Biomedical subjects

John R Franks

Publications and source records attributed to John R Franks.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

Oxidative DNA damage is associated with intense noise exposure in the rat.

Increasing evidence suggests that noise-induced hearing loss may be reduced or prevented with antioxidant therapy. Biochemical markers of reactive oxygen species (ROS)-induced damage can help elucidate possible treatment timing constraints. This study examined the time course of ROS damage following a 2-h, broad-band noise exposure resulting in permanent threshold shift in 35 Long-Evans rats. Cochlea, brain, liver, serum and urine were analyzed at 1, 3, 8, 72, and 672 h (28 days) after exposure. Oxidative DNA damage was assessed by measuring 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8OHdG) by high performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. Lipid peroxidation was measured via the thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) colorimetric assay for detection of aldehydes (e.g., malondialdehyde). Auditory brainstem response and distortion product otoacoustic emission thresholds showed progressive elevation for the 3- and 8-h groups, then notable recovery for the 72-h group, and some worsening for the 672-h group. 8OHdG was significantly elevated in cochlea in the 8-h group, and in brain and liver for the 72-h group. TBARS were significantly elevated in serum for the 72-h group. Based upon oxidative DNA damage present in cochlea following intense noise, we postulate that the first 8 h following exposure might be a critical period for antioxidant treatment.

8-Hydroxy-2'-Deoxyguanosine↗

PubMed2002

Hearing protector attenuation: models of attenuation distributions.

Current hearing protector rating standards estimate the protection performance for a given frequency as the mean attenuation minus a multiple of the standard deviation. Distributions of real-ear attenuation at threshold data are fit with maximum likelihood estimation procedures using both normal and mixed-normal models. Attenuations from six hearing protectors, Bilsom UF-1 earmuff, Bilsom Quietzone, E.A.R Classic, E.A.R EXPRESS Pod Plugs, Howard Leight MAX, and Wilson EP100 earplugs, measured with a subject-fit protocol are reported. The mixed-normal (bimodal) model provides a better fit to the empirical data than the unimodal model for most frequencies and protectors. Primarily, the bimodal model fits the shape of the distributions caused by data from poorly-fit protectors. This paper presents an alternative method for estimating the protection performance either with the more accurate bimodal model or directly from the empirical cumulative distributions of the attenuation data.

Auditory Threshold↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Alternative field methods for measuring hearing protector performance.

In comparison with the mandatory noise reduction rating (NRR) testing of every hearing protector sold in the United States, real-world tests of hearing protector attenuation are scarce. This study evaluated data from three potential field-test methods as compared with the subject-fit data from Method B of ANSI S12.6-1997 for the E.A.R(R) Express trade mark Pod Plug trade mark. The new field-test methods were the FitCheck headphone (FCH) method, FitCheck in sound field (FCSF) method, and bone-conduction loudness balance (BCLB) method, all of which can be administered in small single-person audiometric booths such as are commonly found in industry. Twenty normal-hearing and audiometrically competent subjects naive to hearing protector use were tested with the laboratory and the three field-test methods in a repeated-measures design. Repeated-measures models with structured covariance matrices were used to analyze the data. Significant effects were found for method, frequency, and first-order frequency-by-gender and frequency-by-method interactions. These effects and interactions were expected given the different psychophysical tasks. The FCSF and BCLB methods provided attenuations that were not significantly different from those found with Method B. Although the attenuations measured for the FCH method were statistically different (greater) than the attenuations from the other methods, the differences were within the magnitude of acceptable test-retest audiometric variability. The results suggest that the FCH and FCSF methods were both feasible and reliable methods for field testing. The FCH method is limited to testing earplugs, and the FCSF requires additional equipment to outfit the test booth, but could be used for testing all types of protectors.

Adolescent↗