Hearing Conservation and Impulse Noise in the British Army
Chapter
Abstract
Army service has always presented a risk to hearing from impulse noise in addition to noise from small arms, with a typical peak pressure of 160 dB at the user’s ear; a number of weapon systems in current service give peak pressures up to 185 dB (35 kPa) in crew positions. To an increasing extent, soldiers are also exposed to continuous noise in vehicles or in workshops; these levels can exceed 100 dBA at the ear, even where hearing protection is used. The problem is becoming more acute, since the quest for more power from equipment of reduced size and weight tends to increase noise at the user’s position. At the same time, interest in hearing conservation measures is increasing, not only because of the greater risk of hearing loss, but also because awareness of the effects of noise is increasing as the use of monitoring audiometry becomes more widespread. It is therefore becoming vital to be able to predict the risk of hearing loss and the resulting disability from measurements (or, in the case of equipment still at the design stage, from predictions) of the noise exposure.
Keywords
Hearing Loss Noise Exposure Impulse Noise Hearing Level Defence Standard
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.B. Livesey, Acoustic trauma as an occupational hazard in Infantrymen. Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 111:188 (1965).Google Scholar
- 2.D. H. Coombe, The implications of the Army’s audiometric screening programme; Part 1: Acoustic trauma among serving Infantry personnel, Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 126:18 (1980).Google Scholar
- 3.British Standards Institution, Method of test for estimating the risk of hearing handicap due to noise exposure, BS 5330:1976 (1976).Google Scholar
- 4.Ministry of Defence, Acceptable limits for exposure to impulse noise from military weapons, explosives and pyrotechnics, Defence Standard 00-27/Issue 1 (1985).Google Scholar
- 5.R. R. A. Coles, G. R. Garinther, D.C. Hodge, and C. G. Rice, Hazardous exposure to impulse noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 43:336 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.CHABA (National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics), Proposed damage-risk criterion for impulse noise (gunfire), W. D. Ward ed., Report of Working Group 57 (1968).Google Scholar
- 7.U.S.A. Department of Defense, Military Standard — Noise Limits for Army Material, MIL-STD-1474B(M1) (1979).Google Scholar
- 8.F. Pfander, Das Knalltrauma, Springer-Verlag (1975).Google Scholar
- 9.F. Pfander, H. Bongartz, H. Brinkmann, and H. Kietz, Danger of auditory impairment from impulse noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 67:628 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.G. F. Smoorenburg, Damage risk criteria for impulse noise, in: “New perspectives on noise-induced hearing loss,” R. Hamernik, D. Henderson, and R. Salvi, eds., Raven Press, New York (1982).Google Scholar
- 11.Ministere de la Defense, Groupe de coordination technique “Facteurs Humains et Ergonomie,” Comite “Bruits d Armes,” Recommandation relative a l’evaluation physioacoustique du pouvoir lesionnel des bruits, also available as: Recommendation on evaluating the possible harmful effects of noise on hearing, DTAT Traduction AT-83/27/28 (May 1983).Google Scholar
- 12.J. R. Brown, Noise-induced hearing loss sustained during land operations in the Falklands Islands campaign 1982, J. Soc. Occup. Med., 35:44 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.A. G. Harwood, personal communication, 1985.Google Scholar
- 14.S. E. Forshaw, Hearing protection practice in the Canadian Forces, Scand. Audiol., Suppl. 16:53 (1982).Google Scholar
- 15.G. F. Smoorenburg, and A. M. Mimpen, Assessment of personal hearing protection in practice, Scand. Audiol., Suppl. 16:13 (1982).Google Scholar
- 16.M. R. Forrest, Protecting hearing in a military environment, Scand. Audiol., Suppl. 16:7 (1982).Google Scholar
- 17.M. R. Forrest, The efficiency of hearing protection to impulse noise, Scand. Audiol., Suppl. 12:186 (1980).Google Scholar
- 18.International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Acoustics — Measurement of sound attenuation of hearing protectors — Subjective method, ISO 4869-1981 (1981).Google Scholar
- 19.A. M. Martin, Dependence of acoustic attenuation of hearing protectors on incident sound level. Br. J. Ind. Med., 36:1 (1979).Google Scholar
- 20.H. Brinkmann, Effectiveness of ear protection against impulse noise, Scand. Audiol., Suppl. 16:23 (1982).Google Scholar
- 21.J. H. Patterson, Direct determination of the adequacy of hearing protection for use with the Viper missile and the M198 howitzer, in: “Technical proceedings of the blast overpressure workshop,” The Technical Cooperation Program, Technical Panel W-2 (1982).Google Scholar
- 22.M. R. Forrest, S. E. Forshaw, and R. B. Crabtree, Investigation of hearing loss from exposure to noise from 81 mm mortar. Department of National Defence — Canada, DCIEM Report No. 81-R-09 (1981).Google Scholar
- 23.A. Dancer and R. Franke, Effects of weapon-noise on hearing, in NATO Advanced Study Workshop “Noise-induced hearing loss — Basic and applied aspects,” Lucca (September 1985).Google Scholar
- 24.H. E. von Gierke, D. W. Robinson, S. J. Karmy, Results of the workshop on impulse noise and auditory hazard, J. Sound Vib., 83:579 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.G. R. Price, Mechanisms of loss for intense sound exposures, in: “Hearing and Other Senses; Presentations in Honor of E. G. Wever,” R. R. Fay and G. Gourevitch, eds., Amphora Press (1983).Google Scholar
- 26.G. R. Price, and D. C. Hodge, Combat sound detection: 1. Monaural listening in quiet, US Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Technical Memorandum 35-76.Google Scholar
- 27.M. W. Savill, unpublished Ministry of Defence memorandum (1985).Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Plenum Press, New York 1986