrial workers with low noise exposures. Overall, 59.7% of workers examined were found to have material hearing impairment by NIOSH criteria. Age, duration of construction work, smoking, and self-reported noise exposure increased the risk of hearing loss. The risk of material hearing impairment was significantly elevated for construction trade workers compared to the external comparison population (odds-ratio = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3-2.1) and increased with the duration of trade work. CONCLUSIONS: These medical screening programs confirm worker concerns about risks for hearing loss and the need for hearing conservation programs for construction workers, with emphasis on the prevention of noise exposures.     

The likelihood of detecting a significant hearing threshold shift among noise-exposed workers subjected to annual audiometric testing

The ability of annual audiometric surveillance to detect significant deteriorations in hearing sensitivity is examined considering the time pattern of the growth of noise-induced hearing loss. The yearly rate of change in hearing level due to the effects of noise exposure and age is computed from a mathematical model put forward in the International Standard ISO 1999 (1989). The first-order derivative of hearing level associated with noise and age was compared with different criteria of significant threshold shift (STS). The results show that the potential annual variation in hearing level at 4 kHz, the audiometric frequency most affected by noise, is always less than the minimum margin of error of audiometry under exposure to 90 dBA-8 h. At 100 dBA it nearly equals the margin of error only for the very first year of exposure and for the most sensitive individuals. The rate of change in hearing threshold at 4 kHz is less than or equal to 1 dB per year for a major portion of a population exposed to an average noise level of 90 dBA-8 h (+/- 5 dB SD). For other audiometric frequencies, or for combinations of frequencies, this rate is even lower. It is also demonstrated that, using annual hearing tests, the likelihood of measuring an STS in a noise-exposed population is very small. It would be nearly equal to the likelihood of some workers being exposed to 100 dBA-8 h or more for a first year. Such results throw doubt on the validity of audiometric surveillance as a procedure for early detection of noise-induced hearing loss. They also imply that the detection by audiometric tests of true cases of significant threshold shift due to noise is excessively expensive.     

Noise exposure, awareness, attitudes and use of hearing protection in a steel rolling mill in Nigeria

OBJECTIVES: To study exposure to noise, the attitudes and knowledge towards noise-induced hearing loss and the actual use of hearing protection in a steel rolling mill in Nigeria. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was administered to 116 randomly selected workers to collect information relating to their knowledge and attitudes towards hazardous occupational noise and preventative measures. Noise mapping of the factory was also carried out. RESULTS: Time weighted average noise levels were: administrative area 49 dBA, mechanic/maintenance workshop 72 dBA, mill floor 86 dBA and finishing stage 93 dBA. There was high awareness of the hazard of noise to hearing (93%) and of methods of prevention (92%) but only 27% possessed hearing protectors and only 28% of these stated that they used them all the time. CONCLUSION: While noise is recognized as a hazard, initiatives are required to increase use of effective preventative measures.     

An assessment of occupational noise exposures in four construction trades

Three hundred thirty-eight noise exposure samples were collected from 133 construction workers employed in 4 construction trades: carpenters, laborers, ironworkers, and operating engineers. Four sites using a variety of construction techniques were sampled at least 12 times on a randomly chosen date over a 22-week period. Up to 10 volunteer workers were sampled for an entire work shift on each sampling day using datalogging noise dosimeters, which recorded both daily time-weighted averages (TWAs) and 1-min averages. Workers also completed a questionnaire throughout the workday detailing the tasks performed and tools used throughout the day. Regression models identified work characteristics associated with elevated exposure levels. Comparisons were made between exposures measured using the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exposure metric and the 1996 draft National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/International Organization for Standardization (NIOSH/ISO) metric to examine the effects of differing exchange rates and instrument response times on construction noise exposures. The mean OSHA TWA for 338 samples was 82.8 dBA +/- 6.8 dBA, whereas the mean NIOSH/ISO TWA for 174 samples was 89.7 dBA +/- 6.0 dBA. Forty percent of OSHA TWAs exceeded 85 dBA, and 13% exceeded 90 dBA, the OSHA permissible exposure limit. The tasks and tools associated with the highest exposure levels were those involving pneumatically operated tools and heavy equipment. Trade was a poor predictor of noise exposure; construction method, stage of construction, and work tasks and tools used were found to be better exposure predictors. An internal validation substudy indicated excellent agreement between worker self-reporting and researcher observation. These data provide substantial documentation that construction workers in several key trades are frequently exposed to noise levels that have been associated with hearing loss, and demonstrate the need for targeted noise reduction efforts and comprehensive hearing conservation programs in the industry.     

