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 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources

A new approach to a damage risk criterion for weapons impulses.

Existing damage-risk criteria for weapons impulses suffer from their lack of a theoretical basis, thereby limiting their generalizability and utility. Furthermore, a number of studies now indicate that they may be inaccurate for impulses with energy in the low frequency region (Dancer & al., 1985; Patterson & al., 1985; Price & al., 1989). We have approached the problem by modeling the ear mathematically as a means of gaining insight into the loss processes. In the model, the external and middle ears are linear at lower intensities; however, the stapes displacement is limited to 20 microns, as would be expected on anatomical/physical grounds. Susceptibility, in the inner ear, is modeled as mechanical stress, a function of basilar membrane displacement and number of flex cycles. The model, which is executable on a PC-based computer, reproduces the data on the ear that can be measured at lower intensities. It also ranks the known hazard from impulses in the correct order, explains the finding of loss in mid-cochlea regardless of spectral location of the weapons impulse, and suggests that the greatest hazard comes from that portion of the acoustic wave in which pressures cross through ambient and at a rate consistent with energy in the mid-range. Because the model is theoretically based, it has the potential for use as the basis for a damage risk criterion for impulse noise as well as for a design criterion for weapons.

Adult↗

Occupational hearing conservation.

Chronic exposure to high-intensity noise can produce permanent hearing loss, the amount of which depends on noise intensity, temporal and spectral characteristics, and the length of exposure. OSHA regulates workplace noise exposure in accordance with the Hearing Conservation Amendment of 1983. When noise levels equal or exceed an 85 dBA time-weighted average (TWA), the employer is required to provide annual audiometric screening. When noise levels exceed 90 dBA TWA, the worker's exposure must be reduced by engineering methods, administrative changes, or personal hearing protectors. If a worker demonstrates a standard (significant) threshold shift (10 dB or greater increased average hearing threshold at 2, 3, and 4 kHz in either ear) that is attributed to noise, the worker's exposure must be further reduced by one of the aforementioned methods.

Ear Protective Devices↗

Effects of noise and vibration on farm workers.

A variety of significant health effects are associated with occupational exposures to noise and vibration, which are an integral part of many agricultural operations. Since vibrating surfaces represent one of the primary sources of noise, exposures to both types of physical stressors are commonly encountered. The effects of noise and vibration exposures may be exacerbated among farm workers because they tend to be more isolated than workers in other types of industry. As a consequence, access to health and safety information, medical care, and hazard control technology may be more restricted. Medical practitioners who serve the agricultural community must be aware of the consequences of exposures to noise and vibration. A primary duty involves conducting baseline and periodic examinations to catch diseases associated with such exposures at an early stage, when the condition is still reversible. In addition, the practitioner's role also includes prevention of disease through education of workers regarding the effects of noise and vibration and through helping specify procedures and strategies that will result in exposure reductions.

Agricultural Workers' Diseases↗

Hearing loss in musicians.

Hearing is of special vocational importance in musicians. Musical performance may create sounds sufficiently intense to cause sensorineural hearing loss. Although such losses are usually not severe enough to be compensable under American Academy of Otolaryngology guidelines for occupational hearing loss, they may interfere with the musician's ability to perform the daily tasks of his or her profession. A review of the literature on occupational hearing loss in musicians reveals a substantial need for further research.

Ear Protective Devices↗

[Effectiveness of anti-noise lining, ear muffs and their combination under the effect of high-level impulse noise].

The article contains a description of a new technique for assessment of the effectiveness of noise-protecting bushes and era-flaps against the intensive impulse noise of shooting a 105 mm cannon and heavy grenade cup discharges. The technique envisages a simultaneous measurement of the maximal noise pressure levels with a common microphone from the inside under the ear-flap. It was indicated that a simultaneous use of bushes and protecting ear-flaps was more effective, but still less than a summation effect of their individual noise-protecting properties.

Ear Protective Devices↗

[Effects of earplugs on the development of hypoacusis and extra-aural pathology in workers exposed to industrial noise].

Using an EC computer and Medstat-85 software, statistical multivariate analysis of data accumulated during 20 years of examinations of 210 workers of a textile (twisting) shop was performed. Out of these subjects 70 persons used antiphones (of ear plugs) continuously, 70 workers used them occasionally, and 70 subjects did not use them at all. It was found that hearing impairment and concomitant vascular disorders developed at an earlier stage and in a greater extent in those workers who never used ear plugs. The noise-induced changes proved more expressed than age-related vascular pathology.

Adolescent↗

[A comparison of hearing losses in the workers of a shipyard and in loggers in relation to individual risk factors].

It is suggested that, within the same energy level, an impulse noise is more hazardous to hearing than a permanent noise. To justify this hypothesis, a study was performed with groups of wood-cutters and shipyard workers to investigate different characteristics of noise load (noise levels, noise impulsivity from the outside and under the ear-flaps, noise emission levels with regard to the length of work and using ear-flaps), and hearing losses (both real and forecasted on the Robinson model). To avoid individual factors, a computerized assessment of 38 pairs of workers from both teams was performed (with regard to similar noise emission levels, diastolic pressures, smoking habits, their military service backgrounds as to the service in heavy artillery units, absence of otic diseases, low consumption of salicylates). The results showed that, within the same energy level, the noise in the shipyard was three times as impulsive and more otic disorders inducing than the noise in the wood-cutters' working conditions.

Ear Protective Devices↗

[Hearing, noise and noise-induced trauma].

As a result of preventive auditory measures in the Norwegian Armed Forces conscripts as a group no longer develop noise induced hearing loss during their service. But the incidence of hearing impairments among 18-year-old Norwegian men before entering military service has increased in recent years and indicates that Norway--and other countries?--should issue noise restrictions also for leisure noise.

Adolescent↗

Effectiveness of foam earplug hearing protection for artillerymen firing L118/119 105 mm howitzers.

A field study was carried out to study the effect of firing the British L118/9 195 mm howitzer (Hamel gun) on the hearing of crewmen wearing EAR earplugs. Two guns and gun crews were placed 7 m apart, each gun firing 40 rounds during each of 2 successive days. Bekesy type audiometry was carried out before and after firing and was also used to measure the attenuation or goodness of fit of the earplugs. No significant hearing loss was measured in any of the crewmen. It was concluded that, if correctly fitted, EAR earplugs provide adequate hearing protection under these exposure conditions.

Adolescent↗

Hearing conservation: implementing and evaluating a program.

1. More than eight million workers in the United States are affected by some noise-induced hearing loss. Noise pollution is a significant health hazard in the workplace today. 2. Occupational health nurses are in a key position to make tremendous contributions to the effectiveness of a hearing conservation program. 3. Cooperative efforts between management and labor are needed to prevent noise-induced hearing loss. 4. A hearing conservation program is an effective instrument for preventing noise-induced occupational hearing loss, complying with governmental regulation, and controlling a company's compensation cost.

Audiometry↗