Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

ISSN: 1545-9624 (Print) 1545-9632 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uoeh20

Survey of Noise Exposure and Background Noise in

Call Centers Using Headphones

N. Trompette & J. Chatillon

To cite this article: N. Trompette & J. Chatillon (2012) Survey of Noise Exposure and Background
Noise in Call Centers Using Headphones, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:6,
381-386, DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2012.680852

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2012.680852

Accepted author version posted online: 05

Apr 2012.
Published online: 11 May 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1175

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uoeh20
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9: 381–386
ISSN: 1545-9624 print / 1545-9632 online
Copyright
c 2012 JOEH, LLC
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2012.680852
Survey of Noise Exposure and Background Noise in Call
Centers Using Headphones
N. Trompette and J. Chatillon
Noise at Work Laboratory, Work Equipment Engineering Division, INRS, Vandoeuvre, Cedex, France
Call centers represent one of the fastest growing industries.
However, there are health and safety hazards unique to this new
industry. One of these potential hazards is hearing impairment
caused by headsets. In this study, noise exposure assessment
was performed at 21 call centers and for 117 operators.
Although call center background noise does not contribute to
noise exposure, it impacts working conditions and influences
the headset volume setting. It was therefore measured at the
same time as exposure to noise. Results revealed that although
the risk of hearing impairment was generally low, exposure
could exceed the European Union regulation upper and lower
exposure action values. Besides exposure to noise, background
noise levels are often high with regard to recommendations
for office workers. Results are discussed and some recom-
mendations are given, issued from on-site observations. Their
application is intended to ensure the absence of excessive
exposure to noise and improve acoustic comfort.
Keywords background noise, call center, exposure, headset, noise
Correspondence to: Nicolas Trompette, INRS – IET, Rue du
Morvan, CS 60027, 54519, Vandoeuvre, Cedex, France; e-mail:
nicolas.trompette@inrs.fr.
INTRODUCTION
T here has been widespread growth of call centers in many
industries. Historically limited to telesales and enquiry
services, call centers have greatly extended their business in the
area of hotlines (Internet and mobile telephony). Today, their
activities include after-sales and financial (banking, insurance)
services, public authority services, and even machine-tool
troubleshooting. The number of employees estimated to work
in call centers varies from one source to another, but it is
conservatively estimated to be roughly 250,000 in France, and
this figure is subject to constant growth.
This new working population is obviously exposed to spe-
cific risks, of which the most widely known, even by the
general public, are psychological and musculoskeletal disor-
der risks.(1) Employers and company safety committees fre-
quently express concerns about noise exposure for two reasons:
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
first, working with a headset induces exposure to the acoustic
signal delivered by this headset. This is a new and little-
known occupational health problem, and concerns are similar
to the risk of hearing impairment for personal music player
users.(2,3) Second, call center open-plan layouts and telephone
conversations often generate background noise levels that are
abnormally high for a customer service activity with regard
to standards(4,5) or literature recommendations.(6,7) Although
this background noise does not contribute to noise exposure, it
impacts working conditions. It influences the headset volume
setting and must be kept to levels sufficiently low to prevent
operators from raising their voice. During our survey, we
often encountered complaints about background noise. It was
therefore interesting to measure background noise at the same
time as exposure to noise.
A survey was undertaken in 2008 aimed at measuring both
call center operator exposure to noise and also background
noise in open-plan call centers. This article describes the
survey methodology, shows the results, and proposes some
solutions to control both exposure to noise and background
noise.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Noise Exposure Measurement Setup
Call center operators are exposed to noise delivered by their
headsets. The contribution of background noise (in particular
background speech) and possible intrusive noises (fax ringing,
and so on) is negligible.
Measuring noise exposure behind the headset ear pads is
problematic because the use of dosimeters or sonometers is
obviously impossible. Therefore, ISO 11904-2,(8) which deals
specifically with this type of measurement, was applied. It
specifies the measurement equipment to use and the signal
processing to apply to determine the acoustic equivalent level.
The ISO 11904-2 standard requires the use of a manikin
(Figure 1). We used a Cortex Binaural Head (Limonest Cedex,
France) in compliance with ITU-T P58(9) specifications, as re-
