PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Ear Protective Devices”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

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

At least 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

The effects of protector-noise interaction on the accuracy of the NRR estimate of hearing protector attenuation.

A total of 262 noise spectra were divided empirically into three groups and the accuracy of the NRR estimate of hearing protector attenuation was evaluated for each group using 15 hearing protectors. The mean and the standard deviation of the error in the NRR estimate was most stable across the 15 protectors, when noise spectra were characterized by a simple monotonic band-level function yielding a dBC-dBA difference of 3.5 dB or less. Both the octave band attenuation function of the hearing protector and the octave band spectrum of the noise appeared to contribute to the error in the NRR estimate.

Ear Protective Devices↗

Group mean hearing threshold changes in a noise-exposed industrial population using personal hearing protectors.

The audiometric test data of 265 employees in one facility were studied to determine group mean hearing threshold changes. The data covered seven to thirteen years. During this time the population was exposed to workplace noise (OSHA) exposures of 86 to 103 dBA. Personal hearing protection was used. Essentially no change in the mean threshold hearing level was found. Certain other hearing conservation program effectiveness indicators also were used to evaluate this population. The results of these indicators were used to evaluate this population also. The results of these indicators generally follow the trends for effective programs.

Adult↗

Industrial impulse noise, crest factor and the effect of earmuffs.

Noise measurements were taken inside and outside earmuffs worn by 238 workers at 21 industrial plants in order to evaluate exposure to noise and to measure the attenuation by earmuffs used at workplaces. The means of the equivalent noise levels were 93 dB outside the earmuffs and 76 dB inside them. The mean earmuff attenuation was 17 dB. The standard deviations of each of these three values was 6 dB. Thus 90% of the employees wearing earmuffs experienced equivalent noise levels of lower than 85 dB(A) inside the earmuffs. In addition to equivalent noise level, the impulsiveness of the noise was determined based on the cumulative distribution of the crest factor of the signal. The impulse percentage F15 denotes the percentage of the total measurement time when the peak level exceeds the rms level by at least 15 dB. The mean impulse percentage F15 was 1.6% outside earmuffs and 0.8% inside earmuffs. The results showed that earmuffs also attenuated the impulsiveness of noise. The shipyard noise had the highest impulse percentage; the noise in printing plants and papermills had the lowest impulse percentage.

Acoustics↗

Insert-type hearing protector stability as a function of controlled jaw movement.

Samples of five insert-type hearing protectors (three viscose foam, one poly-flanged, and one glass fiber) were evaluated for change in attenuation as a result of 30 min of controlled jaw movement. Protected-ear, narrow-band noise thresholds were obtained at octave intervals (between 0.25 and 4.0 kHz) before and after the jaw-movement activity. Frequency and interaction effects were not significant. Protector effects were significant beyond the 0.01 level of probability that chance caused the observed differences. As a group, the viscose foam protectors were more stable than the others. The most stable protector was E.A.R., and the least stable was Bilsom Soft.

Adult↗

The effect of various hearing protectors on sound localization in the horizontal and vertical planes.

Listeners were tested under free head/torso movement conditions, using a brief pulsed broadband noise signal presented from any 1 of 20 loudspeakers in two intersecting hemicircumferential arrays: one in the horizontal plane, one in the vertical. The listeners' task was to judge the whereabouts of each signal while listening in normal, open-ears conditions or while wearing various types of standard or electronic earmuffs or compressible foam earplugs. Results showed that listeners could accomplish the task successfully in normal (open-ear) conditions. Results using earplugs, nonelectronic earmuffs, and two types of dichotic (dual microphone) electronic earmuffs showed decrements in performance similar to each other. These decrements took the general form of loss of appreciation of the vertical plane and of front-rear differences in the horizontal plane. Lateral discrimination was blurred but otherwise intact. Of two diotic (single microphone) electronic earmuffs, one completely disrupted localization function and the other came close to it.

