The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Among Construction Workers

Abstract

Effective hearing conservation programs in the construction industry are rare. Where programs are present, they often rely on workers' use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) rather than on exposure controls to reduce noise exposure levels. Dependence on HPDs for protection from high noise is problematic, as the protection provided by the HPD depends on both the HPD's attenuation level and the time the HPD is used. This article presents an analysis of data on noise exposure and hearing protection among construction workers drawn from several large datasets covering nine construction trades. A unique combination of 1-min dosimetry noise exposure levels and simultaneous self-reported use of HPDs was evaluated, as were occupational and nonoccupational HPD use data collected by questionnaire as part of a longitudinal study of noise exposure and hearing loss among apprentices. Direct measurements of HPD attenuation were also made on workers at their work site. The workers assessed in this study were found to use hearing protection less than one-quarter of the time that they were exposed above 85 dBA. Workers who reported always using HPDs in high noise on questionnaires were found to wear them only one-third of the time their exposures exceeded 85 dBA. Workers' self-reported use of HPDs during most noisy nonoccupational activities was also found to be low. Direct attenuation measurements found that workers were able to achieve more than 50% of the rated attenuation of their HPD on average, but that the variability in achieved attenuation was large. When the measured HPD attenuation levels and use time data were combined, the effective protection afforded by HPDs was less than 3 dB, a negligible amount given the high exposure levels associated with construction work. However, there was substantial variation in effective protection among the different trades assessed. These results demonstrate the need for better hearing conservation programs and expanded noise control efforts in the construction industry.

A multi-component intervention to promote hearing protector use among construction workers

“…Consistent with previous studies in our group (Neitzel & Seixas, 2005;Edelson et al, 2009;Trabeau et al, 2008), we again observed a positive bias in self-reported HPD use using a questionnaire compared with a task card filled out on the day of use. We have previously evaluated the task card method against direct observation and found it to be highly accurate (Neitzel et al, 1999, Reeb-Whitaker et al, 2004.…”

“…It is important to note that each of these studies have relied on selfreported HPD use information collected via questionnaire. Our comparison of questionnaire data to validated task card reports of HPD use indicates that HPD use is overstated when reported via questionnaire (Edelson et al, 2009, Neitzel & Seixas, 2005, suggesting that the intervention effects described in these earlier studies may be optimistic.The HPD and safety climate factors, as well as specific HPM questions concerning supervisory and social support for HPDs, were associated with HPD use prior to intervention, and with change in use subsequent to the intervention. However, this change was not in the expected direction; that is, those reporting a more positive climate were less likely to change subsequent to intervention.…”

“…During each monitored shift, each subject was asked to fill out a detailed task card recording the time at which specific activities were conducted, and including the time at which HPDs were in use. These HPD use reports from the task cards were matched by time with the dosimetry measurements as described previously (Neitzel & Seixas, 2005). Using the dosimetry and HPD use information, the percent of time during which the sound pressure levels exceeded 85 dBA in each shift, and in which the worker also reported using HPDs, was calculated.…”

“…However, because previous analysis (Edelson et al, 2009) indicated that the distribution of HPD use was bimodal-with a large percentage of workers either reporting 0 or 100% HPD use while in high noise-we also created a binary variable indicating those subjects that used HPDs more or less than 50% of the time at or over 85 dBA L eq . Note that use of hearing protectors for less than 50% of the time spent in high noise provides minimally effective protection from noise (Berger, 2000;Neitzel & Seixas, 2005). …”

Effects of Hearing Protection Methods and Noise Directions on Bone-Conduction Sensitivity

“…Neitzel & Seixas (2005) pointed out that there is often significant variability between the noise reduction rating (NRR) typically marked for the hearing protection devices in the United States and direct field attenuation measurement.…”