Evaluating the Effectiveness of Earplugs in Preventing Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in an Auto Parts Factory in China.

A survey was administered to 385 noise-exposed workers from an auto parts factory and 1268 non-noise-exposed health department employees in China. Individual 8 h A-weighted equivalent sound levels (LAeq,8h), earplug personal attenuation ratings (PARs), and pure-tone audiometric tests were performed. The average LAeq,8h of noise-exposed workers was 87 dB (A) with a mean PAR of 7 dB. The prevalence of high-frequency hearing loss was 65% for noise-exposed workers and 33% for the non-noise-exposed employees. The use of earplugs had no observable effect on the prevalence of high-frequency hearing loss of the study participants (OR 0.964, 95% CI 0.925-1.005, p = 0.085). No significant relationship between the effectiveness offered by earplug use and high-frequency hearing thresholds at 3, 4, and 6 kHz was found (t = -1.54, p = 0.125). The mandatory requirement of earplug use without individualized training on how to wear HPDs correctly had no detectable effect on the prevention of hearing loss at the auto parts factory. The hearing conservation program at the surveyed factory was not effective. Periodic hearing tests, earplug fit testing, expanding the offer of different types of hearing protection, and employee education about the importance of protecting their hearing were recommended to the occupational health and safety program.

How hearing conservation training format impacts personal attenuation ratings in U.S. Marine Corps Training Recruits.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this fit-testing study in the field was to systematically compare three Hearing Protection Device (HPD) fit-training methods and determine whether they differ in the acquisition of HPD fitting skill and resulting amount of earplug attenuation. DESIGN: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive HPD fit-training using one of three training methods: current, experiential HPD (eHPD), and integrated. Personal Attenuation Ratings (PARs) were acquired via HPD fit-testing and used to verify attenuations pre- and post-training. STUDY SAMPLE: US Marine training recruits (n = 341) identified via HPD fit-testing for remedial HPD fit-training and assigned to three cohorts. RESULTS: The post-training HPD fit-test passing rate differed by training method, with pass rates ranging from 50% (current) to nearly 92% (eHPD). The difference between group delta PAR values were significantly higher (>9 dB) in both the eHPD and integrated methods compared to the current method. CONCLUSION: The HPD fit-training methods that teach "what right feels like" (eHPD and integrated) provided a greater number of trainees with the skill to achieve noise attenuation values required for impulse noise exposures encountered during basic training. The attenuation achieved by those methods was significantly greater than the current training method.

Individual Fit Testing of Hearing-Protection Devices Based on Microphones in Real Ears among Workers in Industries with High-Noise-Level Manufacturing.

Hearing-protection devices (HPDs) are particularly important in protecting the hearing of workers. The aim of this study was to prevent hearing damage in workplaces in Taiwan. It was conducted to determine the actual sound attenuation of the personal attenuation rating (PAR) values when wearing HPDs via measurements from field microphones in workers' real ears (F-MIRE). Across 105 measurement trials for the Classic™ roll-down foam earplug HPDs worn by the workers, there were 23 cases of ineffective protection (including caution and fail); the proportion was 20% (including the first measurement and re-wear of HPDs after education and training). In addition, re-education and training in how to wear the HPDs was provided, improving wearing skills. A total of 29 testees wearing the Classic™ roll-down foam earplug HPDs failed to meet the pass standard for the first PAR test, and 6 of them improved and subsequently passed the PAR test. The improvement rate was 20%. These 23 testees switched to another HPD, namely Kneading-Free Push-Ins™ earplugs. From this group, 16 effective sound attenuation values were obtained, with an improvement rate of 70%. However, seven testees failed to pass the PAR test, and after education, training, and replacement of HPDs with different types, they still could not pass the PAR test. At that time, even if the UltraFit™ pre-molded earplugs were adopted again for wear and replacement, they were still unable to pass the PAR test. This HPD was eventually replaced with the PELTOR X4A Earmuff HPD and then tested again, with these HPDs finally passing the PAR test. In Taiwan, the use of fit testing has been increasing but it is not a common practice, and few studies on hearing-protection fit testing have been conducted in this country. The goal of this study was to gain more insight into the current hearing protection situation, including field attenuation of HPDs obtained by workers, the effects of training on improving the attenuation of HPDs after F-MIRE measurements, and the awareness of hearing health and motivation on the use of HPDs in a high-noise-level environment.

Evaluating the effect of training along with fit testing on foam earplug users in four factories in China.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into the hearing protection practice of Chinese workers and the value of hearing protection fit testing. DESIGN: The Field Attenuation Estimation System (FAES) was used to measure the personal attenuation ratings (PARs) of one foam earplug used at the work sites in China. Intervention was provided to workers who needed it. Follow-up fit testing was conducted approximately six months later. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline, post-intervention and follow-up visit PARs. STUDY SAMPLE: Fit testing was conducted on 335 workers in four factories with 269 workers intervened. Follow-up visit was conducted on 97 intervened workers in three factories. RESULTS: The mean PAR baseline was 10 dB. Significant improvement was shown on post-intervention PARs (p < 0.05) as well as follow-up visit PARs (p < 0.05). Comparing follow-up visit PARs to post-intervention PARs, good sustainability was shown in two factories (p > 0.05), while a significant decline (p < 0.05) was observed in another. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing protection fit testing demonstrated value for verifying sufficiency of attenuation. The training along with fit testing contributed to improve PARs and maintaining effectiveness over time. Employer's attention and follow-up actions are important in sustaining the training effectiveness.

Evaluating the effect of training along with fit testing on earmuff users in a Chinese textile factory.

A hearing protection fit testing was conducted on workers (n = 189) in a textile factory in southern China. The 3M E-A-Rfit Dual-Ear Validation System was used to measure the personal attenuation rating (PAR) on an over-the-head style earmuff at the work site. In addition, PARs were obtained several times throughout the same work shift to capture different fits on 39 workers. Follow-up visits were conducted in approximate 6-month or 12-month intervals to repeat the fit testing. Both the immediate and residual effects of training on the field attenuation of hearing protection devices obtained by workers, and the effects of training toward improving the attenuation and protection of earmuffs after a period of daily use, were observed. A questionnaire survey was used to assess the awareness of hearing health and motivation toward the use of earmuffs in a high temperature environment. The results showed that there were wide variations in PARs among the workers tested. The one-on-one training together with fit testing improved PAR and helped to reduce the negative impact caused by use of protective hair covers. Since earmuffs are often used for long periods of time (>1 year), repeating fit tests could be helpful in order to verify the attenuation received throughout their useful life.