Auditory Perception↗

Positional stability of five insert-type hearing protectors as a function of controlled jaw movement.

Five insert-type hearing protectors (three viscose foam, one multiflanged, and one glass fiber) were evaluated for lateral drift in the ear canal as a result of 30 min of controlled jaw movement. The lateral drift was compared to changes in attenuation for the same protectors over the same duration of jaw movement. The ranked correlation of positional and attenuation stability was very low (Spearman Rho = 0.3). Possible explanations for this observation are discussed.

Ear Protective Devices↗

The high, medium, and low method--a better noise reduction rating?

This paper compares hearing protector attenuations calculated using National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) method No. 1 ("long method") and the HML method. The study was done on 144 combinations of 12 noises and 12 protectors. In each case, the attenuation was calculated using each of the above methods. The difference between attenuations was used to define the accuracy of the high, medium, and low (HML) method. It was found that the attenuations calculated using the HML method are almost always lower than those calculated using the NIOSH method. However, the differences between both attenuations are well within the field noise level measurement errors. Consequently, the HML method appears to be an acceptable approximation of the NIOSH method, offering the additional advantage of being easier to apply. The higher accuracy of the HML method, when compared to the Noise Reduction Rating (NRR), makes is preferable for applications in industrial hearing conservation programs.

Ear Protective Devices↗

Subjective evaluation of a prototype earmuff exhibiting flat and nonlinear attenuation characteristics.

Subjective user responses were obtained for a test earmuff exhibiting approximately flat (uniform) attenuation of about 25 dB from 500 to 8000 Hz for sound pressure levels (SPLs) less than 120 dB. At SPLs above 120 dB, the test earmuff exhibited nonlinear (level-dependent) attenuation characteristics such that noise reduction increased with increasing sound level. The study population consisted of police officers from the Raleigh, North Carolina, Police Department as they were performing arms requalification by executing a series of firing programs during two sequential and identical relays. The study subjects wore either the test earmuff or a comparable conventional earmuff during the first relay, then the alternate protector for the second relay with the order counterbalanced. Results indicated a significant preference for the test earmuff in three comparison areas: comfort, perceived hearing protection, and speech understanding. The study demonstrates that ammunition type and level of noise exposure contributed significantly to a preference in favor of the test earmuff. The subjects who used the quietest of the ammunition types rated the test earmuff significantly better than the remaining subjects with respect to speech understanding.

Adult↗

Development of a new noise helmet.

A prototype for a new noise helmet was developed because high noise levels were not sufficiently attenuated by commercially available helmets. The new helmet was designed to be tight, especially in the area of the throat and face, and to cover the entire head. The noise attenuation properties of the new helmet were tested against pink noise in an anechoic room, jet engine noise, and low-frequency noise with the test subjects wearing a miniature microphone under the protector. The new helmet provides insertion loss of over 50 dB, which is 18-29 dB more attenuation than that of the tested earmuffs in the frequency range of 1-8 kHz. It is also better (8-13 dB) than the tested earmuffs at frequencies of 125-1000 Hz, and it protects against air impurities because the air fed into the helmet is filtered.

Ear Protective Devices↗

Active noise control: a review of the field.

Active noise control (ANC) is the application of the principle of the superposition of waves to noise attenuation problems. Much progress has been made toward applying ANC to narrow-band, low-frequency noise in confined spaces. During this same period, the application of ANC to broad-band noise or noise in three-dimensional spaces has seen little progress because of the recent quantification of serious physical limitations, most importantly, noncausality, stability, spatial mismatch, and the infinite gain controller requirement. ANC employs superposition to induce destructive interference to affect the attenuation of noise. ANC was believed to utilize the mechanism of phase cancellation to achieve the desired attenuation. However, current literature points to other mechanisms that may be operating in ANC. Categories of ANC are one-dimensional field and duct noise, enclosed spaces and interior noise, noise in three-dimensional spaces, and personal hearing protection. Development of active noise control stems from potential advantages in cost, size, and effectiveness. There are two approaches to ANC. In the first, the original sound is processed and injected back into the sound field in antiphase. The second approach is to synthesize a cancelling waveform. ANC of turbulent flow in pipes and ducts is the largest area in the field. Much work into the actual mechanism involved and the causal versus noncausal aspects of system controllers has been done. Fan and propeller noise can be divided into two categories: noise generated directly as the blade passing tones and noise generated as a result of blade tip turbulence inducing vibration in structures. Three-dimensional spaces present a noise environment where physical limitations are magnified and the infinite gain controller requirement is confronted. Personal hearing protection has been shown to be best suited to the control of periodic, low-frequency noise.

