Occupational Noise at Sea 1

Occupational Noise at Sea 1
Occupational Noise at Sea
By [Name]
Professors Name:
Institution:
Date: 07-04-2017
Chapter 1: Introduction.
The current study identifies occupational noise by indicating that it is
difficult to manage because it is not a new risk. In the context of
occupational noise, the current study indicates thatsound is a physical agent
that can be objectively measured. However, it is not implied that a given
noise measurement will be perceived by two random workers imposing the
same risk level. Regardless of the accuracy of the measurement, risk
perception is highly subjective. However, negative effects to health caused
by high levels of noise are well documented of which occupational hearing
loss and tinnitus are probably the best known by the general
public(Standfeld and Matheson, 2003).
Occupational noise is not a new hazard, neither is noise
management(LjungbergandNeely, 2007). Numerous studies exist about
occupational noise management and how risk perception influences safe
behaviour(Health and Safety Executive, 2005). Unlike those studies, most
of the research that focus on seafarers tend to emphasise noise
measurement and noise exposure(Chao et al., 2013). Such studies
generally assume that once crew is informed about noise risks they will
behave accordingly. However, based on anecdotal experience of the
research, it might not be the case. More evidence is necessary to sustain
that assumption by saying that occupational noise management can be
measured by informing noise risks to the crew members.
Notwithstanding noise levels, a comparison of the pieces of legislation
iscreated to protect the workers from expected noise threats. The
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) updated recommended noise
levels in 2012(Badino et al., 2012). It also explores different types of

domestic levels as they are presented in legislation and applied to the
offshore scenarios.Nonetheless, protection levels are lower than those
provided under domestic legislation. Moreover, comparison of both sets
might indicate whether there are practical differences when applied in real
scenarios.
The current studywill explore occupational noise management in a
very specific environment: those working in the noisier environments on
board ships or self-propelled units. Therefore, it is necessary to add
evidence that ships engine rooms are noisy environments and if the noise
levels change significantly over time. Given the limitations of the research,
it will be done by a combination of secondary and primary research. The
values obtained by the research cannot be considered universal and
representative of similar kind of floating units. However, it will add to the
existing literature on the field.
Nevertheless, the research indicates that a little would be added to
what is already known about noise without exploring the attitudes and
behaviour of those exposed to it on daily basis. Therefore, by using already
existing research by the Institute of Occupational Medicine,the current
study intends to obtain data from active engine room department workers
on their attitude, knowledge and behaviour on occupational noise(Areces&
Miguel, 2007). In addition, more information is sought from those workers
regarding their attitude, behaviours and knowledge level on occupational
noise to make sure it is effectively used in managing noise at work.
This study explores current level of protection from noise of engine
room workers at sea and the way it could be improved by influencing

personal factors. To achieve such aim, the following objectives should be
met:
1. To measure noise levels and exposure times on a sample of
seafarers.
2. To compare national and international law on occupational noise.
3. To explore how perceived risks, knowledge and attitudes to safety
may influence engine room workers safe behaviour.
4. To determine how companies could manage occupational noise on a
more effective manner.

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
2.1 The Legal Framework associated with Noise and its relation
to Health and Safety Management
2.1.1 What is Noise?
Before the effects of occupational noise can be discussed, it must be given a
clear definition to the term noise within the occupational health and safety
field.
There are several uses of the word noise, but no clear boundary has
been created between them. It is well-known reality that noise is a word
which is most frequently usedin English. The Oxford Dictionary as described
by Hornby (2005) has defined noise as A sound, especially when it is loud,
unpleasant or disturbing. While this definition is easy to understand, it
lacks the accuracy needed to manage occupational noise. As an example, a
classical musical piece hardly could be considered noise by a musician.
However, when that person plays professionally and may suffer from
occupational hearing loss, it might be regarded as noise.
The second aspect of the word noise that the current study would like
to differentiate is the use of the work in acoustics. According to Ziobroski
and Powers (2005), noise is any unwanted sound. Despite its broad
scope, it does not include the concept of noise from an occupational health
and safety point of view. To clarify this argument, the current study
provides argumentative approach to exemplify the situation. A power plant
operator might have his or her stress level increased by the unpleasant and
loud level of a warning signal from the control room. However, this sound
could not be classified as unwanted given the fact that it is essential for
the safe and efficient operation of the plant.
The third and more relevant aspect of the word noise is its legal
term. Within the legal framework, noise is any sound in the workplace which
is likely to harm the health of the workers. However, due to an allegedly
lack of scientific evidence, the exposure limits are decided on the potential
harm to hearing loss (Directive of the European Parlamient and of the
Council 2003/10/EC). Moreover, the research conducted by already
published articles indicated the lack of evidence stated therein, even though
they find relation between noise and negative health effects (Baliatsas, et
al., 2016).It indicates that noise could potentially harm the health of
workers working at a workplace environment at industrial units. But, there
was a lack in scientific research on determining the influence of noise by
which it could affect the health of workers. But, the research indicates that
the studies conducted by other researchers like Baliatsas, et al. (2016)
provided the necesasry evidence of negative influene that noise can create
on the health of workers.
The current study provides some basic operations and definitions to
ensure there are not misunderstandings with the basic concepts of key
importance associated with noise and their influence on the health of
workers. It provides a deep understanding and thinking of the reader
regarding the concepts of noise that they could learn from more specialized
texts (South, 2004; (EVEREST & POHLMANN, 2015).

2.2 The Legal Framework.
2.2.1 Maritime Law on Occupational Noise.
The current study identifies the relevance of the Revolution passed in
the Maritime Safety Committee Act of 1981 to the introduction of resolution
MSC 337 (91) that was used to provide a legal cover to the workers
influenced from the negative consequences of the noise at the workplace
environment (Maritime Safety Committee, 2012).More than thirty years
passed since Resolution A.468(XII) (Maritime Safety Committee, 1981) to
the introduction of Resolution MSC.337(91) (Maritime Safety Committee,
2012). However, legal protection of seafarers barely improved with the
latest introduction of Resolution MSC.337 (91). Some authors have
dedicated great effort to highlight the deficiencies of the latest international
effort to protect people working at sea (Beltrn, et al., 2014). Indeed,
Resolution MSC.337 (91) lack enforcement capabilities expected of any
legal instrument. This is based in the fact that the whole chapter 5 on noise
exposure limits is recommendatory, options for compliance, or
informative in nature as stated in section 1.1.3 of The Code (Maritime
Safety Committee, 2012) and the use of should instead of shall denotes
its shortcomings when it needs to be invoked to safeguard the health and
safety of seafarers versus strong production and technical arguments. The
Codes produced by the Maritime Safety Committee (2012) provided
necessary support and cover to the workers in safeguarding their health and
safety against technical argumentation of seafarers.Moreover,
recommended exposure limits as set in section 5.3.1 of 120 dB(A) or
Leq(24) below 105 dB(A) are considered unacceptable in any industry in

Europe, including in the United Kingdom as it will be reviewed later in this
paper. In addition, a seafarer could be exposed, without hearing protection,
for 8 hours up to 85 dB (A) without the need of wearing hearing
protection.The current study provides the necessary recommendations to be
taken into considerations to ensure the safety and health of the workers
while working at highly noisy workplace environments that could negatively
influence their health in doing their job responsibilities.
2.2.2 European, and United Kingdom of Great Britain, legislation on

noise.
In contrast with to Maritime Safety Committees view on the safety of
seafarers, The Directive of the European Parliament and the Council
2003/10/EC (2003) provides a greater level of protection against exposure
to noise at work. Although it applies to Ships registered on European ports,
in paragraph 11 of its preamble the Directive allows Member States to delay
the implementation of the limits set in Article 3.
As required by law, the United Kingdom revoked The Noise at Work
Regulations(SI 1989/1790) to transpose the above-mentioned Directive into
British regulation in the form of The Control of Noise at Work Regulations
(SI 2005/1643). Moreover, European law provided a safer level of
protection to British workers as the new regulations approved substantially
reduced the exposure of workers to noise. It not only reduced action levels
by 5 dB (A), but Regulations based on European law introduced an exposure
limit even lower than the second action level of the 1989 Regulations. It is
well known among professionals of noise assessment on board ships that
either limit is considerably lower than any other recommended by the
International Maritime Organisation in its later document (Maritime Safety

Committee, 2012). Moreover, MSC.337 (91) was published nine years after
Directive 2003/10/EC came into force.Therefore, it indicates that the engine
crews need to follow the Maritime guidance which is applicable to the
current study to ensure workers health while working at noisy workplace
environment at sea.
On board ships, even those flying British flag, The Control of Noise at
Work Regulations 2005(SI 2005/1643) is not directly applicable as stated in
Section 3(4) of such instrument. However, this is achieved through The
Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Control of Noise at Work)
Regulations Statutory Instrument 2007/3075 (2007).The statutory
Instrument specifically focuses to control the noise at work in merchant
shipping and fishing vessels.Moreover, Maritime and Coastguard Agency has
published a Marine Guidance Note in that respect known as The Merchant
Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Control of Noise at Work) Regulations (2007)
or in its official short form as MGN 352 (M+F). Both documents ensure
similar level of protection to seafarers working on British vessels. In
addition, as provided in section 18 of Control of Noise at Work Regulations,
these limits might be applied to foreign vessels in British waters. But, the
current study indicates that no such information was found regarding
foreign vessel had ever received an official notice or warning of detection to
control noise at work.
2.3 Noise Effects.
Although it is scientifically proven that high level of noise cause many
health problems like cardiovascular effects (Munzel, et al., 2014) high blood
pressure (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003) and no less important consequences

like annoyance(Miedema & Oudshoorn, 2001). Probably hearing loss is the
best known damaging effect of noise on health(Occupational Health and
Safety Administration, 2002). However, the current study indicated how the
assumptions made on workers of the engine room were correct working on
the ship boards. It also clarified that the assumptions were correct
regarding engine workers because necessary information was not spread
among workers to take precautionary measures against noise at work.
Moreover, the current study expanded the necessary information regarding
safety and security of workers working at ship boards to better understand
the issues regarding noise at work because it could affect their physical
health and hearing loss in future. It allowed the management of ship boards
and other relevant organizations to adopt better management of
occupational noise and its adverse effects on their workers.
Sataloff&Sataloff(2006)also provided comprehensive evidence
regarding noise at work by saying that it was the responsibility of the
workers to understand negative influence of noise while working at ship
boards. They needed to have basic medical knowledge to determine the
negative consequences of the noise on health.Noise induced hearing loss
has some characteristics. We must differentiate between acute and chronic
hearing loss, although the former may provide an indication of excessive
noise leading to the later. Tinnitus is a frequent side effect of exposure to
high levels of noise along with various health concerns for the workers over
extended periods of time (Sataloff & Sataloff, 2006).
Due to its physical nature, noise at work management published work
tended to be paired with measurement and management of vibration
(South, 2004). However, occupational vibration effects, either hand-arm

vibration (HAV) or whole-body vibration are out of the scope of this
research paper. However, the current study recognised the similarities in
measurement, management and control between noise and vibration.
Moreover, (Ljungberg & Neely, 2007)estimated negative effects of noise
and vibration on the workers health in identifying that physical agents have
the same effects in the same degree (Chao, et al., 2013).
One of the arguments when trying to stablish noise level limits is
where to draw the line. In other words, it is necessary to know a safe dose
of noise which has no harmful effects, or the consequences are acceptable.
In that line several organisations and authors have suggested a dose limit
based on 8-hour exposure lower than the first action limit of LEX, 8h= 80
dB(A) which is the legal limit in the European Union, to make hearing
protection available to workers. Contrary to this conservationist approach,
the research indicated that the noise exposure are the limits recommended
by the International Maritime Organisation in its Resolution MSC.337(91) as
discussed earlier in this research work. In that respect, the Maritime Safety
Committee provides limited explanation over the scientific evidence in which
their recommendations were based.
Other forgotten aspect of the noise exposure, not mentioned in any
piece of legislation and with limited research studies, is the effect that
frequency might have on the exposed persons health (Baliatsas, et al.,
2016). To be more specific, Baliatsas et al. (2016) refers to low-frequency
noise. In addition, more research is necessary to evaluate gender as a
mediating factor on the negative health effects of noise (Eriksson, et al.,
2010). Although the selection of the most appropriate weighting system to
assess occupational noise exposure is not part of the scope of this research
paper, Sun, Qin and Qiu(2015) explored the use of an alternative F-
weighted equivalent sound pressure level which combines A-weighting and
C-weighting measurements into a single scale defined as:
PFeq(t)=A,T(AW(t)*P(t)))+C,T(CW(t)*P(t)) (Sun, et al., 2015, p. 31) where
AW(t) and CW(t) are the A-weight and C-weight filters, being A,T and C,T
the blending coefficients applied. The current study will not go deeper into
the mathematical explanation of such assessment filter. However, the
research on noise at sea indicates that a thorough consideration should be
given to scientific evidence suggesting more effective ways, or additional
influence factors which might improve the protection of workers against
physical factors like noise. This scientific evidence should underpin future
legislation and industry best practice.
2.4 Noise at Sea.
Ships are noisy environments (Borelli, et al., 2015) where workers
stay 24 hours per day for long periods of time. Moreover, machinery spaces
are the noisiest places on board a ship (Soriano Tarin, et al., 2011).
However, this section of the study addresses noise levels in relevant areas
by indicating that noise on board shipping boats is entirely different from
the large offshore construction vessels where the space limitations are less
critical.In addition, the current study also indicates that the levels of noise
have showed changing variations after several years in operations when
compared to initial assessment as conducted by a recognized classification
society during the sea trials (Oldenburg, Baur&Schlaich, 2010).Both factors
may have implications on how noise should be managed depending on the
type of vessel and her operational life cycle.

