Search

Background: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is a serious concern for orthopedic surgeons. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sets the safe exposure limit at 85 dB for 8 hours, yet operating rooms often surpass this limit. This study investigated if using an automated broaching system exposes orthopedic surgeons to dangerous decibel (dB) levels., Materials and Methods: A prospective study analyzed 138 intraoperative sound recordings from 92 total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeries and 46 baseline measurements at an academic-affiliated private practice, using the NIOSH Sound Level Meter (SLM) application and a microphone. The surgeries were categorized into manual and automated broaching. Key metrics measured included maximal dB level (MDL), peak sound pressure (LC peak ), average continuous sound (LA eq ), and average weighted sound in an 8-hour period (TWA), along with dose representations, to identify hazardous noise levels., Results: Of the 92 THA sound recordings, 50 used manual broaching and 42 employed automated broaching. Automated broaching exhibited higher noise levels, with an average MDL of 109.92 dBA, a LA eq of 86.09 dBA, a TWA of 76.48 dBA, and a projected noise dose of 137.74%. In contrast, manual broaching exhibited an average MDL of 105.87 dBA, a LA eq of 83.06 dBA, a TWA of 72.82 dBA, and a projected noise dose of 82.02%., Conclusion: This study highlights the auditory risks from automated broach and manual THA surgeries that orthopedic surgeons experience. Manufacturers should focus on reducing instrument noise when designing surgical tools and orthopedic surgeons and operating room staff should take measures to protect themselves from NIHL during surgery. [ Orthopedics . 2024;47(6):349-354.].

Occupational noise exposure continues to be a prevalent hazard in many industries. While the proliferation of noise dosimeters and wearable devices has made it easier to assess a worker's exposure to noise, many employees exposed to hazardous (i.e., >85 dBA) levels of noise may go their entire career without ever having their personal noise levels measured. In contrast to other occupational exposures, noise is easily perceived by the individual exposed, allowing them to develop subjective judgments regarding its characteristics. To determine whether such self-reported exposures to occupational noise are associated with hearing loss, this analysis used audiometric data and self-reported occupational exposure to loud noise from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which has collected such data from 1999 to May 2020. Linear and logistic regressions models found a statistically significant association between self-reported noise exposure and worsened hearing at the 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz hearing frequency as well as an elevated odds ratio for the development of hearing loss greater than 25 dB at the 2, 3, and 4 kHz audiometric frequencies. The results of this analysis suggest that in the absence of exposure measurements, workers are likely able to detect exposure to hazardous levels of noise. In these instances, additional measurements should be collected to determine if the workers should be enrolled in a hearing conservation program.

Objective: To measure noise exposure present on pickleball courts and assess the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) per guidelines put forward by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)., Methods: Observational study measuring noise levels at multiple recreational pickleball courts in the Richmond, VA area, documenting LAeq, LASmax, and LCpeak at courtside and waiting areas of pickleball courts. Measurements were completed using the NIOSH SLM application on an iPhone 13 with iMM-6 Calibrated Measurement Microphone (equivalent to IEC 61672-1 Class II) that was calibrated using ND-9 Sound Level Calibrator (IEC942 Class I)., Results: Average sound levels recorded at waiting areas adjacent to the courts, measured in LAeq, LASmax, and LCpeak, were 69.1 dBA, 92.0 dBA, and 112.1 dBC, respectively, while courtside measurements were 69.7 dBA, 92.2 dBA, and 115.6 dBC, respectively. These measurements were within NIOSH and OSHA recommendations., Conclusion: The data demonstrates that randomly sampled pickleball courts have noise levels that do not increase risk for NIHL for participants or bystanders alike based on NIOSH guidelines. However, prolonged noise exposure and ambient noise pollution may have other health implications and warrant further investigations., Level of Evidence: Level 2., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To examine general risk propensity in relation to perceptions of noise, risk behaviour, and hearing loss in the general population., Design: Participants completed an online survey using the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform., Study Sample: The sample comprised 1274 adults from the United States., Results: Higher general risk propensity was associated with an increased likelihood to engage in noise-risk behaviours. Lower general risk propensity was associated with increased knowledge of noise risks and an increased perception of noise as risky. The frequency of self-reported exposures to hazardous noise resulted in estimated annual noise doses exceeding standard hazard limits in 40% of the surveyed population., Conclusions: Results revealed limited knowledge of the risks and associated health consequences of noise exposure in the general population Results of this study suggest a high rate of self-exposure to hazardous noise by the general population. Those with higher general risk propensity are more likely to engage in risky noise behaviour. Risky noise behaviour is associated with age, gender, race, ethnicity, and general risk propensity. Intervention programs to modify risky noise behaviour in the general population should focus on both increasing knowledge and establishing accurate perceptions of risk.

