[A study on the hearing protection and intervention effects of silicone earplug usage among manufacturing workers].

Objective: To assess the efficacy of silicone earplugs in protecting workers exposed to noise in a typical manufacturing environment, and to provide training interventions for workers who do not achieve the anticipated noise reduction levels, as well as examining the spectral characteristics of earplug attenuation. Methods: From June to August 2022, a total of 294 noise-exposed workers in two manufacturing enterprises equipped with the same type of earplug were studied by cluster sampling method, by conducting questionnaire surveys, collecting data, fitting tests, and providing trainings, the current noise exposure levels of workers in the industry as well as the perception about the earplug were understood. Additionally, the attenuation before and after intervention in workplace were measured, the spectral characteristics of noise reduction were were described and compared. Results: The percentage of workers with Personal Attenuation Rating (PAR) of 0 is 32.7% (96/294), and the baseline pass rates are all below 60%. There were no significant differences in pass rates based on gender, age, noise exposure, education level, or cognition of earplug effectiveness. After adjusting the way that earplugs are worn or changing the type of earplugs, all workers were able to meet their noise reduction requirements. The median PAR improvement for both companies is above 10 dB. The noise attenuation of the earplug vary with frequency, with lower attenuation at 4 000 Hz and higher attenuation at 8 000 Hz, showing some deviation from the nominal values. Conclusion: The difference between the actual sound attenuation value of earplugs and the nominal value is related to the noise frequency. When using silicone earplugs, attention should be paid to the spectral composition of the noise in the workplace.

Advancing noise management in aviation: Strategic approaches for preventing noise-induced hearing loss.

As urbanization and population growth escalate, the challenge of noise pollution intensifies, particularly within the aviation industry. This review examines current insights into noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in aviation, highlighting the risks to pilots, cabin crew, aircraft maintenance engineers, and ground staff from continuous exposure to high-level noise. It evaluates existing noise management and hearing conservation strategies, identifying key obstacles and exploring new technological solutions. While progress in developing protective devices and noise control technologies is evident, gaps in their widespread implementation persist. The study underscores the need for an integrated strategy combining regulatory compliance, technological advances, and targeted educational efforts. It advocates for global collaboration and policy development to safeguard the auditory health of aviation workers and proposes a strategic framework to enhance hearing conservation practices within the unique challenges of the aviation sector.

Hearing protection field attenuation estimation systems and associated training for reducing workers' exposure to noise.

BACKGROUND: Global Burden of Disease studies identify hearing loss as the third leading cause of years lived with a disability. Their estimates point to large societal and individual costs from unaddressed hearing difficulties. Workplace noise is an important modifiable risk factor; if addressed, it could significantly reduce the global burden of disease. In practice, providing hearing protection devices (HPDs) is the most common intervention to reduce noise exposure at work. However, lack of fit of HPDs, especially earplugs, can greatly limit their effectiveness. This may be the case for 40% of users. Testing the fit and providing instructions to improve noise attenuation might be effective. In the past two decades, hearing protection fit-test systems have been developed and evaluated in the field. They are called field attenuation estimation systems. They measure the noise attenuation obtained by individual workers using HPDs. If there is a lack of fit, instruction for better fit is provided, and may lead to better noise attenuation obtained by HPDs. OBJECTIVES: To assess: (1) the effects of field attenuation estimation systems and associated training on the noise attenuation obtained by HPDs compared to no instruction or to less instruction in workers exposed to noise; and (2) whether these interventions promote adherence to HPD use. SEARCH METHODS: We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, five other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify studies. We imposed no language or date restrictions. The latest search date was February 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs) exploring HPD fit testing in workers exposed to noise levels of more than 80 A-weighted decibels (or dBA) who use hearing protection devices. The unit 'dBA' reports on the use of a frequency-weighting filter to adjust sound measurement results to better reflect how human ears process sound. The outcome noise attenuation had to be measured either as a personal attenuation rating (PAR), PAR pass rate, or both. PAR pass rate is the percentage of workers who passed a pre-established level of sufficient attenuation from their HPDs, identified on the basis of their individual noise exposure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. We categorised interventions as fit testing of HPDs with instructions at different levels (no instructions, simple instructions, and extensive instructions). MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs (756 participants). We did not find any studies that examined whether fit testing and training contributed to hearing protector use, nor any studies that examined whether age, gender, or HPD experience influenced attenuation. We would have included any adverse effects if mentioned by the trial authors, but none reported them. None of the included studies blinded participants; two studies blinded those who delivered the intervention. Effects of fit testing of HPDs with instructions (simple or extensive) versus fit testing of HPDs without instructions Testing the fit of foam and premoulded earplugs accompanied by simple instructions probably does not improve their noise attenuation in the short term after the test (1-month follow-up: mean difference (MD) 1.62 decibels (dB), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.93 to 4.17; 1 study, 209 participants; 4-month follow-up: MD 0.40 dB, 95% CI -2.28 to 3.08; 1 study, 197 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention probably does not improve noise attenuation in the long term (MD 0.15 dB, 95% CI -3.44 to 3.74; 1 study, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fit testing of premoulded earplugs with extensive instructions on the fit of the earplugs may improve their noise attenuation at the immediate retest when compared to fit testing without instructions (MD 8.34 dB, 95% CI 7.32 to 9.36; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). Effects of fit testing of HPDs with extensive instructions versus fit testing of HPDs with simple instructions Fit testing of foam earplugs with extensive instructions probably improves their attenuation (MD 8.62 dB, 95% CI 6.31 to 10.93; 1 study, 321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and also the pass rate of sufficient attenuation (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.11; 1 study, 321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to fit testing with simple instructions immediately after the test. This is significant because every 3 dB decrease in noise exposure level halves the sound energy entering the ear. No RCTs reported on the long-term effectiveness of the HPD fit testing with extensive instructions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HPD fit testing accompanied by simple instructions probably does not improve noise attenuation from foam and premoulded earplugs. Testing the fit of foam and premoulded earplugs with extensive instructions probably improves attenuation and PAR pass rate immediately after the test. The effects of fit testing associated with training to improve attenuation may vary with types of HPDs and training methods. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence.

