[Evaluation of noise exposure and risk of hearing impairment in employees using communication headsets or headphones]. / Ocena narazenia na halas i ryzyko uszkodzenia sluchu u pracowników uzywajacych sluchawkowych zestawów komunikacyjnych lub sluchawek.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the noise exposure and risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) among users of communication headsets (CHs) or headphones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Noise measurements and questionnaire surveys were carried out in 74 workers (aged: 31.8±7.3 years), including military aviation personnel (N = 12), transcribers (N = 18) and call center operators (N = 44). Sound pressure levels (SPLs) emitted by CHs (or headphones) were determined using the microphone in the real ear (MIRE) technique and artificial ear techniques according to PN-EN ISO 11904-1:2008 and CSA Z107.56-13, respectively. The risk of NIHL was evaluated in accordance with PN-ISO 1999:2000. RESULTS: The diffused-field-related A-weighted equivalent-continuous SPLs measured under CHs (or headphones) using the MIRE and artificial ear techniques reached values of 67-86 dB (10-90th percentile) and 68-89 dB (10-90th percentile), respectively. The study subjects used these devices 1.5-8 h (10-90th percentile) per day. Exposure to such noise levels for 40 years of employment causes the risk of hearing impairment (mean hearing threshold level for 2, 3 and 4 kHz > 25 dB) up to 10-12% (MIRE technique) or 19-22% (artificial ear technique). Individual daily noise exposure levels in study group varied 71-85 dB (10-90th percentile). A number of workers complained of problems with understanding speech in noisy environment (28.4%) and hearing whisper (16.2%) and experienced post-work temporary hearing symptoms (16.2-25.7%) as well. CONCLUSIONS: The users of CHs and headphones should be included in the hearing conservation program. Further studies are also needed among employees of other industries. Med Pr. 2019;70(1):27-52.

Noise exposure and hearing status among call center operators.

INTRODUCTION: The overall objective of the study was to assess noise exposure and audiometric hearing threshold levels (HTLs) in call center operators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard pure-tone audiometry and extended high-frequency audiometry were performed in 78 participants, aged 19 to 44 years (mean ± standard deviation: 28.1 ± 6.3 years), employed up to 12 years (2.7 ± 2.9 years) at one call center. All participants were also inquired about their communication headset usage habits, hearing-related symptoms, and risk factors for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Noise exposure under headsets was evaluated using the microphone in a real ear technique as specified by ISO 11904-1:2002. The background noise prevailing in offices was also measured according to ISO 9612:2009. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A personal daily noise exposure level calculated by combining headset and nonheadset work activities ranged from 68 to 79 dBA (74.7 ± 2.5 dBA). Majority (92.3%) of study participants had normal hearing in both ears (mean HTL in the frequency range of 0.25-8 kHz ≤20 dB HL). However, their HTLs in the frequency range of 0.25 to 8 kHz were worse than the expected median values for equivalent highly screened otologically normal population, whereas above 8 kHz were comparable (9-11.2 kHz) or better (12.5 kHz). High-frequency hearing loss (mean HTLs at 3, 4, and 6 kHz >20 dB HL) and speech-frequency hearing loss (mean HTLs at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz >20 dB HL) were noted in 8.3% and 6.4% of ears, respectively. High-frequency notches were found in 15.4% of analyzed audiograms. Moreover, some of call center operators reported hearing-related symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed before firm conclusions concerning the risk of NIHL in this professional group can be drawn.

Exposure to excessive sounds during orchestra rehearsals and temporary hearing changes in hearing among musicians.

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that musicians are at risk of noise-induced hearing loss. The aim of the study has been to evaluate the temporary changes of hearing in the case of orchestral musicians after group rehearsals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group comprised 18 orchestral musicians, aged 30-58 years old (mean: 40 years old) having 12-40 years (mean: 22 years) of professional experience. The temporary changes in hearing after group rehearsals were determined using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs). Noise exposures during group rehearsals were also evaluated. RESULTS: Musicians' hearing threshold levels were higher (worse) than expected for the equivalent non-noise-exposed population. Moreover, the high frequency notched audiograms were observed in some of them. After rehearsals, during which musicians were exposed to orchestral noise at A-weighted equivalent-continuous sound pressure level (normalized to 8-h working day) varied from 75.6-83.1 dB (mean: 79.4 dB). The significant post-exposure reductions of TEOAE amplitudes (approx. 0.7 dB) both for the total response and frequency bands of 2000 and 3000 Hz were noted. However, there were no significant differences between pre- and postexposure reproducibility of TEOAE. CONCLUSIONS: Obtained results have confirmed that orchestral musicians are at risk of hearing loss due to their professional activities, even at exposures to orchestral noise less than the limit values for occupational noise.