Nearly one in four (24.4%) U.S. adults aged 20-69 years show evidence of noise-induced hearing loss (1). Among those reporting exposure to noise outside of work, 19.9% showed possible noise-induced hearing loss. Exposure to non-job-related noise can be substantial (2). Loud music from personal listening devices and entertainment venues might place more than 1 billion teenagers and young adults at risk for hearing loss worldwide (3). Early noise exposure might increase the risk for age-related hearing loss later in life (4). CDC analyzed data from the 2022 FallStyles survey (conducted by Porter Novelli via the Ipsos' KnowledgePanel) on U.S. adult perceptions regarding preventing hearing loss from amplified music at venues or events. More than one half of U.S. adults agreed with one or more of the following protective actions: limiting sound levels, posting warning signs, and using hearing protection when music at such events reaches potentially hazardous levels. Hearing and other health professionals can make use of existing materials available from the World Health Organization (WHO), CDC, and other professional organizations to raise awareness about noise risks and promote protective behaviors., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objective: This study addressed the relationship of hearing loss and coexposure to solvents and noise among farmers and ranchers in central United States., Methods: The surveillance study included surveys to stratified random samples of operations in 2018 and 2020 (n = 34,146), requesting information on injuries, illnesses, exposures, and preventive measures. Responses (n = 7495) were analyzed using hierarchical multinomial logistic regression, adjusting for personal and work characteristics., Results: Nearly 60% of respondents exposed to both solvents and noise reported hearing loss. The exposures increased the adjusted odds of moderate/severe hearing loss as follows: solvents alone, (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-2.38), noise alone (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 3.39-5.76), and coexposure to both noise and solvents (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.67-7.78)., Conclusions: Solvent exposure, along with noise, should be considered in hearing conservation programs among farmers and ranchers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.)

National and international regulatory and consensus standards setting bodies have previously proposed derating hearing protector ratings to provide a better match between ratings determined in a laboratory and the real-world measurements of attenuation for workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has proposed a derating scheme that depends upon the type of protector. This paper examines four real-world studies where personal attenuation ratings (PARs) were measured at least twice, before and after an intervention in earplug fitting techniques. Results from these studies indicate that individualized earplug fitting training dramatically improves a worker's achieved PAR value. Additionally, derating schemes fail to accurately predict the majority of achieved PARs. Because hearing protector fit testing systems are now readily available for use in the workplace, personal attenuation ratings provide a better estimate of worker noise exposures and are able to identify those persons who need additional instruction in fitting hearing protection devices.

Thirty (30) personal noise-exposure samples were collected on 20 tire-changing and repair technicians in three tire-changing facilities to determine their personal noise exposures and to estimate the maximum number of tire changes that could be performed without exceeding occupational exposure limits. Of the 30 projected 8-h time-weighted average noise samples, none exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Permissible Exposure Limit, 1 (3%) exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Action Level, and 18 (60%) exceeded the American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold limit Value of 85 dBA, indicating the need for a hearing loss prevention program. The average shift time for the technicians was 6 h and 42 min and the average number of tire changes was 18. Based on the projected 8-h noise exposure 95% upper confidence limits, the estimated maximum number of tires that could be changed without exceeding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's noise action level was 32 tires, the permissible exposure limit greater than 40 tires, and the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists' Threshold Limit Value was less than 20 tires. In addition, area noise samples of tire-changing equipment were taken with a sound-level meter to identify the noise sources that contributed to the tire technicians' exposures. The air ratchet, tire-changing machine, and tire-bead seater were measured at noise levels >85 dBA, increasing the risk of noise-induced hearing loss to the technicians., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society.)

Objectives: To measure the sound intensity of popular infant white noise machines and Apple iPhone applications (apps) as they vary with volume setting and distance, and compare these output levels with current National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) noise exposure threshold recommendations., Methods: A total of eight infant white noise machines and six iPhone applications were included in the study based on product rating, number of ratings, and cost. The NIOSH Sound Level Meter application through the Apple App Store was used to measure output levels in A-weighted decibels (dBA). Each device was tested at its lowest and highest volume setting and at speaker-to-microphone distances simulating placement within a crib (10 cm), just outside of a crib rail (30 cm), and on a nightstand across the room (100 cm)., Results: At the minimum volume setting, no device exceeded the NIOSH recommended noise exposure threshold of 85 dBA at any distance tested. At maximum volume setting, nine out of fourteen (64.3%) devices exceeded output levels of 85 dBA at a speaker-to-microphone distance of 10 cm. No device exceeded the recommended threshold at its maximal volume when placed 30 cm or 100 cm away., Conclusion: Excessive white noise exposure has the potential to lead to noise-induced hearing loss and other adverse health effects in the neonatal and infant population. We recommend conservative use of white noise machines and apps by avoiding maximal volume setting and placing any device well outside of the crib or at least 30 cm away from the child. To promote safe use of white noise devices, future studies are needed to fully understand the association between early noise exposure and hearing loss in infants., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Hearing loss (HL) is a major health concern among military personnel due to noise from shooting, blasts, military vehicles, and noisy training environments. Nevertheless, one's exposure can be partially reduced by using personal protective equipment (PPE). The aim of this study is to estimate the prevalence of HL among military personnel, to analyse associations between HL and self-reported occupational and leisure noise exposure, and use of PPEs., Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 150 military personnel during their routine medical examinations. First, all participants filled in a questionnaire about their exposure to noise and later the respondents went through an audiometric test. The diagnostic criteria for slight, moderate, and severe HL was HL of 25-40, 41-60, and >60 dB at 4 and 6 kHz, respectively. The associations between noise exposure and HL were studied with multinomial logistic regression analysis., Results: The prevalence of slight to severe HL in high frequencies (4 and 6 kHz) among study participants was 62.7%. Nevertheless, the majority of it was slight, as the prevalence of severe HL was 9.3%. The prevalence of any kind of HL was highest in the Navy and the prevalence of severe HL was highest in the Central Command Units. The relative risk ratios (RRRs) for HL were higher among those who had been working for a long time in a noisy environment, working with noise-producing equipment, driving in a PASI or a Bandvagn or had been shooting with blanks at least once per week. It also appeared that military personnel who had HL, reported tinnitus more often. Respondents' previous health problems, music-listening habits, and amount of exposure to loud noise in non-military environments were not independently associated with HL, but in several cases it increased the RRRs together with military exposure. We also found significantly more frequent HL among those never using PPEs., Conclusion: HL loss was more prevalent among personnel who are more often exposed to military noise, especially among those who never use PPEs. The effect was enhanced by leisure time noise, but it was not independently associated to HL., Competing Interests: None

