Advertisement

The Proposed ISO Standard Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of Noise-Induced Hearing Impairment

  • H. E. von Gierke
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 111)

Abstract

Research on the relationship between noise exposure and noise-induced hearing loss has been very intense over the last 30 years, and steady progress has been made in spite of many remaining questions and unresolved problems regarding the mechanism. For the time being, avoidance of excessive noise exposure is the only way to prevent noise-induced hearing loss; this is the reason why governments, industry, workers and their representatives have been looking for scientific exposure criteria and guidelines to prevent hazardous noise exposure as part of comprehensive hearing conservation programs. Although it was clear from the beginning that noise-induced hearing loss in a population with exactly defined noise exposure would exhibit a statistical distribution due to differences in biological susceptibility, the epidemiological statistical data were not available to describe quantitatively the difference between the percentage of people with impaired hearing in a noise exposed group and the percentage of people in a non-noise-exposed group, i. e., the risk of noise-induced hearing impairment. All data suffered from inherent inaccuracies in the noise as well as exposure time measurement and from the limited knowledge and differences in opinion on what to define as “normal,” non-noise-exposed hearing. Early Damage Risk Criteria such as the U. S. National Academy of Sciences (CHABA) [1] recommendations of 1966 and their subsequent adoption, simplification and modification by various individuals and agencies relied on the postulated relationship between temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS) produced by a specific noise and on the assumption that exposures that produce equal TTS are equally hazardous.

Keywords

Noise Exposure Impulse Noise Sound Level Meter National Technical Information Hearing Handicap 
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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. D. Kryter, W. D. Ward, J. D. Miller and D. H. Eldredge, Hazardous exposure to intermittent and steady-state noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39:451 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. L. Baughn, Relation between daily noise exposure and hearing loss based on the evaluation of 6835 noise exposure cases, AMRL-TR-73-53, National Technical Information Service, Springfield Virginia, USA (1973).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO 1999, Acoustics — assessment of occupational noise exposure for hearing conservation purposes, (Identical with ISO Recommendation R1999-1971), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (1975).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Passchier-Vermeer, Hearing loss due to exposure to steady state broadband noise, Institut Voorgesondheidtechniek (Netherland) Report 35 (1968). See also “Hearing Loss Due to Continuous Exposure to Steady-State Broadband Noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 56:1585 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. W. Robinson, The relationship between hearing loss and noise, National Physical Laboratory Aero Report Ae32 (Teddington, Middx., England) (1968).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. W. Robinson, Estimating the risk of hearing loss due to exposure to continuous noise, in: “Occupational Hearing Loss,” British Acoustical Society Special Volume No. 1, Academic Press, New York (1971).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. W. Robinson, Characteristics of occupational noise-induced hearing loss, in: “Effects of Noise on Hearing,” D. Henderson, R. P. Hammernik, D. S. Dosanijh and J. H. Mills eds. Raven Press, New York (1976).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Burns and D. W. Robinson, Hearing and noise in industry, (HM Stationery Office, London) (1970).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. L. Johnson, Prediction of NIPTS due to continuous noise exposure, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Report AMRL-TR-73-91. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, USA.) (1973).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. L. Johnson, Derivation of presbyacousis and noise-induced permanent threshold shift (NIPTS) to be used for the basis of a standard on the effects of noise on hearing, AMRL-TR-78-128. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, USA.) (1978).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Spoor, Presbycusis Values in Relation to Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Int. Audiol. 6:48 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Spoor and W. Passchier-Vermeer, Spread in hearing levels of non-noise exposed people at various ages, Int. Audiol. 8, (1969).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Passchier-Vermeer, Noise-induced hearing loss from exposure to intermittent and varying noise, in: “Proc. Int. Cong. on Noise as a Public Health Problem,” Dubrovnik (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.) (1973).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    AGARD, Effects of long duration noise exposure on hearing and health, M. A. Whitcomb ed., AGARD Conf. Proceedings No. 171, AGARD, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France (1975).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. H. Suter, The ability of mildly hearing-impaired individuals to discriminate speech in noise, EPA 550/9-78-100 and AMRL-TR-78-4, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, USA (1978).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/DIS 1999, Acoustics — determination of occupational noise exposure and estimation of noise-induced hearing impairment, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (1982).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/DIS 7029, Normal threshold of hearing by air conduction as a function of age and sex, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (1982).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    EPA, Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 550/9-74-004 (Washington, D. C.) (1974).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization, Environmental health criteria 12, Noise, Geneva, Switzerland (1980).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. A. G. Shaw, Draft Report of the Scientific Advisor to the Special Advisory Committee on the Ontario Noise Regulation, (Second Draft), National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada (1984).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. R. C. Atherley and A. M. Martin, Equivalent continuous noise level as a measure of injury from impact and impulse noise, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 14:11 (1971).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. E. von Gierke, D. W. Robinson and S. J. Karmy, Results of the Workshop on Impulse Noise and Auditory Hazard, Memorandum 618, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research (University of Southampton, England) (1881).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    IEC Draft Proposal, Integrating-averaging sound level meters, SC29C — International Electromechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland (1983).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    USPHS, National Center for Health Statistics, Hearing Levels of Adults by Age and Sex, United States, 1960-62, Vital and Health Statistics, Public Health Service Publication No. 1000, Series 11, No. 11, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C (1965).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. E. von Gierke
    • 1
  1. 1.Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research LaboratoryWright-Patterson AFBUSA

Personalised recommendations