The relationship of high noise levels in the workplace and safety is
not limited to the health of those exposed to it. It is generally known that
human error on board ships may have catastrophic consequences, e.g.
Herald of Free Entrerprise in 1987; Exxon Valdez in 1989 or the recent
Costa Concordia in 2012 just to name few of the best-known tragedies at
sea where human error was a significant contribution. A study conducted by
Montewka et al. (2014) links accidents like collision and grounding to
human error which probability, and therefore the risk, is mediated by
factors described as Diffuse Effects and Acute Effects (Montewka et al.,
2014, Figure 1). Within the group of diffuse effects are included: noise,
whole body vibration and ship motion. The way those factors could increase
the risk of an accident is evaluated by reducing human capabilities.Although
worth mentioning and in opinion of the current study is very interesting
subject to noise at sea, but it does not attempt to analyse or study the
effects of noise other than its direct risk perception and mostly on
occupational hearing loss. It indicates that in-depth research work is needed
to determine the effects of noise at work along with their risk factors that
are mostly concerned with occupational health concerns for the workers
(Oldenburg et al., 2009).
On a similar research Turan et al. (2011) clearly found that the
highest levels of noise exposure occur to workers of the technical
department. A positive finding of that research is the comparison of values
against international maritime regulations versus European law. Moreover,
their results showed how fifty per cent of the field measurements on each
ship were compliant with maritime law while none of them complied with
the European Directive 2003/10/EC. Despite the great contribution to the
knowledge and understanding of occupational noise exposure of seafarers

the current study is conducted based on some limitations to determine the
influence of noise on the health of workers while conducting their normal
job responsibilities. In the Maritime industry, some main propulsion engines
have power outputs of up to 80,080 kW (Wrtsil-Sulzer RTA96-C) on a
single engine. Moreover, as they are similar ships, they have similar designs
and their crew have similar shift patters. In contrast, if an offshore
construction vessel had been chosen with 12-hour shifts different results
might be obtained. However, it could be said that one of its main limitations
is that Turan et al. (2011) only measured A-Weighted noise and they did
not take any C-Weighted measurement which is evident does not allow to
ensure compliance with any of the valid legal papers at the time of writing
their research.
In the European Union, many efforts are dedicated to reduce the
noise and vibration of ships following the pyramid of risk prevention by
concentrating efforts on improved ships design. As an example, the EU
program Ships Oriented Innovative Solutions to Reduce Noise & Vibration
(SILENV) has funded research in that area like Badino et al (2012).
2.5 Risk Perception.
Although Regulations, both international and domestic, the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance (2005) and many other
regulations(South, 2004)have established the priorities in the control of
noise at work where the preferred method is the control at source.In the
current study as per information collected from various sources, the use of
personal hearing protectionis considered a last and temporary resource to
protect the worker while other measures are implemented. However, it is

well known that many companies rely on PPE as the only way to protect
workers from excessive noise exposure (Morata, et al., 2001).
Research found that workers are more likely to use personal hearing
protection based on a high individual risk perception regardless of noise
levels (Areces & Miguel, 2007). In addition, Areces& Miguel (2007) found
that their sample of workers were not accurate predicting noise levels,
which is consistent with the findings done almost thirty years before by
Weinstein (1980) with his theory about Unrealsitic Optimism. Moreover, in a
previous study, Areces& Miguel (2006) found a negative relation between
education level and use of hearing protection, being self-efficacy the main
factor in the use of hearing protection. Self-Efficacy is defined as The way
workers perceive that HPD [hearing protection devices] can protect them
efficiently and that they are able to use it in a proper way (Areces &
Miguel, 2006, p. 1042).The current study indicates that in terms of negative
relation, greater educational attainment is needed with the less PPE is used.
But, in terms of self-efficacy, the study provides greater clarification of the
workers in perceiving hearing protection devices that can be used in
protecting them from noise at the workplace in an ideal way.
Risk perception is not a new research subject and it has generated
considerable research in the field of decision making. One of the most
prolific authors in the field of risk perception is Paul Slovic, president of
Decision Research. Risk perception is itself affected by many variables
extremely difficult to evaluate. In addition, every single risk, e.g. noise in
the workplace, has its own characteristic which is not static (Slovic, 2000).
Slovic developed a risk map which is applicable to the current study
indicating the possibility of allocating any risk on a Cartesian grid of factor 1

and factor 2. Those factors are elaborated by the correlation of several risk
factors like voluntariness, known to science, common / dread or severity of
consequences among other (Slovic, 2000, p. 97).
Figure 1 Hazard Locations on factors 1 & 2.
(Slovic, et al., 1982, p. 86)
Not all the authors agree with Slovics views on risk perception and
his psychometric paradigm(Sjoberg, et al., 2004). The current study is also
focused on highlighting two mayor limitations on Slovics research. The first

of them is the use of a very homogeneous sample like the League of
Women Voters(Slovic, 2000, p. 87) and the difference he assumes between
expert and plain peoples risk perception.
However, the current study identifies another important aspect of
Slovic& Peters (2006) in determining how it could influence our perceptions
of the risk combination with perceived benefits. In this case, the research
indicates that if the worker has a negative affect about the wearing of
hearing protection, it would indicate as the Risk is high. The research also
indicates that most of the workers are likely to present a problem by
pointing out that the Benefit is low and presenting the problem to protect
the workers health relying on the hearing protections (Jakovljevic,
Paunovic&Belojevic, 2009).
To conclude, the author recommends the reader to seek further
information on the limitations of individual hearing protection to better
understand the need on controlling noise at source instead on trust on the
bulletproof vest to stop the shot.

CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.1 Research Strategies.
The Author will follow the structure set by Bryman & Bell (2011) on
the review of the methodology chosen. The following sections will be a brief
indication of the research style according the The Research Onion as
illustrated in Saunders, et al. (2012, p. 128).
3.1.1 Epistemological Considerations.
Epistemology is the study on knowledge which is presented in the
current study to determine the influence of noise on workers(Steup, 2005).
The current research acknowledges thecritical realism from an
epistemological point of view. The critical realism provides the situation by
which meta-theory of the social sciences is explored. It is much more
concerned with the philosophy of epistemology and depends upon the
consequences of predictions and objectives of the social science, where
epistemology indicates the situation where knowledge is generated through
possible social science ways(Gorski, 2013). The view of the world from a
critical realism perspective has deep implications in the approach taken to
add to the general knowledge in the field of health and safety management
(Zachariadis, et al., 2013).
3.1.2 Ontological Considerations.
There are two positions on social ontology: objectivism and
constructionism (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The former consider knowledge as
created or discovered while for constructionism, knowledge is constructed,
not created (Zachariadis, et al., 2013).

3.1.3 Methodology.
The type of data collected and analysed, its time frame in relation to
subjects or participants i.e. cross-sectional or longitudinal, and the strategy
or strategies chosen -e.g. survey, ethnography, and case study, from part
of the research design methodology. Although Saunders et al. (2012)
identify six methodologies in their research onion, other authors group them
into three general methods: qualitative, quantitative and triangulation or
mixed method research (Creswell, 2014). The current study follows a mixed
method research; however, it is dominated by its quantitative part of the
design. The mixed research methodology is based on qualitative as well as
quantitative methods of data collection and analysis regarding occupational
noise at sea that could influence the workers through various problems. The
qualitative method is much more concerned in discussing the research
qualitatively by explaining theoretical observations and their relevance to
the current study. On the other hand, the quantitative methods of research
are more concerned with the statistical inference of the data to determine
the influence of occupational noise at sea on the workers.
3.2 Data Acquisition Plan.
To be able to answer the research questions proposed by the author,
primary data must be obtained. The details relevant to each type of primary
data will be provided in the following sections. However, it may provide a
better understanding of the research data collection plan to provide some
general indications.
The first block of primary data collected is noise levels on board an
offshore vessel. Although the type of data collected and the procedure to
gather noise measurements is provided if detail, for now, it is enough to

know the main reasons to measure noise levels.The current study evaluates
how the noise measurements will be made and evaluated by describing
their relevance to the study. In order to measure the noise levels, various
tools and techniques will be used to determine the negative influence of
noise on the health of the workers offering their services on the shipboard
of offshore vessels.
Although other research work measure noise on board vessels, they
are either small fishing vessels (Soriano Tarn, et al., 2011), navy warships
(Sunde, et al., 2014), small oil or chemical tankers (Turan, et al., 2011),
passenger vessels (Borelli, et al., 2015) or either they focus on comfort
instead of occupational noise (Goujard, et al., 2005) or environmental noise
(Badino, et al., 2012). Therefore, the inclusion of a self-propelled offshore
construction jack up vessel will add external validity to the knowledge
database in the fieldwhich indicates that further research is needed in the
already conducted research work.It is not intention of the study
whichsuggests that other studies conducted on the related noise-related
issues are somehow incomplete or too limited. It also indicates that more
emphasises should be made on the complexity and wide range possible
scenarios, requiring to build up a collaborative knowledge
(Salyga&Juozulynas, 2006). Such knowledge is necessary not only to assess
noise exposure of engine room workers, but to compare international to
domestic legislation in the same way Turan, et al. (2011) did before the
new international legislation entered into force for engine room workers
only.
In addition, the current study indicates that noise levels on board a
ship may change significantly after a few years in operation. Therefore,

such assumption must be verified before any recommendation could be
made based on objective evidence. If it were corroborated, it would have
important implications on how noise is currently managed on board vessels.
However, this study would be very limited without an insight in the
perception of risk and knowledge of noise that could influence the behaviour
of workers and regarded as a hazard of those exposed to it (Slovic, 2000)
and what is done to protect workers from such hazard. For that reason, it
was decided to use a questionnaire which could measure those constructs.
Given the financial, time and access limitations of the researcher, it
was decided to use an already developed questionnaire. Moreover, that
would allow some comparison between the population used in the Research
Report 028 (Hughson, et al., 2002) prepared by the Institute of
Occupational Medicine for the Health and Safety Executive. It is worth to
mention that these kinds of reports are covered by the Open Government
Licence (2014) and so it was confirmed by the author contacting Her
Majestys Stationary Office, Licensing Division.
In fact, primary data is obtained through a double questionnaire. The
questionnaire called employee is targeted to engine room workers to better
assess, inter alia, their perception of risk, knowledge about occupational
noise and its consequences, and attitude towards personal hearing
protection. The other set of questions, named managers, is intended to be
answered by health and safety professionals or those in the relevant
organisations with health and safety responsibilities or in charge of noise
management on board one of more unit (Okokon et al., 2015). Both
instruments were translated from English to Spanish language to be able to
reach a wider range of participants.

