Setting Limits for Low Frequency Noise

Vercammen, Martijn

doi:10.1177/026309238900800401

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When general knowledge on hearing in the low frequency region had improved, and drafts or suggestions for assessment methods for low frequency noise were published (Piorr and Wietlake 7 ; Vercammen 11,12 ), it was considered that there was an adequate background for a recommended assessment method to be published. It was realised that knowledge on this topic was not complete and that not all questions could be fully answered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Danish Guidelines on Environmental Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound and Vibration

Jakobsen

2001

Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Denmark a set of guidelines for measurement and assessment of environmental low frequency noise, infrasound and vibration was published in 1997 as "Information from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency no. 9/1997" (Miljøstyrelsen 2). Recommended measurement methods are specified, and recommended limit values for noise and vibration are given. In this paper a brief description of the measurement methods is given, the recommended limit values are shown, and the background for the measurement and assessment methods is discussed. This paper is an extended summary of "Information from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency No.9/1997" (in Danish)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Danish Guidelines on Environmental Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound and Vibration

Jakobsen

2001

Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inukai et al [60] developed a new weighting curve for low-frequency noise. Vercammen [61,62] developed low-frequency noise limits which appear to be the forerunner of the Danish limits.…”

Section: Low-frequency Noise Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Potential Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise in the Australian Context

Davy

Burgemeister²,

Hillman

et al. 2020

Acoust Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript describes a range of technical deliberations undertaken by the authors during their work as members of the Australian Government’s Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines. Central to these deliberations was the requirement upon the committee to improve understanding and monitoring of the potential impacts of sound from wind turbines (including low frequency and infrasound) on health and the environment. The paper examines existing wind turbine sound limits, possible perceptual and physiological effects of wind turbine noise, aspects of the effects of wind turbine sound on sleep health and quality of life, low-frequency noise limits, the concept of annoyance including alternative causes of it and the potential for it to be affected by low-frequency noise, the influence of amplitude modulation and tonality, sound measurement and analysis and management strategies. In so doing it provides an objective basis for harmonisation across Australia of provisions for siting and monitoring of wind turbines, which currently vary from state to state, contributing to contention and potential inequities between Australians, depending on their place of residence.

show abstract

“…2 and 3) since both studies were intended to verify exposure criteria for low frequency noise not for infrasound. However, these results do not rule out the need to propose exposure limits for G-weighting in order to prevent annoyance caused by infrasound, especially as infrasound only slightly above hearing threshold may be annoying and it is assumed that the sound pressure levels found on the G86 curve are the limit values of the hearing threshold that is exceeded in 90−95% of the population [37]. It is surprising that in this study the correlation between annoyance ratings and the conventional assessment method based on A-weighted SPL was quite good.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Proposed Criteria for Assessing Low Frequency Noise Annoyance in Occupational Settings

Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska

Szymczak²,

Dudarewicz³

et al. 2006

International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of the study was to recommend methods for assessing low frequency noise (LFN) in the occupational environment to prevent annoyance and its effects on work performance. Three different evaluating methods and corresponding admissible values were proposed: (i) method I -frequency analysis in 1/3-octave bands within the range of 10-250 Hz, (ii) method II -consisting in 1/3-octave band measurements and determination of low frequency equivalentcontinuous A-weighted sound pressure level (SPL) in the frequency range of 10-250 Hz, and (iii) method III -based on equivalent-continuous A-weighted SPL corrected due to the presence of low frequencies and tonal character of LFN. Separate noise limits were recommended for workplaces in control rooms and office-like areas. Materials and Methods: The proposed criteria were verified in laboratory and field studies. The laboratory study included 55 volunteers, aged 21.8±2.1 years, with normal hearing (<25 dB HL). The subjects listened to different noises at A-weighted SPL of 45-65 dB, and evaluated annoyance using a 100-score graphical rating scale. In the field study, 35 male workers, aged 40.1 ± 7.2 years, exposed to LFN at A-weighted SPL of 48-61 dB, were asked to rate noise annoyance at their workplaces using a similar graphical scale. The subjective ratings of LFNs were compared to objective results from various assessing methods. The relations between annoyance and excesses of proposed limits were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). Results: Linear relationships between the subjective ratings and results from all proposed exposure criteria were observed (0.550 ≤ r ≤ 0.673; p < 0.001). In the field conditions, however, the highest correlation coefficient was found for method II (r = 0.673), while during the laboratory study for method I (r = 0.612) and criterion curves based on hearing threshold level (HTL). Conclusions: All proposed criteria, especially the evaluation method based on the low frequency equivalent-continuous A-weighted sound SPL (method II) as well as the frequency analysis in 1/3-octave bands 10(20)-250 Hz (method I) and criterion curves based on HTL or A-weighting characteristics, seem to be able to quite well predict annoyance experienced from LFN at workplaces.

show abstract

Setting Limits for Low Frequency Noise

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

Danish Guidelines on Environmental Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound and Vibration

Danish Guidelines on Environmental Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound and Vibration

A Review of the Potential Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise in the Australian Context

Proposed Criteria for Assessing Low Frequency Noise Annoyance in Occupational Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About