This article summarizes the findings from the first report of the new, standard Measures of Effectiveness developed by the Department of Defense (DoD) Hearing Conservation Program Working Group in 2018. When examining periodic hearing test results of DoD personnel, the overall risk of potential hearing injury/illness was stable from 2012 through 2018. The National Guard and Reserve components showed a higher potential risk of hearing loss, possibly related to lower compliance on follow-up tests when a shift in hearing occurred. Finally, the overall percentage of DoD personnel (who received periodic hearing tests) with hearing impairment decreased over the years presented.

Objective: In occupational hearing conservation programmes, age adjustments may be used to subtract expected age effects. Adjustments used in the U.S. came from a small dataset and overlooked important demographic factors, ages, and stimulus frequencies. The present study derived a set of population-based age adjustment tables and validated them using a database of exposed workers. Design: Cross-sectional population-based study and retrospective longitudinal cohort study for validation. Study sample: Data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (unweighted n  = 9937) were used to produce these tables. Male firefighters and emergency medical service workers (76,195 audiograms) were used for validation. Results: Cross-sectional trends implied less change with age than assumed in current U.S. regulations. Different trends were observed among people identifying with non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity. Four age adjustment tables (age range: 18-85) were developed (women or men; non-Hispanic Black or other race/ethnicity). Validation outcomes showed that the population-based tables matched median longitudinal changes in hearing sensitivity well. Conclusions: These population-based tables provide a suitable replacement for those implemented in current U.S. regulations. These tables address a broader range of worker ages, account for differences in hearing sensitivity across race/ethnicity categories, and have been validated for men using longitudinal data.

Wildland firefighters are exposed to numerous noise sources that may be hazardous to their hearing. This study examined the noise exposure profiles for 264 wildland firefighters across 15 job categories. All 264 firefighters completed questionnaires to assess their use of hearing protection devices, enrollment in hearing conservation programs, and their overall perception of their noise exposure. Roughly 54% of firefighters' noise exposures exceeded the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended exposure limit of 85 decibels, A-weighted, over 8 hr, and 32% exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limit of 90 decibels, A-weighted, over 8 hr. Questionnaire results indicated good agreement between noise exposures and firefighters' perceptions of the noise hazard. Approximately 65% reported that they used some form of hearing protection; however, only 19% reported receiving any proper training regarding the use of hearing protection devices, with the majority of those firefighters relying on earplugs, including electronic and level-dependent earplugs, over earmuffs or other forms of hearing protectors. The results also suggest that improved communication and situational awareness play a greater role in the consistent use of hearing protection devices than other factors such as risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss. The study highlighted the challenges facing wildland firefighters and their management and the need for a comprehensive wildland fire agencies' hearing conservation program especially for firefighters who were exempt based on their occupational designations.

Acoustic trauma (AT) is permanent hearing loss after a single noise exposure. A few human cases resulting from continuous, i.e., nonimpulsive noise, have been reported as reviewed by Ward [(1991). "Hearing loss from noise and music," presented at Audio Engineering Society, New York, October 4-8]. This paper updates that review by examining 11 cases in nine reports, from 1950 to 2006, with the intention of determining minimum exposures that may cause AT, including the potential risk of exposure to noise from magnetic resonance imaging machines. Diffuse-field related levels above 120 dBA for 10 s or more, or above 130 dBA for 2-3 s (values well above OSHA's unprotected exposure limits), can lead to AT. These cases appear to represent a susceptible fraction of the population, because much more intense exposures (e.g., 130 dBA for 32 min) have been tolerated by groups of volunteers who suffered only temporary threshold shifts. AT from continuous noise is unlikely to occur in OSHA-compliant hearing conservation programs, and probably rare enough in the general civilian population that clinical trials of drugs aimed at treating it are unlikely to be practical. AT from impulse noise, such as gunfire, which is specifically not the topic of the current work, is more amenable to clinical trials, especially in military settings.

