A comparative study of occupational and nonoccupational noise regulations in South

American countries
Jorge P. Arenas, and Martin Gutierrez V.

Citation: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97, 3344 (1995); doi: 10.1121/1.412757
View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.412757
View Table of Contents: http://asa.scitation.org/toc/jas/97/5
Published by the Acoustical Society of America
1-10 (1994)].The presentinvestigation
studiedtheeffectof "condition-
ing" with helicopternoiseon PTS resultingfrom highlevel impulsenoise.
Thirty-eightchinchillaswererandomlyassigned to oneof fourexperimen-
tal groups(helicopter
noiseexposurepriorto impulsenoiseexposure)or a
controlgroup(impulsenoiseexposure only).It wasshownthat(a) inter-
ruptedexposures overa 10-dayperiodto helicopternoisepresented
at 112
dB SPL for 1,5 h/daycausedTTSs to decreaseasexposuredayscontinued
at thetestfrequencies
of 0.5 to 8 kHz, and(b) after4 weeksof recovery,
subjectswere protectedfrom PTS after "conditioning"with helicopter
noise(exceptthe groupwith prolonged"conditioning"). Histological
re-
sultswere consistentwith audiologicalfindingsandrevealedsignificantly
lesshaircell lossin theexperimentalgroupsthatwereprotectedfromPTS.
The resultsare discussed in termsof possibleapplicationto hearingcon-
servationprograms.[Work supported by the U.S. Army Medical Com-
mand.]
2:00
3pNS5. Comparison of impulse noise effects generated by two rifle
muzzles. Linda L. Pierson, G. Richard Price, Joel T. Kalb, and Pamela
A. Mundis (VisualandAuditoryProcesses
Branch,HumanRes.andEng.
Directorate, U.S. Army Res. Lab., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21005-5425)
The currentimpulsenoisestandardfor US militaryusesa combination
of peaksoundpressurelevel andenvelopedurationto ratehearinghazard.
There is generalagreementthat this proceduretendsto overestimatethe
hazardfrom impulsesthatarebroadlypeakedat thelow frequencies. One
possiblecorrectionwould be to frequency-weightthe energy,giving less
emphasisto the low frequencies.The currentstudy,using the cat as a
model,comparesthe physiological effect (auditorybrainstemresponse
threshold)of one rifle impulsegeneratedeither with the standardor an
experimentalmuzzledevice.The pressurefrom the standardmuzzledevice
(N=9) (157.1dBPeak,9.62msB-duration,
0.9J/M2)hasa peak13dB
"below" the pressure
generated
by the experimental
muzzledevice(N
= 10)(169.9dBpeak,6.88msB-duration,
9 j/M2).It wouldbeexpected
that the animalsin the normalmuzzle groupwouldincur substantially
less
thresholdshift thananimalsin the experimentalmuzzlegroup.However,
groupmean'threshold
werenot significantly
different.This findingchal-
lengesthe currentcriterion.Furthermore,althoughboth impulsescontain
essentiallythe samespectrum,becausethe energycompositionof the im-
pulseswas very different,frequencyweightingalonedoesnot solvethe
problem.
2:15
3pNS6. The effect of the level of impact noise on hearing loss.
Stephanie
Levine,DonaldHenderson,
andPhillipHofstetter (Hear.Res.
Lab., Univ. of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214)
Impulseand impact noisefound in industrymay be particularlydan-
gerousfor workers'hearing.Thisstudyexamineg
theeffectof thelevelof
impactnoiseon hearingloss.Twenty four adult chinchillaswere exposed
to impactnoisefor 7.5 h. The subjectswere dividedinto four groupsand
exposedto impulsesdeliveredat 1/s at one of four different intensities:
113, 119, 125, and 131 dB. As the level of exposureincreased,the perma-
nenthearinglossof theanimalsincreased.
At lowerlevels,113-125dB
hearinglossincreasedat approximately1.8 dB for eachdB of noise.These
findingsare consistentwith studiesusingcontinuous noisewhichreporta
1.7-dB increasein asymptoticthresholdshift for every dB increasein
exposure.However,as the level of the impact increasesbeyonda critical
level, (125 dB) the resultingthresholdshiftincreases
dramaticallyi.e., 6
dB for eachdB increasein exposurelevel. It has been'shownin prior
research[Hamerniket al., Hear.Res.13, 229-247 (1984) andHenderson
et al., Hear.Res.76, 101-117 (1994)] thatthe anatomicaldamageto the
cochleaat thiscriticallevel changesfrom metabolicto mechanical. [Re-
searchsupported by NIOSH GrantNo. 15034470.]
