Hearing Protector Attenuation and Noise Exposure Among Metal Manufacturing Workers

The sound of safety: exploring the determinants of prevention intention in noisy industrial workplaces

Occupational noise exposure is a pervasive issue in many industries, leading to a range of health issues and sleep disturbances among workers. Additionally, there is a strong desire among these workers to prevent industrial accidents. This study, aimed at enhancing worker health and well-being, utilized a survey distributed by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions to field workers. Data from 1285 workers were collected and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to identify and understand the factors affecting prevention intention in noisy work environments. Our findings indicate that health problems resulting from occupational noise exposure significantly influence insomnia, perceived severity of potential accidents, perceived benefits of preventive measures, and perceived barriers. Perceived severity was significantly correlated with prevention intention, emphasizing the role of risk perception in motivating preventive behaviors. Perceived benefits were also significantly associated with prevention intention, highlighting the importance of positive outcomes in influencing workers' behaviors. Additionally, perceived barriers showed a significant relationship with prevention intention, suggesting that overcoming these barriers is crucial in promoting preventive behaviors. Demographic factors such as gender displayed a significant association with prevention intention, while age did not. This study provides valuable insights into the multifaceted factors influencing workers' intention to prevent industrial accidents in noisy environments, underlining the importance of comprehensive data collection tools in understanding these dynamics.

Measuring earplug noise attenuation: A comparison of laboratory and field methods

Hearing protection device (HPD) fit-testing is a recommended best practice for hearing conservation programs as it yields a metric of the amount of attenuation an individual achieves with an HPD. This metric, the personal attenuation rating (PAR), provides hearing health care, safety, and occupational health personnel the data needed to select the optimal hearing protection for the occupational environment in which the HPD will be worn. Although commercial-off-the-shelf equipment allows the professional to complete HPD fit tests in the field, a standard test methodology does not exist across HPD fit-test systems. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of attenuation obtained using the "gold standard" laboratory test (i.e., real-ear attenuation at threshold [REAT]) and three commercially available HPD fit-test systems (i.e., Benson Computer Controlled Fit Test System [CCF-200] with narrowband noise stimuli, Benson CCF-200 with pure tone stimuli, and Michael and Associates FitCheck Solo). A total of 57 adults, aged 18 to 63, were enrolled in the study and tested up to seven earplugs each across all fit-test systems. Once fitted by a trained member of the research team, earplugs remained in the ear throughout testing across test systems. Results revealed a statistically significant difference in measured group noise attenuation between the laboratory and field HPD fit-test systems (p < .0001). The mean attenuation was statistically significantly different (Benson CCF-200 narrowband noise was +3.1 dB, Benson CCF-200 pure tone was +2.1 dB, and Michael and Associates FitCheck Solo was +2.5 dB) from the control laboratory method. However, the mean attenuation values across the three experimental HPD fit-test systems did not reach statistical significance and were within 1.0 dB of one another. These findings imply consistency across the evaluated HPD fit-test systems and agree with the control REAT test method. Therefore, the use of each is acceptable for obtaining individual PARs outside of a laboratory environment.

Impulse noise measurement in view of noise hazard assessment and use of hearing protectors

Experience shows the occurrence of situations when the measurements of impulse noise parameters are made with measurement equipment unsuitable for such conditions. The results of using such equipment were compared with the results of using equipment with a sufficiently large upper limit of the measurement range. The analysis was carried out on the example of noise generated during shots from a Mossberg smooth-bore shotgun and AKM rifle, as well as produced in the forge. The use of the unsuitable equipment allowed to indicate the exceeding of the exposure limit value of the peak value of the signal (L_Cpeak), but this is not always possible when determining the energy properties of the signal (L_EX,8h). While the inadequate properties of the measurement equipment will generally not prevent the conclusion that noise in a particular workplace is hazardous to hearing, the results of measurements cannot be used to select hearing protectors.