Research project shows importance of pre-employment hearing testing.

Forty employees received pure-tone baseline hearing tests at the time they began employment as LSM operators for the U.S. Postal Services; the workplace eight-hour average sound level (TWA) was 85 dBA. Nineteen operators from the original group had their hearing retested three years later. None of the retested subjects showed large or systematic changes in hearing sensitivity over the three-year period. For the audiometric frequencies most susceptible to noise exposure (3000, 4000, 6000 Hz), only 5 percent of the operators showed a bilateral change in threshold greater than 5 dB at any frequency, and none of them showed more than a 10 dB threshold change in both ears. None of the operators displayed a Standard Threshold Shift as described by OSHA. The data further suggested that many workers began their LSM work assignment with a pre-existing hearing loss and, based upon audiometric and history information, the impairment probably resulted from prior occupational and/or nonoccupational noise exposure. The importance of hearing-conservation programs for employees is emphasized.     

Hearing impairment among workers exposed to excessive levels of noise in ginning industries

Cotton ginning workers have a risk of hearing loss due to excessive noise levels at the workplace environment. In this study, estimates of typical sound levels prevailing at the workplace environment and its effects on hearing ability of the exposed workers were made among cotton ginning workers. Data on self-reported health status was collected by a questionnaire survey at 10 cotton ginning industries located at Jalgaon district of Maharashtra state, India. The cotton ginning workers were exposed to continuous noise levels between 89 and 106 dBA. The hearing ability of the subjects was accessed by pure tone audiometry. The results of audiometry show mild, moderate and moderately severe degree of hearing impairment among the cotton ginning workers. The data generated during the study show that hearing loss was significantly associated with period of exposure to the workplace noise (P <0.0001). The prevalence of audiometric hearing impairment defined as a threshold average greater than 25 dB hearing level was 96% for binaural low-frequency average, 97% for binaural mid frequency average and 94% for binaural high-frequency average in the cotton ginning workers. We recommend the compulsory use of personal protective equipment like ear plug by the cotton ginning workers at the workplace environment. A regular maintenance of ginning and pressing machineries will avoid the emission of excessive noise at the workplace environment of cotton gins. A regular periodic medical examination is necessary to measure the impact of workplace noise on the health of cotton ginning workers.     

The effectiveness of hearing protection among construction workers

Effective hearing conservation programs in the construction industry are rare. Where programs are present, they often rely on workers' use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) rather than on exposure controls to reduce noise exposure levels. Dependence on HPDs for protection from high noise is problematic, as the protection provided by the HPD depends on both the HPD's attenuation level and the time the HPD is used. This article presents an analysis of data on noise exposure and hearing protection among construction workers drawn from several large datasets covering nine construction trades. A unique combination of 1-min dosimetry noise exposure levels and simultaneous self-reported use of HPDs was evaluated, as were occupational and nonoccupational HPD use data collected by questionnaire as part of a longitudinal study of noise exposure and hearing loss among apprentices. Direct measurements of HPD attenuation were also made on workers at their work site. The workers assessed in this study were found to use hearing protection less than one-quarter of the time that they were exposed above 85 dBA. Workers who reported always using HPDs in high noise on questionnaires were found to wear them only one-third of the time their exposures exceeded 85 dBA. Workers' self-reported use of HPDs during most noisy nonoccupational activities was also found to be low. Direct attenuation measurements found that workers were able to achieve more than 50% of the rated attenuation of their HPD on average, but that the variability in achieved attenuation was large. When the measured HPD attenuation levels and use time data were combined, the effective protection afforded by HPDs was less than 3 dB, a negligible amount given the high exposure levels associated with construction work. However, there was substantial variation in effective protection among the different trades assessed. These results demonstrate the need for better hearing conservation programs and expanded noise control efforts in the construction industry.     

