Literature DB >> 16782739

Variability of real-world hearing protector attenuation measurements.

Richard Neitzel1, Sebrina Somers, Noah Seixas.   

Abstract

The attenuation provided by a hearing protection device (HPD) in the field is usually estimated by applying a derating factor to the laboratory-determined noise reduction rating (NRR) of the HPD. However, attenuation is highly dependent on individual-specific HPD fit. Prediction of an individual's attenuation depends on the accuracy of the measurement system and the variability of attenuation over time (e.g. after HPD refitting). Variability in attenuation and attenuation test systems has not been adequately characterized to allow for such an assessment. This study compared attenuation measurements made with two systems, Real-Ear-at-Threshold (REAT) and Microphone-in-Real-Ear (MIRE), on 20 workers using two earplugs (foam and custom-molded). Workers' perceptions of the earplugs were also evaluated. Individuals' attenuation results were summarized as personal attenuation ratings (PARs, similar to NRRs). Variability in PARs from between-subject, within-subject and within-day (i.e. repeated tests on a subject without earplug refitting) differences was assessed and used to present the lower confidence limit, or uncertainty factor (UF), of an average individual's attenuation. The custom-molded earplug PARs achieved a higher mean percentage of labeled attenuation than did the foam earplug with both test systems. The custom-molded earplugs also had higher overall acceptance among workers. MIRE PAR levels were lower than REAT levels for both earplugs, but the relationship between the two test systems was highly variable. The MIRE system had lower within-day variability than the REAT system. One individual's MIRE results were highly influential; removal of these results greatly reduced the UF for the custom-molded earplug/MIRE combination. UFs ranged from 8.8 to 13.5 dB. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating variability in individual-specific protection results for personal protective equipment like HPDs, rather than relying on single measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16782739     DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mel025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg        ISSN: 0003-4878


  9 in total

1.  Double-Containment Coil With Enhanced Winding Mounting for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation With Reduced Acoustic Noise.

Authors:  Lari M Koponen; Stefan M Goetz; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  Ambient and at-the-ear occupational noise exposure and serum lipid levels.

Authors:  Mai C Arlien-Søborg; Astrid S Schmedes; Z A Stokholm; M B Grynderup; J P Bonde; C S Jensen; Å M Hansen; T W Frederiksen; J Kristiansen; K L Christensen; J M Vestergaard; S P Lund; H A Kolstad
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2016-06-18       Impact factor: 3.015

3.  Hearing Protector Attenuation and Noise Exposure Among Metal Manufacturing Workers.

Authors:  Stephanie K Sayler; Peter M Rabinowitz; Deron Galusha; Kan Sun; Richard L Neitzel
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  A simple, cost-effective, and novel method for determining the efficiency of industrial and commercial noise-canceling earmuffs.

Authors:  Shelby Zangari; Jaime E Mirowsky
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2019 May-Jun       Impact factor: 0.867

5.  Impact of daily noise exposure monitoring on occupational noise exposures in manufacturing workers.

Authors:  Michael F McTague; Deron Galusha; Christine Dixon-Ernst; Sharon R Kirsche; Martin D Slade; Mark R Cullen; Peter M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Hearing loss as a predictor for hearing protection attenuation among miners.

Authors:  Elon D Ullman; Lauren M Smith; Marjorie C McCullagh; Richard L Neitzel
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 4.948

7.  The viability of hearing protection device fit-testing at navy and marine corps accession points.

Authors:  Jeremy Federman; Christon Duhon
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 0.867

8.  The insertion loss distribution function of an ear plug, and its implications for the ear plug acceptability.

Authors:  Paolo Lenzuni; Diego Annesi; Pietro Nataletti
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2020 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 0.867

9.  Individual Fit Testing of Hearing Protection Devices Based on Microphone in Real Ear.

Authors:  Azam Biabani; Mohsen Aliabadi; Rostam Golmohammadi; Maryam Farhadian
Journal:  Saf Health Work       Date:  2017-04-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.