Comparison of Multiple Measures of Noise Exposure in Paper Mills

Abstract

Background Noise exposures are associated with a host of adverse health effects, yet these exposures remain inadequately characterized in many industrial operations, including paper mills. We assessed noise at four paper mills using three measures: 1) personal noise dosimetry, 2) area noise measurements, and 3) questionnaire items addressing several different aspects of perceived noise exposure. Methods We assessed exposures to noise characterized using the three measures and compared the relationships between them. We also estimated the validity of each of the three measures using a novel application of the Method of Triads, which does not appear to have been used previously in the occupational health literature. Results We collected 209 valid dosimetry measurements and collected perceived noise exposure survey items from 170 workers, along with 100 area measurements. We identified exposures in excess of 85 dBA at all mills. The dosimetry and area noise measurements assigned to individual subjects generally showed good agreement, but for some operations within mill, large differences between the two measures were observed, and a substantial fraction of paired measures differed by >5 dB. Perceived noise exposures varied greatly between the mills, particularly for an item related to difficulty speaking in noise. One perceived noise exposure item related to difficulty hearing due to noise showed strong and significant correlations with both dosimetry and area measurements. The Method of Triads analysis showed that dosimetry measures had the highest estimated validity coefficient (0.70), and that the best performing perceived exposure measure had validity that exceeded that of area measurements (0.48 vs. 0.40, respectively). Conclusions Workers in Swedish pulp mills have the potential for exposures to high levels of noise. Our results suggest that, while dosimetry remains the preferred approach to exposure assessment, perceived noise exposures can be used to evaluate potential exposures to noise in epidemiological studies.

Long‐term self‐reported exposure to occupational noise is associated with BMI‐defined obesity in the US general population

“…At this preliminary state of research, we were more interested in simply testing the hypothesis of the metabolic effect of occupational noise; therefore, a qualitative interpretation of the results was made. Furthermore, the question on vocal effort we used is a good proxy for about >80–85 dB [Ahmed et al, ; Schlaefer et al, ; Neitzel et al, , , ]. We could have assigned semi‐quantitative noise scores from O*NET to each participant according to his/hers occupational taxonomy code, which would have ensured non‐differential exposure misclassification [Choi et al, ]; notwithstanding, noise is a socio‐acoustic stressor, and self‐reported noise combines information about objective and perceived levels.…”

“…” and, if yes, “ In your work, how many months or years have you been exposed at work to very loud sounds or noise for 4 or more hours a day, several days a week? ” “Very loud” was defined as so loud that one must shout in order to be understood by someone standing 3 feet (arm's length) away; this was considered a proxy for >80–85 dB [Ahmed et al, ; Schlaefer et al, ; Neitzel et al, , , ]. Throughout the text, this level will be referred to as “high level” of noise.…”

Self-reported occupational noise may be associated with prevalent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the us general population

“…[1920212223] Nevertheless, we also used a JEM for noise to assign CNE. The measurements included in the JEM covered the period 1963–2015 and were averaged at the 4-digit SOC level which leads to exposure misclassification.…”

Noise Sources and Control, and Exposure Groups in Chemical Manufacturing Plants

“…Area noise measurements and noise dosimetry results from the manufacturing sector have been shown to correlate with each other confirming that noise exposes employees to NIHL impacts [97][98][99]. Differences in noise levels as high as 5 dB are however possible within certain operations between area noise measurements and personal dosimetry as highlighted in Table 4 [99,100].…”

“…Engineering noise control is the ultimate preventative measure for the prevention of NIHL and should be the primary goal of industry implemented HCPs [51,99,[103][104][105]. A systemic review conducted by NIOSH in the US found no field studies evaluating the effectiveness of implemented engineering noise controls.…”