Suitability of commercial systems for earplug individual fit testing

Trompette, Nicolas; Kusy, Alain; Ducourneau, Joël

doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.11.010

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An SV 25S microphone measured sound level in the ear canal by a probe that was placed at the entry of the ear canal. The length of the probe was selected as 16 mm to ensure maximum comfort and to protect from contact with the eardrum [19] . Calibration of the SV 25S microphones was performed with an SV30/SV31 acoustic calibrator.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Fit Testing of Hearing Protection Devices Based on Microphone in Real Ear

Biabani

Aliabadi

Golmohammadi

et al. 2017

Safety and Health at Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLabeled noise reduction (NR) data presented by manufacturers are considered one of the main challenging issues for occupational experts in employing hearing protection devices (HPDs). This study aimed to determine the actual NR data of typical HPDs using the objective fit testing method with a microphone in real ear (MIRE) method.MethodsFive available commercially earmuff protectors were investigated in 30 workers exposed to reference noise source according to the standard method, ISO 11904-1. Personal attenuation rating (PAR) of the earmuffs was measured based on the MIRE method using a noise dosimeter (SVANTEK, model SV 102).ResultsThe results showed that means of PAR of the earmuffs are from 49% to 86% of the nominal NR rating. The PAR values of earmuffs when a typical eyewear was worn differed statistically (p < 0.05). It is revealed that a typical safety eyewear can reduce the mean of the PAR value by approximately 2.5 dB. The results also showed that measurements based on the MIRE method resulted in low variability. The variability in NR values between individuals, within individuals, and within earmuffs was not the statistically significant (p > 0.05).ConclusionThis study could provide local individual fit data. Ergonomic aspects of the earmuffs and different levels of users experience and awareness can be considered the main factors affecting individual fitting compared with the laboratory condition for acquiring the labeled NR data. Based on the obtained fit testing results, the field application of MIRE can be employed for complementary studies in real workstations while workers perform their regular work duties.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Fit Testing of Hearing Protection Devices Based on Microphone in Real Ear

Biabani

Aliabadi

Golmohammadi

et al. 2017

Safety and Health at Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One available method to verify the performance of HPDs is to use individual fit testing, which provides a personal attenuation rating (PAR) for individual users, thereby eliminating problems associated with estimating field attenuation using labeled values or derating schemes 10,15 . In addition to providing an accurate estimate of the sound reduction received by each individual worker, HPD fit testing also: (1) facilitates employee hearing protector training, (2) encourages train‐the‐trainer opportunities, (3) assists with hearing protector selection, (4) enhances standard threshold shift monitoring, and (5) documents hearing conservation efforts 16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of fit‐test systems are commercially available, including 3M™ E‐A‐Rfit™ Dual‐Ear Validation System, VeriPRO fit‐test system, and the FitCheck Solo™ fit test system 15,20,21 . The 3M™ E‐A‐Rfit™ Dual‐Ear Validation System was introduced to Chinese HPD users several years ago and demonstrated value for verifying sufficiency of attenuation 22–24 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifying earplug attenuation and evaluating the effectiveness of one‐on‐one training along with earplug fit testing at nine facilities in China

Gong

Zhang

Liu

et al. 2021

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to measure the personal attenuation ratings (PARs) in Chinese workers wearing hearing protection devices (HPDs), to evaluate the effectiveness of the single number rating (SNR), the noise reduction rating (NRR), and the associated derated values of earplugs; and (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of one‐on‐one training along with earplug fit testing on PAR improvement. Methods Noise exposure measurements, one‐on‐one training, and fit tests to measure earplug attenuation were conducted at nine manufacturing facilities located in eastern China from 2016 to 2017. 503 workers participated in the study. Ninety‐three percent were male. 199 workers were provided one‐on‐one training. Results Before training, 14% and 15% of the workers achieved the attenuation predicted by the manufacturer's SNR and NRR, 56% and 65% exceeded the derated SNR and NRR, respectively. Following one‐on‐one training, mean PAR improved significantly by 15 dB (p < 0.01); 26% of the workers achieved SNR and NRR, 79% and 91% met the associated derated values, respectively. Conclusions Labeled noise attenuation ratings and their derated values overestimated the actual level of attenuation among workers wearing HPDs. One‐on‐one training along with earplug fit testing contributed to improved PARs.

show abstract

“…Trompette et al (14) reported that VeriPRO attenuation values underestimated REAT and varied with the earplug tested. Brueck (15) reported lower mean values for the PAR attenuations by frequency compared to the manufacturer’s reported REAT values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rimmer and Ellenbrecker (20) proposed using a bone-conduction loudness balance (BCLB) and Franks et al (14) tested the method with a sound field paradigm. The variance for the BCLB attenuations was greater than those observed for open-ear REAT in sound field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-laboratory comparison of three earplug fit-test systems

Byrne

Murphy

Krieg

et al. 2017

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sponsored tests of three earplug fit-test systems (NIOSH HPD Well-Fit™, Michael & Associates FitCheck, and Honeywell Safety Products VeriPRO®). Each system was compared to laboratory-based real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) measurements in a sound field according to ANSI/ASA S12.6-2008 at the NIOSH, Honeywell Safety Products, and Michael & Associates testing laboratories. An identical study was conducted independently at the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL), which provided their data for inclusion in this report. The Howard Leight Airsoft premolded earplug was tested with twenty subjects at each of the four participating laboratories. The occluded fit of the earplug was maintained during testing with a soundfield-based laboratory REAT system as well as all three headphone-based fit-test systems. The Michael & Associates lab had highest average A-weighted attenuations and smallest standard deviations. The NIOSH lab had the lowest average attenuations and the largest standard deviations. Differences in octave-band attenuations between each fit-test system and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) sound field method were calculated (Attenfit-test - AttenANSI). A-weighted attenuations measured with FitCheck and HPD Well-Fit systems demonstrated approximately ±2 dB agreement with the ANSI sound field method, but A-weighted attenuations measured with the VeriPRO system underestimated the ANSI laboratory attenuations. For each of the fit-test systems, the average A-weighted attenuation across the four laboratories was not significantly greater than the average of the ANSI sound field method. Standard deviations for residual attenuation differences were about ±2 dB for FitCheck and HPD Well-Fit compared to ±4 dB for VeriPRO. Individual labs exhibited a range of agreement from less than a dB to as much as 9.4 dB difference with ANSI and REAT estimates. Factors such as the experience of study participants and test administrators, and the fit-test psychometric tasks are suggested as possible contributors to the observed results.

show abstract

Suitability of commercial systems for earplug individual fit testing

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

Individual Fit Testing of Hearing Protection Devices Based on Microphone in Real Ear

Individual Fit Testing of Hearing Protection Devices Based on Microphone in Real Ear

Verifying earplug attenuation and evaluating the effectiveness of one‐on‐one training along with earplug fit testing at nine facilities in China

Inter-laboratory comparison of three earplug fit-test systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About