Sources of noise exposure across Australian workplaces: cross-sectional analysis and modelling the impact of a targeted noise-source reduction initiative.

CONTEXT: Workplace noise regulations and guidance follow the hierarchy of control model that prioritizes eliminating or reducing noise at its source. OBJECTIVES: To determine the main sources of workplace noise exposure in the Australian working population and estimate the reduction of workers exposed over the noise limit (LAeq,8h > 85 dB) if noise levels of specific tools or equipment were reduced by 10 dB. METHODS: Information on the tools used and tasks performed during each participant's last working shift was collected from 4,977 workers via telephone survey. Using a predetermined database of task-based noise levels, partial noise exposures (Pa2h) were determined for each noisy activity performed by the workers and their daily noise exposure level (LAeq,8h) was estimated. Partial exposures were categorized into 15 tool/task groups and the tally, average, and sum (Pa2h) for each group were calculated. The impacts of 5 different scenarios that simulated a reduction of 10 dB in noise emissions for specific tool groups were modelled. RESULTS: Powered tools and equipment were responsible for 59.3% of all noise exposure (Pa2h); vehicles for 10.6%; mining, refineries, and plant equipment for 5.1%; and manufacturing and food processing for 4.2%. Modelling demonstrated that a 10 dBA noise-level reduction of all powered tools and equipment would lead to a 26.4% (95% confidence interval: 22.7% to 30.3%) reduction of workers with an LAeq,8h > 85 dB. This could represent over 350,000 Australian workers no longer exposed above the workplace limit daily. CONCLUSIONS: A universal reduction of 10 dB to power tools and equipment would substantially reduce the future burden of hearing loss, tinnitus, workplace injuries, and other health effects. Initiatives to reduce the noise emissions of specific powered tool groups are warranted.