Ear Protective Devices↗

Comparison of earphone and sound field methods for estimating noise attenuation of foam earplugs.

The Real Ear Attenuation at Threshold (REAT) of E-A-R (slow recovery) from earplugs was determined, using three methods of presentation of the test tones during a single fitting of the earplug. The three presentation methods were (a) sound-field listening; (b) TDH49 earphone mounted in the shell of a circumaural earmuff; and (c) TDH49 earphone in a Model 51 cushion. Thresholds were tested once under each condition. Test frequencies were .125, .25, .5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, and 8.0 kHz. Comparison of the REAT values measured by the three methods indicated that the mean REAT obtained by the reference (Sound Field) method could be reliably estimated by both earphone methods for frequencies up to and including 4.0 kHz. However, the Sound Field REAT values of individual subjects could not be predicted reliably from their REAT determined by either type of earphone presentation. It is concluded that TDH49 earphones in standard audiometric earcushions could be used to check the overall effectiveness of slow recovery foam earplugs in the workplace. Further research is necessary to ascertain whether the audiometric earphone/earcushion test could be modified to achieve satisfactory reliability in assessing earplug fitting in individual workers.

Adult↗

Hearing protector use in noise-exposed workers: a retrospective look at 1983.

Although hearing protectors have been available for more than 60 years, little field surveillance has been done to assess their appropriate wear in noisy occupational environments. This study examined historical field survey data to determine whether workers use hearing protection when exposed to loud noise. Data from the 1981-83 NIOSH National Occupational Exposure Survey were analyzed to determine whether workers in noise greater than or equal to 85 dBA were using hearing protection. The study also looked at the effect of company personal protective equipment (PPE) policies on hearing protector compliance. This study found that, in 1981-83, an estimated 4.1 million industrial workers were exposed to noise greater than or equal to 85 dBA. Of these, 41% were wearing some form of hearing protection. This percentage varied from 79% of workers exposed in SIC 76 (Miscellaneous Repair Service) to less than 1% in Communications (SIC 48), Wholesale Trade Nondurable Goods (SIC 51), and Automotive Dealers & Service Stations (SIC 55). Whether an establishment had a written policy on wearing PPE seemed to make no difference, because there appeared to be no tie between the percentage of workers wearing of hearing protection and presence of a PPE policy.

Data Collection↗

Hearing thresholds, threshold repeatability, and attenuation values for passive noise-reducing earphone enclosures.

Passive noise-reducing earphone enclosures contain a supra-aural earphone mounted in a plastic dome. These enclosures are used to prevent the elevation of hearing thresholds due to masking from high levels of ambient noise. This research determined normal hearing threshold levels, threshold repeatability, and attenuation values for an Audiocup, Auraldome II, AudioMate, and Madsen ME-70 enclosure. In Study I hearing thresholds were obtained for 30 normally hearing adults from 500 to 6000 Hz in four test sessions for each enclosure and a supra-aural earphone attached to a headband. The hearing thresholds and repeatability for the Audiocup and Auraldome were similar but the thresholds were higher and repeatability was poorer for the AudioMate and Madsen ME-70 compared with the supra-aural earphone. In Study II real-ear attenuation values were obtained for each enclosure using 24 normally hearing subjects. The Audiocup and Auraldome II provided less low-frequency attenuation compared with the AudioMate and Madsen ME-70. The findings were related to the coupling of the supra-aural earphone in each enclosure to the ear and the coupling of each enclosure to the head. If an enclosure is used as an alternative to a supra-aural earphone for hearing testing in high ambient noise environments, hearing thresholds and threshold repeatability should be similar to a supra-aural earphone, and the enclosures should provide adequate attenuation of ambient noise. Since none of the enclosures met all of these requirements their use is not recommended for hearing testing.