Awareness, Use, and Opinions of Individual Fit Testing of Hearing Protection Devices Among Practicing Michigan Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association Health Care Providers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to examine the awareness, opinions, and use of individual fit testing of hearing protection devices (HPDs) among occupational medicine practitioners.

METHODS

Members of the Michigan Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association completed a 21-question survey on individual fit testing of HPDs.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 67%, 53% reported having heard of individual fit testing of HPDs, and 24% reported that their clinic/site performed the testing. Major barriers to its use were perceived time to perform (63%), cost (51%), lack of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirement (51%), and lack of long-term studies of its effectiveness (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Further work to educate practitioners about the availability, implementation, and potential benefits of fit testing of HPDs is needed if use of this technology is to become more widespread.

Evaluating Occupational Noise Exposure as a Contributor to Injury Risk among Miners

OBJECTIVES

This study: (i) assessed the relationship between noise exposure and injury risk, comprehensively adjusting for individual factors, psychosocial stressors, and organizational influences; (ii) determined the relative importance of noise on injuries; (iii) estimated the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of noise on injury risk to determine the threshold of noise considered hazardous to injuries; and (iv) quantified the fraction of injuries that could be attributed to hazardous noise exposure.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study at 10 US surface mine sites, traditional mixed effects, Poisson regression, and boosted regression tree (BRT) models were run on the number of reported work-related injuries in the last year. The LOAEL of noise on injuries was identified by estimating the percent increase in work-related injuries at different thresholds of noise exposure using a counterfactual estimator through the BRT model. A population attributable fraction (PAF) was quantified with this counterfactual estimator to predict reductions in injuries at the LOAEL.

RESULTS

Among 18 predictors of work-related injuries, mine site, perceived job safety, age, and sleepiness were the most important predictors. Occupational noise exposure was the seventh most important predictor. The LOAEL of noise for work-related injuries was a full-shift exposure of 88 dBA. Exposure ≥88 dBA was attributed to 20.3% (95% CI: 11.2%, 29.3%) of reported work-related injuries in the last year among the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study further supports hypotheses of a dose-response relationship between occupational noise exposure and work-related injuries, and suggests that exposures ≥88 dBA may increase injury risk in mining.

Improving Hearing Protection Device Noise Attenuation Through Fit-Testing in an Occupational Health Clinic

BACKGROUND

Occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is the second most common medical disability for military veterans and accounts for 24% of all hearing loss in the United States. Hearing loss negatively affects health and billions of dollars are spent annually for direct and indirect medical costs and lost work productivity. Proper hearing protection device (HPD) fit can prevent NIHL. Quantitative fit-testing systems to determine personal attenuation rates (PARs) are available, but not widely utilized. Without quantitative testing, validating appropriate fit and attenuation to a permissible exposure level to prevent NIHL is difficult.

METHODS

A quality improvement project measured 100 employees enrolled in a hearing conservation program (HCP) to determine if they obtained a target PAR after inserting the HPDs in their "usual" fashion. Those who did not obtain target PAR (n = 27) received an evidence-based intervention that demonstrated proper HPD fit by a skilled trainer followed by a repeat attempt by the participant to replicate the feel of the demonstrated HPD placement. PAR was subsequently measured to assess for appropriate noise attenuation.

FINDINGS

Seventy-one percent achieved target PAR (≥ 20 decibels) at baseline testing. After the intervention, 91 of 100 participants had achieved target PAR, a 20% improvement.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Findings suggest this evidence-based intervention was an effective strategy for improving HPD fit for employees enrolled in HCPs. This intervention may prevent occupational hearing loss and decrease the health and socioeconomic impacts of NIHL.

Development and initial validation of the Chinese Version of the Noise Exposure Questionnaire (C-NEQ)

BACKGROUND

With a high prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), the noise survey tools for identifying individuals with high risk of NIHL are still limited. This study was aimed to translate and develop a Chinese version of noise exposure questionnaire (C-NEQ), and validate its reliability and reproducibility.