The influencing factors of hearing protection device usage among noise-exposed workers in Guangdong Province: a structural equation modeling-based survey.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous complex barriers and facilitators to continuously wearing hearing protection devices (HPDs) for noise-exposed workers. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between HPD wearing behavior and hearing protection knowledge and attitude, HPD wearing comfort, and work-related factors. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 524 noise-exposed workers in manufacturing enterprises in Guangdong Province, China. Data were collected on hearing protection knowledge and attitudes, HPD wearing comfort and behavior, and work-related factors through a questionnaire. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), we tested the association among the study variables. RESULTS: Among the total workers, 69.47% wore HPD continuously, and the attitudes of hearing protection (26.17 ± 2.958) and total HPD wearing comfort (60.13 ± 8.924) were satisfactory, while hearing protection knowledge (3.54 ± 1.552) was not enough. SEM revealed that hearing protection knowledge had direct effects on attitudes (ß = 0.333, p < 0.01) and HPD wearing behavior (ß = 0.239, p < 0.01), and the direct effect of total HPD wearing comfort on behavior was ß = 0.157 (p < 0.01). The direct effect also existed between work shifts and behavior (ß=-0.107, p < 0.05). Indirect relationships mainly existed between other work-related factors, hearing protection attitudes, and HPD wearing behavior through knowledge. Meanwhile, work operation had a direct and negative effect on attitudes (ß=-0.146, p < 0.05), and it can also indirectly and positively affect attitudes through knowledge (ß = 0.08, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The behavior of wearing HPD was influenced by hearing protection knowledge, comfort in wearing HPD, and work-related factors. The results showed that to improve the compliance of noise-exposed workers wearing HPD continuously when exposed to noise, the HPD wearing comfort and work-related factors must be taken into consideration. In addition, we evaluated HPD wearing comfort in physical and functional dimensions, and this study initially verified the availability of the questionnaire scale of HPD wearing comfort.

Quantification of suppressor effects on breech and action noise from AR-15 pattern firearms and its implications for the protection of human hearing.

Noise from firearms is well known to be harmful to human hearing. This problem has been addressed by various military units through the use of muzzle suppressors. However, as suppressor technology has advanced, shooters report hearing the mechanical action of gas-operated semi-automatic rifles (ArmaLite Rifle Model 15 style aka AR-15) as being louder than the suppressed muzzle noise. This study aims to evaluate if harmful noise is present in the shooter's ear, even when impulse noise emanating from the muzzle is suppressed. To characterize the impulse noise of the firearm action caused by the reciprocation of the bolt carrier group (BCG) and subsequent impact when it returns to battery (the forward locked position), the muzzle of a rifle was placed through a constructed plywood wall, and the noise of the action/breech was measured independently from the muzzle noise. This research finds that the impact of the BCG returning to battery (132 dBZ) has the potential to be harmful to the shooter's hearing even when the noise from the muzzle is effectively suppressed.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and Use of Hearing Protection Awareness among Medical Students in Saudi Arabia: Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is a prevalent occupational hazard among healthcare professionals, including medical students. Despite its detrimental effects, the awareness and utilization of hearing protection measures among medical students in Saudi Arabia remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: Is to determine the level of awareness and understanding of NIHL among medical students in Saudi Arabia, as well as their knowledge and usage of hearing protection measures and to identify potential barriers and facilitators for hearing protection utilization. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews. The survey collected data on demographics, knowledge of NIHL, and hearing protection practices among medical students. Subsequently, a semi-structured interview was conducted to obtain in-depth insights into the students' experiences, attitudes, and beliefs regarding NIHL and the use of hearing protection. RESULTS: The level about NIHL was 59.32%. Better access to information is associated with increased odds of awareness (odds ratio=3.07, p=0.012). Having relatives with hearing loss increases the odds of awareness (odds ratio =2.49, p=0.034). Individuals with hearing loss or impairment have higher odds of awareness (odds ratio =2.27, p=0.046). Ear Pain, temporary hearing loss, tinnitus, or ringing in the ear: These factors are not significantly associated with awareness of noise-induced hearing loss (p>0.05). Using hearing aids is strongly associated with increased odds of awareness (odds ratio =3.94, p=0.006).The quantitative analysis provided statistical information on the prevalence rates and factors influencing hearing protection usage, while the qualitative analysis uncover nuanced perspectives and experiences. CONCLUSION: This research will contribute to the understanding of NIHL and hearing protection practices among medical students in Saudi Arabia. Improving hearing protection awareness and practices among medical students can ultimately reduce the incidence of NIHL and promote a healthier work environment within the healthcare sector.

[Study on the fit testing for the workers wearing hearing protection device in machinery manufacturing enterprises].