Hearing status of people occupationally exposed to ultrasonic noise.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the hearing status of operators of low-frequency ultrasonic devices compared to employees exposed to audible noise at a similar A-weighted sound pressure level (SPL) but without ultrasonic components. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Standard pure-tone audiometry, extended high-frequency audiometry (EHFA), transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE), and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE), as well as questionnaire surveys were conducted among 148 subjects, aged 43.1±10.8 years, working as ultrasonic device operators for 18.7±10.6 years. Their exposure to noise within the ultrasonic and audible frequency range was also evaluated. The control group comprised 168 workers, adjusted according to gender, age (±2 years), tenure (±2 years), and the 8-hour daily noise exposure level (LEX,8h) of ±2 dB. RESULTS: The ultrasonic device operators and the control group were exposed to audible noise at LEX,8h of 80.8±3.9 dB and 79.1±3.4, respectively. The Polish maximum admissible intensity (MAI) values for audible noise were exceeded in 16.8% of the ultrasonic device operators, while 91.2% of them were exposed to ultrasonic noise at SPL>MAI values. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the hearing threshold levels (HTLs) up to 3 kHz, while the ultrasonic device operators exhibited significantly higher (worse) HTLs, as compared to the control group, in the range of 4-14 kHz. The results of the DPOAE and TEOAE testing also indicated worse hearing among the ultrasonic device operators. However, the differences between the groups were more pronounced in the case of EHFA and DPOAEs. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of all hearing tests consistently indicated worse hearing among the ultrasonic device operators as compared to the control group. Both EHFA and DPOAE seem to be useful tools for recognizing early signs of hearing loss among ultrasonic device operators. nt J Occup Med Environ Health. 2022;35(3):309-25.

Noise exposure and hearing status among employees using communication headsets.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the hearing of employees using communication headsets with regard to their exposure to noise. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group comprised 213 employees, including 21 workers of the furniture industry, 15 court transcribers and 177 call center operators, aged 19-55 years, working with headsets for a period of up to 25 years. All the participants underwent a standard puretone audiometry, extended high-frequency audiometry (EHFA) as well as transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). Noise exposure from headsets was evaluated using the microphone in a real ear technique according to PN-EN ISO 11904-1:2008. RESULTS: Personal daily noise exposure levels ranged 57-96 dB and exceeded 85 dB only in 1.4% of the call center operators. Forty-two percent of the participants had bilateral normal hearing in the standard frequency range of 250-8000 Hz, and 33% in the extended highfrequency range of 9-16 kHz. It was found that DPOAEs were present bilaterally in 59% of the participants. Reproducibility of TEOAE at >70% and signal-to-noise ratio at >6 was exhibited by 42% and 17% of them, respectively. The 3 subgroups of workers differed in age, gender, noise exposure and type of headsets in use. However, after adjusting for age and gender, significant differences between these subgroups in terms of hearing were mostly visible in EHFA. A significant impact of age, gender, daily noise exposure level and current job tenure on hearing tests results was also noted among the call center operators and the transcribers. The most pronounced were the effects of age and gender, whereas the impact of the daily noise exposure level was less evident. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that EHFA is useful for recognizing early signs of noise-induced hearing loss among communication headset users. However, further studies are needed before any firm conclusions concerning the risk of hearing impairment due to the use of such devices can be drawn. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2022;35(5):585-614.

Pure-Tone Hearing Thresholds and Otoacoustic Emissions in Students of Music Academies.

The objective of this study was to assess the hearing of music students in relation to their exposure to excessive sounds. A standard pure-tone audiometry, transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) were determined in 163 students of music academies, aged 22.8 ± 2.6 years. A questionnaire survey and sound pressure level measurements during solo and group playing were also conducted. The control group comprised 67 subjects, mainly non-music students, aged 22.8 ± 3.3 years. Study subjects were exposed to sounds at the A-weighted weekly noise exposure level (LEX,w) from 75 to 106 dB. There were no significant differences in the hearing thresholds between groups in the frequency range of 4000-8000 Hz. However, music students compared to control group exhibited lower values of DPOAE amplitude (at 6000 and 7984 Hz) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (at 984, 6000, and 7984 Hz) as well as SNR of TEOAE (in 1000 Hz band). A significant impact of noise exposure level, type of instrument, and gender on some parameters of measured otoacoustic emissions was observed. In particular, music students having LEX,w ≥ 84.9 dB, compared to those with LEX,w < 84.9 dB, achieved significantly lower DPOAE amplitude at 3984 Hz. Meanwhile, both TEOAE and DPOAE results indicated worse hearing in students playing percussion instruments vs. wind instruments, and wind instrument players vs. students playing stringed instruments.