3.2.1 Noise Measurement and Analysis.
Sound is changes in the pressure on an elastic medium, i.e. air,
caused by vibration or turbulent flow. As a wave, it propagates
longitudinally, and it shares some of the characteristics of other types of

waves. Therefore, the frequency of a sound wave will be = ; where is the
speed of the wave approximately 343 m/s in the air at 20oC, and is the
wave length. This is an important concept, as the human ear is only capable
of hearing between 20 Hz and 20 kHz and it is not equally sensitive though
the whole spectrum (Sataloff & Sataloff, 2006). In addition, it explains why
noise meters usually measure only up to 16 kHz. If we apply the formula
above, the wave length corresponding to 20 kHz is less than 2 cm. This
length is of the same order of magnitude as the ear channel creating
negative effects in the hearing threshold. The device chosen is able to
measure from 12.5 Hz to 20 kHz. However, measurements are taken from
16 Hz to 16 kHz, which is the accepted range for occupational noise
assessment in 1/1 octave band complying with IEC 61672 (Serrao, 2014).
However, A.337 (91) (Maritime Safety Committee, 2012) requires a range
from 31.5 Hz to 8,000 Hz to assess noise on board a ship.
Although sound level -and for the purpose of noise assessment we
consider noise as any sound in the workplace- is measured in Pascals (Pa),
which is the international system unit to measure pressure, it is more
relevant to use the decibel scale. It that way, measurements taken between
2.10-5 Pa to 2 Pa correspond from 0 to 100 dB in the decibel scale.
Therefore, the sound pressure level (Lp) is measured in the following way:

= 2010 ( )
0
where P0=2.10-5 Pa
Although the above formula and others in the following paragraphs
are easily obtained by simple mathematical transformations, the author
recommends reference to South (2004) for more detailed information on
the formulae used within this research (Schreckenberg, Griefahn&Meis,
2010).
To assess noise exposure of engine room personnel, it was decided to
use a handheld noise meter. Details of the instrument used for measuring
are given in the following sections. However, the author decided not to use
personal dose meters, also known as dose badge because their use would
have not provided additional information in this case regarding the influence
of occupational noise at workers offering their services at the offshore
sea(Tao, et al., 2016). Therefore, noise exposure will be calculated
manually adding individual exposures based on observed working patterns
by the researcher. The method to calculate those exposures is with the
following mathematical transformation:
1
= 10 10 [1 100.11 + 2 100.12 + + 100.1 ]

Where, T=t1+t2++tn
And Li= equivalent noise level during ti
Notice that T is one of the main differences between different pieces
of legislation. While is 8 hour in European legislation (Directive of the
European Parlamient and of the Council 2003/10/EC, of 6 February 2003) or
its equivalent 28,800 seconds in United Kingdom (SI 2005/1643, 2005) in

maritime law is calculated on a 24 hour exposure time (Maritime Safety
Committee, 2012).
Occupational noise considers human hearing particularities (South,
2004). Therefore, equivalent noise exposure is to be A-weighted, while the
assessment of impact noise will be C-weighted. A representation of the
weight applied to noise assessment can be seen in the figure below based
on the values from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
standards IEC 61672-1 and IEC 60537 as seen in Bech&Zacharov(2006):
Figure 3-1: A-weighting and C-weighting
The meter used to measure sound levels is a Castle dBAir GA141
Class 1 with octave bands. The device, although capable of measuring from
12.5 Hz to 20,000 Hz is only enabled to measure from 16 Hz to 16 kHz,
which in any case is more than the recommended by the same classification
society regulating the initial noise assessment of the site analysed. This
noise meter complies with IEC 61672, adopted as BS 61672:2003. Noise
meters classified as class 1 have an uncertainty of 1 dB. However, notice
that the noise doubles every 3 dB approximately. Recommendations in

Europe, ask to account for 3 dB error in the assessment, while this value
increases to 5 dB in United Stated (South, 2004).
A noise meter capable of producing octave band readings was
selected. It is recommended to obtain octave band readings to better
analyse the effectiveness of personal hearing protection. However, the
information provided by personal hearing protection complying with BS EN
352 is between 125 Hz and 8,000 Hz, with the band of 63 Hz being optional
(Health and Safety Executive, 2005). In addition, it will allow comparing
values when estimating the level of protection based on another attenuation
figures given by hearing protection manufacturers, e.g. Single Number
Rating (SNR).
3.2.2 Survey.
Some of the parameters relevant to the present paper cannot be
measured in the same manner as noise is measured. Therefore, it has been
considered that a questionnaire is the best available tool for this purpose.
However, survey techniques are utterly important (Fontes de Gracia,
et al., 2010). Following with Fontes de Gracia, et al. (2010), quality of a
survey depends on the errors incurred during sampling, measuring tool
design and data collection. It indicates the quality of survey depends largely
on the best utilization of available resources, tools and techniques to gather
data from the selected respondents to determine their opinions on the
negative influence of occupational noise at work. It also indicates how
negative influence of noise could influence the working of the employees
offering their services in the offshore settings.

3.2.2.1 Sampling.
Given the characteristics of the population the researcher initially
decided that a random sample was not feasible given the resource and time
limitations of the study. Although the population is easy to define: workers
of the engine or technical department of ships or self-propelled units, there
were some difficulties to obtain a probabilistic sample. The international and
isolated nature of the population and the complex structure of shipping and
offshore companies would have risked the gathering of essential data for
the research. Instead, it was considered the use of a non-probabilistic
sample using a snowball technique (Atkinson & Flint, 2001).
3.2.2.2 Measuring Tool: questionnaires.
Questionnaires are useful when the researcher is interested in how
descriptive variables relate between them (Saunders, et al., 2012, p. 419).
However, its design and administration implies more than write some
questions and collect their answers. Concepts like reliability and validity are
also given necessary considerations in this research work.Perhaps the key
factor in reliability is internal reliability, an indication of the consistency of
the concept measured. Whereas, validity represents the situation by which
it is measured or intends to measure a social phenomenon describing the
influence of noise on the workers health(Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Given the considerations necessary to design a meaningful
questionnaire, the author decided to use the questionnaires designed,
tested and administered by the team formed by Hughson, Mulholland and
Cowie, Institute of Occupational Medicine, (2002) on behalf of the Health
and Safety Executive. A copy of the questionnaires can be seen in the
appendices.
Moreover, use a good quality questionnaire in not the main purpose
of those instruments. Those questionnaires measure exactly what the
author tries to explore in the present paper; however, not focusing in any
industry or applied to workers at sea. Therefore, both questionnaires, the
one known as employees and the one known as managers, have been
slightly modified by the researcher to make them relevant to the case
studied. Additionally, both instruments were translated into Spanish
language so they could potentially reach more participants. Translations
may introduce additional errors; therefore, questionnaires in Spanish will be
pilot on a small group of engine room workers.
3.2.2.3 Data Collection.
All four questionnaires are self-administered through a specialised
website, www.smartsurvey.co.uk which allow access from everywhere in
the world at any time with personalised links that could only give access to
selected participants. In addition, it allows filtering participants and skipping
question not relevant to some of them. Moreover, participants must read
and accept the terms of the survey, were they are informed of the
confidentiality and purpose of the survey.
With the questionnaire known as employee (empleado in Spanish)
the researcher intends to measure the following parameters:
Personal working practices, in general.
Risk perception.
Knowledge on occupational noise.
General attitudes to safety.
Organisational issues.
Meanwhile, with the managers (Gerentes in Spanish) what it is
expected to explore is:
General information about safety management.
Noise assessment.
Information provided to employees.
Instructions given to employees on noise.
Use of hearing protection.
Health surveillance, and
Any comments participant would like to provide (free text).
Unlike in the Research Report 028 (Hughson, et al., 2002) there is
not post-intervention questionnaire for the obvious reason that it will not be
any intervention. Although intervention proposals will be given based on the
results obtained it is left to another research team to test its effectivity.
To conclude, data collected has to be analysed to make sense of it
and obtain valid conclusions. Although there is not agreement on the
minimum sample size (Mundfrom, et al., 2005) the author aims for a
minimum sample of n=30 to be able to apply specific statistical tools
(Rumsey, 2010). Although it is expected to achieve that sample in the
employees questionnaire, the researcher foresee more difficult to obtain
enough respondents to the managers questionnaire.
3.2.2.4 Field Observations.
To make possible a calculation of noise exposure it is necessary to
know the working practices of engine room crew. Therefore, it will be
performed an evaluation of the times and activities carried out by different
roles on board. It doesnt mean that other studies are not correct with their
time observations. However, different companies have different working
patters, although working on 12-hour shifts is common practice in some
companies.
Moreover, to support or contradict responses in the self-administered
questionnaires, random inspections of personal protective equipment or its
use by workers is deemed necessary. However, the author is aware of the
limitations of such anecdotal evidence.

Chapter 4 Analysed Findings
4.1 Noise level on board jack-up vessel Wind.
During summer 2016 noise levels were measured on board a self-
propelled jack-up vessel. For confidentiality purposes the name of that
specific unit has been changed to Wind. The importance of the
measurements taken on board Wind has been already discussed in the
literature review.
Where the size of the room or the variety of conditions was
significant, more than one sample was taken to account for that variability.
Sample points for each room were chosen on the most likely location of the
engine room personnel while working on that room. However, there were
not present any member of the crew during sampling. Samples range
chosen is 40 140 dB in the machinery spaces, while for the
accommodation a low range was found more suitable for that environment.
The value obtained for each sample is the result of 20 consecutive
measures of 15 seconds each one. Therefore, measuring time is
approximately 300 seconds. In that way, noise produced by automatically
started machinery is more likely to be accounted for.
The above-mentioned noise measurements were taken in the
following spaces:
Cabin: Space where the crewmember rests and spends most of
their free time between watches. One of the cabins was
selected to represent the whole accommodation. To make sure

that the cabin selected was representative, the rooms with the
highest and lowest values in the design were discarded. From
the remaining rooms, one was chosen randomly.
The results of the noise levels are summarised in Table 4.1 and it shows
all the different sample points for each room where more than one was
necessary.
Table 4-4-1: Noise Measurements Leq
A A A C
L [dB] min L [dB] max
(1s) (1s) Leq [dB] Lpeak [dB]
Location 16-16k Hz 16-16k Hz 16-16k Hz 16-16k Hz
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#1 72.6 102.6 97.0 121.8
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#2 76.2 108.8 99.2 125.7
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#2 77.5 102.7 96.8 122.3
BT Room Tanktop Loc.#1 80.0 114.8 103.3 131.7
Fresh Water Room 55.8 90.0 83.2 113.5
Sewage Treatment Loc.#1 62.2 85.0 81.3 103.5
Sewage Treatment Loc.#2 57.7 84.1 78.3 103.7
HVAC Room 53.0 82.1 78.4 100.0
Transformers 63.6 82.9 82.1 100.6
Auxiliary Machinery Loc.#1 39.9 91.8 80.0 105.0
Auxiliary Machinery Loc.#2 39.9 77.7 68.7 98.2
HPU FWD Loc.#1 72.5 91.7 90.5 108.7
HPU FWD Loc.#2 73.4 103.4 99.7 117.7
HPU FWD Loc.#3 86.4 105.2 103.7 118.9
ECR 39.9 77.1 63.6 97.0
STBD Passage way Loc.#1 60.6 82.4 81.5 106.9
STBD Passage way Loc.#2 61.7 88.4 87.5 107.5
PS Passage way Loc.#1 55.2 78.1 77.1 104.1
PS Passage way Loc.#2 62.6 98.0 85.6 117.1
STBD Switchboard 55.8 84.2 77.5 112.4
PS Switchboard 53.6 74.6 73.7 98.5
STBD Engine Room Loc.#1 92.3 112.9 112.1 128.5
STBD Engine Room Loc.#2 91.6 112.1 111.8 128.3
PS Engine Room Loc.#1 85.7 108.3 107.7 124.6
PS Engine Room Loc.#2 87.6 109.4 108.8 126.1
STBD Pump Room Loc.#1 80.6 103.8 95.2 114.0
STBD Pump Room Loc.#2 67.8 89.0 88.2 107.7