METHODS

This study was conducted from May 2020 to March 2021 in China. The questionnaire was translated from the original NEQ and adapted into Chinese culture using the method according to the International Test Committee. Content validity was evaluated by our expert group. Construct validity and reliability of the C-NEQ was determined through estimating the confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha in a cross-sectional analysis among 641 Chinese speaking adults, respectively. The retest reproducibility of the C-NEQ was analyzed by using the intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) in a follow-up analysis among 151 participants.

RESULTS

The C-NEQ comprises ten items covering four domains: occupational, housework, transport and recreational noise exposure. The annual noise exposure (ANE) was calculated as the protocol of original NEQ. A total of 641 adult participants (aged 26.9 ± 10.1 years, 53.4% males) completed the C-NEQ. The average time for completing the C-NEQ was 4.4 ± 3.0 min. Content validity indicated high relevance of the C-NEQ. The confirmatory factor analysis indices illustrated that the items of the C-NEQ were suitable with the data in the study. For the internal reliability, the Cronbach's α coefficients of the total items and four domains (occupational, housework, transport, and recreational noise exposure) were 0.799, 0.959, 0.837, 0.825, and 0.803, respectively. Among them, 151 participants (aged 36.1 ± 11.1 years, 65.6% males) completed the retest of the C-NEQ 1 month after the first test. The ICC value of total ANEs between the first test and the second test was 0.911 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we have validated the C-NEQ with adequate reliability and reproducibility for quantifying an individual's annual daily noise exposure, which provides an effective fast-screen tool for researches and clinics to identify those individuals with high risks of NIHL within the short time duration (no more than five minutes) among Chinese population.

Prevalence of hearing protection device non-use among noise-exposed US workers in 2007 and 2014

BACKGROUND

This study estimated the prevalence of hearing protection device (HPD) non-use among US workers exposed to hazardous workplace noise and provided risk estimates.

METHODS

Self-reported data from the National Health Interview Survey in 2007 (15,852 workers) and 2014 (23,656 workers) were examined. Weighted prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios of HPD non-use (using HPDs half the time or less when exposed to hazardous noise) were estimated by demographic, industry, and occupation. Differences in the prevalences of non-use were estimated and compared.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HPD non-use was 53% among all noise-exposed workers in 2014. Workers in the Accommodation and Food Services industry had the highest prevalence (90%) and risk (PR: 2.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.54-3.96) of HPD non-use. The industries with the lowest prevalences of noise exposure, including Finance and Insurance (2%) and Health Care and Social Assistance (4%), had some of the highest prevalences of HPD non-use (80% and 83%, respectively). There were no statistically significant changes in HPD non-use among industries between 2007 and 2014. Among occupations, HPD non-use increased 37% in Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media, and decreased 39% in Architecture and Engineering.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of HPD non-use remains high; especially within industries and occupations with fewer noise-exposed workers. These groups need targeted attention to increase awareness and compliance. Employers should require HPD use and trainings among noise-exposed workers and provide an assortment of HPDs tailored to noise level and type, workplace environment, communication and audibility needs, and individual comfort and convenience.

Contributions and limitations of using machine learning to predict noise-induced hearing loss

Purpose

Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is a global issue that impacts people’s life and health. The current review aims to clarify the contributions and limitations of applying machine learning (ML) to predict NIHL by analyzing the performance of different ML techniques and the procedure of model construction.

Methods

The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus on November 26, 2020.

Results

Eight studies were recruited in the current review following defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sample size in the selected studies ranged between 150 and 10,567. The most popular models were artificial neural networks (n = 4), random forests (n = 3) and support vector machines (n = 3). Features mostly correlated with NIHL and used in the models were: age (n = 6), duration of noise exposure (n = 5) and noise exposure level (n = 4). Five included studies used either split-sample validation (n = 3) or ten-fold cross-validation (n = 2). Assessment of accuracy ranged in value from 75.3% to 99% with a low prediction error/root-mean-square error in 3 studies. Only 2 studies measured discrimination risk using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and/or the area under ROC curve.