Background: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of hearing loss (HL) among noise-exposed US workers within the Mining, and Oil and Gas Extraction (OGE) sectors., Methods: Audiograms of 1.9 million workers across all industries (including 9389 in Mining and 1076 in OGE) from 2006 to 2015 were examined. Prevalence and adjusted risk as compared to a reference industry (Couriers and Messengers) were estimated for all industries combined and the Mining and OGE sectors and subsectors., Results: The prevalences of HL in Mining and OGE were 24% and 14%, respectively, compared with 16% for all industries combined. Many Mining and one OGE subsector exceeded these prevalences and most had an adjusted risk (prevalence ratio) significantly greater than the reference industry. Some subsectors, particularly in OGE, could not be examined due to low sample size. The prevalences in Construction Sand and Gravel Mining and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction were 36% and 28%, respectively. Workers within Support Activities for Coal Mining had double the risk of HL than workers in the reference industry., Conclusions: The many subsectors identified with high prevalences and/or worker risks for HL well above risks in the reference industry need critical attention to conserve worker hearing and maintain worker quality of life. Administrative and engineering controls can reduce worker hazardous noise exposures. Noise and ototoxic chemical exposure information is needed for many subsectors, as is audiometric testing results for OGE workers. Additional research is also needed to further characterize exposures and improve hearing conservation measures., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Assessment of the auditory risk associated with sound from ballistic N-waves produced by a rifle bullet., Design: Acoustical recordings of ballistic N-waves passing through a microphone array at 6.4 metres down range were analysed to determine (a) the trajectory of the bullet, (b) the distance between the trajectory and each microphone (less than 1.3 m), and (c) the numbers of permissible exposures according to both damage-risk criteria for impulsive noise in the current U.S. military standard (MIL-STD-1474E)., Study Sample: The gun was an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle configured to fire a 0.50 calibre Beowulf 00AE cartridge. Four sample shots were recorded for each of four microphone spacing conditions and five kinds of ammunition (80 shots in total)., Results: The ballistic N-waves recorded in this study would constitute a significant auditory risk to unprotected listeners at all distances sampled. The numbers of permissible exposures decreased as the distance to the bullet trajectory decreased, decreased with increased bullet length, and departed from linear increases as the bullet velocity increased., Conclusions: Unprotected exposure to a ballistic N-wave from a supersonic 0.50 calibre bullet presents a significant risk to hearing at distances of 6.4 metres down range and through trajectories within 1.2 metres of an ear.

Background: The study evaluates a group of Military Service Members specialized in blast explosive training called "Breachers" who are routinely exposed to multiple low-level blasts while teaching breaching at the U.S. Marine Corps in Quantico Virginia. The objective of this study was to determine if there are any acute or long-term auditory changes due to repeated low-level blast exposures used in training. The performance of the instructor group "Breachers" was compared to a control group, "Engineers"., Methods: A total of 11 Breachers and four engineers were evaluated in the study. The participants received comprehensive auditory tests, including pure-tone testing, speech-in-noise (SIN) measures, and central auditory behavioral and objective tests using early and late (P300) auditory evoked potentials over a period of 17 months. They also received shorter assessments immediately following the blast-exposure onsite at Quantico., Results: No acute or longitudinal effects were identified. However, there were some interesting baseline effects found in both groups. Contrary to the expected, the onsite hearing thresholds and distortion product otoacoustic emissions were slightly better at a few frequencies immediately after blast-exposure than measurements obtained with the same equipment weeks to months after each blast-exposure., Conclusions: To date, the current study is the most comprehensive study that evaluates the long-term effects of blast-exposure on hearing. Despite extensive testing to assess changes, the findings of this study suggest that the levels of current exposures used in this military training environment do not seem to have an obvious deleterious effect on hearing.

Objectives: The objective of this study has been to test 2 spreadsheet models to compare the observed with the expected hearing loss for a Norwegian reference population., Material and Methods: The prevalence rates of the Norwegian and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) definitions of hearing outcomes were calculated in terms of sex and age, 20-64 years old, for a screened (with no occupational noise exposure) (N = 18 858) and unscreened (N = 38 333) Norwegian reference population from the Nord-Trøndelag Hearing Loss Study (NTHLS). Based on the prevalence rates, 2 different spreadsheet models were constructed in order to compare the prevalence rates of various groups of workers with the expected rates. The spreadsheets were then tested on 10 different occupational groups with varying degrees of hearing loss as compared to a reference population., Results: Hearing of office workers, train drivers, conductors and teachers differed little from the screened reference values based on the Norwegian and the NIOSH criterion. The construction workers, miners, farmers and military had an impaired hearing and railway maintenance workers and bus drivers had a mildly impaired hearing. The spreadsheet models give a valid assessment of the hearing loss., Conclusions: The use of spreadsheet models to compare hearing in occupational groups with that of a reference population is a simple and quick method. The results are in line with comparable hearing thresholds, and allow for significance testing. The method is believed to be useful for occupational health services in the assessment of risk of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) and the preventive potential in groups of noise-exposed workers. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2016;29(6):991-999., (This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.)

Impulse peak insertion loss (IPIL) was studied with two acoustic test fixtures and four hearing protector conditions at the E-A-RCAL Laboratory. IPIL is the difference between the maximum estimated pressure for the open-ear condition and the maximum pressure measured when a hearing protector is placed on an acoustic test fixture (ATF). Two models of an ATF manufactured by the French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis (ISL) were evaluated with high-level acoustic impulses created by an acoustic shock tube at levels of 134 decibels (dB), 150 dB, and 168 dB. The fixtures were identical except that the E-A-RCAL ISL fixture had ear canals that were 3 mm longer than the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ISL fixture. Four hearing protection conditions were tested: Combat Arms earplug with the valve open, ETYPlugs ® earplug, TacticalPro headset, and a dual-protector ETYPlugs earplug with TacticalPro earmuff. The IPILs measured for the E-A-RCAL fixture were 1.4 dB greater than the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ISL ATF. For the E-A-RCAL ISL ATF, the left ear IPIL was 2.0 dB greater than the right ear IPIL. For the NIOSH ATF, the right ear IPIL was 0.3 dB greater than the left ear IPIL.

