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 505 records · Page 28Linked to original sources
PubMed1957

Hearing conservation: industrial aspects in California.

Impaired hearing is a serious problem. The number of persons with a significant hearing loss has been estimated to be approximately 10 per cent of the population. Hearing loss owing to exposure to noise is becoming an increasingly important disease. Although it has been recognized for more than a century, little if anything was done to prevent it until a few years ago. The initiation of hearing conservation for employees has been undertaken by many of the large companies, particularly in California. Hearing conservation includes preemployment and follow-up hearing tests, control of noise at the source and personal protection (ear plugs, ear muffs).Noise-induced hearing loss is directly related to noise-exposure. Noise must be measured in terms of volume, wave length and length of exposure. Exposure must be analyzed for daily distribution and total time. Although the noise-exposure problem is a serious one, cooperation of employee, employer and the legal and medical professions to initiate preventive programs can reduce it to a minimum.

California↗
PubMed1955

[A new ear plug].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Ear Protective Devices↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Impulse noise and risk criteria.

Impulse noise causes evidently more severe hearing loss than steady state noise. The additional effect of occupational impulse noise on hearing has been shown to be from 5 to 12 dB at 4 kHz audiometric frequency. Reported cases for compensated for hearing loss are prevalent in occupations where noise is impulsive. For impulse noise two measurement methods have been proposed: the peak level method and energy evaluation method. The applicability of the peak level method is difficult as even the recurrent impulses have different time and frequency characteristics. Various national risk criteria differ from international risk criteria. In France the maximum A-weighted peak level is 135 dB, and in the United Kingdom the C-weighted peak sound pressure is limited to 200 Pa (140 dB). This criterion of unweighted 200 Pa (140 dB) is used in European Union (EU) directive 86/188 and ISO 1999-1990 regardless of the number of impulses. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has recommended that no exposure in excess of a C-weighted peak sound pressure level of 140 dB should be permitted. At work places these norms do not cause any practical consequences since the impulses seldom exceed 140 dB peak level. In several occupations the impulses are so rapid that they contribute only a minimal amount to the energy content of noise. These impulses can damage the inner ear even though they cause reduced awareness of the hazard of noise. Based to the present knowledge it is evident that there is the inadequacy of the equal energy principle in modelling the risk for hearing loss. The hearing protectors attenuate industrial impulse noise effectively due to the high frequency contents of impulses. Directive regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from noise requires that in risk assessment attention should be paid also to impulsive noise. So far there is no valid method to combine steady state and impulse noise. A statistical method for the measurements of industrial impulse noise is needed to get a preferably single number for risk assessment. There is an urgent task to develop risk assessment method and risk criteria for impulsive noise to meet the requirements of the upcoming European Union noise directive.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

A self-controlled trial to evaluate the use of active hearing defenders in the engine rooms of operational naval vessels.

INTRODUCTION: Active Hearing Defenders are established hearing protectors with in-built electro-acoustics that shut-off ambient noise while allowing effective communication between users. METHODS: A blinded, self-controlled trial was conducted among naval servicemen to compare the effectiveness of two types of active hearing defenders (Howard-Leight Thunder TM and COM-55) in relation to passive hearing defenders in an operational environment. RESULTS: Subjects felt that the active hearing defenders were more comfortable, durable, and that the active hearing defenders helped them work better. When subjects were tested with a speech discrimination battery (Central Institute of the Deaf, Spondee Word lists), there was a significant difference (p value of 0.04, using the Kruskall-Wallis ANOVA test) between the two active and the passive defenders. However, no significant difference was found between the two types of active hearing defenders. CONCLUSION: Active hearing defenders are an acceptable and efficacious means of hearing protection in noisy environments.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Modelling the risk of noise-induced hearing loss among military pilots.

Noise is a significant risk factor in aviation, especially in military aviation. Even though our earlier studies have shown that the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) among military pilots is small and the monitoring of their hearing is effective, we still need to develop methods of assessing the risk of NIHL more effectively at both the general and individual levels. In addition, many other risk factors are considered to contribute to the development of hearing impairment. The novel NoiseScan data management system enables assessment of the risk of developing hearing impairment on the basis of known risk factors. This study investigates the risk of hearing impairment among Finnish Air Force pilots using reasonably accurate noise exposure data and other risk factors for hearing impairment. This risk is also compared with that of industrial workers, whose risk followed the ISO 1999 prediction. Hearing among Finnish military pilots turned out to be better than predicted by the ISO 1999 model. The industrial workers had a larger number of risk factors than the pilots. Owing to the small number of risk factors, the hearing of pilots corresponds to approximately the 80th percentile, being 9-13 dB better than the 50th percentile obtained with the industrial population.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Temporary changes in hearing after exposure to shooting noise.

OBJECTIVES: Firearm is a common source of impulse noise that may potentially damage hearing organ. It has been suggested that otoacoustic emissions, particularly transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE), might be more sensitive than pure-tone audiometry (PTA) in the assessment of changes to cochlea caused by noise. The aim of this study was to: (i) evaluate exposure to impulse noise from small-caliber weapons, (ii) compare the post-exposure changes in hearing measured by PTA and TEOAE and correlate them with noise parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 18 male hunters (group I) and 28 candidate policemen (group II) exposed to impulse noise from small firearms during target practices. Group I was unprotected during shooting, whereas group II used commonly available hearing protectors. PTA and TEOAE were performed before and 2-10 min after shooting. Exposure to impulse noise was evaluated by in situ measurements. RESULTS: Groups I and II were exposed to 3-4 and 4-144 impulses of noise at mean C-weighted peak sound pressure levels of 154 dB and 156 dB, respectively. No post-exposure audiometric threshold shift was observed in group I. Significant reductions of TEOAE levels were found both for the whole response (-2.2 dB SPL) and for 1/2 -octave band responses in the frequency range of 1000-4000 Hz (from -1.6 to -3.0 dB SPL). These changes were not correlated with C-weighted peak sound pressure levels or equivalent-continuous A-weighted sound pressure level. Significant correlation was found for peak sound pressure and maximum sound pressure levels in 1/3-octave bands in the frequency range corresponding with the main part of the acoustic energy of impulses (correlation coefficients r from -0.58 to -0.77, p < 0.05). In group II neither PTA nor TEOAE showed significant hearing impairment after shooting. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that even short-term exposure to impulse noise from small-calibre firearms might cause temporary hearing impairment measured by TEOAE. Therefore, the use of earmuffs is strongly recommended, because most of them seem to effectively attenuate impulse noise from small-calibre firearms.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Occupational noise and effects on blood pressure: exploring the relationship of hypertension and noise exposure in workers.