Occupational exposures to noise resulting from the workplace use of personal media players at a manufacturing facility

This study examined the contribution of noise exposures from personal media player (PMP) use in the workplace to overall employee noise exposures at a Colorado manufacturing facility. A total of 24 workers' PMP and background noise exposures were measured. Twelve PMP users worked in high-background-noise exposure (HBNE) areas, and 12 worked in low-background-noise exposure (LBNE) areas. The self-selected PMP listening level of each worker was measured using an ear simulator, and the background noise of each employee workstation was measured using a sound level meter. Workers' self-reported PMP duration of use, PMP listening exposure levels, and background noise levels were used to estimate the daily occupational noise exposures. Measured background noise levels averaged 81 dBA for HBNE workers and 59 dBA for LBNE workers. Measured, free-field equivalent listening exposure levels were significantly greater for HBNE workers (85 dBA) compared with LBNE workers (75 dBA) (p = 0.0006). Estimated mean daily noise exposures for both groups were below the ACGIH threshold limit value for noise of 85 dBA8-hr time weighted average (TWA), specifically 84 dBA TWA for HBNE workers and 72 dBA TWA for LBNE workers. Three of 12 (25%) HBNE workers had estimated exposures greater than 85 dBA TWA when only background noise was considered, yet when PMP use was also considered, 6 of 12 (50%) had estimated exposures greater than 85 dBA TWA, suggesting that PMP use doubled the number of overexposed workers. None of the LBNE workers had estimated exposures greater than 85 dBA TWA. The contribution of PMP use to overall noise exposures was substantially less among HBNE workers than LBNE workers due to the disproportionate selection of noise-attenuating headsets among HBNE workers compared with LBNE workers. It is recommended that the facility management either restrict workplace PMP use among HBNE workers or require output-limiting technology to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss.     

Occupational noise exposure and hearing protector use in Canadian lumber mills

Noise exposure is probably the most ubiquitous of all occupational hazards, and there is evidence for causal links between noise and both auditory and nonauditory health effects. Noise control at source is rarely considered, resulting in reliance on hearing protection devices to reduce exposure. A comprehensive noise survey of four lumber mills using a randomized sampling strategy was undertaken, resulting in 350 full-shift personal dosimetry measurements. Sound frequency spectrum data and information on hearing protector usage was collected. A determinants-of-exposure regression model for noise was developed. Mean (L(eq,8hr)) exposure level was 91.7 dBA, well above the exposure British Columbia (BC) limit of 85 dBA. Of 52 jobs for which more than a single observation was made, only 4 were below the exposure limit. Twenty-eight jobs had means over 90 dBA, and four jobs had means over 100 dBA. The sawmill and by-products departments of the lumber mills had the highest exposure to low frequency noise, while the planing and saw filing areas had the highest exposure to high frequency noise. Hearing protector use was greatest among those exposed above 95 dBA, and among those exposed between 85 and 95 dBA, self-reported use was 84% for 73% of the time. The determinants of exposure model had an R(2) of 0.52, and the within-participant correlation was 0.07. Key predictors in the final model were mill; enclosure and enclosure construction material; and certain departments, jobs, and noise sources. The study showed that workers in lumber mills are highly exposed to noise, and although the prevalence of the use of hearing protection is high, their use is unlikely to provide complete protection again noise-induced hearing loss at the observed exposures. Determinants of noise exposure modeling offers a good method for the quantitative estimation of noise exposure.     

