PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7164430

Hearing conservation in industry.

Abstract

Noise-induced hearing loss is a major and entirely preventable public health problem. Effective prevention of this disorder has yet to be achieved in the United States but would improve the overall hearing health of the population more than the treatment of all other otologic disorders combined. Losses that are mild to moderately severe and maximal at 3, 4 or 6 kHz are typical but not pathognomonic. Individual differences in susceptibility are substantial but unpredictable. Hearing conservation programs are now required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for almost all employees whose daily exposure to noise exceeds a time-weighted average of 85 dBA (A-weighted sound pressure level). The permitted exposure level is 90 dBA time-weighted average, above which engineering or administrative controls or hearing protectors are required. Workers with lesser exposures (85 to 90 dBA time-weighted average) who have hearing changes must be similarly protected. Many, but not all, elements of required hearing conservation programs have been specified recently by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Medical supervision and otologic referral are important components of hearing conservation programs because otologic problems other than noise-induced hearing loss are common in industrial populations. Compensation for noise-induced hearing loss, which is awarded through state workers' compensation boards, as well as certain federal sources, varies widely.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R A Dobie. 1982. Hearing conservation in industry.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7164430/

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↗