Noise exposure is a known occupational health hazard to those serving in the military. Previous military epidemiology studies have identified military occupations at risk of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL); however, musicians have not been specifically mentioned. The focus of military NIHL studies is usually on those service members of the combat arms occupations. This project was a preliminary examination of Department of Defense (DoD) active duty military musicians in regard to their noise exposure, annual hearing test rates, and hearing injury rates using available data sources. The analysis concluded that DoD military musicians are an underserved population in terms of hearing conservation efforts. Noise surveillance data extracted from the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System-Industrial Hygiene showed that every musician similar exposure group (SEG) with noise survey data from 2009 to 2013 exceeded the occupation exposure level adopted by DoD Instruction 6055.12. However, only a small percentage of all DoD active duty military musicians (5.5% in the peak year of 2012) were assigned to a SEG that was actually surveyed. Hearing test data based on Current Procedural Terminology coding extracted from the Military Health System revealed that the percentage of musicians with annual hearing tests increased over the 5 years studied in all services except the Air Force. During 2013, the data showed that the Navy had the highest percentage of musicians with annual hearing tests at 70.9%, and the Air Force had the lowest at 11.4%. The Air Force had the highest percentage of hearing injuries of those musicians with annual hearing tests for all 5 years analyzed. Although noise surveillance and annual hearing tests are being conducted, they occur at a much lower rate than required for a population that is known to be overexposed to noise.

The objective of this study was to define the risk of hearing loss among US military members in relation to their deployment experiences. Data were drawn from the Millennium Cohort Study. Self-reported data and objective military service data were used to assess exposures and outcomes. Among all 48,540 participants, 7.5% self-reported new-onset hearing loss. Self-reported hearing loss showed moderate to substantial agreement (k = 0.57-0.69) with objective audiometric measures. New-onset hearing loss was associated with combat deployment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.49-1.77), as well as male sex and older age. Among deployers, new-onset hearing loss was also associated with proximity to improvised explosive devices (AOR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.62-2.73) and with experiencing a combat-related head injury (AOR = 6.88, 95% CI = 3.77-12.54). These findings have implications for health care and disability planning, as well as for prevention programs.

The workplace contributes significantly to the total dose of daily noise to which a person is subjected. Therefore, millions of people around the world are exposed to potentially dangerous noise levels and consequently, there is an urgent, global need for legislation to adequately protect the auditory health of workers. Occupational noise legislation has been adopted in many of the countries with different degrees of comprehensiveness and varying levels of sophistication. This paper presents a global view of current legislation on occupational noise in the 22 countries that make up the Americas, that is, Latin America, Canada, and the United States. Upon analysis of the legislation, there are notable differences among countries in the defined values for permissible exposure limit (PEL) and exchange rate. Of the countries that have regulations, the majority (81%) use a PEL of 85 dBA. A PEL of 85 dBA and the 3-dB exchange rate are currently used by 32% of the nations in the Americas. Most nations limit impulsive noise exposure to a peak unweighted sound pressure level of 140 dB (or dBC), while a few use slightly lower limits. However, 27% of the countries in the region still have not established regulations with respect to permissible noise levels and exchange rates. This fact is leaving millions of workers in the Americas unprotected against occupational noise. Provide an overview and analysis of the current legislation on occupational noise in the 22 countries that make up the Americas. The information on legislation, regulations, and standards discussed in this paper were obtained directly from official government sources in each country, the International Labour Organization database, or through various colleagues in each country. (1) There are notable differences among countries in the defined values for PEL and exchange rate. (2) Of the countries that have regulations, the majority (81%) use a PEL of 85 dBA. A PEL of 85 dBA and the 3-dB exchange rate are currently used by 32% of the nations in the Americas. (3) Most nations limit impulsive noise exposure to a peak unweighted sound pressure level of 140 dB (or dBC), while a few use slightly lower limits. (4) 27% of the countries in the region still have not established regulations with respect to permissible noise levels and exchange rates. (5) Millions of workers in the Americas are unprotected against occupational noise.

On the basis of the literature review the critical analysis of the recommendations (the letter of Ministry of Health of Russia from 6/11/2012 N 14-1/10/2-3508) on occupation noise-induced hearing loss (HL) assessment is presented. Need of more strict criteria of HL assessment for workers, than for the general population according to ICF (WHO, 2001), in order to avoid growth of accidents and injury rate is proved. The illegitimacy of a deduction of statistical presbiacusia values from individual audiograms as human rights violation is stressed. Some terminological defects are noted. It is necessary to cancel recommendations and to develop the sanitary norms or state standard with the program of hearing conservation at work.