Adult↗

Trends in hearing protector usage in American manufacturing from 1972 to 1989.

This study investigated the trends in hearing protector use in United States manufacturing industries. Using data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-sponsored National Occupational Hazard Survey (1972), the National Occupational Exposure Survey (1983), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration-sponsored National Survey of Personal Protective Equipment Usage (1989), estimates were made of numbers of workers using hearing protection in various industries. Unique to this study is discussion of the impact of enactment of hearing conservation regulations during the same time frame as the two earlier surveys. In general, higher percentages of workers utilized hearing protection in 1989 than in 1972. Increased hearing protection use over time was also found when size of facility (number of employees) was taken into account. Differences in the use of hearing protection over the period 1972-1989 varied in individual industries, ranging from less than 10 to more than 30%.

Ear Protective Devices↗

Ototoxic occupational exposures for a stock car racing team: I. Noise surveys.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) surveyed noise exposure for a professional stock car team at their race shop and during two races at one racetrack. At the team's shop, area sound pressure levels (SPLs) were measured for various work tasks. Equivalent levels (Leqs) ranged from 58 to 104 decibels, A-weighted (dBA). Personal noise dosimetry was conducted for at least one employee for each job description in race car assembly (n = 9). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 90 dBA for an 8-hour, 5-dB exchange rate time-weighted average (TWA) was never exceeded, but in two instances values exceeded OSHA's action level of 85 dBA for hearing conservation implementation. The NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) of 85 dBA for a 3-dB exchange rate Leq was exceeded for five of the measured jobs. During the races, SPLs averaged above 100 dBA in the pit area where cars undergo adjustments/refueling, both before and during the race. Peak levels reached 140 dB SPL. NIOSH REL was exceeded for every personal noise dosimetry measurement. Recommendations for hearing protection and communication are presented.

Automobiles↗

Evaluation of noise attenuation and verbal communication capabilities using three ear insert hearing protection systems among airport maintenance personnel.

The goal of this project was to determine whether one type of earplug would allow a user to hear communication in a noisy environment better than two other types of earplugs. The three types of earplugs studied are newly available on the market. Sonomax SonoCustoms are custom fitted to the user. E-A-R Push-Ins are the newest form of foam earplugs, and Howard Leight SmartFits have an adaptable shape. One of the earplug manufacturers claimed to have improved verbal communications due to the design of the earplug. We hypothesized that the type of earplug providing better communication properties would have lower attenuation around the communication frequencies compared with the other types. To test this hypothesis, we used speech intelligibility and attenuation tests in the laboratory on 26 subjects, and real-time video exposure monitoring in the field (airport maintenance personnel) for visual communication cues. ANCOVA was used to analyze the data from the laboratory study. The type of earplug worn was not significant in the model (p-value 0.0849), nor was attenuation of the earplug (p-value 0.2379). Further analysis showed that attenuation did not differ significantly among earplugs (p-value 0.5903). Logistic regression was used to analyze the data from the field study. Again, the type of earplug was not significant in the model (p-value 0.0965). A comfort questionnaire determined that Howard Leight SmartFits and the E-A-R Push-Ins were more comfortable and easier to use than the Sonomax HPDs (p-value <0.0001). We found a definite difference between manufacturers' attenuation data and our attenuation data, especially in the frequencies for 125-1000 Hz. Also, there was no difference in frequency and overall attenuation among the HPDs. This resulted in no difference in communication abilities among the types of HPDs.

Adult↗