PS Pump Room Loc.#1 71.3 100.6 93.1 112.2
PS Pump Room Loc.#2 69.3 90.7 89.9 111.4
Aft HPU 57.1 84.2 81.8 103.2
ER Workshop (Fitter Work) 63.4 101.3 98.8 115.2
ER Workshop 48.3 75.0 68.6 100.5
Aft Store Loc.#1 57.2 78.6 76.8 104.7
Aft Store Loc.#2 77.5 99.6 96.6 115.8
Aft Thruster #4 69.2 94.3 92.4 115.0
Aft Thruster #5 73.4 94.4 91.4 113.1
Aft Thruster #6 70.8 93.0 92.0 116.5
Cabin Deck C 31.2 64.8 50.9 103.6
4.2 Personal Hearing Protection.
Engine crew of vessel Wind had a diversity of personal hearing
protection (PHP) supplied by the company after listening to their
preferences. The type of hearing protection supplied is ear muffs, helmet
mounted ear muffs, foam ear plugs with neck band and disposable foam
plugs. The characteristics and level of protection is given in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Hearing protection equipment noise reduction
Octave Band PHP#1 PHP#1 PHP#2 PHP#2 PHP#3 PHP#3 PHP#4 PHP#4
Mf Sf Mf Sf Mf Sf Mf Sf
63 Hz 20.8 3.1 20.1 3.3 24.8 4.3 28.4 6.4
125 Hz 17.4 2.1 17.1 2.3 28.1 3.2 37.3 9
250 Hz 24.7 2.6 24.5 2.8 26.5 5.6 37.9 9.2
500 Hz 34.7 2 34.8 2.2 24.5 5.7 39.1 9.7
1 kHz 41.4 2.1 40.2 2 25.1 3.3 36 7.9
2 kHz 39.3 1.5 39.6 1.8 31.7 4 34.6 4.6
4 kHz 47.5 4.5 46.7 4.2 42.5 1.8 42.5 4.9
8 kHz 42.6 2.6 43.1 2.5 40.9 4.7 46.4 4.7
EN352-1:1993 EN352-3:2002 EN352-2:2002 EN352-2:2002

3M PeltorOptime III 3M Peltor Optime III Sperian Hearing
H540A H540C Protection QB1 HYG Honeywell Bilsom 303L
Headband Earmuff Helmet Earmuff Inner-aural neckband Disposable foam plug
DEFINITIONS:
Mf= Mean attenuation
value
Sf= Standard deviation
When those noise reduction values are applied according to British
Standards Institution (BS EN ISO 4849-2:1995) with a coefficient =1, plus
4 dB to account for real-world factors (Health and Safety Executive, 2005)
the values obtained clearly show not all the protection chosen for this
particular workplace is fit for purpose.
Table 4-3: Application of noise reduction levels to rooms sound pressure level
BS EN ISO 4869-2:1995(=1) +4dB (HSE)

A A A A A
PHP#1 PHP#2 PHP#3 PHP#4 No PHP
Location L'eq(A) L'eq(A) L'eq(A) L'eq(A) Leq [dB]
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#1 75.1 75.6 79.4 71.7 97.0
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#2 76.0 76.5 81.1 73.6 99.2
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#2 73.2 73.6 78.4 71.2 96.8
BT Room Tanktop Loc.#1 79.1 79.6 85.1 77.5 103.3
Fresh Water Room 65.4 65.9 66.2 58.3 83.2
Sewage Treatment Loc.#1 59.0 59.5 62.5 55.7 81.3
Sewage Treatment Loc.#2 58.4 58.9 60.0 53.0 78.3
HVAC Room 48.2 48.7 58.8 52.6 78.4
Transformers 57.9 58.3 64.2 56.7 82.1
Auxiliary Machinery Loc.#1 50.6 50.8 63.2 54.2 80.0
Auxiliary Machinery Loc.#2 44.0 44.4 51.8 43.1 68.7
HPU FWD Loc.#1 63.5 63.9 72.0 64.5 90.5
HPU FWD Loc.#2 71.9 72.2 81.4 74.1 99.7
HPU FWD Loc.#3 76.6 77.0 85.5 78.0 103.7
ECR 40.1 40.5 46.8 38.4 63.6
STBD Passage way Loc.#1 57.5 58.0 63.9 56.4 81.5
STBD Passage way Loc.#2 60.4 60.8 69.8 62.4 87.5
PS Passage way Loc.#1 53.2 53.7 59.6 52.0 77.1
PS Passage way Loc.#2 59.8 60.2 68.4 60.3 85.6
STBD Switchboard 56.5 56.9 59.5 52.1 77.5
PS Switchboard 49.2 49.6 55.7 48.3 73.7
STBD Engine Room Loc.#1 83.8 84.2 94.1 86.7 112.1
STBD Engine Room Loc.#2 83.3 83.8 93.8 86.3 111.8
PS Engine Room Loc.#1 79.6 80.0 90.5 82.5 107.7
PS Engine Room Loc.#2 81.0 81.4 90.7 82.9 108.8
STBD Pump Room Loc.#1 64.5 65.1 77.1 70.6 95.2
STBD Pump Room Loc.#2 62.5 62.9 70.3 62.6 88.2
PS Pump Room Loc.#1 63.4 63.9 75.0 68.0 93.1
PS Pump Room Loc.#2 62.8 63.2 71.8 64.2 89.9
Aft HPU 54.2 54.6 62.3 55.2 81.8
ER Workshop (Fitter Work) 64.8 65.1 77.9 72.1 98.8
ER Workshop 47.3 47.9 50.7 43.6 68.6

Aft Store Loc.#1 54.0 54.6 56.8 51.6 76.8
Aft Store Loc.#2 67.4 67.8 73.2 68.2 96.6
Aft Thruster #4 67.0 67.5 73.2 66.9 92.4
Aft Thruster #5 65.5 65.9 71.3 65.8 91.4
Aft Thruster #6 68.8 69.2 73.7 66.7 92.0
Cabin Deck C (Accomm.) 35.9 36.6 33.1 30.7 50.9
##.# No PHP worn or Required
>87 * Protection is not enough. Danger area
85-87 * Protection is not enough. Limit exposure
80-85 * Limited protection. Additional measures required
75-80 * Optimum protection
70-75 * Good protection
<70 * Overprotection according to BS EN 458:2004
4.2.1 Personal Hearing Protection Management.
Personal hearing protection is to become Class 3 personal protective
equipment (PPE) under the European Union Regulation EU/2016/425 to
recognise its importance to prevent occupational hearing loss and enforce
what it is already required under current legislation. Therefore, it will
require to record instruction and training as well as periodic inspections in
the same line as it is required to another PPE like working at height
equipment (Sampson & Thomas, 2003).
Figure 4-1: Damaged helmet mounted PHP

Figure 4-2: Correct use of disposable PHP by Sr. Engineer
4.3 Noise Exposure.
In order to calculate the daily noise dose, it is necessary to measure
or estimate for how long the employee is exposed to every sound level, as
well as, whether he or she is wearing personal hearing protection
equipment for the duration of that exposure. In addition, total daily
exposure may be affected by the legislation chosen. Whereas European law
sets a working day of 8 hours, or 28,800 seconds, international maritime
law calculations are based on 86,400 seconds (Dzhambov&Dimitrova,
2014).
In the following table, the amount of time spent on each situation is
calculated by different workers on board. The estimation of time is based on
observation carried out during the field work operations.
Table 4-4: Typical time distribution on board M/V Wind
Thypo TEng TFitter TMTM
Location sec. sec. sec. sec.

BT Room Hydr. Loc.#1 654.5455 100 85 75
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#2 654.5455 100 85 75
BT Room Hydr. Loc.#2 654.5455 100 85 75
BT Room Tanktop Loc.#1 490.9091 75 85 75

Fresh Water Room 1963.636 1200 85 300
Sewage Treatment Loc.#1 981.8182 1800 85 1800
Sewage Treatment Loc.#2 981.8182 1800 85 1800
HVAC Room 1963.636 600 85 300
Transformers 1963.636 600 85 300
Auxiliary Machinery Loc.#1 981.8182 1800 85 100
Auxiliary Machinery Loc.#2 981.8182 1800 85 100
HPU FWD Loc.#1 654.5455 500 85 75
HPU FWD Loc.#2 654.5455 500 85 75
HPU FWD Loc.#3 654.5455 800 85 75
ECR 1963.636 5400 4055 4000
STBD Passage way Loc.#1 981.8182 150 85 150
STBD Passage way Loc.#2 981.8182 150 85 150
PS Passage way Loc.#1 981.8182 150 85 150
PS Passage way Loc.#2 981.8182 150 85 150
STBD Switchboard 1963.636 75 85 75
PS Switchboard 1963.636 75 85 75
STBD Engine Room Loc.#1 981.8182 1800 85 3600
STBD Engine Room Loc.#2 981.8182 1800 85 3600
PS Engine Room Loc.#1 981.8182 1800 85 3600
PS Engine Room Loc.#2 981.8182 1800 85 3600
STBD Pump Room Loc.#1 981.8182 1800 85 300
STBD Pump Room Loc.#2 981.8182 1800 85 300
PS Pump Room Loc.#1 981.8182 1200 85 280
PS Pump Room Loc.#2 981.8182 1200 85 280
Aft HPU 1963.636 1800 85 450
ER Workshop (Fitter Work) 981.8182 1800 21600 10800
ER Workshop 981.8182 1800 10800 1090
Aft Store Loc.#1 981.8182 1200 85 300
Aft Store Loc.#2 981.8182 1200 85 300
Aft Thruster #4 1963.636 150 85 300
Aft Thruster #5 1963.636 150 85 300
Aft Thruster #6 1963.636 150 85 300
Accommodation 43200 46800 46800 46800
Therefore, given the above sound pressure levels and the times
the workers are exposed to those levels, there is only left to calculate
their exposure for each situation and when using, or not, any of the
PHP provided. The results are shown in the matrix below:

Table 4.5: Noise exposure level for each situation and PHP used
No PHP PHP#1 PHP#2 PHP#3 PHP#4

Hyporoom 8h 102.7 74.9 73.9 84.6 77.1 Directive 2003/10/EC
Hyporoom 24h 97.9 70.2 69.2 79.9 72.4 IMO MSC.337(91)
Engineer no PHP 100.0 IMO MSC.337(91)
Engineer PHP>85 dB(A) 24h 74.9 74.5 82.4 76.4 IMO MSC.337(91)
Engineer PHP>85 dB(A) 8h 79.6 79.2 87.2 81.2 Directive 2003/10/EC
Engineer PHP Company Policy 76.6 75.8 86.8 79.3 Directive 2003/10/EC
Fitter no PHP 93.9 IMO MSC.337(91)
Fitter PHP>85 dB(A) 24h 66.0 65.8 74.2 69.0 IMO MSC.337(91)
Fitter PHP>85 dB(A) 8h 70.7 70.5 79.0 73.7 Directive 2003/10/EC
Fitter PHP Company Policy 67.4 67.0 78.6 72.4 Directive 2003/10/EC
Motorman no PHP 103.0 IMO MSC.337(91)
Motorman PHP>85 dB(A) 24h 75.6 75.0 85.1 78.0 IMO MSC.337(91)
Motorman PHP>85 dB(A) 8h 80.4 79.7 89.8 82.7 Directive 2003/10/EC
Motorman PHP Company Policy 79.4 78.6 89.7 82.2 Directive 2003/10/EC
When applying t-Test for two paired sample for means to the
values above in order to compare the results obtained flowing the
European Directive EC/10/2003 or the MSC.337(91) it is clear that
the difference is statistically significant (t=415.18; p=99%, t-critical
two-tail= 4.01).
4.4 Employee Survey.
A survey was carried out to allow an insight from the
employees point of view. Despite the survey used was proven and
tested (Hughson, et al., 2002) due to minor modifications to the
original survey, an additional pilot test was deemed necessary. Faults
in the skip logic of the survey were found and corrected. Moreover,
pilot responses were deleted before the final survey was made
available to the targeted population.
Between October 2016 and January 2017, a total of N=60
responses were collected. The survey is divided into seven sections

and not all the questions are mandatory. The purpose of each section
is:
A. Personal working practices.
B. Noise risk perception.
C. Knowledge.
D. General attitudes to safety.
E. Organisations safety management.
F. Applicable legal requirements.
G. Demographics.
4.4.1 Section A: Personal working Practices.
The sample studied in employee survey is formed by a 76.7 percent
with SD 1.0 of the workers is exposed to noisy environments for more than
five years of period. According to the information, 80 percent of these
workers with SD 1.5 were exposed to most of the time to high levels of
noise. People who do not wear PHP contain 62.5 percent with SD of 21.8
and they are uncomfortable or not available when needed.
4.4.2 Section B: Noise RISK perception.
The sample scored high on noise risk awareness. rb=499 which is
92.4% of the maximum possible score. Nearly 86% of the participants
achieved a high noise risk perception. In contrast to the 80% who wear PHP
all the time (section A), 98.3% (SD 1.0) acknowledge wearing PHP to avoid
negative consequences which seem to be very or quite likely to them
(95%).
4.4.3 Section C: Knowledge.
Level of knowledge could be considered medium with a score of 327.
66% scored medium, while only 23.3% scored high. Moreover, nobody
scored the maximum possible of 9 points or answered the first three
questions correctly.
4.4.4 Section D: General attitude to safety.
In line with noise risk perception is the noise risk perception is the
general attitude to safety. The sample studied scored rd=2,877 which is
73.7% of the maximum score possible. Therefore, participants have a
positive attitude to safety. In addition, the sample has a strong internal
locus of control L=175, which in practical terms means those individuals
believe to have certain degree of control over the world. However, it may be
an effect of the sample being formed predominantly by western European
participants.
4.4.5 Section E: Organisations safety management.
Only 48.1% (SD 1.4) of the participants know their company has a
hearing protection program while the other 51.9% do not have it or they
are not aware of it. Notwithstanding what it could be a poor management,
92.6% (1.0) support their organisation in this aspect. Moreover, none of the
participants stated that their company does nothing at all about health and
safety.
53.7% (SD 0.9) have received information regarding noise at work,
which it is mostly during the induction training (20.3%, SD 10.8) and
posters or signs on the wall (29.7%, SD 10.8).