Hearing loss afflicts millions of people throughout the world, and many of those millions are workers who have been exposed to excessive noise. People have always been surrounded by a variety of sounds in their environments, but the invention of gunpowder and the Industrial Revolution introduced new sounds of greater intensity than ever before. It is only within the past 40 years that serious efforts to reduce excessive noise at work sites have been initiated. In the latter half of the 20th century, many governments imposed regulations to limit workers' exposure to loud sounds. Because of this recent action, some people may believe that the recognition of occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is relatively new. However, a review of selected historical and medical manuscripts, books, and articles show that the association of hearing changes with loud noise exposure was recognized for centuries before systematic attempts were made to limit the exposure. Delays in implementing controls to limit noise exposure were due to cultural reasons, technical problems in controlling noise generation, and a lack of understanding of the mechanics of hearing loss. A historical perspective on this issue may remind health care providers that they need to continue to emphasize hearing conservation measures as occupational noise exposures change with the shift of industrial activities between countries., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Young people are likely to experience noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), as the use of personal listening devices and other damaging factors (e.g., video games) increases. Little research has examined the role of school health personnel in the prevention and early identification of hearing impairment. A 32-item, valid and reliable survey was developed regarding elementary and middle school nurses' practices concerning hearing loss screening and prevention. The survey instrument was based on the Stages of Change theory and the Health Belief Model. A random sample of 800 nurses was obtained from The National Association of School Nurses. A two-wave mailing was used to achieve a 58% response rate. Forty eight percent indicated there were not many educational programs that addressed NIHL in students. Performing hearing screenings routinely can help identify those students at risk. School nurses need to become advocates for policies and programs that mandate hearing screenings and educational programs to help reduce hearing loss.

Noise represents one of the most common occupational health hazards. A Healthy People 2020 objective aims to reduce hearing loss in the noise-exposed public. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare perceived and measured hearing, and to determine the prevalence of hearing loss among a group of factory workers. Data collected as part of an intervention study promoting hearing protector use among workers at an automotive factory in the Midwest were used. Plant employees (n=2691) provided information regarding their perceived hearing ability, work role, and other demographics. The relationships among audiograms, a single-item measure of perceived hearing ability, and demographic data were explored using chi-square, McNemar's test, Mann-Whitney U-test, sensitivity, and specificity. The prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed factory workers was 42% (where hearing loss was defined as >25 dB loss at the OSHA-recommended frequencies of 2, 3, and 4 kHz in either ear). However, 76% of workers reported their hearing ability as excellent or good. The difference in perceived hearing ability was significant at each tested frequency between those with and without measured hearing loss. Self-reported hearing ability was poorly related to results of audiometry. Although this group of workers was employed in a regulated environment and served by a hearing conservation program, hearing loss was highly prevalent. These findings, together with national prevalence estimates, support the need for evaluation of hearing conservation programs and increased attention to the national goal of reducing adult hearing loss.

Prolonged exposure to high-intensity noise has been associated with noise-induced hearing loss, hypertension, psychological stress, and irritability. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health considers levels above 85 decibels (dB) as harmful. In the study reported here, we sought to determine whether noise levels in orthopedic cast clinics were within safe limits. A calibrated noise dosimeter was worn by cast technologists during 7 adult and 7 pediatric cast clinics, and noise levels were recorded. Mean equivalent continuous noise levels were 77.8 dB (adult clinics) and 76.5 dB (pediatric clinics), mean noise levels adjusted for an 8-hour day were 76.6 dB (adult) and 75.9 dB (pediatric), and mean peak noise levels were 140.0 dB (adult) and 140.7 dB (pediatric). Mean noise levels in cast clinics were within safe limits and there was no statistical difference in noise levels between adult and pediatric clinics. However, peak noise levels in all clinics exceeded recommended limits, and even brief exposure to noise of this intensity may be hazardous.

Purpose: In addition to sounds from dental equipment, pediatric dentists are exposed to noise produced by precooperative and/or noncooperative children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the daily personal noise exposure of a pediatric dentistry resident while treating children in a teaching clinic to determine both comprehensive noise doses and peak noise occurrences as well as to assess the risk for noise-induced hearing loss., Methods: A noise dosimeter (Noise-Pro DLX) was used to measure the total personal noise exposure dose using the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hearing Conservation Amendment criteria and the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) occupational noise exposure revised criteria. Comprehensive noise doses for 31 days were obtained for a single resident., Results: OSHA and NIOSH-allowable limits were not exceeded during any one day in the study period. Noise levels during crying episodes, however, were higher than the reported noise levels of dental instruments and reached maximum levels of 112.9 dBA., Conclusions: Noise levels to which the pediatric dental resident was exposed fell below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's damage-risk thresholds for noise-induced hearing loss.

Damage-risk criteria (DRC) for noise exposures are designed to protect 95% of the exposed populations from hearing injuries caused by those noise exposures. The current DRC used by the US military follows OSHA guidelines for continuous noise. The current military DRC for impulse exposures follows the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences--National Research Council Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA) and are contained in the current military standard, MIL-STD-1474D "Noise Limits." Suggesting that the MIL-STD for impulse exposure is too stringent, various individuals have proposed that the DRC for exposure to high-level impulses be relaxed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current hearing status of US Army Soldiers, some of whom can be, by their military occupational specialties (MOS), reasonably expected to be routinely exposed to high-level impulses from weapon systems. The Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System--Hearing Conservation (DOEHRS-HC) was queried for the hearing status of enlisted Soldiers of 32 different MOSs. The results indicated that less than 95% of the Soldiers in the DOEHRS-HC database were classified as having normal hearing. In other words, the goal of the DRC used for limiting noise injuries (from continuous and impulse exposures) was not stringent enough to prevent hearing injuries in all but the most susceptible Soldiers. These results suggest that the current military noise DRC should not be relaxed.

