Literature DB >> 25209041

Comparison of occupational noise legislation in the Americas: an overview and analysis.

Jorge P Arenas1, Alice H Suter.   

Abstract

The workplace contributes significantly to the total dose of daily noise to which a person is subjected. Therefore, millions of people around the world are exposed to potentially dangerous noise levels and consequently, there is an urgent, global need for legislation to adequately protect the auditory health of workers. Occupational noise legislation has been adopted in many of the countries with different degrees of comprehensiveness and varying levels of sophistication. This paper presents a global view of current legislation on occupational noise in the 22 countries that make up the Americas, that is, Latin America, Canada, and the United States. Upon analysis of the legislation, there are notable differences among countries in the defined values for permissible exposure limit (PEL) and exchange rate. Of the countries that have regulations, the majority (81%) use a PEL of 85 dBA. A PEL of 85 dBA and the 3-dB exchange rate are currently used by 32% of the nations in the Americas. Most nations limit impulsive noise exposure to a peak unweighted sound pressure level of 140 dB (or dBC), while a few use slightly lower limits. However, 27% of the countries in the region still have not established regulations with respect to permissible noise levels and exchange rates. This fact is leaving millions of workers in the Americas unprotected against occupational noise. Provide an overview and analysis of the current legislation on occupational noise in the 22 countries that make up the Americas. The information on legislation, regulations, and standards discussed in this paper were obtained directly from official government sources in each country, the International Labour Organization database, or through various colleagues in each country. (1) There are notable differences among countries in the defined values for PEL and exchange rate. (2) Of the countries that have regulations, the majority (81%) use a PEL of 85 dBA. A PEL of 85 dBA and the 3-dB exchange rate are currently used by 32% of the nations in the Americas. (3) Most nations limit impulsive noise exposure to a peak unweighted sound pressure level of 140 dB (or dBC), while a few use slightly lower limits. (4) 27% of the countries in the region still have not established regulations with respect to permissible noise levels and exchange rates. (5) Millions of workers in the Americas are unprotected against occupational noise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25209041     DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.140511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Noise Health        ISSN: 1463-1741            Impact factor:   0.867


  15 in total

1.  Comparison of Multiple Measures of Noise Exposure in Paper Mills.

Authors:  Richard L Neitzel; Marianne Andersson; Eva Andersson
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2016-02-17

2.  Electrophysiological markers of cochlear function correlate with hearing-in-noise performance among audiometrically normal subjects.

Authors:  Kelsie J Grant; Anita M Mepani; Peizhe Wu; Kenneth E Hancock; Victor de Gruttola; M Charles Liberman; Stéphane F Maison
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 3.  The α9α10 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor: a compelling drug target for hearing loss?

Authors:  Ana Belén Elgoyhen
Journal:  Expert Opin Ther Targets       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 6.902

Review 4.  [The professional ear user-implications for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ear diseases].

Authors:  David Bächinger; Raphael Jecker; Jean-Christoph Hannig; Andreas Werner; Horst Hildebrandt; Michael Eidenbenz; Martin Kompis; Tobias Kleinjung; Dorothe Veraguth
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 1.330

5.  Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed workers within the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector, 2003-2012.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Masterson; Christa L Themann; Geoffrey M Calvert
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 2.214

6.  Middle Ear Muscle Reflex and Word Recognition in "Normal-Hearing" Adults: Evidence for Cochlear Synaptopathy?

Authors:  Anita M Mepani; Sarah A Kirk; Kenneth E Hancock; Kara Bennett; Victor de Gruttola; M Charles Liberman; Stéphane F Maison
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  An exploratory study of noise exposures in educational and private dental clinics.

Authors:  Allison Burk; Richard L Neitzel
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2016-10-02       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 8.  Noise-induced and age-related hearing loss:  new perspectives and potential therapies.

Authors:  M Charles Liberman
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-06-16

Review 9.  Current insights in noise-induced hearing loss: a literature review of the underlying mechanism, pathophysiology, asymmetry, and management options.

Authors:  Trung N Le; Louise V Straatman; Jane Lea; Brian Westerberg
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-05-23

10.  Toward a Differential Diagnosis of Hidden Hearing Loss in Humans.

Authors:  M Charles Liberman; Michael J Epstein; Sandra S Cleveland; Haobing Wang; Stéphane F Maison
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.