Other interesting aspects of section E is that over two thirds of
respondents were consulted on the preferred PHP. The positive aspect is
that all of those who were asked by their company received what it is the
best PHP in their opinion.
4.4.6 Applicable legal requirements.
The sample is comprised by 86.5% (SD 0.38) of respondents working
for companies under a European Union State flag while the remaining
13.5% with a flag from other part of the world. It means that European
Directive EC/10/2003 applies to most of the workplaces in this survey and
the International Maritime Organisation MSC.337 (91) to the remaining
ships. It is not considered to be representative of the total world register for
which the EU only accounts for 19% of the flagging (Department of
Transport and Regional Economics, 2015).
4.4.7 Demographics.
Although not all the participants decided to provide personal
information, for those who answered, 62.7% (SD 2.2) are between 25 and
54 years old, predominately males (90.9%, SD 034).
In order to get an insight from engine room professionals, they were
asked for their position on board. The majority of respondents are
Engineers, 71.4% followed by Ratings with only 14.3% (SD 0.2).
Chapter 5: Discussions
In this chapter the data obtained during the primary research phase
and analysed in the previous chapter is considered together with analogue

findings in the literature review. Three main pieces of work are considered
in the discussion of the result obtained in the primary research. Namely,
Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie (2002) from where the questionnaire used
in this dissertation was taken and it will allow comparing results with a
larger sample. Arezes and Miguel (2005, 2006) because their work about
the relation between hearing protection and risk perception, without forget
Paul Slovic (2000) who is one of the first authors in the study of risk
perception. This is expected to allow completing the objectives necessary to
achieve the aim of the present dissertation.
5.1 To investigate and measure noise levels and exposure of
engine room workers.
A total of 24 locations on board a motor vessel were measured to
investigate engine crew exposure to noise. Unlike smaller vessels, the unit
used for the field study has the machinery divided into a larger number of
rooms. Therefore, sources of noise are distant one from another and
separated by stiff bulkheads. Similar to the measurements taken by Soriano
Tarn, Castro Bugarn and Rodriguez Rubianes (2011), the study vessel,
named Wind for confidentiality purposes, is powered by 4-stroke diesel
engines rotating at 750 rpm. Hence, auxiliary machinery is similar and
consequently the nature of the sound produced by them. The fact that the
ships analysed therein are fishing boats in contrast to Wind being an
offshore construction vessel is irrelevant given that only machinery spaces -
and one cabin- are studied and not their production areas.
From the measures shown in chapter 4, it is evident that peak noise
is not a problem in the machinery spaces. While this might not be the case
in other areas of the ship, e.g. production areas, those are out of the scope
of this dissertation. From the 41 noise samples, only one located in Bow
Thruster Room, tank top level, its Lpeak(C) level is above the lower exposure
value set in both, European Directive EU\10\2003 and MSC.337(91). This
finding is in line of what Soriano Tarn, Castro Bugarn and Rodriguez
Rubianes (2011) measured on four different vessels. In fact, none of their
Lpeak(C) values is above the lower action level.
Unlike what it is expected from a larger and more segregated ship,
noise levels in engine room spaces, both portside and starboard side, are
higher, while sound pressure level inside the engine control room is
significantly lower. The preceding statements require a more detailed
explanation as they have important consequences on the overall exposure
of engine room workers.
Noise level in the engine room space where the main and auxiliary
engines are located on board Wind has a mean of 110.1 dB(A) (standard
error 1.09) whereas on the ships analysed by Soriano Tarn, Castro Bugarn
and Rodriguez Rubianes (2011) the average noise level in similar rooms is
102.5 dB(A) (standard error 1.18). In terms of noise pressure, there are
above four times more noise on board Wind than on board smaller and less
segregated ships. On the other hand, it is worth notice how the noise level
inside the engine control room is meaningfully lower in the former than in
the latter case. The mean of the cases studied by Soriano Tarn, Castro
Bugarn and Rodriguez Rubianes (2011) is 89.3 dB(A) and a mean of 81.4
dB(A) is much higher than the Engine Control Room on board Wind where
the mean is 63.6 dB(A) and a maximum value of 77 dB(A).
When the ship chosen for comparison is a much larger vessel, like a
passenger vessel (Borelli, et al., 2015) the noise level there is similar to the
fishing vessels with a mean of 102.9 dB(A) (standard error 0.75). However,
noise levels inside the control room seems to be of a similar level of 67.1
dB(A). Regardless of the difference between them, it is worth mention that
noise levels in the Engine Control Room of larger vessels provide an
effective refuge from noise and well below the lower action level required by
the Directive 2003/10/EC, whereas the control room of the fishing vessels is
completely ineffective to reduce noise exposure to engine room personnel in
the cases referred in Soriano Tarn, Castro Bugarn and Rodriguez Rubianes
(2011).
To support the finding that impulse noise is not very likely to present
a problem inside ships engine rooms, Borelli et al. (2015) found peak noise
levels (C-weighted) consistent with measurements on board the other ships
mentioned herein.
It is not possible to know from the figures indicated above whether
engine room workers are more or less exposed to noise than industrial
workers on shore. A study done by Areces& Miguel (2006, p.1038) with a
sample of 434 industrial workers of five different industries evidenced that
33% of the workers were exposed to levels of noise above 95 dB(A).
Therefore, engine room workers are among the workers group with the
highest risk from occupational noise.
Other two factors still need to be considered to assess the exposure
of engine room workers. The first one is how much time they spend inside
each room with its own noise level and the second factor, whether they use
personal hearing protection. If we stick to the limits set in the European
legislation a typical worker could spend his or her 12-hour shift in the
engine control room of the vessel Wind without exceeding their daily noise
exposure level or wear any personal hearing protection (PHP). On the other
hand, the same worker would be allowed to work in the aft thruster room,
with the same noise levels measured during the field work, without being
exposed to dangerous levels of noise as long as this worker correctly uses
the right type of PHP during the whole duration of the shift.
Noise levels were calculated using information provided by the PHP
manufacturer giving as result the noise levels shown in Table 4-3. It could
be argued that not all protective equipment reduces the risk to an
acceptable level at any given time. Although noise reduction (NR) values
published by the manufacturers of PHP available on board Wind are very
similar, their effect is not equivalent. Numbers show that in the engine
room of vessel Wind, where diesel generators are running, Sperian Hearing
Protection QB1 HYG may not suitable because it does not reduce the
noise level below 87 dB(A). Moreover, a noise level of 94 dB (A) will limit
workers exposure to no more than 1 hour per day (HSE, 2005). Although
less extreme than the previous example, disposable ear plugs Honeywell
Bilsom 303L have the same potential limitation. In the other range of the
spectrum, where noise levels are less intense, any of the PHP provided will
suffer from excessive noise reduction causing overprotection.
Overprotection has negative effects as mentioned in the literature review
(HSE, 2005). Those values calculated in the previous chapter are theoretical
values based on data provided by the manufacturer of the PHP and may
differ from the real-life protection. Indeed, lack of training, individual
differences or progressive damage to the protective equipment may result
in less attenuation levels than those declared in the equipments manual
(HSE, 2005).
Different roles on board have different duties and daily tasks.
Therefore, they may not work exposed to the same noise levels. Moreover,
the length of time they are exposed in the same location is likely not to be
the same. Although it is difficult to predict working patterns for each
worker, after a four-week period observation, an estimation of different
working times was made. Despite the bias introduced by the observation
itself, it was already discussed that the use of a personal dose metre does
not differ significantly from the chosen method (Tao, et al., 2016).
Because of those measurements and estimations, a daily exposure
level, measured in the decibel scale and A-weighted can be discussed. In
this sample is no doubt that engine room personnel are exposed to high
levels of noise during long periods of time. In addition, it could be argued
that depending on the personal hearing protector chosen by the employee,
he or she may not be protected against the damaging effects of noise over
their hearing.
5.2 To compare European and International law on occupational
noise.
During the literature review it was exposed that legislation applying
to ships is complex. Given that the dissertation focuses on a European
audience and given that United Kingdoms legislation does not impose
stricter limits, the discussion is whether the European Union and the
International Maritime Organisation offer the same degree of protection to
engine room seafarers. Regardless of the limitations in applicability and
enforcement of, the Directive 2003/10/EC and the MSC.337 (91) (IMO,
2012) the methodology on how to calculate a workers exposure is clearly
different. For what it will be called in this dissertation the European

exposure the noise is calculated using a time T of 28,800 seconds (8 hours)
while what it will be called the international exposure increases that time T
to 86,400 seconds (24 hours). In the former, individual exposure times sum
may well be greater than 28,800 seconds, but T remains constant. Needless
to say, that in the international exposure formula, individual times added
together cannot be more than 86,400 seconds by definition. In the daily
noise dose calculated in chapter 4, for the European exposure only the time
spent working is used, while in the international calculation according to
MSC.337 (91) the time the employee spends in the accommodation is
included in the sum of partial times.
Results show a clear difference between both methods. Although they
do not present any practical difference to the health of the fitter, it has a
massive impact on the protection and health of Engineers and Motormen.
Consequently, the current study also highlights the management activities
of noise at work. The most significant effect occurs when those workers
chose PHP#3. In the case of the crew on board Wind, PHP#3 and PHP#4
proved to be the most popular personal protective equipment (PPE).
Although anectodical evidence, one of the engine room workers explained to
the researcher that his choice of disposable hearing protection was based
on its light-weight, availability on different locations on board and comfort.
A Motorman on board Wind who choses PHP#3 as his or her
(Motorman is a rank word which does not change with the gender of the
employee) personal hearing protection, he or she would be working safely
with no further actions required from his or her employer. However, that
same worker, employed on board a ship flagged in one of the European
Union member states will be obliged by law to limit his or her exposure to
noise, even wearing personal hearing protection. Therefore, the employer
would be forced to adopt different of additional measures. Obviously, this
case is subject to three main factors, namely: noise level, exposure time or
more accurately times and personal protective equipment use. Yet, still a
plausible combination of conditions which might put the health of workers at
risk. Moreover, workers do not wear their PHP all the time (Areces& Miguel,
2006). This has been acknowledged in the calculations by assuming on one
of the scenarios for each rank, that this person only wears when the noise
level is above 85 dB (A), which is not the worst-case scenario for that
breach of the company policy. In the case of the Engineer when calculating
their exposure under the European law, there is no practical difference
between the level obtained with the assumption just explained and the
worker following company policy. Therefore, although one decimal value is
given in this dissertation, only integer numbers are used on occupational
noise reports (Serrao, 2014). The reader has probably noticed the law set
noise limits as integer numbers. Therefore, in the case of the engineer 87.2
86.8 87 dB(A).
It is against intuition that exposure level result on a higher number
when calculated under European law than the lower international maritime
law, but the former provides better protection than the latter. It is easily
explained in the case of the Motorman using PHP#3. If the employee when
using PHP is exposed to a Leq,d=85 dB(A) at the end of the working shift, the
employer is not required to take further measures unless they decide to do
so. Whereas it results in a Leq,d=89 dB(A), the same employer is required by
law to take additional of different measures to reduce that level below 87
dB(A). Notwithstanding that the exposure limit even using hearing