In March 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was asked to evaluate the noise exposure of employees in the Nutrition and Food Services Department of a large hospital, because of noise concerns raised after the installation of the PowerSoak dishwashing system. Eleven employees (two cooks, eight food service workers, and a materials handler) contributed 13 full-shift and two task-based personal noise dosimetry measures over two days. The noise levels for two food service workers assigned to the pots and pans room (85.1 and 85.2dBA), a cook working in the food preparation area (85.9 dBA), and a food service worker assigned to the dishwashing room (89.5 dBA) exceeded the NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL); however, none of the measures exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). The noise level from the PowerSoak dishwashing system alone was not excessive, but additional noise from the food preparation area (primarily from blenders and utensils), and from metal-to-metal contact between stainless steel pots and pans and metal racks, may explain exposures above the NIOSH REL for employees in the pots and pans room. The cooks were exposed to many intermittent impact noise sources, such as, metal-to-metal contact between utensils and the use of industrial-size blenders. We recommended that metal-to-metal contact be reduced as much as possible throughout the Nutrition and Food Services Department, and hearing protectors be provided to employees in the dishwashing room until engineering controls were in place.

Purpose: To determine the decibel sound pressure levels generated during extracorporeal lithotripsy for salivary stones, and if such lithotriptor noise levels have the potential for acoustic trauma., Patients and Materials: Minilith SL-1 salivary gland lithotriptor, sound level meter; five patient survey., Methods: Decibel measurements were conducted on the lithotripter-generated sounds, using a sound level meter at specific distances from the active element. In addition, a patient survey was conducted as a cross-reference, to enable comparison of predicted results with actual human perception of sound levels., Results: Sound levels ranged between 68 and 80 dB during treatment sessions, for both the lithotriptor operator and the patient., Conclusion: During routine use, no acoustic trauma is incurred by either the lithotriptor operator or the patient.

Background: Noise-induced hearing loss is a major cause of deafness and hearing impairment in the United States. Though genetics and advanced age are major risk factors, temporary and permanent hearing impairments are becoming more common among young adults and children especially with the increased exposure to portable music players. Though treatment options are limited for most people with noise-related hearing loss, several modifiable health behaviors that should begin in childhood might prevent or delay the onset of hearing impairment. The purpose of this article is to review modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors, comorbidity, and the role of health education in the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss., Methods: Review of current literature in the etiology, prevention, and treatment of noise-induced hearing loss as well as the role of health education., Results: Non-modifiable risk factors related to noise-related hearing loss include increasing age, genetics, male gender, and race. Modifiable risk factors are voluntary exposure to loud noise, nonuse of hearing protection, smoking, lack of exercise, poor diet, tooth loss, and the presence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease., Conclusions: As hearing impairment among children and teenagers rises due to mostly voluntary exposure to loud noise, there are many implications for health education. Health educators need to address barriers to the use of hearing protection, deliberate exposure to loud music, and other modifiable risk factors, which cause and exacerbate hearing loss among those exposed to loud noise.

Variability in background risk and distribution of various risk factors for hearing loss may explain some of the diversity in excess risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). This paper examines the impact of various risk factors on excess risk estimates of NIHL using data from the 1968-1972 NIOSH Occupational Noise and Hearing Survey (ONHS). Previous analyses of a subset of these data focused on 1172 highly "screened" workers. In the current analysis, an additional 894 white males (609 noise-exposed and 285 controls), who were excluded for various reasons (i.e., nonoccupational noise exposure, otologic or medical conditions affecting hearing, prior occupational noise exposure) have been added 2066) to assess excess risk of noise-induced material impairment in an unscreened population. Data are analyzed by age, duration of exposure, and sound level (8-h TWA) for four different definitions of noise-induced hearing impairment, defined as the binaural pure-tone average (PTA) hearing threshold level greater than 25 dB for the following frequencies: (a) 1-4 kHz (PTA1234), (b) 1-3 kHz (PTA123), (c) 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz (PTA512), and (d) 3, 4, and 6 kHz (PTA346). Results indicate that populations with higher background risks of hearing loss may show lower excess risks attributable to noise relative to highly screened populations. Estimates of lifetime excess risk of hearing impairment were found to be significantly different between screened and unscreened population for noise levels greater than 90 dBA. Predicted age-related risk of material hearing impairment in the ONHS unscreened population was similar to that predicted from Annex B and C of ANSI S3.44 for ages less than 60 years. Results underscore the importance of understanding differential risk patterns for hearing loss and the use of appropriate reference (control) populations when evaluating risk of noise-induced hearing impairment among contemporary industrial populations.

Noise is a health risk. The only scientifically established adverse health effect of noise is noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Besides noise may affect quality of life and cause annoyance and sleep disturbance. The present scientific evidence of potential non-auditory effects of noise on health is quite weak. Whether health promotion works in relation to noise may be reflected by permanent hearing threshold shift development in population studies. Hearing impairment continues to be the most prevalent disability in Western societies. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) still rates noise induced hearing loss among the top ten work-related problems. Recent studies report that employees continue to develop noise induced hearing loss although to a lesser extent than before, in spite of occupational hearing conservation programmes. Besides socio-acusis and leisure noise seem to be an increasing hazard to hearing, also in young children and adolescents. This seems partly related to acute leisure noise exposure (e.g. toy pistols, amplified music). However, population studies increasingly find non-normal high-frequency hearing including the characteristic NIHL-"notch" around 6 kHz also in subjects who do not report noise exposure incidents or activities. Today 12.5% of US children 6-19 years show a noise-"notch" in one or both ears (n= 5249, Niskar et al 2001). A Norwegian county audiometry survey on adults >/= 20 years n=51.975) showed mean unscreened thresholds +10 dB at 6 kHz for both genders even or the youngest age group 20-24 years (Borchgrevink et al 2001). Accordingly, the present health promotion initiatives seem insufficient in relation to noise and noise-induced hearing loss.

