Comparison of occupational noise legislation in the Americas: An overview and analysis

Abstract

The workplace contributes significantly to the total dose of daily noise to which a person is subjected. Therefore, millions of people around the world are exposed to potentially dangerous noise levels and consequently, there is an urgent, global need for legislation to adequately protect the auditory health of workers. Occupational noise legislation has been adopted in many of the countries with different degrees of comprehensiveness and varying levels of sophistication. This paper presents a global view of current legislation on occupational noise in the 22 countries that make up the Americas, that is, Latin America, Canada, and the United States. Upon analysis of the legislation, there are notable differences among countries in the defined values for permissible exposure limit (PEL) and exchange rate. Of the countries that have regulations, the majority (81%) use a PEL of 85 dBA. A PEL of 85 dBA and the 3-dB exchange rate are currently used by 32% of the nations in the Americas. Most nations limit impulsive noise exposure to a peak unweighted sound pressure level of 140 dB (or dBC), while a few use slightly lower limits. However, 27% of the countries in the region still have not established regulations with respect to permissible noise levels and exchange rates. This fact is leaving millions of workers in the Americas unprotected against occupational noise. Provide an overview and analysis of the current legislation on occupational noise in the 22 countries that make up the Americas. The information on legislation, regulations, and standards discussed in this paper were obtained directly from official government sources in each country, the International Labour Organization database, or through various colleagues in each country. (1) There are notable differences among countries in the defined values for PEL and exchange rate. (2) Of the countries that have regulations, the majority (81%) use a PEL of 85 dBA. A PEL of 85 dBA and the 3-dB exchange rate are currently used by 32% of the nations in the Americas. (3) Most nations limit impulsive noise exposure to a peak unweighted sound pressure level of 140 dB (or dBC), while a few use slightly lower limits. (4) 27% of the countries in the region still have not established regulations with respect to permissible noise levels and exchange rates. (5) Millions of workers in the Americas are unprotected against occupational noise.

Incidence rates of occupational diseases in the Dutch construction sector, 2010–2014: Table 1

“…Also increasing requirements for aural communication and safety demands, for example, warnings or telephone or discomfort could reduce compliance in wearing of protective hearing devices (PHD). It is known that the effectiveness of PHD exponentially decrease with the duration of not wearing these devices 11. However, reducing risk factors is the most effective approach to prevent NIHL.…”

Daily music exposure dose and hearing problems using personal listening devices in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review

“…Currently the majority of countries in the world use a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 85dBA and the 3-dB exchange rate as the formula for calculating an individual"s daily noise dose and durations, i.e., the recommended maximum (or 100%) daily noise dose over an 8-hour period should not exceed an average of 85dBA (Arenas and Suter, 2014). According to the equal-energy rule, when the sound energy increases 3dB (e.g., from 85 to 88dBA), it is approximately doubling in sound level, and the exposure duration is consequently reduced by a Jiang et al Music exposure dose and hearing problems using personal listening devices 6 half (NIOSH, 1998).…”

Effect of gentamicin and levels of ambient sound on hearing screening outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit: A pilot study

“…Another limitation is that although we attempted to log which factors might contribute to differences in levels of ambient sound exposures between infants, clinical staff participation in this activity was too inconsistent for rigorous analysis. In addition, direct comparison of recommended sound exposure limits is difficult due to the variability in measurement across organizations and studies, e.g., L eq vs TWA, or using a 3 vs 5 dB exchange rate in calculating exposure over time [63, 64]. …”