Objective: To investigate the occupational noise hazards in five machinery manufacturing enterprises, and to evaluate the individual noise reduction values and influencing factors of workers wearing hearing protection device (HPD) by individual fit testing. Methods: From November 2021 to January 2022, 5 machinery manufacturing enterprises in Bao'an District of Shenzhen were selected to conduct an occupational health survey to understand the noise exposure level of workers. The 3MTM E-A-RfitTM fitness test system was used to test the baseline individual sound attenuation value level (PAR) of the daily wear of the ear protecters for 485 workers in typical noise working positions. Workers whose PAR values could not meet the requirements of noise reduction at work were instructed to wear and repeated tests were conducted. PAR results of the workers before and after the intervention were collected and analyzed. Results: The noise workers who received the suitability test were mainly distributed in 24 types of work, the job noise exposure level was 80.2 dB (A) ~ 95.0 dB (A), and the job noise excess rate was 52.5% (138/263). The median baseline PAR [M (Q(1), Q(3)) ] for 485 workers was 6.0 (0.0, 14.0) dB. The baseline PAR of male workers, those with more than 15 years of working experience, those with more than 15 years of using ear guards, those who considered ear guards comfortable to wear, those with college degree or above, and those exposed to noise level 90 dB (A) were higher, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). A total of 275 workers (56.7%) did not pass the baseline PAR test, and there was no statistically significant difference in the intervention rate of workers in different noise groups (P>0.05). PAR in subjects who did not pass baseline after intervention increased from 0.0 (0.0, 3.0) dB to 15.0 (12.0, 18.2) dB. Conclusion: The workplace noise hazard of machinery manufacturing enterprises is serious, and there is a great difference between the baseline PAR and the nominal value of the hearing guard worn by the noise exposed workers. The intervention measures can effectively improve the protective effect of wearing ear protectors.

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.

[Research on the protective effect of hearing protective device for workers exposed to noise in a motor manufacturing enterprise].

Objective: To understand the current situation of noise hazard in a motor manufacturing enterprise, and to explore the protective effect of workers wearing hearing protective device and its possible influencing factors. Methods: In November 2021, a total of 179 noise workers wearing hearing protective devices in a motor manufacturing company in a city were selected as research objects. Personal attenuation rating (PAR) of workers wearing hearing protective devices was measured. Baseline PAR was analyzed for different subgroups of basic demographic information, noise exposure, and the use of hearing protective devices to evaluate the effect of the intervention. Baseline PAR was compared using nonparametric tests. Results: There were 179 workers from 35 positions in 4 types of work, and the over-standard noise rate was 51.2% (42/82), among which the noise exposure intensity of motor equipment debugging workers was the highest [94.4 dB (A) ]. Compared the baseline PAR of different characteristics, it was found that the baseline PAR of male workers, workers whose daily noise exposure time were <8 h, workers who had used the hearing protective devices for 10 to 14 years, and workers who thought the hearing protective devices were comfortable were all higher, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Baseline PAR passing rate was 43.0% (77/179), and PAR of 102 workers who did not pass baseline test increased from 0 (0, 3) dB before intervention to 14 (12, 16) dB after intervention, with statistical significance (P<0.05) . Conclusion: The noise hazard in this motor manufacturing enterprise is serious, and the protective effect of workers wearing hearing protective devices is not good. Gender, daily noise exposure time, years and comfort of wearing hearing protective device are the possible influencing factors of poor protective effect.

Uso da dupla proteção auditiva na atenuação do ruído ocupacional: uma revisão sistemática / Use of double hearing protection for occupational noise attenuation: a systematic review / El uso duplo de protecctores auditivos para la reducción del ruido ocupacional: una revisión sistemática

Introdução: A Perda Auditiva Induzida por Ruído (PAIR) está associada à contínua exposição ao ruído dentro do ambiente ocupacional, é a segunda doença mais recorrente entre os trabalhadores. Objetivo: Verificar a efetividade e benefício do uso da dupla proteção auditiva na atenuação do ruído ocupacional. Método: A busca de artigos científicos foi realizada nas bases de dados MEDLINE (Pubmed), LILACS, SciELO, SCOPUS e WEB OF SCIENCE, sem restrição de idioma, período e localização. Para complementar e evitar viés de risco foi realizada uma busca por literatura cinzenta no Google Acadêmico. A revisão sistemática foi conduzida de acordo com as recomendações do Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Análises (PRISMA). Estudos que pontuaram ≥ 6 pontos de acordo com o protocolo de pontuação qualitativa proposto por Pithon et al. (2015). Resultados: A dupla proteção auditiva deverá ser utilizada quando o protetor auditivo tipo concha ou plug não fornecerem atenuação suficiente para diminuir o ruído no ambiente laboral, contudo, a atenuação sonora pelos EPI auditivos pode ser um obstáculo à comunicação e localização espacial, principalmente aos trabalhadores que possuem algum grau de PAIR. Conclusão: o uso da dupla proteção auditiva pode ser uma estratégia considerável para proteção de perdas auditivas em ambientes controlados. Novos padrões sonoros para alarmes de alerta, prevendo o aviso de acidentes em ambiente ocupacional em que o uso combinado dos dispositivos auditivos utilizados em ambientes controlados e a implantação dos sinais de banda larga como sinal padrão poderão ser utilizados como estratégias de segurança coletiva. (AU)