Previous research has suggested that farmers are at increased risk for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) due to excessive amounts of loud noise exposure from farming equipment. This study was conducted to determine the perceived effects of hearing loss in a small farming population. Ninety-three subjects, ranging in age from 18 to 75 years and actively engaged in the farming industry, were asked to complete a case history form regarding noise exposure and demographic information. Hearing sensitivity was assessed by obtaining air conduction thresholds at audiometric test frequencies 500-8000 Hz bilaterally. Subjects completed the Self Assessment of Communication (SAC) hearing handicap scale if any threshold in either ear was poorer than 25 dB HL. Study results revealed that the presence of high-frequency hearing loss and perceived hearing handicap increased with age, with the largest effects seen in those over 50 years of age. The, relationship between SAC scores and four hearing handicap formulae utilizing different pure-tone averages was also investigated. The highest correlation coefficients occurred for formulae employing higher frequencies and excluding 500 Hz in the calculation. Implications of this study are that audiologists should be aware of the potential hearing handicap associated with high-frequency hearing loss in the farming population and educational programs concerning the dangers of noise and ways to prevent NIHL should be developed for those in farming occupations.

Forty-two noise exposures and 164 whole-body (WBV) and hand-arm (HAV) vibration exposures were collected from 43 forestry workers in six trades employed by two forestry companies. Data were collected on 10 days over 8 weeks during various felling, logging, and log handling operations. Up to 5 volunteers were monitored for noise and vibration daily using datalogging noise dosimeters, which provided daily time-weighted averages (TWAs) and 1-min averages; and a precision sound level meter equipped to measure human vibration, which provided triaxial HAV and WBV event-weighted averages (AEQS). Workers completed a short questionnaire throughout the workday detailing the timing and number of tasks performed and equipment used. Substantial overexposures to noise and vibration were seen; for example, 60% of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) TWAs and 83% of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) noise TWAs exceeded 85 dBA, 33-53% of the axis-specific HAV AEQS exceeded the 8-hour American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' HAV threshold limit value, and 34% of all summary weighted WBV AEQS exceeded the Commission of the European Communities' 8-hour exposure limit. The mean for 99 WBV summary weighted AEQ was 3.53 +/- 7.12 m/sec2, whereas the mean for 65 HAV summary weighted AEQ was 5.45 +/- 5.25 m/sec2. The mean OSHA TWA was 86.1 +/- 6.2 dBA, whereas the mean NIOSH TWA was 90.2 +/- 5.1 dBA. The task and tool with the highest exposure levels were unbelling chokers on landings and chain saws (noise), log processing and frontend loaders (WBV), and notching stumps and chain saws (HAV). An internal validation substudy indicated excellent agreement between worker-reported and researcher-documented tasks and tools.

Background: Occupational noise-induced hearing loss remains epidemic in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and aircrew members continue to be affected. This study examines noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) observed among USAF cryptolinguists that is attributable to radio noise and attempts to determine whether the current USAF Hearing Conservation Program (HCP) adequately identifies NIHL., Methods: Audiograms from 120 ground-based cryptolinguists were examined. Comparisons were made between 1998 audiograms and either the reference audiogram or the enlistment audiogram. To determine HCP effectiveness, results were compared with the USAF standard of 3% or fewer permanent threshold shifts (PTS) per year., Results: Some 13.3% of the cryptolinguists experienced standard threshold shifts (STS) between their enlistment audiogram and their initial occupational (reference) audiogram; 9.2% experienced STS in 1998 as compared with their initial enlistment audiogram but only 6 of the 11 (54%) were detectable using the reference audiogram as the baseline. The frequency pattern of changes in hearing thresholds was characteristic for NIHL., Conclusions: The NIHL that occurs among cryptolinguists prior to performance of the reference audiogram, and the hearing threshold shifts that occur between the enlistment audiogram and the reference audiogram, may obscure future hearing loss in the population. The incidence of PTS appeared to exceed 3% when the enlistment audiogram was used. While this result was not significantly different from 3%, sample size limitations and data accuracy concerns warrant that this population be closely watched in the future.

The auditory and nonauditory effects of noise can be quite profound, affecting approximately 15 to 20 million Americans. As with most occupational toxins, recognition and careful assessment of noise exposure are the foundation on which preventive measures and treatment are based. Dosimeters can measure noise exposure over specific time periods. Pure tone air conduction audiometric monitoring should be performed on an annual basis in workers at risk for significant noise exposure. Occupational infectious disease involves far more than hepatitis and tuberculosis. Periodic fever, dermatologic manifestations and other symptoms peculiar to a specific disease may be important clues to an occupationally related exposure. Whereas strict attention to hand washing and isolation are cornerstones of prevention, use of protective gear is mandated in certain situations. Zoonotic disease, agriculture exposure, water transmission, and biologic contaminants in buildings can be important but subtle exposures sources. Recognition of these infections often depends on the alertness of the primary care giver.