An Experimental Study of Acoustic Comfort in Open Space Banks Based on Speech Intelligibility and Noise Annoyance Measures

• Autorzy: Golmohammadi R. , Aliabadi M. , Nezami T.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/aoa-2017-0035

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Tasks requiring intensive concentration are more vulnerable to noise than routine tasks. Due to the high mental workload of bank employees, this study aimed to evaluate acoustic comfort in open-space banks based on speech intelligibility and noise annoyance metrics. Acoustic metrics including preferred noise criterion (PNC), speech transmission index (STI), and signal to noise ratio (SNR) were measured in seventeen banks (located in Hamadan, a western province of Iran). For subjective noise annoyance assessments, 100-point noise annoyance scales were completed by bank employees during activities. Based on STI (0.56±0.09) and SNR (20.5±8.2 dB) values, it was found that speech intelligibilities in the workstations of banks were higher than the satisfactory level. However, PNC values in bank spaces were 48.2±5.5 dB, which is higher than the recommended limit value for public spaces. In this regard, 95% of the employees are annoyed by background noise levels. The results show irrelevant speech is the main source of subjective noise annoyance among employees. Loss of concentration is the main consequence of background noise levels for employees. The results confirmed that acoustic properties of bank spaces provide enough speech intelligibility, while staff’s noise annoyance is not acceptable. It can be concluded that due to proximity of workstations in open-space banks, access to very short distraction distance is necessary. Therefore, increasing speech privacy can be prioritised to speech intelligibility. It is recommended that current desk screens are redesigned in order to reduce irrelevant speech between nearby workstations. Staff’s training about acoustic comfort can also manage irrelevant speech characteristics during work time.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

acoustic comfort; open-space banks; speech intelligibility; noise annoyance

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 42, No. 2
• Strony: 333--347
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz., fot., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Golmohammadi R.

• Center of Excellence for Occupational Health, Research Center for Health Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, P.O. Box 4171-65175, Hamadan, Iran

autor

Aliabadi M.

• Center of Excellence for Occupational Health, Research Center for Health Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, P.O. Box 4171-65175, Hamadan, Iran

autor

Nezami T.

• Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

Bibliografia

• 1. Aliabadi M., Golmohammadi R., Mansoorizadeh M. (2014a), Objective approach for analysis of noise source characteristics and acoustics conditions in noisy computerized embroidery workrooms, Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 186, 1855–1864.
• 2. Aliabadi M., Golmohammadi R., Ohadi A., Mansoorizadeh M., Khotanlou H., Sarrafzadeh M. S. (2014b), Development of an empirical acoustic model for predicting reverberation time in typical industrial workrooms using artificial neural networks, Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 100, 6, 1090–1097.
• 3. Beranek L. L., Blazier W. E., Figwer J. J. (1971), Preferred noise criterion (PNC) curves and their application to rooms, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 50, 5, 1223–1228.
• 4. Bistafa S. R., Bradley J. S. (2000), Reverberation time and maximum background noise level for classrooms from a comparative study of speech intelligibility metrics, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2, 861–875.
• 5. Bradley J. S. (2003), The acoustical design of conventional open plan offices, Canadian Acoustics, 27, 3, 23–30.
• 6. Bradley J. S., Reich R., Nocross S. G. (1999), A just noticeable difference in C50 for speech, Applied Acoustics, 58, 99–108.
• 7. Desantana D. Q., Zannin P. H. (2011), Acoustic evaluation of a contemporary church based on in situ measurements of reverberation time, definition, and computer-predicted speech transmission index, Building and Environment, 46, 511–517.
• 8. Duquesnoy A. J., Plomp R. (1980), Effect of reverberation and noise on the intelligibility of sentences in cases of presbyacusis, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68, 2, 537–544.
• 9. Ebissou A., Parizet E., Chevret P. (2015), Use of the speech transmission index for the assessment of sound annoyance in open-plan offices, Applied Acoustics, 88, 90–95.
• 10. Galbrun L., Kitapci K. (2014), Accuracy of speech transmission index predictions based on the reverberation time and signal-to-noise ratio, Applied Acoustics, 81, 1–14.
• 11. Gholami T., Piran Veyseh P. P., Aliabadi M., Farhadian M. (2014), Study of noise pollution and its effects on subjective fatigue of employee in the governmental banks of Hamadan city, Iran Occupational Health Journal, 11, 5, 65–73.
• 12. Haapakangas A., Hongisto V., Hyona J., Kokko J., Keranen J. (2014), Effects of unattended speech on performance and subjective distraction: The role of acoustic design in open-plan offices, Applied Acoustics, 86, 1–16.
• 13. Houtgast T., Steeneken H. J. M. (1973), The modulation transfer function in room acoustics as a predictor of speech intelligibility, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 557.
• 14. Houtgast T., Steeneken H. J. M. (1985), A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 1069–1077.
• 15. ISO 12354-6 (2003) Building Acoustics – Estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements. Part 6: Sound absorption in enclosed spaces, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 16. ISO 17624 (2004), Acoustics – Guidelines for noise control in offices and workrooms by means of acoustical screens, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 17. ISO 3382-2 (2008), Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters. Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary rooms, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 18. ISO 3382-3 (2012), Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters. Part 3: Open plan offices, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 19. ISO 60268-16 (2011), Sound system equipment. Part 16: Objective rating of speech intelligibility by speech transmission index, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 20. ISO 9921-1 (2003), Ergonomics – Assessment of speech communication, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 21. ISO3382-1 (2009), Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters. Part 1: Performance spaces, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 22. Jahncke H., Hongisto V., Virjonen P. (2013), Cognitive performance during irrelevant speech: Effects of speech intelligibility and office-task characteristics, Applied Acoustics, 74, 307–316.
• 23. Jahncke H., Hygge E., Halin N., Green A. M., Dimberg K. (2011), Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 373–382.
• 24. Kaczmarska A., Łuczak A. (2007), A study of annoyance caused by low-frequency noise during mental work, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE), 13, 2, 117–125.
• 25. Keranen J., Hongisto V. (2013), Prediction of the spatial decay of speech in open-plan offices, Applied Acoustics, 74, 1315–1325.
• 26. Kim J., Dear R. D. (2013), Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.
• 27. Li K. M., Lam P. M. (2005), Prediction of reverberation time and speech transmission index in long enclosures, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 6, 3716–3726.
• 28. Nowoświat A., Olechowska M. (2016), Fast estimation of speech transmission index using the reverberation time, Applied Acoustics, 102, 51–61.
• 29. Passero C. R., Zannin P. H. (2012a), Acoustic evaluation and adjustment of an open-plan office through architectural design and noise control, Applied Ergonomics, 43, 1066–1071.
• 30. Passero C. R., Zannin P. H. (2012b), Study of the acoustic suitability of an open plan office based on STI and DL2 simulations, Archives of Acoustics, 37, 2, 237–243.
• 31. Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska M., Dudarewicz A., Waszkowska M., Szymczak W., Kamedula M., Śliwinska-Kowalska M. (2005), Does low frequency noise at moderate levels influence human mental performance?, Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, 24, 1, 25–42.
• 32. Pierrette M., Parizet E., Chevret P., Chatillon J. (2015), Noise effect on comfort in open-space offices: development of an assessment questionnaire, Ergonomics, 58, 1, 96–106.
• 33. Rossing T. D. (2007), Springer Handbook of Acoustics, Springer Science Business Media, LLC New York.
• 34. Seddigh A., Berntson E., Jeonsson F., Danielson C. B., Westerlund H. (2015), The effect of noise absorption variation in open-plan offices: A field study with a cross-over design, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 34–44.
• 35. Smith-Jackson T. L., Klein K. W. (2009), Open-plan offices: Task performance and mental workload, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 279–289.
• 36. van de Poll M. K., Ljung R., Odelius J., Sorqvist P. (2014), Disruption of writing by background speech: The role of speech transmission index, Applied Acoustics, 81, 15–18.