Introduction: Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is associated with continuous exposure to noise within the occupational environment and is the second most common disease among workers. Objective: To verify the effectiveness and benefit of using double hearing protection in attenuating occupational noise. Search Strategy: The search for scientific articles was carried out in the MEDLINE (Pubmed), LILACS, SciELO, SCOPUS and WEB OF SCIENCE databases, without restriction of language, period and location. To complement and avoid risk bias, a search for gray literature was performed on Google Scholar. Methodology: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Studies that scored ≥ 6 points according to the qualitative scoring protocol proposed by Pithon et al. (2015). Results: Double hearing protection should be used when the use of a shell or plug type hearing protector does not provide enough attenuation to reduce noise in the work environment, but this sound attenuation by hearing PPE can be an obstacle to communication and spatial location, especially to workers who have some degree of PAIR. Conclusion: the use of double hearing protection can be a considerable strategy for protecting against hearing loss in controlled environments. New sound patterns for warning alarms, providing for the warning of accidents in an occupational environment where the combined use of hearing devices used in controlled environments and the implementation of broadband signals as a standard signal can be used as collective safety strategies. (AU)

Introdución: La pérdida de audición inducida por el ruido es associada com la exposición continua el lo ambiente de trabajo y es la segunda enfermedad más comum em los trabajadores. Objectivo: Verificar la eficácia y beneficio del doble uso de los protectores auditivos em la atenuación del ruído. Método: La revisión sistemática se realizó de acuerdo con las recomendaciones para revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis (PRISMA). Los estudios que obtuvieron ≥ 6 puntos según el protocolo de puntuación cualitativa propuesto por Pithon et al. (2015). Resultados: La protección auditiva doble és utilizada cuando el uso de un protector auditivo tipo concha o enchufe no proporciona la atenuación suficiente para reducir el ruido en el ambiente de trabajo, pero esta atenuación del sonido por los EPP auditivos puede ser un obstáculo para la comunicación y la ubicación espacial, especialmente para los trabajadores con perdida de audición. Conclusión: el uso de doble protección auditiva es una estrategia considerable en ambientes controlados y seguros. Nuevos padrones sonoros para alarmas de aviso de accidentes en un entorno laboral y la implementación de señales de banda ancha como señal estándar, pueden utilizarse como estrategias de seguridad colectiva.(AU)

Association between Occupational Noise Exposure and Insomnia among Night-Shift Production Workers: A 4-Year Follow-up Study.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether occupational noise exposure is a risk factor for insomnia among male night-shift production workers. Methods: This study followed 623 male night-shift production workers at a tire manufacturing factory without insomnia for 4 years. Insomnia was evaluated based on the insomnia severity index at baseline and at 4-year follow-up. A score of ≥15 was defined as insomnia. The higher occupational noise exposure group was defined as those individuals exposed to 8-hour time-weighted-average noise above 80 dB (A). Results: Participants' mean age was 46.3 ± 5.6 years. Of the 623 participants, 362 (58.1%) were in the higher occupational noise exposure group. At 4-year follow-up, insomnia occurred in 3.2% (n = 20) of the participants. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio of insomnia was 3.36 (95% confidence interval 1.083-10.405, P = 0.036) in the higher occupational noise exposure group when compared with the lower noise exposure group after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion: Our findings suggested that occupational noise exposure affected insomnia in male night-shift production workers. To prevent insomnia, efforts are required to reduce workplace noise exposure levels. Alternatively, moving to a less noisy work environment should be considered for workers with severe insomnia.

Reinvigorating engineered noise controls: a systems approach.

