Assessing the exposure-response relationship of sleep disturbance and vibration in field and laboratory settings

Ögren

Thorsson

et al. 2020

Sleep

Self Cite

Study Objectives Assess the physiologic and self-reported effects of wind turbine noise (WTN) on sleep. Methods Laboratory sleep study (n = 50 participants: n = 24 living close to wind turbines and n = 26 as a reference group) using polysomnography, electrocardiography, salivary cortisol, and questionnaire endpoints. Three consecutive nights (23:00–07:00): one habituation followed by a randomized quiet Control and an intervention night with synthesized 32 dB LAEq WTN. Noise in WTN nights simulated closed and ajar windows and low and high amplitude modulation depth. Results There was a longer rapid eye movement (REM) sleep latency (+16.8 min) and lower amount of REM sleep (−11.1 min, −2.2%) in WTN nights. Other measures of objective sleep did not differ significantly between nights, including key indicators of sleep disturbance (sleep efficiency: Control 86.6%, WTN 84.2%; wakefulness after sleep onset: Control 45.2 min, WTN 52.3 min; awakenings: Control n = 11.4, WTN n = 11.5) or the cortisol awakening response. Self-reported sleep was consistently rated as worse following WTN nights, and individuals living close to wind turbines had worse self-reported sleep in both the Control and WTN nights than the reference group. Conclusions Amplitude-modulated continuous WTN may impact on self-assessed and some aspects of physiologic sleep. Future studies are needed to generalize these findings outside of the laboratory and should include more exposure nights and further examine possible habituation or sensitization.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A laboratory study on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep: results of the polysomnographic WiTNES study

Ögren

Thorsson

et al. 2020

Sleep

Self Cite

“…In order to make the study environment as ecologically valid as possible, the laboratory was outfitted to resemble a typical apartment, with further details and photographs available elsewhere [ 34 ]. It contained a combined kitchen and living area, three separate bedrooms and three lavatories.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wind Turbine Noise and Sleep: Pilot Studies on the Influence of Noise Characteristics

Morsing

Ögren

et al. 2018

IJERPH

Self Cite

The number of onshore wind turbines in Europe has greatly increased over recent years, a trend which can be expected to continue. However, the effects of wind turbine noise on long-term health outcomes for residents living near wind farms is largely unknown, although sleep disturbance may be a cause for particular concern. Presented here are two pilot studies with the aim of examining the acoustical properties of wind turbine noise that might be of special relevance regarding effects on sleep. In both pilots, six participants spent five consecutive nights in a sound environment laboratory. During three of the nights, participants were exposed to wind turbine noise with variations in sound pressure level, amplitude modulation strength and frequency, spectral content, turbine rotational frequency and beating behaviour. The impact of noise on sleep was measured using polysomnography and questionnaires. During nights with wind turbine noise there was more frequent awakening, less deep sleep, less continuous N2 sleep and increased subjective disturbance compared to control nights. The findings indicated that amplitude modulation strength, spectral frequency and the presence of strong beats might be of particular importance for adverse sleep effects. The findings will be used in the development of experimental exposures for use in future, larger studies.

“… 19 Sleep, and its disturbance by noise, may differ depending on age, sex, socioeconomic status, and preexisting sleep disorders. Further, sleep disturbance is not unique to noise exposure and may arise from other environmental stressors, including air pollution, 88 – 90 vibration (from, for instance, freight trains on railway lines), 91 light, 92 and temperature and humidity. 93 , 94 Future studies should consider the consequences of exposure to multiple stressors, and their interactions on sleep.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep: An Update to the WHO Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Environ Health Perspect

Cordoza

Basner

2022

Self Cite

Background: Nighttime noise carries a significant disease burden. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published guidelines for the regulation of environmental noise based on a review of evidence published up to the year 2015 on the effects of environmental noise on sleep. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis will update the WHO evidence review on the effects of environmental noise on sleep disturbance to include more recent studies. Methods: Investigations of self-reported sleep among residents exposed to environmental traffic noise at home were identified using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO. Awakenings, falling asleep, and sleep disturbance were the three outcomes included. Extracted data were used to derive exposure–response relationships for the probability of being highly sleep disturbed by nighttime noise [average outdoor A-weighted noise level ( ) 2300–0700 hours] for aircraft, road, and rail traffic noise, individually. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Results: Eleven studies ( responses) were included in addition to 25 studies ( responses) from the original WHO analysis. When sleep disturbance questions specifically mentioned noise as the source of disturbance, there was moderate quality of evidence for the probability of being highly sleep disturbed per 10-dB increase in for aircraft [ ; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.01, 2.36], road ( ; 95% CI: 2.28, 2.79), and railway ( ; 95% CI: 2.57, 3.43) noise. When noise was not mentioned, there was low to very low quality of evidence for being sleep disturbed per 10-dB increase in for aircraft ( ; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.93), road ( ; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.21), and railway ( ; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.49) noise. Compared with the original WHO review, the exposure–response relationships closely agreed at low (40 dB ) levels for all traffic types but indicated greater disturbance by aircraft traffic at high noise levels. Sleep disturbance was not significantly different between European and non-European studies. Discussion: Available evidence suggests that transportation noise is negatively associated with self-reported sleep. Sleep disturbance in this updated meta-analysis was comparable to the original WHO review at low nighttime noise levels. These low levels correspond to the recent WHO noise limit recommendations for nighttime noise, and so these findings do not suggest these WHO recommendations need revisiting. Deviations from the WHO review in this updated analysis suggest that populations exposed to high levels of aircraft noise may be at greater risk of sleep disturbance than determined previously. https://doi....