Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Ear Protective Devices”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 487 records · Page 27Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Hearing loss and hearing handicap in users of recreational firearms.

This investigation sought to establish the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing handicap in a population of 232 recreational firearm users. Hearing handicap was calculated based on four methods using pure-tone threshold data from the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and American Speech-Language and Hearing Association in addition to the self-report Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults-Screener (HHIA-S). Subjects (45 female and 187 male) ranging in age from 13 to 77 years (mean = 40 years, SD = 15.1) completed a short questionnaire regarding demographics and shooting practices followed by pure-tone air audiometry at Occupational Safety and Health Administration test frequencies of 500 to 6000 Hz. A total of 177 who exhibited varying degrees of hearing loss also received a face-to-face administration of the HHIA-S. Audiometric and HHIA-S results revealed that both high-frequency hearing loss and hearing handicap varied significantly as functions of age and occupation. Significant gender effects were observed audiometrically but not as a function of hearing handicap. HHIA-S scores varied significantly as a function of high-frequency (1000-4000 Hz) hearing loss. Correlation coefficients between the four different pure-tone methods of calculating hearing handicap and the self-reported HHIA-S were highest for pure-tone methods that do not employ 500 Hz in the calculation.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1975

Hearing protectors.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Ear Protective Devices↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Noise control in the transportation corridor.

This paper considers the opportunities for noise control within the route corridor required for construction of road, rail and other guided transport schemes. It deals with control of noise generation at source, and in the transmission path close to the point of generation. In this way it is possible to control the amount of acoustic power generated, and to absorb part of the radiated power at points of reflection. Purely reflective wayside barriers do little to absorb acoustic energy, merely reflecting it in a different direction. Whilst this has selfish benefits to the receptor in the shadow zone of the barrier, it makes things worse for others on the reflective side of the geometry. The paper therefore considers the options available to the engineer in the design of rolling and sliding interfaces and the use of acoustically absorptive finishes on all surfaces close to the point of noise generation. This includes the running surface itself, structural components, retaining walls, over and under passes, and the inner surfaces of track and wayside barriers.

Aircraft↗
PubMed2003

Attenuating properties of hearing protectors in versus time factor.

In the noisy environment, workers use hearing protectors to protect their hearing organ against adverse effects of noise. Hearing protectors should be well selected according to the spectrum and level of noise. The selection of hearing protectors is based on the sound attenuation values measured in laboratory conditions. Workers usually use hearing protectors provided by employers as long as there are no signs of any physical damage. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of use and storage as well as of atmospheric conditions on sound attenuation of ear-muffs. Four models of ear-muffs popular in the Polish work environment were tested for two years. They fulfilled the PN-EN 352-1 standard requirements and were granted a certification mark. Fifteen samples of each model were used by workers every working day; 10 samples were exposed to natural atmospheric conditions; and 10 samples were stored in accordance with the manufacture's advice. Temperature and humidity were checked each day. After periods of one and two years, sound attenuation was measured according to PN-EN 24869-1 standard. The observed changes in high-frequency attenuation value H. medium-frequency attenuation value M, low-frequency attenuation value L and single number rating calculated according to PN - EN ISO 4869-2, are presented. The quantitative assessment how far the period of use, storage and exposure to natural atmospheric conditions affect protection achieved by the four popular models of ear-muffs is presented.

Ear Protective Devices↗
PubMed2003

Improved communications and hearing protection in helmet systems: the communications earplug.

Despite significant advances in hearing protection and compliance with protective standards, military personnel are still subject to noise-induced hearing loss in many combat and combat support operations. Although the Army has experienced a decrease of some 15% in primary hearing loss disability cases since 1986, a fiscal year 2000 report documents a 27.5% increase in audiograms, which demonstrated significant threshold shifts in assessed personnel (N = 841/1,077). Compensation for noise-induced hearing loss disability for the Army alone exceeded $180 million in 1998. Thus, communications and hearing protection remain critical issues for personnel involved in Army operations. Aircraft, ground vehicles, and weapons produce noise levels in excess of the limits defined in current hearing conservation standards. Performance of most helmets, improved over the years, remains marginal with regard to speech intelligibility. Furthermore, these helmets do not provide adequate hearing protection. The communications earplug, which consists of a high-quality earphone coupled with an earplug protector, provides the needed extra protection. It weighs less than 15 g and is comfortable when worn over extended periods. It is considered highly acceptable by seasoned Army aviators and crewmembers.

Communication↗