Risks of developing noise-induced hearing loss in employees of urban music clubs

Noise-induced hearing loss has previously been reported among rock musicians. This study sought to determine whether a hazard of noise-induced hearing loss exists for music club employees other than musicians themselves. Sound levels at eight live-music clubs were measured and symptoms of noise exposure in 31 music club employees were assessed by questionnaire. The average sound level at the various clubs during performances ranged from 94.9 to 106.7 dBA. The overall sound level average, including both performance and ambient levels, ranged from 91.9 to 99.8 dBA. Symptoms of noise exposure, such as tinnitus and subjective hearing loss, correlated with sound intensity. Only 16% reported regular use of hearing protection. We conclude that employees of music clubs are at substantial risk of developing Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, due to chronic noise exposure which consistently exceeded safe levels. Hearing protection is used much too infrequently. The development of hearing conservation programs for this large group of workers is essential. Am. J. Ind. Med. 31:75–79 © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Do ambient noise exposure levels predict hearing loss in a modern industrial cohort?

Background

Much of what is known about the exposure–response relationship between occupational noise exposures and hearing loss comes from cross‐sectional studies conducted before the widespread implementation of workplace hearing conservation programmes. Little is known about the current relationship of ambient noise exposure measurements to hearing loss risk.

Aim

To examine the relationship between rates of high frequency hearing loss and measured levels of noise exposure in a modern industrial workforce.

Methods

Ten‐year hearing loss rates were determined for 6217 employees of an aluminium manufacturing company. Industrial hygiene and human resources records allowed for reconstruction of individual noise exposures. Hearing loss rates were compared to ANSI 3.44 predictions based on age and noise exposure. Associations between hearing loss, noise exposure, and covariate risk factors were assessed using multivariate regression.

Results

Workers in higher ambient noise jobs tended to experience less high frequency hearing loss than co‐workers exposed at lower noise levels. This trend was also seen in stratified analyses of white males and non‐hunters. At higher noise exposure levels, the magnitude of hearing loss was less than predicted by ANSI 3.44 formulae. There was no indication that a healthy worker effect could explain these findings. The majority of 10 dB standard threshold shifts (STS) occurred in workers whose calculated ambient noise exposures were less than or equal to 85 dBA.

Conclusions

In this modern industrial cohort, hearing conservation efforts appear to be reducing hearing loss rates, especially at higher ambient noise levels. This could be related to differential use of hearing protection. The greatest burden of preventable occupational hearing loss was found in workers whose noise exposure averaged 85 dBA or less. To further reduce rates of occupational hearing loss, hearing conservation programmes may require innovative approaches targeting workers with noise exposures close to 85 dBA.     

SELF-REPORTED HEARING LOSS AMONG WORKERS EXPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL NOISE. ANALYSIS OF U.S. SURVEILLANCE DATA WITH REFERENCE TO THE AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT

Aging and noise are the two main causes of hearing loss. To estimate the extent to which hearing loss is due to noise and is therefore preventable, an analysis was undertaken, using U.S. surveillance data, of the prevalence of hearing loss in workers in industries categorised according to the percentages of the workforce exposed to noise levels of 85 dBA or more. It was estimated that 13 per cent of the U.S. workforce was exposed to these noise levels, and that occupational noise exposure accounted for 20 per cent of self-reported hearing loss in the male workforce. Applying the industry-specific exposures to Australia, it is estimated that some 657,000 workers are exposed to noise levels of 85 dBA or more in this country. Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicate that constant noise accounts for 38 per cent of self-reported hearing loss in Australian adult males (although this figure would include hearing loss due to non-occupational noise). Data from both countries indicate that the prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss in females is negligible.     

Hearing loss and perceptions of noise in the workplace among rural Australians

OBJECTIVE: To compare measured hearing levels of individuals regularly exposed to noise in their workplace to self-reported and family-reported hearing loss. To compare the attitudes and preventative actions adopted by individuals who are more aware of the potential for hearing loss to less aware individuals. DESIGN: The project examined the perceptions of rural workers concerning noise, noise exposure and hearing. The subjects completed a 'Noise at Work' questionnaire and some demographic data at the time of audiometric testing. SETTING: The subjects were recruited when attending their rural health clinic for audiometric testing. PARTICIPANTS: Participants comprised 113 men and 23 women (20-65 years, mean = 39.6, SD = 11.4) working across a range of activities at different levels in their workplaces. The range in current employment was from 0.5 to 45 years (mean = 13.8, SD = 10.7). RESULTS: Hearing tests were compared with perceptions of noise annoyance, hearing damage risk and preventative action. Self- and family-reported hearing loss and conversational difficulties in noise correlated well with measured audiograms. Perceptions of workplace noise tended to be more positive if people felt they had hearing problems. There was no difference in preventative action between those who did and did not feel they had hearing problems. Both groups rated barriers to action and lack of self-efficacy in a similar negative way. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for specific training to ensure that rural workers have skills to take more positive action in reducing noise exposure at work.     