OBJECTIVES: Hearing loss is a major worldwide health issue affecting an estimated 1.5 billion people. Causes of hearing loss include genetics, chemicals, medications, lifestyle habits such as smoking, and noise. Noise is probably the largest contributing factor for hearing loss. Noise arises from the workplace, ambient environment, and leisure activities. The easiest noise sources to control are workplace and environmental. Workplace noise is unique in that the employer is responsible for the noise and the worker. Also, workers may be exposed to much higher levels of noise than they would accept elsewhere. Employers follow the traditional hierarchy of controls (substitution/engineering, administrative, personal protective equipment [PPE]). Substituting or engineering a lower noise level actually reduces the hazard present to the worker but demand more capital investment. Administrative and PPE controls can be effective, but enforcement and motivation are essential to reducing risk and there is still some hearing loss for a portion of the workers. The challenge is to estimate the costs more clearly for managers. A systems engineering approach can help visualize factors affecting hearing health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, a systems engineering causal loop diagram (CLD) was developed to aid in understanding factors and their interrelationships. The CLD was then modeled in VenSim. The model was informed from the authors' expertise in hearing health and exposure science. Also, a case study was used to test the model. The model can be used to inform decision-makers of holistic costs for noise control options, with potentially better hearing health outcomes for workers. RESULTS: The CLD and cost model demonstrated a 4.3 year payback period for the engineered noise control in the case study. CONCLUSIONS: Systems thinking using a CLD and cost model for occupational hearing health controls can aid organizational managers in applying resources to control risk. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2023;36(5):672-84.

Healthcare Professionals and Noise-Generating Tools: Challenging Assumptions about Hearing Loss Risk.

Hearing loss is a significant global health concern, affecting billions of people and leading to various physical, mental, and social consequences. This paper focuses on the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) among specific healthcare professionals, especially ear surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, dentists, and dental hygienists, who frequently use noisy instruments in their professions. While studies on these professionals' noise exposure levels are limited, certain conditions and factors could pose a risk to their hearing. Measures such as engineering and administrative controls, regular audiometric testing, and the use of hearing protection devices are crucial in preventing NIHL. Early detection and intervention are also vital to mitigate further damage. This paper proposes the results of a modified screening protocol, including questionnaires, audiometry, and additional diagnostic tests to identify and address potential hearing disorders. Specific healthcare professionals should remain aware of the risks, prioritize hearing protection, and undergo regular monitoring to safeguard their long-term auditory well-being.

The relationship between exposure to noise and hearing loss in orthopaedics.

Aims: In the UK, the agricultural, military, and construction sectors have stringent rules about the use of hearing protection due to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Orthopaedic staff may also be at risk due to the use of power tools. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what are deemed acceptable occupational levels of noise on A-weighted and C-weighted scales. The aims of this review were to assess the current evidence on the testing of exposure to noise in orthopaedic operating theatres to see if it exceeds these regulations. Methods: A search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. Studies which assessed the exposure to noise for orthopaedic staff in operating theatres were included. Data about the exposure to noise were extracted from these studies and compared with the A-weighted and C-weighted acceptable levels described in the HSE regulations. Results: A total of 15 studies were deemed eligible. These included a total of 386 orthopaedic operations and the use of 64 orthopaedic instruments. A total of 294 operations (76%) and 45 instruments (70%) exceeded the regulations on an A-weighted scale, and 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C-weighted peak acceptable level of noise. Noise-induced hearing loss was reported in 28 of 55 orthopaedic staff members (50.9%). Conclusion: Safe levels of noise can be exceeded in orthopaedic operations, and when using orthopaedic instruments. Employers have clear policies about exposure to noise in the workplace but have yet to identify orthopaedic theatres as a potential at-risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring, and protection, while employers should consider regular assessments of staff in orthopaedic theatres and offer methods to prevent noise-induced hearing loss.

[Analysis of verification results of protective effects of hearing protectors in different industries].

Objective: To get insight into the current practice of noise reduction effect of workers as they wore hearing protectors in different domestic enterprises and the possible affected factors. Methods: From October 2020 to April 2021, using a random sampling method, 1197 workers exposed to noise in petrochemical factories, textile factories, and parts manufacturing factories were selected as the study subjects. The noise reduction effect of hearing protectors worn by workers in daily use was tested using a hearing protector suitability testing system. The personal sound attenuation level (PAR) was compared among workers in three enterprises, Targeted intervention and repetitive testing were conducted for workers who did not meet the noise reduction effect required by the enterprise, and the changes in PAR of workers before and after the intervention were compared. The comparison of baseline PARs between two or more groups was performed using the Mann Whitney test, the comparison of baseline PARs with post intervention PARs was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test, and the comparison of qualitative data between two or more groups was performed using the Chi square test. Results: The median baseline PAR for all workers was 15 dB. Men, age<30 years old, education level at or above college level, working experience of 5 to 15 years, and those who used hearing protectors for 5 to 15 years had higher PARs, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The median difference in baseline PAR among workers from three enterprises was statistically significant (H=175.06, P<0.01). The median PAR of subjects who did not pass the baseline increased from 3 dB to 21 dB after intervention (Z=-27.92, P<0.01) . Conclusion: Some workers wearing hearing protectors do not meet the required PAR, and low PARs may be related to incorrect wearing methods and incorrect selection of hearing protectors. As a tool for testing, training, and assisting in selection, the hearing protector suitability testing system is of great significance for worker hearing protection.