Hearing loss is the second most self reported occupational illness or injury. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, approximately 30 million workers are exposed to hazardous noise on the job. Often only hearing loss is thought of when one refers to occupational noise, but there may be other factors to consider when addressing occupational noise such as blood pressure. What is not clear, however, is whether noise contributes to changes in blood pressure. Occupational noise is a problem in various settings and comes with known and possible health consequences. To identify and prevent possible health related effects, workplace monitoring, audiometry, and blood pressure screenings are essential. When in work settings with elevated noise exposures, occupational and environmental health nurses should be focused on creating a program designed to prevent exposure to high levels of occupational noise.

Audiometry↗
PubMed2004

[Serum cortisol levels in pre and post journal labor and non auditory manifestations in noise exposed workers of a brewer industry].

The purpose of this work was to determine the effects of environmental noise in the serum cortisol levels pre and post journal labor and the presence of non-auditory manifestations in workers of a brewer industry. A transversal study was carried out selecting at random 40 workers exposed to noise from the packing area, with ages between 20 and 55 years; and 40 workers from the administrative area without occupational exposition. The exposition was established by means of a medical-occupational history. A 5 mL whole blood sample was taken from each worker pre and post labor day to measure the serum cortisol for electrochemoluminescence. The level of industrial noise was evaluated with a model Quest 1700 sonometer. In the exposed group, there was a higher post labor day serum cortisol concentration than in the control group (p < 0.05). The non auditory manifestations registered were: migraine (50%), gastrointestinal dysfunctions (10%), hypertension (17.75%), irritability (27.5%), insomnia (55%); in spite of the use of auditory protectors in 92.5% of the workers. The levels of noise were > 85 dBA in all the workstations studied. There was not a significant relationship between the intensity of the noise in the workstations and the levels of serum cortisol.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Perceptions about hearing protection and noise-induced hearing loss of attendees of rock concerts.

BACKGROUND: This study examines perceptions of rock concert attendees about risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and use of hearing protection at a busy Toronto rock concert venue. METHODS: Two hundred and four questionnaires were completed and returned (75% response rate) by attendees at four rock concerts. RESULTS: The respondents had an average age of 20.6 years and 55.4% were male. Thirty-four point three percent (34.3%) thought that it was somewhat likely and 39.8% thought it was very likely that noise levels at music concerts could damage their hearing, but 80.2% said that they never wore hearing protection at such events. Tinnitus and other hearing disturbances were experienced by 84.7% and 37.8% of attendees, respectively. Both experiencing hearing disturbances and concern about developing hearing loss were statistically significantly associated with concert attendees' use of hearing protection. Previous use of hearing protection, a higher score on a scale of readiness for behavioural change (Prochaska scale) and lack of concern about the appearance of ear plugs were statistically significantly associated with a reported willingness to use hearing protection in the future if it were provided for free at the door. CONCLUSION: Hearing protection is currently not worn by most attendees of rock concerts who are at risk of developing NIHL. Ear plugs and tactful NIHL education should be provided at the door, coupled with strategies to reduce music sound levels to safer listening levels.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Self-reported tinnitus and noise sensitivity among adolescents in Sweden.

It seems to be a common opinion among researchers within the field of audiology that the prevalence of tinnitus will increase as a consequence of environmental factors, for example exposure to loud noise. Young people are exposed to loud sounds, more than any other age group, especially during leisure time activities, i.e. at pop concerts, discotheques and gyms. A crucial factor for the prevention of hearing impairments and hearing-related symptoms in the young population is the use of hearing protection. The focus of the present study is use of hearing protection and self-reported hearing-related symptoms, such as tinnitus and noise sensitivity in a young population of high-school students (N=1285), aged 13 to 19 years. The results show that the prevalence of permanent tinnitus and noise sensitivity, reported in the total group, was 8.7% and 17.1% respectively. Permanent tinnitus was not significantly related to level of socio-economic status, but age-related differences in the prevalence rates of experienced tinnitus and noise sensitivity were found to be significant. Older students reported such symptoms to a greater extent than younger students did. Those who reported tinnitus and other hearing-related symptoms protected their hearing to the highest extent and were the ones most worried.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Instruction and the improvement of hearing protector performance.

Too often, in spite of the encouragement of those who advocate the removal of noise from the workplace as the preferred solution to noise exposure, hearing protectors are provided as the first line of defence against noise. Unfortunately hearing protectors are too often supplied with no real instruction or education in their use. This degrades their performance considerably. In this project the attenuation performance of one particular model of earplug was compared with and without instructions to test subjects. The instructions given were the most basic as commonly supplied on the plastic packaging containing the plugs. The attenuation performance (SLC80) of the plugs with the instructions was 16 dB greater than without the instructions. Overall performance was improved in every octave band with smaller associated standard deviations. The comparison showed that even with a very modest amount of instruction attenuation performance can be significantly improved.

Ear Protective Devices↗