Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States

Daniell, W. E.; Swan, S. S.; McDaniel, M. M.; Camp, J. E.; Cohen, M. A.; Stebbins, J. G.
May 2006
Occupational & Environmental Medicine;May2006, Vol. 63 Issue 5, p343
Academic Journal
Objectives: To evaluate noise exposures and hearing loss prevention efforts in industries with relatively high rates of workers' compensation claims for hearing loss. Methods: Washington State workers' compensation records were used to identify up to 10 companies in each of eight industries. Each company (n = 76) was evaluated by a management interview, employee personal noise dosimetry (n = 983), and employee interviews (n = 1557). Results: Full-shift average exposures were ≥85 dBA for 50% of monitored employees, using Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) parameters with a 5 dB exchange rate (Lave), but 74% were ≥85 dBA using a 3 dB exchange rate (Leq). Only 14% had Lave ≥90 dBA, but 42% had Leq ≥90 dBA. Most companies conducted noise measurements, but most kept no records, and consideration of noise controls was low in all industries. Hearing loss prevention programmes were commonly incomplete. Management interview scores (higher score = more complete programme) showed significant associations with percentage of employees having Lave ≥85 dBA and presence of a union (multiple linear regression; R² = 0.24). Overall, 62% of interviewed employees reported always using hearing protection when exposed. Protector use showed significant associations with percentage of employees specifically required to use protection, management score, and average employee time spent ≥95 dBA (R² = 0.65). Conclusions: The findings raise serious concerns about the adequacy of prevention, regulation, and enforcement strategies in the United States. The percentage of workers with excessive exposure was 1.5-3 times higher using a 3 dB exchange rate instead of the OSHA specified 5 dB exchange rate. Most companies gave limited or no attention to noise controls and relied primarily on hearing protection to prevent hearing loss; yet 38% of employees did not use protectors routinely. Protector use was highest when hearing loss prevention programmes were most complete, indicating that under-use of protection was, in some substantial part, attributable to incomplete or inadequate company efforts.


Related Articles

  • Growing Up Noisy: The Sound-exposure Diary of a Hypothetical Young Adult. Rawool, Vishakha W. // Hearing Review;May2008, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p30 

    The article presents a study on the noise exposure of a hypothetical young adult in relation to noise-induced hearing loss at an early age. It offers an overview of noise measurement and maximum acceptable noise levels for the protection of human hearing. A detailed description of a young...

  • The noise assessor.  // RoSPA Occupational Safety & Health Journal;Dec2003, Vol. 33 Issue 12, p22 

    Provides tips on identifying noise problems and finding someone who is competent to deal with it. Information on presbyacusis; Details of the technique called audiometry; Cost effectiveness of noise control; Information that should be included in the noise assessment report.

  • Can you here me? Steemson, Jacky // RoSPA Occupational Safety & Health Journal;Oct2013, Vol. 43 Issue 10, p23 

    The article focuses on noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) and employers' responsibilities to prevent it. It mentions that NIHL is completely irreversible, but can be completely preventable if employers and employees alike take the issue of workplace noise extremely seriously. It provides...

  • Hearing Standard Unveiled.  // Occupational Hazards;Apr2007, Vol. 69 Issue 4, p15 

    This article talks about the ANSI/ASSE A10.46-2007 or the Hearing Loss Prevention in Construction and Demolition Workers standard. The standard, approved by the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), recognizes the need for protecting...

  • Noise causes hearing loss. Pinette, Gilles // Saskatchewan Sage;Dec2002, Vol. 7 Issue 3, p18 

    Focuses on loss of hearing caused due to exposure to different types of noises. Anatomy and physiology of ear; Restoration of hearing with the help of hearing aids; Precautions to be taken for the prevention of loss of hearing.

  • Professor presents findings from noise research.  // Arbor Age;Apr2010, Vol. 30 Issue 3, p7 

    The article discusses the results of research conducted by Deanna Meinke, associate professor of Audiology at the University of Northern Colorado, on measurements of noise exposure of tree service workers to increase awareness of the risks of hearing loss that is noise-induced, the need for...

  • What Is the Risk of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss at 80, 85, 90 dB(A) and Above? Lutman, M. E. // Occupational Medicine;2000, Vol. 50 Issue 4, p274 

    Regulations regarding risk from exposure to noise at work entail action at levels of 85 dB(A) and above. At 80 dB(A) there is no material risk in the vast majority of individuals. At 85 dB(A) there is a marginal risk with susceptible individuals accruing a significant hearing impairment from a...

  • COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR OFFICE NOISE.  // Noise & Vibration Bulletin;Aug2015, p217 

    The article reports on compensation given to federal public employee of Australia for increased head pain and hearing problem due to background office noise. Topics discussed include her victory for appealing in Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of Australia; several cause of noise...

  • Employers tuning in to the dangers of noise. Hofmann, Mark A. // Business Insurance;8/1/2005, Vol. 39 Issue 31, p11 

    Focuses on the challenges facing employers in protecting workers' hearing from workplace noise. Standards on what constitutes dangerous levels of noise in an industry according to the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration; Impact of occupational hearing loss on workers' compensation...


Read the Article


Sign out of this library

Other Topics