3344 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 97, No. 5, Pt. 2, May 1995
2:30
3pNS7. Mathematical formulas and summary measures for the
audiometric database analysis procedures (ANSI S12.13-1991).
Tilahun Adera (Dept. of PreventiveMedicine, Medical College of
Virginia,1008EastClay St., Box 980212,Richmond,VA 23298)
The conceptof an audiometric database analysis(ADBA) methodfor
evaluatingthe effectivenessof hearing conservationprogramshas been
appearingin the scientificliteraturefor more than 15 years.This concept
was recentlydevelopedinto a seriesof proceduresand is currentlybeing
consideredfor acceptance as a U.S. National Standard(ANSI S12.13-
1991).Althoughthe methodpresents the variousanalyticalprocedures in
a narrativefashion,mathematicalformulasexpressingthe essentialprin-
cipleshavenot beenprovided.In addition,therecurrentlyis no methodfor
determiningthe overall effectivenessof a hearingconservationprogram
(HCP) followingapplicationof ADBA procedures to a setof audiometric
data, This paperprovidesthe mathematicalformulasfor four ADBA pro-
ceduresincluding the percentworse sequential,percentbetter or worse
sequential,standarddeviationappliedto singletestfrequencies, and stan-
dard deviation applied to averagesof test frequencies.In addition,the
paperintroducesandillustratestwo methodsof summarizingresultsfrom
ADBA procedures,which includesthe standardscoreestimatorand the
scoredesignator.Each of thesemethodsconsistsof at leasta medianand
a mean-based procedure.The strengths andlimitationsof theseprocedures
in determiningthe overalleffectiveness of an HCP are discussed.
2:45
3pNS8. A comparative study of occupational and nonoccupational
noiseregulationsin SouthAmericancountries. JorgeP.Arenas (Inst.
of Acoust.,Facultadde Cienciasde la Ingenieria,Univ. Australde Chile,
Casilla 567, Valdivia,Chile) and Martin GutierrezV. (Inst. of Acoust.,
Univ. Australde Chile, Casilla 1130, Valdivia, Chile)
The final aim of this work is to show a comparativestudyaboutthe
most importantaspectsof the noiseregulationsin someSouthAmerican
countries.It includesArgentina,Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay.Where
nationalstandards existin a particularcountry,the areaof application,and
otherdetailsof the procedures,shouldbe in accordancewith the standards
of that country.The differencesbetweennationalstandards are extremely
significantfor sometypesof noise.The most importantparametersfor
nonoccupational
noiseconsidered
whenassessing
the acceptability
of a
givennoiseexposure
are:thetimeof theday(daytime,evening,
night
time), the type of neighborhood,the use to which an area of land or
buildingis put, and sometimesthe indoorstandards.
The basiccriteriais
not to alter the character of an entire area and dominate its noise climate.
In some countriesthe occupationalregulationsare combinationsof ISO
and OSHA standards. Differences were noted in some dose criterias and
the trade-offbetweennoiselevel and permittedexposuretime is still the
subjectof somedivergence of opinion.Somestandards allows3 dB (or 5
dB) increasein noiselevelper halvingof exposureduration.
3:00
3pNS9. Modified method for determination of heightened human
sensitivity to noise. Alexander A. Menshov and Vladimir V. Lipovoy
(Inst.for Occupational
Health,252033,Kiev, Ukraine)
Occupationalhardnessof hearingoccursfirst of all in workerswith
heightenedsensitivityto noise.Along with the objectivemethodfor de-
termininghigherexcitabilityof the centralstructuresof the auditoryana-
lyzer by meansof the awakedbrainpotentials,the heightenedsensitivityto
noisecan be determinedby a simplermethod[A. Peyser,Acta Oto-
laryngol.(Stockh.)28, 443-444 (1940)]. The experimentaldata have
shownthat a higher increasein Trs is observedat a tone of 2000 Hz
insteadof 1000 Hz accordingto A. Peyser.Such a modifiedmethodwas
approvedat 42 youngweavers.After 3 min of 100-dB noiseload at the
toneof 2000 Hz in 13%of weaversTrs wasmorethan12 dB (hightened
sensitivity).
After workfor a yearundertheconditions
of 98-100 dBA, in
129th Meeting:AcousticalSociety of America 3344