Response to Noise Emitted by Wind Farms in People Living in Nearby Areas.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception and annoyance of noise from wind turbines in populated areas of Poland. A questionnaire inquiry was carried out among 517 subjects, aged 18⁻88, living within 204⁻1726 m from the nearest wind turbine. For areas where respondents lived, A-weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs) were calculated as the sum of the contributions from the wind power plants in the specific area. It has been shown that the wind turbine noise at the calculated A-weighted SPL of 33⁻50 dB was perceived as annoying or highly annoying by 46% and 28% of respondents, respectively. Moreover, 34% and 18% of them said that they were annoyed or highly annoyed indoors, respectively. The perception of high annoyance was associated with the A-weighted sound pressure level or the distance from the nearest wind turbine, general attitude to wind farms, noise sensitivity and terrain shape (annoyance outdoors) or road-traffic intensity (annoyance indoors). About 48⁻66% of variance in noise annoyance rating might be explained by the aforesaid factors. It was estimated that at the distance of 1000 m the wind turbine noise might be perceived as highly annoying outdoors by 43% and 2% of people with negative and positive attitude towards wind turbines, respectively. There was no significant association between noise level (or distance) and various health and well-being aspects. However, all variables measuring health and well-being aspects, including stress symptoms, were positively associated with annoyance related to wind turbine noise.

Exposure to excessive sounds and hearing status in academic classical music students.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess hearing of music students in relation to their exposure to excessive sounds. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Standard pure-tone audiometry (PTA) was performed in 168 music students, aged 22.5±2.5 years. The control group included 67 subjects, non-music students and non-musicians, aged 22.8±3.3 years. Data on the study subjects' musical experience, instruments in use, time of weekly practice and additional risk factors for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) were identified by means of a questionnaire survey. Sound pressure levels produced by various groups of instruments during solo and group playing were also measured and analyzed. The music students' audiometric hearing threshold levels (HTLs) were compared with the theoretical predictions calculated according to the International Organization for Standardization standard ISO 1999:2013. RESULTS: It was estimated that the music students were exposed for 27.1±14.3 h/week to sounds at the A-weighted equivalent-continuous sound pressure level of 89.9±6.0 dB. There were no significant differences in HTLs between the music students and the control group in the frequency range of 4000-8000 Hz. Furthermore, in each group HTLs in the frequency range 1000-8000 Hz did not exceed 20 dB HL in 83% of the examined ears. Nevertheless, high frequency notched audiograms typical of the noise-induced hearing loss were found in 13.4% and 9% of the musicians and non-musicians, respectively. The odds ratio (OR) of notching in the music students increased significantly along with higher sound pressure levels (OR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.014-1.13, p < 0.05). The students' HTLs were worse (higher) than those of a highly screened non-noise-exposed population. Moreover, their hearing loss was less severe than that expected from sound exposure for frequencies of 3000 Hz and 4000 Hz, and it was more severe in the case of frequency of 6000 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the need for further studies and development of a hearing conservation program for music students. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2017;30(1):55-75.

Evaluation of annoyance from the wind turbine noise: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of and annoyance due to the noise from wind turbines in populated areas of Poland. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group comprised 156 subjects. All subjects were asked to fill in a questionnaire developed to enable evaluation of their living conditions, including prevalence of annoyance due to the noise from wind turbines and the self-assessment of physical health and well-being. In addition, current mental health status of the respondents was assessed using Goldberg General Health Questionnaire GHQ-12. For areas where the respondents lived, A-weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs) were calculated as the sum of the contributions from the wind power plants in the specific area. RESULTS: It has been shown that the wind turbine noise at the calculated A-weighted SPL of 30-48 dB was noticed outdoors by 60.3% of the respondents. This noise was perceived as annoying outdoors by 33.3% of the respondents, while indoors by 20.5% of them. The odds ratio of being annoyed outdoors by the wind turbine noise increased along with increasing SPLs (OR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.22-3.62). The subjects' attitude to wind turbines in general and sensitivity to landscape littering was found to have significant impact on the perceived annoyance. About 63% of variance in outdoors annoyance assessment might be explained by the noise level, general attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to landscape littering. CONCLUSIONS: Before firm conclusions can be drawn further studies are needed, including a larger number of respondents with different living environments (i.e., dissimilar terrain, different urbanization and road traffic intensity).