The aim of the study was to assess the hearing threshold levels (HTLs) in employees exposed to noise generated by low-frequency ultrasonic technological equipment in comparison with the HTLs of workers exposed to audible noise at the similar A-weighted equivalent-continuous sound pressure level. The study includes measurements of ultrasonic and audible noise at workplaces and hearing tests, i.e. conventional pure-tone audiometry and extended high-frequency audiometry. The study group comprised 90 workers, aged 41.4 ± 10.0 years (mean±SD), exposed for 17.3 ± 9.8 years to noise generated by ultrasonic devices at mean daily noise exposure level (‹LEX,8h›) of 80.6 ± 2.9 dB. The reference group consists of 156 subjects, exposed to industrial noise (without ultrasonic components) at similar A-weighted equivalent-continuous sound pressure level (‹LEX,8h› = 81.8 ± 2.7 dB), adjusted according to age (39.8 ± 7.7 years), gender and job seniority (14.0 ± 7.0 years). This group was selected from database collected in the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine. Audiometric hearing threshold levels in the frequency range of 0.5–6 kHz were similar in both groups, but in the frequency range of 8–12.5 kHz they were higher in the group of employees exposed to ultrasonic noise. The findings suggest that differences in the hearing threshold (at high frequencies) in analyzed groups may be due to differences in spectral composition of noise and show the need to continue the undertaken studies.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the hearing status in young adults using portable audio players (PAPs) in relation to their listening habits. The study included 58 subjects, aged 22.8±2.8 years, non-occupationally exposed to noise. Questionnaire inquiry aimed at collecting personal data, the information on PAPs usage habits, self-assessment of hearing status and identification of risk factors for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) were performed in study subjects. Hearing tests included pure-tone audiometry (PTA) and transient-evoked optoacoustic emission (TEOAE). All subjects were PAPs users. Depending on listening habits they were divided into the subgroups of “frequent” users (>1 h/day) and “non-frequent” users (≤1 h/day). There were no significant differences between subgroups in prevalence of NIHL risk factors and self-assessment of hearing status. However, frequent users more often complained of tinnitus and hyperacusis. Majority (81.9 %) of participants had normal hearing. Nevertheless, 6.9 % of audiograms showed high-frequency notches typical for NIHL. Both, the PTA and TEOAE indicated worse hearing in non-frequent users compared to frequent users. No significant differences in prevalence of high-frequency notches between subgroups were noted. The outcomes do not support some previous studies results that the excessive exposure to music listened through PAPs might result in accelerating of development of NIHL loss in young adults.
A questionnaire inquiry on response to wind turbine noise was carried out on 361 subjects living in the vicinity of 8 wind farms. Current mental health status of respondents was assessed using Goldberg General Health Questionnaire GHQ-12. For areas where respondents lived, A-weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs) were calculated as the sum of the contributions from the wind power plants in the specific area. Generally, 33.0% of respondents were annoyed outdoors by wind turbine noise at the calculated A-weighted SPL of 31–50 dB, while indoors the noise was annoying to 21.3% of them. The propor- tion of subjects evaluating the noise produced by operative wind turbines as annoying decreased with increasing the distance from the nearest wind turbine (27.6% at the distance of 400–800 m vs 14.3% at the distance above 800 m, p < 0.016). On the other hand, the higher was the noise level, the greater was the percentage of annoyed respondents (14.0% at SPL up to 40 dB vs 28.1% at SPL of 40–45 dB, p < 0.016). Besides noise and distance categories, subjective factors, such as general attitude to wind turbines, sensitivity to landscape littering and current mental health status, were found to have significant impact on the perceived annoyance. About 50% of variance in annoyance rating might be explained by the aforesaid subjective factors.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.