Effects of Ultrasonic Noise on the Human Body—A Bibliographic Review

Smagowska, Bożena; Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska, Małgorzata

doi:10.1080/10803548.2013.11076978

Cited by 72 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When plotting Figure 3. Maximum permissible sound pressure levels for VHF sound and ultrasound in air, as laid out by a range of individuals, groups and organizations [3,7,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. The use of boxes indicates 'families' of similar guidelines: most of the data are repeats or reviews of earlier works, such that this figure is actually based on a handful of original studies.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They state that: 'Exposure may occur for up to 24 h per day; There is no medical surveillance as is possible for a controlled occupational group; It would be undesirable to require hearing protectors or other protective devices to keep levels at the ears within the limits; Noise-related effects such as annoyance, stress etc. must be considered in addition to other possible auditory effects; The general public is a population containing a broad range of sensitivities to insult from physical agents '. This range of guidelines is critically assessed by several authors [28,45,46,77,78]. The standard method for estimating noise induced hearing loss [79] does take into account the duration of exposure, but it is only relevant to noise at frequencies less than 10 kHz.…”

Section: (Iii) the Range Seen In The Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of occurrences in shown in { } after each occurrence for which the p-value is less than 5%. Polish researchers [24,28] report that Poland (2002) separated out the maximum allowable SPL (L max ) from the 8 h third-octave limit (L eq8h ) and, furthermore, reduced the allowable limits on L eq8h by 3 dB for pregnant women and 5 dB for young people (though Poland's allowable L max is the same for all types of person). French researchers [29] have also discussed reduced levels for pregnant women, although France has no national guidelines (see below).…”

Section: Note Added In Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?

Leighton¹

2016

Proc. R. Soc. A.

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New measurements indicate that the public are being exposed, without their knowledge, to airborne ultrasound. Existing guidelines are insufficient for such exposures; the vast majority refers to occupational exposure only (where workers are aware of the exposure, can be monitored and can wear protection). Existing guidelines are based on an insufficient evidence base, most of which was collected over 40 years ago by researchers who themselves considered it insufficient to finalize guidelines, but which produced preliminary guidelines. This warning of inadequacy was lost as nations and organizations issued ‘new’ guidelines based on these early guidelines, and through such repetition generated a false impression of consensus. The evidence base is so slim that few reports have progressed far along the sequence from anecdote to case study, to formal scientific controlled trials and epidemiological studies. Early studies reported hearing threshold shifts, nausea, headache, fatigue, migraine and tinnitus, but there is insufficient research on human subjects, and insufficient measurement of fields, to assess what health risk current occupational and public exposures might produce. Furthermore, the assumptions underpinning audiology and physical measurements at high frequencies must be questioned: simple extrapolation of approaches used at lower frequencies does not address current unknowns. Recommendations are provided.

show abstract

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (Iii) the Range Seen In The Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Note Added In Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?

Leighton¹

2016

Proc. R. Soc. A.

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some of the reviewed studies defined ultrasound as beyond 10 kHz, thus including content known to be audible. And all studies discussed in [13] focused on prolonged exposure, especially in the work environment.…”

Section: Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reiss¹

2016

J. Audio Eng. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable debate over the benefits of recording and rendering high resolution audio, i.e., systems and formats that are capable of rendering beyond CD quality audio. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the ability of test subjects to perceive a difference between high resolution and standard, 16 bit, 44.1 or 48 kHz audio. All 18 published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis involving over 400 participants in over 12,500 trials. Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. This result was verified by a sensitivity analysis exploring different choices for the chosen studies and different analysis approaches. Potential biases in studies, effect of test methodology, experimental design, and choice of stimuli were also investigated. The overall conclusion is that the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain can be affected by operating beyond conventional levels.

show abstract

“…For this reason, operators may not immediately perceive the difference between the two options. However, exposure to sound below the hearing threshold may cause nervousness and weariness (Leventhall 2003), whereas exposure to ultrasonic sound may cause headache, tinnitus, fatigue and nausea (Lawton 2001;Smagowska and Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska 2013). That makes the additional risk incurred with the separate cab especially insidious, and gives special value to the experiment that disclosed it.…”

Section: Work Station Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations

Poje¹,

Spinelli²,

Magagnotti³

et al. 2018

Silva Fenn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations Poje A., Spinelli R., Magagnotti N., Mihelic M. (2018). The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations. Silva Fennica vol. 52 no. 1 article id 7003. 14 p. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.7003 Highlights• Exposure to noise and vibration is higher when chipping branches rather than logs.• Noise levels are higher in the separate cab, especially at some frequencies.• Vibration is higher for the Z axis in the separate cab, for the X axis in the truck.• Noise is higher when working with blunt knives, rather than new knives.• Knife wear has no significant effect on exposure to whole-body vibration. AbstractIndustrial chipping is becoming increasingly popular, as the result of a growing demand for woody biomass. Industrial chippers are large, powerful machines that generate much noise and vibration. This study explored some factors that may affect exposure to noise and vibration, namely: feedstock type (branches vs. logs), work station characteristics (truck cab vs. separate cab) and knife wear (new knives vs. blunt knives). Exposure to noise was significantly affected by all three factors, and it was higher for branch feedstock, separate cabs and blunt knives. The higher exposure levels recorded for the separate cab were especially insidious, because they were below and above the hearing threshold and would elude immediate perception. Exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) was significantly higher for branch feedstock and for the separate cab. Knife wear seemed to determine an increase in WBV, but this effect had no statistical significance and the result could not be taken as conclusive. Among the three factors studied, work station characteristics had the strongest effect. Further studies may extend the comparison to a wider range of options, as well as explore the use of exposure variation for machine diagnostics.

show abstract

Effects of Ultrasonic Noise on the Human Body—A Bibliographic Review

Abstract: ultrasonic noise effect working environment

Cited by 72 publications

References 19 publications

Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?

Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About