锤锻与织布噪声对听力损害的比较研究

选133名锤锻工和95名织布工为研究对象。现场噪声参数比较结果:锤锻声最大线性峰值(122.6～142.4dB)和峰值的变化以及A计权慢档均方根值(L_(AS))的全距,均明显大于织布声;峰值因数(L_(AP)—L_(AS))分布也较织布声宽;但锤锻工平均日接噪时间(2.4小时)明显短于织布工。根据锤锻与织布工4kHz实测和预期噪声性永久听阈移中值(N_0.50)间的比较及两工种间实测N_0.50的比较结果,均未见明显差异;而锤锻工不同的累积接噪剂量与4kHz的N_0.50之间有显著相关。看来锤锻噪声对工人听力的损害,尚符合等能量假说原理。     

Noise exposure assessment among groundskeepers in a university setting: A pilot study

Approximately 870,000 U.S. workers are employed as landscaping and groundskeeping workers who perform various tasks and use a variety of tools that expose them to high noise levels, increasing their risk to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Several studies on noise exposure and NIHL in other job sectors have been published, but those on groundskeepers are very limited. This study aims to characterize the noise exposure of groundskeepers. Participants were monitored over their entire work shift for personal noise exposure by wearing noise dosimeters at shoulder level, 4 in from the ear. Using two different dosimeter settings (OSHA and NIOSH), the time-weighted averages (TWAs) and 1-min averages of noise exposure levels in decibels (dBA) were obtained. The participants were also asked to fill out an activity card daily to document their tasks, tools used, location and noise perception. Sound pressure levels (SPLs) produced by various groundskeeping equipment and tools were measured at full throttle near the ear of the operator using a sound level meter. These measurements were used to assess worker noise exposure profiles, particularly the contributing source of noise. The overall mean OSHA and NIOSH TWA noise exposures were 82.2±9.2 (range of 50.9–100 dBA) and 87.8±6.6 dBA (range of 67.2–102.9 dBA), respectively. Approximately 46% of the OSHA TWAs exceeded the OSHA action limit of 85 dBA. About 76% of the NIOSH TWAs exceeded 85 dBA, and 42% exceeded 90 dBA. The SPLs of equipment and tools measured ranged from 75– 106 dBA, most of which were at above 85 dBA and within the 90–100 dBA range. Hand-held power tools and ride-on equipment without enclosed cab may have contributed significantly to worker noise exposure. This study demonstrates that groundskeepers may be routinely exposed to noise levels above the OSHA and NIOSH exposure limits, and that the implementation of effective hearing conservation programs is necessary to reduce their risk to NIHL.     

不同行业噪声作业人员听力损失与接噪工龄的关系

目的了解当前职业性噪声暴露人员听力损失的状况,探讨生产性噪声对听力损伤的发生规律,为制定听力损失防护指南提供理论支持。方法对纺织厂等3种行业共1020名噪声暴露人员进行纯音测听检查,将听力损失与接噪工龄的关系进行统计学分析。结果纺织厂、汽车厂、发电厂3种行业噪声人员的听力损失检出率分别为55.1%、66.3%、41.1%。高频听力损失检出率显著高于语频听力损失检出率,听力损失的严重程度与接噪工龄密切相关,语频听力损失一般出现在开始接触噪声的5～10 a内。汽车厂与发电厂的听力损失呈现较明显的时间-剂量-效应关系。结论生产条件的变化可能会对听力损失随接噪工龄发生变化的规律产生一定的影响。     