[Analysis of noise reduction measures in a noise workshop handover control room].

Objective: To explore the sound insulation, sound absorption and other noise reduction transformation methods in a noise workshop handover control room. Methods: In December 2021, through the occupational health investigation and on-site testing of the handover control room of a noise workshop, the causes of excessive noise were analyzed, and the transformation design scheme to reduce noise was proposed and the effect was analyzed. Results: Before the transformation, the peak frequency band noise intensity of the noise workshop handover control room was 112.8 dB (A), and the peak frequency was 1000 Hz. After noise reduction, the theoretical calculated control value was 61.0 dB (A), and the measured noise intensity was 59.8 dB (A) . Conclusion: The noise intensity of the handover control room is reduced after noise reduction, which is in line with the contact limit requirements of the control room in GBZ 1-2010 "Hygienic Standards for the Design of Industrial Enterprises", and has reference significance for noise control engineering.

Occupational noise exposure at sea: A socio-legal study on fish harvesters' perceptions in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

Introduction: Noise is a significant health hazard for fish harvesters. Chronic exposure to hazardous noise levels of 85 dB (A) for an 8-h work shift can have adverse health impacts, including both auditory and non-auditory health problems such as noise-induced hearing loss, stress, hypertension, sleeping disorders, and impaired cognitive performance. Methods: A review of legislation and policies governing workplace noise exposure, as well as qualitative, semi-structured interviews, were conducted to assess how fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) manage onboard occupational noise exposure and perceive noise-induced health problems, as well as the barriers and challenges associated with preventing and controlling noise exposure. Results: The legal review shows no compulsory noise preventive measure at the fishing vessel design stage in Canada. Limited implementation of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) regulations to control and prevent onboard noise by employers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fishers reported that their workplace is noisy. Over time, fish harvesters adapted to the environment and learned to tolerate loud noise, displaying fatalistic behavior. Fish harvesters reported avoiding using hearing protection onboard due to navigation safety concerns. Fishers reported hearing loss as well as other non-auditory health problems. Inadequate noise control measures adopted by employers, a limited supply of hearing protection onboard, and a lack of regular hearing testing, training, and education were identified as the main barriers to preventing and controlling noise exposure. Conclusion: Proper implementation of NL OHS regulations and the development of hearing conservation initiatives by employers are necessary. All stakeholders, including the federal and provincial governments, WorkplaceNL, and not-for-profit fishing organizations in the province, are strongly recommended to initiate training and education campaigns to help fish harvesters understand noise exposure and adopt preventive measures.

A Systematic Literature Review of the Factors Influencing Hearing Protection Device Usage among Industrial Workers.

This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to determine the factors influencing the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) among industrial workers. This study was guided by the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) review method, and four databases comprising Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed, Wiley Online Library, and Google Scholar were employed. A total of 196 articles were identified, and 28 studies on the factors associated with HPD use among industrial workers from 2006 to 2021 met the inclusion criteria. Resultantly, five main themes emerged from this review: sociodemographic (29%), interpersonal influences (18%), situational influences (18%), cognitive-perceptual (29%), and health-promoting behavior (6%) associated with HPD use among industrial workers. A total of 17 sub-themes were identified, including age, gender, educational level, noise level, working experience, social models, interpersonal support, social norms, safety climate, training, organizational support, perceived barrier, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefit, self-efficacy, and cues to action. The significant factors influencing workers to use HPDs are sociodemographic, interpersonal influences, situational influences, and health-promoting behavior. Future studies should focus on the cues to action toward human behavior influencing the use of HPDs, workers' health status, and comorbidities of hearing loss. Therefore, this systematic study gives valuable reference resources for up-and-coming researchers as well as new knowledge to expert professionals and academics in various industries.