Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15885208

[Measuring noise].

Abstract

High levels of noise encountered both in leisure activities and at workplaces can be somewhat annoying, but they can also cause hearing damage. In order to lessen these risks, some physical characteristics of the sound phenomenon need to be understood. The level of a sound is given in dB, a logarithmic unit in which simple addition is not available : 100 dB + 100 dB = 103 dB. The highest level of noise which can be tolerated by the human ear is considered to be 120 dB. Another component of sound characteristics is the frequency, which describes the height of a sound. The frequency is given in Hz, the human hearing field is comprised in the range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. Regarding the sensitivity of the ear, depending on the frequency, acusticians use a weighed dB, called dB(A), which takes into account a lower risk to hearing below 500 Hz and above 6 kHz. They also integrate the energy measured during a period of time to take the fluctuation of usual noise levels into account. So that currently, the levels of noise are often given in LAeq (equivalent to the level of continuous noise given in dBA). For moderate levels of noise, another weighted filter is used in sound level meters : the C curve, because low frequencies, although they are less dangerous for the ear, are more disturbing. In every day life, we sometimes have noise levels reaching 100 dB, and even 120 dB (fire alarms). Amplified music can reach 110 dBA, but a French regulation limits the output of PCPs (Walkmans) to 100 dB and the levels in concerts and discotheques to 105 dBA. At the workplace, the maximum level of noise allowed by French Law is 90 dBA for an 8 hour exposure, and 140 dB for peaks. In order to improve the protection of all workers in the EC, a recent European Directive will decrease the maximum level to 87 dBA before March 2006.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Christian Meyer-Bisch. 2005. [Measuring noise].. https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci%2F2005215546

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Should we aspirate middle-ear effusions prior to insertion of ventilation tubes?

BACKGROUND: Routine aspiration of middle-ear effusions prior to ventilation tube (grommet) insertion is practised by many surgeons. It has been suggested that removing the fluid from the middle ear improves immediate post-operative hearing levels and reduces the chance of the ventilation tube becoming obstructed. The potential adverse effects of applying suction to the middle ear include acoustic trauma and an increased risk of tympanosclerosis and otorrhoea. We undertook a review of the literature in order to determine the benefits or side effects associated with middle-ear aspiration prior to ventilation tube insertion. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes associated with aspirating versus not aspirating the middle ear prior to ventilation tube insertion. METHODS: The Cochrane ENT group trials register, DARE, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1960-2005) and EMBASE (1960-2005) were searched using relevant terms. Reference lists of selected studies were scanned for additional research material. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified, of which three fitted the inclusion criteria of our review. Current evidence suggests that aspiration of middle-ear effusions prior to insertion of ventilation tubes is not associated with any improvement in clinical outcome, in terms of post-operative hearing levels, otorrhoea or rates of blockage of ventilation tubes. Significantly increased rates of tympanosclerosis were observed in one study and the development of acoustic trauma was observed; however, no significant association was confirmed. Although more research is needed, there is no evidence that aspiration of middle-ear effusion prior to grommet insertion confers any advantage.

Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced↗

Design of optimal noise hazard control strategy with budget constraint.

An analytical design procedure to determine optimal noise hazard control strategies for industrial facilities is presented. Its objective is to determine a set of appropriate noise controls to eliminate or reduce noise levels so that workers' daily noise exposure does not exceed a permissible level. From a given noise control budget, engineering controls will be firstly implemented, followed by administrative controls, and then the use of hearing protection devices. Six optimization models are developed and sequentially applied to select appropriate noise controls without exceeding the budget. Numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the application of the proposed design procedure.

Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced↗