Conclusion

In spite of high accuracy and low prediction error of machine learning models, some improvement can be expected from larger sample sizes, multiple algorithm use, completed reports of model construction and the sufficient evaluation of calibration and discrimination risk.

Hearing loss as a predictor for hearing protection attenuation among miners

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated risk factors for poor earplug fit, with a focus on the association between hearing loss and personal attenuation ratings (PARs).

METHODS

Earplug fit was assessed by obtaining PARs using a real ear at attenuation threshold (REAT) system. Hearing loss was assessed using the unoccluded hearing thresholds measured during the REAT testing and the results of a speech-in-noise test. Potential predictors of PARs were modelled using both simple and multiple linear regression. Hearing loss was the primary predictor of interest.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 200 workers at ten above-ground mining sites in the Midwestern USA. Workers reported wearing their hearing protection on average 73.9% of the time in a high noise environment (mean 8-hour time-weighted average noise exposure 85.5 dBA, range 65-103 dBA). One-quarter (26.7%) of workers were found to have a hearing loss (hearing threshold ≥25 dB across 1-4 kHz), and 42% reported symptoms of tinnitus. Workers with a hearing loss had a significantly lower PAR than those without a hearing loss (β=-5.1, SE=1.7).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the adjusted regression models suggest that workers with hearing loss achieved significantly lower PARs than those without hearing loss. This association between hearing loss and hearing protection devices (HPD) fit brings into focus the potential benefit of fit checks to be included in hearing conservation programmes. Workers found to have hearing loss should be prioritised for fit testing, as their hearing impairment may be associated with poor HPD fit.

Noise-induced hearing loss and its prevention: Integration of data from animal models and human clinical trials

Animal models have been used to gain insight into the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and its potential prevention using investigational new drug agents. A number of compounds have yielded benefit in pre-clinical (animal) models. However, the acute traumatic injury models commonly used in pre-clinical testing are fundamentally different from the chronic and repeated exposures experienced by many human populations. Diverse populations that are potentially at risk and could be considered for enrollment in clinical studies include service members, workers exposed to occupational noise, musicians and other performing artists, and children and young adults exposed to non-occupational (including recreational) noise. Both animal models and clinical populations were discussed in this special issue, followed by discussion of individual variation in vulnerability to NIHL. In this final contribution, study design considerations for NIHL otoprotection in pre-clinical and clinical testing are integrated and broadly discussed with evidence-based guidance offered where possible, drawing on the contributions to this special issue as well as other existing literature. The overarching goals of this final paper are to (1) review and summarize key information across contributions and (2) synthesize information to facilitate successful translation of otoprotective drugs from animal models into human application.

Hearing loss, lead (Pb) exposure, and noise: a sound approach to ototoxicity exploration

To determine the state of the research on ototoxic properties of Pb, evaluate possible synergistic effects with concurrent noise exposure, and identify opportunities to improve future research, we performed a review of the peer-reviewed literature to identify studies examining auditory damage due to Pb over the past 50 years. Thirty-eight studies (14 animal and 24 human) were reviewed. Of these, 24 suggested potential ototoxicity due to Pb exposure, while 14 found no evidence of ototoxicity. More animal studies are needed, especially those investigating Pb exposure levels that are occupationally and environmentally relevant to humans. Further investigations into potential interactions of Pb in the auditory system with other hazards and compounds that elicit ototoxicity are also needed in animal models. To better assess the effects of Pb exposure on the human auditory system and the possibility of a synergism with noise, future epidemiological studies need to carefully consider and address four main areas of uncertainty: (1) hearing examination and quantification of hearing loss, (2) Pb exposure evaluation, (3) noise exposure evaluation, and (4) the personal characteristics of those exposed. Two potentially confounding factors, protective factors and mixtures of ototoxicants, also warrant further exploration.