protection is 87 dB (A) under Directive 2003/10/EC and 110 dB(A) for a 8-
hour exposure.
5.3 To explore perceived risks, knowledge and attitudes to
safety about occupational noise by engine department crew
members.
The use of personal hearing protection will depend on several
personal factors like attitude and knowledge among others (Slovic, 2000).
The findings of a survey carried out among a sample of engine room
workers will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
5.3.1 Personal working practices.
The sample obtained is formed by participants who are or have been
exposed to continuous high levels of noise for a long period of time.
Although it could be argued that a use rate of 80% is low given the high
levels of noise in the work environment, when those figures are compared
against other industries, it seems to be a safer behaviour among engine
room workers. Arezes and Miguel (2006) report a 54% (sd 40.6) use of
PHP, being only above the 80% for workers younger than 25 year-old.
Areces and Miguel (2006) results are consistent with Hughson, Mulholland
and Cowie (2002) with a rate of 55.3% (sd 37.4). However, the results
should be interpreted with care regarding when it refers to generalisation as
the sample might not be of the same cultural background.
Two major reasons were given for not wearing personal hearing
protection: availability and overprotection. Several responses to question
Q06 were more specific. Participant 46926000 said depending on the
situation I cannot go and bring back the ear muffs (translated from
Spanish). Participant 511122763 Occasionally [I dont wear PHP during]
the short period of time [it takes] to cross a noisy area (translated from
Spanish) and Participant 51265322 provided the following statemen, I not
always carry the [hearing] PPE with me at all times, so I only use it when
previously I know I will stay or cross a high noise area (Translated from
Spanish).
5.3.2 Noise risk perception.
Once more, the score of the sample of engine room workers is higher
than the average of other on shore industries (Arezes and Miguel, 2005;
2006).
Although 98.3% (sd 1.0) acknowledge the negative impact of not
wearing personal hearing protection, its usage ratio is not close to 100%.
Therefore, it could be said that other external factors affect workers
willingness to use protection. Linked to the paragraph 5.3.1, it is believed
that availability and overprotection could be those factors. However, with
the available data it is not possible to find a correlation between them and
PHP use. Moreover, it would be interesting to explore to which degree they
affect employees decision to wear protection against high levels of noise.
These results are reinforced by Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie (2002) from
where the questionnaire of this dissertation has been adapted. In their
research report, the authors found similar high levels of risk perception and
overall PHP use, which provides support for generalisation of the findings to
the population of other European engine room crew.
5.3.3 Knowledge.
Knowledge about occupational noise could be considered one of the
weaknesses of engine room workers. The sample resulted on a medium

when classified in low, medium and high as it has been explained in the
previous chapter. Only 13.8% (sd 2.9) knew when to wear hearing
protection according to current legislation, and 19.6% (sd 2.2) know to sum
up noise levels when given in the logarithmic scale. Given the technical
background of the population, it is considered that this percentage should
be larger. This relative lack of knowledge could be linked to failures in the
companys safety management system, given that it is a legal requirement
(2003/10/EC) or the effectiveness of the training provided. However, with
the data available, it was not possible to determine a direct relation to one
or another factor.
It is noteworthy how the chosen sample follow the same response
pattern than the sample in Hughes, Mulholland and Cowie (2002) where
with a much larger sample and a different target population, except for the
exposure to noise, they obtained similar results: medium knowledge, and
only 10 and 35 of N=280 (after pilot test) knew when to wear hearing
protection and how to add noise levels in the decibel scale respectively.
Unlike Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie (2002) and Arezes and Miguel
(2006) it has not been established a strong correlation between knowledge,
risk perception and use of personal hearing protection. Contrary to what is
expected from the results obtained during the primary research phase, a
weak positive correlation (0.265, p<0.001) exists between knowledge and
risk perception and positive moderate (0.371, p<0.001) between risk
perception and the use of personal hearing protection. No correlation has
been found between knowledge and use of PHP.

5.3.4 General Attitude to Safety
As expected from the positive results in noise risk perception, there is
good attitude to safety in the sample results. The internal locus of control
shows a moderate individualistic culture sample which believes to have
certain degree of control over events like hazardous situations (Slovic,
2000). Therefore, it might justify the high percentage of PHP use compared
to the other studies above mentioned. However, an alternative explanation
could be the social desirability bias as the percentage of PHP use is based
on self-reported data instead of objective observation. The finding that the
sample has a positive attitude to safety provides additional support to this
alternative explanation.
5.3.5 Organisations safety management
Participants reported a positive view of their respective companies on health
and safety management matters. Despite that almost half of the companies
are reported not to have a hearing protection program. As it was shown in
chapter 4, engine room workers are exposed to high levels of noise.
Therefore, 51.9% of companies without hearing protection program it is
considered a low rate. Moreover, from the data provided in chapter 4, just
over a quarter of engine room employees receive only induction training
and posters or sings on the wall. This relates to paragraph 5.3.3 where low
level of knowledge of occupational noise was found because of the present
survey. Both, percentage of employees who received information about
noise, and method chosen by employers to provide such information match
the findings of Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie (2002). More accurately, the
results follow the numbers found for medium and small companies.
However, if only the ship is considered, based on the number of crew

members on board -29 in the case studied for the field observations- it is
understood why this is the case.
To continue comparing the results obtained with the sample of this
dissertation and the results obtained on a much larger sample by Hughson,
Mulholland and Cowie (2002) it is although there is a significantly higher
number of employees asked for their preferred personal hearing protector,
both studies agree with that all the employees consulted were provided the
PHP requested. In common is the preference of employees to receive
information from their safety representatives and courses at work.
However, information from HSE inspectors is not among the preferred
method to receive information given the particularities of the workplace
(e.g. international mobility).
5.3.6 Applicable legal requirements and demographics.
The las two sections of the survey can be discussed together as they
just provide additional information about the composition of the sample to
make the reader aware of potential limitations or potential bias in the
sampling process. Although the sample is dominated by male participants, it
is considered to reflect the reality of the industry where the presence of
female engine room workers still low. In addition, the clear majority of
participants are Engineers. Therefore, with a college or degree
education,the level and working for western European companies becomes
much easier and competitive in the similar industry.

5.2 To determine companys noise management alignment to
current legislation.
In this last paragraph, it will be briefly discussed how shipping
companies or operators manage occupational noise on the light of the
findings of this dissertation.
One shortcoming of the present research, is the lack of managers
information. Although a managers questionnaire was designed and
distributed, it was a very low rate of responses. The questionnaire was
created in 2 languages and in addition to the distribution channels used for
the employee survey, it was sent directly to several shipping companies.
Only 5 responses were obtained. Therefore, they are not included in the
present discussion as they are considered not enough to be statistically
representative.
Another factor that could be contingent to the employee survey is
training and information, as required by the European Directive 2003/10/EC
and the International Maritime Organisation MSC.337(91) which is
information and training. A number of employees, as seen in chapter 4,
reported the only information they obtain is either in the initial induction or
posters or signs on the wall. It could be argued if this is the most effective
way of fulfil such requirement by the employer.
I would not be ethical report the weakness declared by a sample of
engine room workers and not their strengths. Both, the data available from
the research carried out for this dissertation work and the accurate and
precise research carried out by Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie (2002) it
has been reported that those employers who consult with their employees
follow their recommendations. However, it is necessary to assess such

consultation and back it up with informed decisions. In the case of Wind,
Personal hearing protector number 3 (PHP#3), an aural neckband foam
plugs, was requested by the engine room crew during by their health and
safety representative. However, in the light of the measurements taken, it
has proved not to be the best option for that specific workplace.
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Recommendations
Occupational noise management requires multiple approaches to be
effective. Moreover, international maritime law MSC.337(91), European law
2003/10/EC and UK SI 2007/3075 The Merchant Shipping and Fishing
Vessels (Control of Noise at Work) Regulations have the same requirements
regarding occupational noise management. This dissertation used European
Directive as the framework to evaluate the level of protection of engine
room workers.
6.1 Exposure level and its organisational management.
In first place, it was decided to calculate the exposure on board an
offshore construction vessel where the crew work on 12-hour shifts, 7 day a
week. Although several other studies already calculated the noise exposure
of engine room crew, they were based on 8-hour shifts (Arezes& Miguel,
2006; Soriano Tarn, Castro Bugarn and Rodriguez Rubianes, 2011;
Turanet al., 2011). This is important as it determines the actions an
employer must take to manage occupational noise on board. In line with the
studies above mentioned, it was found similar levels of noise. Moreover, it
shows how the design of the workplace plays an important role in the
control of noise exposure to workers. This is the case of the noise levels on
board Winds engine control room (ECR) to the same room on board the
fishing vessels in the Soriano Tarn, Castro Bugarn and Rodriguez Rubianes
(2011) research report. In addition, noise levels found to be in the higher
end of other noisy workplaces on shore (Arezes and Miguel, 2006).
However, noise exposure on 12-hour shift vessels does not necessary
means higher levels of exposure to noise. The key finding from the
measurements on board the vessel named Wind is not the absolute noise
level, but how this level changes with the working pattern. In other words,
the current study also highlights the organisation of the engine room crew
work. This is evident from the different noise exposure of an Engineer and a
Motorman on board the same ship. Therefore, when engineering methods
are not possible to reduce noise levels further, it is required to implement
an organisation of the employees work which allows keep noise exposure to
its lowest value possible.
6.2 Consultation with the workforce and personal hearing
protection.
It is deemed beneficial to combine the use of personal protection -
Article 6 of Directive 2003/10/EC) and consultation with the workforce
(Article of Directive 2003/10/EC). It could be concluded that there is a
medium to low level of consultation with employees over occupational noise
management. Nevertheless, those employers who consult with their
workforce are reported to follow their employees preferences. This result
shows consistency with similar findings in other research studies conducted
on the similar issues (Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie, 2002). However,
from the exposure levels calculated using each manufacturers attenuation
data and accounting for additional 4 dB as recommended by the Health and
Safety Executive (2005) it is concluded that not all the PHP chosen by the
workforce may be suitable. Thus, an evaluation from the employer on the
suitability of the protection equipment is necessary and mandatory.
Moreover, several hearing protectors were found with signs of damage. At
the time of conducting the collection of primary data personal hearing
protection is not classified as Class 3 personal protective equipment and
therefore not mandatory to record its inspection and condition by a

competent inspector. However, it is highly recommended to implement a
PHP inspection and training program to comply with the employers duty of
care.
The primary data suggest that an increase on risk perception
correlates with an increase on the use of hearing protection. Although
causality could not be established, it is considered worthwhile to explore
this way of increasing PHP use ratio.
6.3 Engine room worker information and training.
Knowledge was found to be of a medium level. Moreover, contrary to
what other studies report (Arezes& Miguel, 2006) no correlation between
knowledge and PHP use has been found. However, information and training
is a legal requirement. Despite that engine room workers report to receive
most of the information from the initial induction and posters or signs on
the wall, they indicate as well their preference to company courses and
information from health and safety representatives. An employer wanting to
go beyond compliance should establish an information and training program
on noise management. Although no relation has been found in this
dissertation between employee knowledge about occupational noise and use
of PHP, it has been established in previous studies. Therefore, a company
aiming to excel in this area of prevention could explore this relationship in
more details. The topics to include in a training program are well defined in
the Directive 2003/10/EC. Among those topics, the ones identified in this
dissertation work as the weakest points are:
a) Legal limits applicable to the workplace.
b) The basics of noise and its measurement.

c) When and where use personal hearing protectors.
d) The reporting of PHP condition.
The results obtained in section C -knowledge- are consistent with section B
-risk perception- concluding that employees have a good understanding of
the negative effects of noise on their hearing. However, it is not clear
because of the design of the questionnaire whether they are aware of
another negative effect of noise on their health. Thus, no recommendations
could be done objectively to increase their knowledge in this area.
6.4 Conclusions on management.
Due to the low rate of response among health and safety
professionals and managers the dissertation must be limited to the
information obtained from the employees. Approximately half of the
participants in the employee survey where not aware of a hearing
protection programme. It is not assumed it does not exist as it could
happen the employee is not aware of it. In any case a weakness has been
identified and further research in this area is suggested.