Noise exposure and hearing loss among sand and gravel miners

The objectives of this study were to describe workplace noise exposures, risk factors for hearing loss, and hearing levels among sand and gravel miners, and to determine whether full shift noise exposures resulted in changes in hearing thresholds from baseline values. Sand and gravel miners (n = 317) were interviewed regarding medical history, leisure-time and occupational noise exposure, other occupational exposures, and use of hearing protection. Audiometric tests were performed both before the work shift (following a 12-hour noise-free interval) and immediately following the work shift. Full shift noise dosimetry was conducted. Miners' noise exposures exceeded the Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for 69% of workers, and exceeded the Mine Safety and Health Administration's action level for enrollment in a hearing conservation program for 41% of workers. Significantly higher noise exposures occurred among employees of small companies, among workers with a job classification of truck driver, among males, and among black workers. Hearing protection usage was low, with 48% of subjects reporting that they never used hearing protection. Hearing impairment, as defined by NIOSH, was present among 37% of 275 subjects with valid audiograms. Black male workers and white male workers had higher hearing thresholds than males from a comparison North Carolina population unexposed to industrial noise. Small but statistically significant changes in hearing thresholds occurred following full shift noise exposure among subjects who had good hearing sensitivity at baseline. In a logistic regression model, age and history of a past noisy job were significant predictors of hearing impairment. Overall, sand and gravel workers have excessive noise exposures and significant hearing loss, and demonstrate inadequate use of hearing protection. Well-designed hearing conservation programs, with reduction of noise exposure, are clearly needed.     

Prevalence of permanent hearing threshold shift among workers of Indian iron and steel small and medium enterprises: a study

Occupational noise exposure and noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) have been recognized as a problem among workers in Indian industries. The major industries in India are based on manufacturing. There are appreciable numbers of casting and forging units spread across the country. The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of permanent hearing threshold shift among the workers engaged in Indian iron and steel small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and compared with control group subjects. As a part of hearing protection intervention, audiometric tests were conducted at low (250-1000 Hz), medium (1500-3000 Hz), and high (4000-8000 Hz) frequencies. The occurrence of hearing loss was determined based on hearing threshold levels with a low fence of 25 dB. Comparisons were made for hearing threshold at different frequencies between the exposed and control groups using Student's t test. ANOVA was used for the comparison of hearing threshold dB at different frequencies among occupation and year of experience. A P value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. All data were presented as mean value (SD). Over 90% of workers engaged in various processes of casting and forging industry showed hearing loss in the noise-sensitive medium and higher frequencies. Occupation was significantly associated with NIHL, and hearing loss was particularly high among the workers of forging section. The analyses revealed a higher prevalence of significant hearing loss among the forging workers compared to the workers associated with other activities. The study shows alarming signals of NIHL, especially in forging workers. The occupational exposure to noise could be minimized by efficient control measures through engineering controls, administrative controls, and the use of personal protective devices. Applications of engineering and/or administrative controls are frequently not feasible in the developing countries for technical and financial reasons. A complete hearing conservation programme, including training, audiometry, job rotation, and the use of hearing protection devices, is the most feasible method for the protection of industrial workers from prevailing noise in workplace environments in the developing countries.     

Noise exposures aboard catcher/processor fishing vessels

BACKGROUND: Commercial fishing workers have extended work shifts and potential for 24 hr exposures to high noise. However, exposures in this industry have not been adequately characterized. METHODS: Noise exposures aboard two catcher/processors (C/P) were assessed using dosimetry, sound-level mapping, and self-reported activities and hearing protection device (HPD) use. These data were combined to estimate work shift, non-work, and 24 hr overall exposure levels using several metrics. The length of time during which HPDs were worn was also used to calculate the effective protection received by crew members. RESULTS: Nearly all workers had work shift and 24 hr noise levels that exceeded the relevant limits. After HPD use was accounted for, half of the 24 hr exposures remained above relevant limits. Non-work-shift noise contributed nothing to 24 hr exposure levels. HPDs reduced the average exposure by about 10 dBA, but not all workers wore them consistently. CONCLUSIONS: The primary risk of hearing loss aboard the monitored vessels comes from work shift noise. Smaller vessels or vessels with different layouts may present more risk of hearing damage from non-work periods. Additional efforts are needed to increase use of HPDs or implement noise controls.