Chapter 7
Implementation of Recommendations
Based on the conclusion and recommendations of the previous chapter, the
following actions are considered to benefit the management of occupational
noise risks on board ships to protect engine room workers.
Table 7-1: List of recommended actions
Recommendation Priority Cost Responsible Resources Timescale Performance
Shift Management Medium 1,000- HR Manager Additional 6 months 10%
40,000 Crew exposure
Member reduction
in noise
exposure
(measured
in dB(A)
Employee High <500 Safety Stationery 1 month 6 meetings
consultation Officer in 1 year
PHP Evaluation Low Up to Safety Training 4 Weeks PHP
5,000 Officer evaluated
within 4
weeks
PHP Inspection High 1,000 PPE Training 1 year All PHP
programme Inspector and PHP inspected
replacement after the
first year
PHP use High 0- Chief None 10 weeks 100% PHP
monitoring 1,000 Engineer use
Information and Low 0- H&S Training 6 months 40 man-
Training 20,000 Manager material & hour
External training
training per year
and 90%
delegates
over the
pass mark
7.1 Shift Management.
If the formula to calculate the daily noise exposure is taken from any
of the legislation that aim to protect engine room workers, e.g. Directive
2003/10/EC, it is clear that daily exposure is a combination of noise level
and time. The priority is to eliminate or reduce the noise at source (HSE,
2005) but when that is not possible, limit the amount of time the worker
spend exposed to high levels of noise is an effective way to control their
daily dose. It has been demonstrated that on board the same ship and
using the same personal hearing protection, changing working patterns
could lead from being overexposed to a safe level of daily noise dose.
There are two possible ways an organisation could achieve it. The
first it does not require any direct investment when the engine room is
manned by enough personnel. This is achieved by changing the shift pattern
from 12-hour shift to 8-hour shift. It will however, suppress overlapping
shifts. When this is not practical, an additional crew member would be
necessary to cover the 8-hour gap created.
The main difficulty to implement this measure is the financial cost of
introducing an additional crew member. However, this cost might be
partially cover with the reduction in working hours of the other engine room
workers and or the increased productivity that an additional worker
introduces.
When this handicap is not considered reasonable by the companys
management, it could influence negatively to the worker at sea. To allow
workers to spend more time of their shift in a noise protected area, like the
ECR on board Wind, by an effective planning of the preventive maintenance
in port is a cost effective alternative. For readers not familiar with ships
operations, noise levels in port are significantly lower due to the number of
equipment necessary to be in operation (Serrao, 2014).
In ships like those analysed by Soriano Tarn, Castro Bugarn and
Rodriguez Rubianes (2011) where control room is not adequate to reduce
noise exposure and number of crew members is limited by the space on
board, some investment might be required on insulation panels for such
area.
Noise exposure is necessary to be calculated after the changes have
been implemented to assess the effectiveness of the measure and monitor
potential adjustments. It is recommended to follow a plan-do-check-act
methodology line with the HSG65 (HSE, 2011)
7.2 Employee consultation.
Employee consultation and involvement, it has been considered an
effective way to manage health and safety (Goelzer, Hansen and Sehrndt,
1995; HSE 2011). Although employers are not very willing to involve
employees when it is considerable financial cost (Fidderman and McDonnel,
2010) this recommendation could be implemented in a cost-effective way
and in a short period. It is crucial to have a person who leads the action.
Usually it describes health and safety professional in the workplace
(Fidderman and Mcdonnel, 2010 p.11). Therefore, employee involvement

may increase their safe behaviour like the use of personal hearing
protection.
This recommendation requires regular meetings with the safety
representatives on board. Topics like the selection of personal hearing
protection or prevention of occupational hearing loss is better done during
the consultation meetings (Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie, 2002).
In world of reduced crews and cost cutting businesses the main
obstacle to implement this measure is to be able to release a busy worker
from his or her duties to attend the health and safety meeting. Hence, it is
important that the meetings are regular and scheduled in advance.
It is important, like the previous recommendation, to follow a plan,
do, check, act methodology (HSE, 2011). Employee involvement is key to
manage health and safety successfully (Occupational Health and Safety
Administration, 2002) and employees are only likely to take it seriously
when they see commitment and leadership from their company
management (South, 2004).
7.3 Personal hearing protection evaluation.
It has been made evident that not all the types and brands of
personal hearing protection is equally effective for every location on board.
A PHP with a high noise reduction factor to be used in a space with
moderate noise levels will produce overprotection, while the opposite may
occur. A PHP with limited noise reduction level when used in the engine
room area next to the diesel generators may leave the engine room workers
unprotected. Therefore, personal hearing protection which is not fit for

purpose shall be removed from service as it will expose the employer to
potential claims.
Given that the person in charge of the evaluation has enough
knowledge to carry out this task, it is not expected to represent a large cost
for the company. It might be necessary to remove unsuitable PHP from
service if it does not provide the correct amount of protection. In addition, it
has to be remembered that overprotection was reported by the sample in
this dissertation, as one of the reasons to not use personal protection
against the high levels of noise engine room workers are exposed.
7.4 Personal hearing protection inspection programme.
At the time of writing this dissertation, hearing protection equipment
is not subject to the same inspection requirements as other personal
protective equipment (PPE), e.g. personal equipment for workings at height.
However, the protection declared by the manufacturers it could only be
achieved if the equipment it is kept in good condition and maintain as per
manufacturers recommendations. Therefore, an inspection programme by a
competent inspector it is recommended.
In previous chapters, it has been found that personal hearing
protection is the main form of avoid worker dangerous doses of noise
(Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie, 2002). An inspection programme it is not
difficult of expensive to achieve. At the time of writing it could not be found
personal protective equipment inspector training specific for personal
hearing protection. However, the in-house PPE inspector could be easily
self-train using the extensive literature on the subject. Alternatively, the
company could contact its main supplier or manufacturer to organise a
bespoke training on its own PHP (Chen, Wong & Yu, 2008).
As with other recommendations, the cost involved in its
implementation is expected to be the main obstacle. However, besides the
training of the inspector, there is no predicted additional significant cost.
Perhaps, an increased number of hearing protectors are replaced to
overcome the negative consequences of hearing loss due to noise at sea.
However, its cost around 20 to 50 for product of high noise reduction
values; it is not considered to have a significant impact on a ships budget.
Achievement indication is easily measured by the percentage of
equipment inspected in relation to the total of equipment available. In
addition, ratio of hearing protectors discarded against the number of
protectors inspected should provide another useful indication of the
effectiveness of the programme.
7.5 Protection equipment use monitoring.
Probably the cheapest and easiest recommendation to implement in
the protection equipment is the PHP utilization. PHP usage among the
sample was reported around 80% and some other studies reported lower
levels of use in other noisy industries (Arezes and Miguel, 2005, 2006;
Hughson, Mulholland and Cowie, 2002). Therefore, an effective direct
supervision of its use it is likely to increase that number. However, this
measure would not be effective on its own as, like it was explained during
the literature review, safety behaviour is affected by many other factors,
e.g. personal attitude to the risk (Slovic, 2000). In this particular case, the
high levels of risk awareness and the positive attitude towards general
safety are reported and may be possible to implement this cost-effective
action effectively (Ana et al., 2009).

The head of department should take the responsibility of supervising
his or her own crew in the use of personal hearing protection. In addition,
he should motivate and encourage other middle managers on board, e.g.
2nd Engineer, to provide similar levels of supervision. Moreover, this
supervision could be rolled down until the vast majority of employees are
involved in this supervision, not just of the staff they supervise, but their
colleagues as well.
An improvement to this action would be to send Chief Engineers to
behavioural safety training, so they could be more effective in encouraging
safe behaviours on board. In this case, cost is not considered a major issue.
However, the personality and assertiveness of the head of department it
might be. Again, in those cases, the head of department could ask the
company for one-to-one coaching on that area. The company could benefit
of that transferrable skill on a manager.
7.6 Instruction and training.
This action is not only a recommendation, but a legal requirement by
MSC.337 (91) or Directive 2003/10/EC, whichever applies to the ships flag
state. Within those legal instruments, it is outlined what should be the
content of the information to be received by the crew. However, it does not
state how to deliver or measure its effectiveness.
It has been reported in chapter 4 and discussed in chapter 5 that the
preferred method by engine room employees to receive such information
are company courses and information from its safety representatives. Thus,
it is the recommended method in this dissertation. However, the
implementation of a training programme based on internal courses, does
not mean efforts in other methods of information should come to an end.

Although in this dissertation a positive correlation between knowledge
and use of personal hearing protection could not be demonstrated, it has
been reported by many other authors who linked knowledge with safe
behaviours (Arezes and Miguel, 2005, 2006; Hoghson, Mulholland and
Cowie, 2002; South, 2004).
This is one of the most demanding actions. It will require to invest
funds and time to develop trainers knowledge and skills (Hughson,
Mulholland and Cowie, 2011) and it may be necessary to bring that
knowledge and skills using external consultants (South, 2004). It might be
difficult to justify a high investment on instruction and training. However,
fiscal benefits could provide a good incentive to companies.
When companies decide to use its own staff as trainers, it would be
advisable to provide them with a suitable trainer course. For UK-based
personnel, a level 3 awards in education and development could be
sufficient for the purpose of improving knowledge and instruction of engine
room workers.
There are two complementary ways to monitor the achievement of
the implementation of this recommendation. In first place, the number of
hours of training per engine room crew member. Based on the number of
crew members required to operate a ships engine room, a number of 40
man-hours seem to be a realistic figure. However, it does not measure the
effectiveness of such training. Therefore, a test to evaluate the training or
information session should be developed and a minimum objective score
decided as satisfactory to award a pass mark.

References
Andrews, T., 2012. What is Social Constructionism. Grounded Theory
Review: An International Journal, June, 11(1), p. [online].
Ana, G., R., E., E., Shendell, D., G., Brown, G., E., & Sridhar, M., K., C.,
2009. Assessment of Noise and Associated Health Impacts at
Selected Secondary Schools in Ibadan, Nigeria. Hindawi Publishing
Corporation, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Vol. 1. No.
1, pp. 1-6
Anon., SI 1989/1790. The Noise at Work Regulations 1989. s.l.:s.n.
Areces, P. M. & Miguel, A. S., 2006. Does Risk Recognition affect workers'
hearing protection utilisation rate?. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 36(2006), pp. 1037-1043.
Areces, P. M. & Miguel, A. S., 2007. Risk Perception and Safety Behaviour:
A Study in an Occupational Environment. Safety Science, 46(2008),
pp. 900-907.
Atkinson, R. & Flint, J., 2001. Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach
Populations: Snowbal Research Strategies. Social Research Update,
1(33), pp. 1-4.
Badino, A. et al., 2012. Noise Emitted from ships: Impact Inside and
Outside the Vessel. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences,
48(2012), pp. 868-879.
Baliatsas, C., Van Kamp, I., Van Poll, R. & Yzermans, J., 2016. Health
effects from low-frequency noise and infrasound in the general
population: Is it time ti listen? A systematic review of observational

studies. Science of the Total Environment, 557-558(2016), pp. 163-
169.
Baliatsas, C., van Kamp, I., van Poll, R. & Yzermans, J., 2016. Health
effects from low-frequency noise and infrasound in the general
population: Is it time to listen? A systematic review of observational
studies.. Science of the Total Environment, 557-558(2016), pp. 163-
169.
Baltar, F. & Brunet, I., 2012. Social Research 2.0: Virtual snowball method
using Facebook. Internet Research, 22(1), pp. 57-74.
Bech, S. & Zacharov, N., 2006. Perceptual Audio Evaluation - Theory,
Method and Application. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd..
Beltrn, P., Salinas, R. & Moreno, A., 2014. The new IMO noise code: A lost
technical opportunity. Irreversible and high cost consequences for
fishermen and other seamen that will continue being deaf. In Depth
Sound and Vibration Research. 21st International Congress on Sound
and Vibration, 13-17 July.
Borelli, D., Gaggero, T., Rizzuto, E. & Schenone, C., 2015. Analysis of Noise
on Board a Ship During Navigation and Maneouvres. Ocean
Engineering, 105(2015), pp. 256-269.
British Safety Council, 2013. Associate Certificate of the Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment. London: Britsh Safety
Council.
British Standards Institution, 2006. BS EN 25999-1:2006. In: Business
continuity management: code of practice. London: BSI.

British Standards Institution, 2007. BS EN 25999-2:2007. In: Specification
for business continuity management. London: BSI.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2011. Business Research Methods. 3 ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Chao, P.-C.et al., 2013. Combined effects of noise, vibration, and low
temperature on the physiological parameters of labor employees.
Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 2013(29), pp. 560-567.
Chen, W., Q., Wong, T., W., & Yu, I., T., 2008. Association of Occupational
Stress and Social Support with Health-related Behaviors among
Chinese Offshore Oil Workers. J Occup Health, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.
262-269
Creswell, J. W., 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Methods Approaches. 4 ed. London: Sage Publishing Ltd..
Dash, N. K., 2015. Manchester Metropolitan University. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_
methodology/
[Accessed 17 November 2016].
Davis, R., 2016. Long-term noise exposures: A brief review. Hearing
Research, xxx(2016), pp. 1-3.
Directive of the European Parlamient and of the Council 2003/10/EC, of 6
February 2003. on the minimum health and safety requirements
regarding the exposure of workers to the risks. s.l.:s.n.

Dzhambov, A., H., & Dimitrova, D., D., 2014. Development and Feasibility
of Perceived Noise Exposure Scale. Noise Control Eng., Vol. 62, No. 1,
pp. 102-109
Eriksson, C. et al., 2010. Aircraft noise and incidence of hypertension -
Gender specific effects. Environmental Research, 110(2010), pp.
764-772.
EVEREST, F. A. & POHLMANN, K. C., 2015. Master Handbook of Acoustics.
6th ed. London: McGraw-Hill.
Fidderman, H. & McDonnel, K., 2010. Worker involvement in health and
safety: what works?, Bootle, UK: Health and Safety Executive.
Fontes de Gracia, S. et al., 2010. Fundamentos de investigacin en
Psicologa. Madrid: UNED.
Goelzer, B., Hansen, C. H. & Sehrndt, G. A., 1995. Occupational Exposure
to Noise: Evaluation, Prevention and Control. Geneva: World Health
Organisation.
Gorski, P. S., 2013. What is Critical Realism? And Why Shloud You Care?.
American Sociological Association, 42(5), pp. 658-670.
Goujard, B., Sakout, A. & Valeau, V., 2005. Acoustic Comfort on Board
Ships: An Evaluation Based on a Quastionnaire. Applied Acoustics,
66(2005), pp. 1063-1073.
Guba, E. G., 1990. The Paradigm Dialog. London: Sage Publications.
Halaychik, C. S., 2016. Assessment. In: Lessons in Library Leadership.
Kidlingston, UK: Chandos Publishing, pp. 173-206.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2005. Controlling noise at work: The
Control of Noise at Work Regulations Guidance on Regulations.
London: HSE Books.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2013. Managing for health and safety -
HSG65. 3 ed. Bootle: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive, 2005. Controlling Noise at Work - Guidance on
Regulations. 2 ed. Norwich: HSE Books.
HORNBY, A. S., 2005. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current
English. 7 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hughson, G. W., Mulholland, R. E. & Cowie, H. A., 2002. Behavioural
Studies of People's Attitudes to Wearing Hearing Protection and How
these Might be Changed. Norwich: HSE Books.
Jakovljevic, B., Paunovic, K., & Belojevic, G., 2009. Road-traffic Noise and
Factors Influencing Noise Annoyance in an Urban Population. Environ.
Int., Vol. 35, No. 1., pp. 552-556
Kahveci, E., Lane, T., & Sampson, H., 2001. Transnational Seafarer
Communities. Seafarers Int Res Centre Cardiff (SIRC)
Koltay, T., Spiranec, S. & Karvalics, L. Z., 2016. Shifting Research
Paradigms Towards Research 2.0. In: Research 2.0 and the Future of
Information Literacy. [online]: Chandos Publishing, pp. 1-59.
Ljungberg, J. K. & Neely, G., 2007. Cognitive After-effects of Vibration and
Noise Exposure and the Role of Subjective Noise Sensitivity. Journal
of Occupational Health, 2007(49), pp. 111-116.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency, 2007. The Merchant Shipping and Fishing
Vessels (Control of Noise at Work) Regulations Guidance Notice 352.
s.l.:s.n.
Maritime Safety Committee, 1981. Resolution A.468(XII) Code on noise
levels on board ships. London: International Maritime Organisation.
Maritime Safety Committee, 2012. Resolution MSC.337(91) Code on Noise
Levels on Board Ships. London: International Maritime Organisation.
Miedema, H. M. & Oudshoorn, C. G., 2001. Annoyance from Trasportation
Noise: Relationships with Exposure Metrics DNL and DENL and Their
Confidence Intervals. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(4), pp.
409-416.
Miller, H., 2016. Snowball Sampling. [Online]
Available at: https://www.fort.usgs.gov/sites/landsat-imagery-
unique-resource/snowball-sampling
[Accessed 25 November 2016].
Montewka, J. et al., 2014. Quantifying the Effect of Noise, Vibration and
Motion on Human Performance in Ship Collision and Grounding Risk
Assessment. Honolulu, Probabilistic Safety Assessment and
Management PSAM.
Morata, T. C. et al., 2001. Factors Affecting the Use of Hearing Protectors in
a Population of Pronting Workers. Noise & Health, Volume 4, pp. 25-
32.
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G. & Ke, T. L., 2005. Minimum Sample Size
Recommendations for Conducting Factor Analyses. International
Journal of Testing, 5(2), pp. 159-168.

Munzel, T., Gori, T., Babisch, W. & Basner, M., 2014. Cardiovascular effects
of environmental noise exposure. European Heart Journal, 2014(35),
pp. 829-836.
Occupational Health and Safety Administration, 2002. Hearing
Conversation: OSHA 3074. Revised ed. Washington D.C: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Oldenburg, M., Baur, X., & Schlaich, C., 2010. Occupational Risks and
Challenges of Seafaring. J Occup Health, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 249-256
Oldenburg, M., Jensen, H., J., Latza, U., & Baur, X., 2009. Seafaring
Stressors aboard Merchant and Passenger Ships. Int. J Public Health,
Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 1-10
Okokon, O., E., Turunen, A., W., Lanki, S., U., & Vartiainen, A., K.,
Tiittanen, P., T., & Lanki, T., 2015. Road-Traffic Noise: Annoyance,
Risk Perception, and Noise Sensitivity in the Finnish Adult Population.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 5712-5734
Open Government Licence, 2014. The National Archives. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-
government-licence/version/3/
[Accessed 21 11 2016].
Rumsey, D., 2010. Statistics Essentials for Dummies. Haboken, NJ: Wiley
Publishing Inc.
Salyga, J., &Juozulynas, A., 2006. Association between Environment and
Psycho-emotional Stress Experienced at Sea by Lithuanian and
Latvian Seamen. Medicina (Kaunas), Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 759-69

Sampson, H., &Thomas, M., 2003. The Social Isolation of Seafarers:
Causes, Effects and Remedies. Int. Marit Health, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.
58-67
Sataloff, R. T. & Sataloff, J., 2006. Occupational Hearing Loss. 3 ed.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2012. Research Methods for
Business Students. 6 ed. Harlow, Essex: Pearsons.
Schreckenberg, D., Griefahn, B., & Meis, M. 2010. The Association between
Noise Sensitivity, reported Physical and Mental Health, Perceived
Environmental Quality, and Noise Annoyance. Noise Health, Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 7-16
Serrao, K., 2014. Guidance for Ship Owners on the Conduct of Noise
Surveys. Southamptom: Lloyd's Register EMEA.
SI 1989/1790, 1989. The Noise at Work Regulations. s.l.:s.n.
SI 2005/1643, 2005. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations. s.l.:s.n.
SI 2007/3075, 2007. The Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Control of
Noise at Work) Regulations. s.l.:s.n.
Sjoberg, L., Moen, B.-E. & Rundmo, T., 2004. Explaining risk perception. An
Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in Risk Perception
Research.. Trondheim, Norway: Rotunde.
Slovic, P., 2000. The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S., 1982. Why Study Risk
Perception?. Risk Analysis, 2(2), pp. 83-93.

Slovic, P. & Peters, E., 2006. Risk Perception and Affect. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 15(6), pp. 322-325.
Soriano Tarin, G., Castro Bugarin, N. & Rodriguez Rubianes, R., 2011.
Estudio del Impacto del Ruido en la Salud de los Trabajadores del
Mar. Vigo: SGS Tecnos SA.
Soriano Tarn, G., Castro Bugarn, N. & Rodriguez Rubianes, R., 2011.
Estudio del Impacto del Ruido en la Salud de los Trabajadores del
Mar. Vigo: SGS Technos SA.
South, T., 2004. Managing Noise and Vibration at work: A practical guide to
assessment, measurement and control.. 2011 ed. Oxon, UK:
Routlege.
Stansfeld, S. A. & Matheson, M. P., 2003. Noise pollution: non-auditory
effects on health. British Medical Bulletin, 68(2003), pp. 243-257.
Steup, M., 2005. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online]
Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
[Accessed 14 11 2016].
Sunde, E. et al., 2014. Noise and Exposure of Personnel Aboard Vessels in
the Royal Norewian Navy. Annal of Occupational Hygiene, 59(2), pp.
182-199.
Sun, P., Qin, J. & Qiu, W., 2015. Development and Validation of a New
Adaptive Weighting for Auditory Risk Assessment of Complex Noise.
Applied Acoustics, 103(2016), pp. 30-36.
Tao, L. et al., 2016. Comparison of Four Task-Based Measurement Indices
with Full-Shift Dosimetry in a Complicated Noise Environment.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 53(2016), pp. 149-
156.
Turan, O. et al., 2011. Crew Noise Exposure on Board Ships and
Comparative Study of Applicable Standards. Ships and Offshore
Structures, 6(4), pp. 323-338.
Weinstein, N. D., 1980. Unrealistic optimism about future life events.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), pp. 806-820.
Zachariadis, M., Scott, S. & Barret, M., 2013. Methodological Implications of
Critical Realism for Mixed-Methods Research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3),
pp. 855-879.
Ziobroski, D. & Powers, C., 2005. Acoustic Terms, Definitions and General
Information, Atlanta: GE Energy.

Occupational Noise at Sea 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Occupational Noise at Sea 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Occupational Noise at Sea 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Occupational Noise at Sea 1

Occupational Noise at Sea

The current study identifies occupational noise by indicating that it is

difficult to manage because it is not a new risk. In the context of

occupational noise, the current study indicates thatsound is a physical agent

that can be objectively measured. However, it is not implied that a given

noise measurement will be perceived by two random workers imposing the

same risk level. Regardless of the accuracy of the measurement, risk

perception is highly subjective. However, negative effects to health caused

by high levels of noise are well documented of which occupational hearing

public(Standfeld and Matheson, 2003).

Occupational noise is not a new hazard, neither is noise

management(LjungbergandNeely, 2007). Numerous studies exist about

occupational noise management and how risk perception influences safe

behaviour(Health and Safety Executive, 2005). Unlike those studies, most

of the research that focus on seafarers tend to emphasise noise

measurement and noise exposure(Chao et al., 2013). Such studies

behave accordingly. However, based on anecdotal experience of the

research, it might not be the case. More evidence is necessary to sustain

that assumption by saying that occupational noise management can be

measured by informing noise risks to the crew members.

Notwithstanding noise levels, a comparison of the pieces of legislation

iscreated to protect the workers from expected noise threats. The

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) updated recommended noise

levels in 2012(Badino et al., 2012). It also explores different types of

domestic levels as they are presented in legislation and applied to the

offshore scenarios.Nonetheless, protection levels are lower than those

provided under domestic legislation. Moreover, comparison of both sets

The current studywill explore occupational noise management in a

very specific environment: those working in the noisier environments on

board ships or self-propelled units. Therefore, it is necessary to add

it will be done by a combination of secondary and primary research. The

values obtained by the research cannot be considered universal and

representative of similar kind of floating units. However, it will add to the

existing literature on the field.

Nevertheless, the research indicates that a little would be added to

behaviour of those exposed to it on daily basis. Therefore, by using already

existing research by the Institute of Occupational Medicine,the current

on their attitude, knowledge and behaviour on occupational noise(Areces&

Miguel, 2007). In addition, more information is sought from those workers

regarding their attitude, behaviours and knowledge level on occupational

noise to make sure it is effectively used in managing noise at work.

This study explores current level of protection from noise of engine

room workers at sea and the way it could be improved by influencing

personal factors. To achieve such aim, the following objectives should be

1. To measure noise levels and exposure times on a sample of

2. To compare national and international law on occupational noise.

3. To explore how perceived risks, knowledge and attitudes to safety

may influence engine room workers safe behaviour.

4. To determine how companies could manage occupational noise on a

more effective manner.

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2.1.1 What is Noise?

Before the effects of occupational noise can be discussed, it must be given a

been created between them. It is well-known reality that noise is a word

which is most frequently usedin English. The Oxford Dictionary as described

by Hornby (2005) has defined noise as A sound, especially when it is loud,

unpleasant or disturbing. While this definition is easy to understand, it