quired by standard ISO 11904-2. It was fitted with an occluded
ear simulator conformed to the specifications in International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) publication 711,(10) again
June 2012 381
 FIGURE 1. Measurement line and signal post processing.
as required by ITU-T P58. The manikin transfer function
makes it possible to convert the noise level measured within
the ear of the manikin LM,f,exp (see ISO 11904-2 for further
details) into an equivalent diffuse field level, LDF,H,Aeq . This
diffuse field level is simply the level that would produce the
measured noise level inside the occluded ear of the manikin
and that is therefore comparable to a LAeq level measured in a
workshop using a sonometer or a dosimeter.
Line Splitting
To measure the noise delivered by the headset while the
operator is working, the telephone line must be split into two
lines, so that the operator can continue working normally with
an additional line while the manikin is measuring the noise
level of the call on the original one (Figure 2). The original
operator headset must be used for the measurements, as it is the
usual working equipment, so the operator has to be provided
with an additional headset. The acoustic level of the original
headset must remain unchanged, despite the connection of a
second headset. A splitter box was therefore used to connect
the additional headset without altering the acoustic level in the
original one. The consequence is that the telephone signal in
the additional line is low (i.e., the input impedance is high);
thus, the second line includes an amplifier used to adjust the
acoustic level of the additional headset to the level of the
original operator headset. This ensures that the operator, who
FIGURE 2. Scheme of the line splitting.
382 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
uses the additional headset, will keep the same volume settings
as before line splitting.
To check that the acoustic level remains the same in the
operator headset and to adjust the level in the second headset,
an answering phone delivering a standard signal is called
before and after installing the second line. Three test signals
are delivered by the answering phone: a speech signal, a sine
wave at 1 kHz, and a white noise signal.
This procedure permits the operator to work normally dur-
ing recording, while his/her working conditions remain
identical—except for the change of headset. Therefore, with
line splitting, the same calls that the headset user typically
listens to are recorded with the manikin.
Noise Exposure Evaluation
Exposure to noise was evaluated according to ISO 9612.(11)
The task-based strategy described in this standard was applied.
A phone call was considered a unitary task and is the only
task exposing operators to high noise levels. At a minimum,
three calls per operator were recorded, and a maximum of
64 calls could be recorded. Each call had to last more than
5 min to be considered, as specified by ISO 9612. When
the acoustic levels of these three recordings differed by more
than 3 dB, additional measurements were required. In general,
about 5 to 10 calls were recorded per operator, depending on
the duration of the calls. Operator noise exposure Leq,8h was
then calculated according to ISO 9612. As call centers always
measure operator activity, time spent on the telephone could
be provided, i.e., the daily duration of the task.
Operator noise exposure Leq,8h was obtained by weighting
the mean equivalent acoustic level LDF,H,Aeq calculated over
the call sampled by the daily time an operator spent on the
telephone. The result can subsequently be compared with the
limits given in the European regulations referred to above and,
in turn, with the 80 and 85 dB upper and lower exposure action
values and with the 87 dB exposure limit value.(12)
Background Noise
To monitor background noise, conventional measurement
instrumentation was used (sonometer or dosimeter). At the
first call centers surveyed, background noise exposure mea-
surements were taken at the same time as working noise expo-
sure measurements and at the same location, i.e., at a vacant
June 2012

FIGURE 3. Background noise measurement—example of possi-
ble sonometer locations.
assessment was done only for individuals. It wasn’t possible
to form homogeneous exposure groups because operators use
different volume settings. The largest call center office had
240 workstations and the smallest had 11, all of which were
installed in an open-plan environment.
Throughout the open-plan areas, the workstations were
located in cluster desks of four or six operators, in individual
cubicles, in conventional two-desk islands or in multiple-
desk islands. The cubicles were invariably separated by high
screens (>1.6 m). Within a cluster desk, the workstations were
generally separated by partitions. Partition height varied from
1 m to 1.4 m. In some open-plan areas, conventional freestand-
ing office screens, usually 1.8 m in height, were also fitted
to demarcate zones or to isolate noisy equipment (printers or
photocopiers). Office furniture was sometimes used to separate
workstations. Ceilings were made predominantly of absorbent
acoustic tiles and the floors were generally carpeted and rarely
tiled or linoleum covered.

workstation adjacent to that used by the operator or at an equiv- Telephone Equipment

alent distance from the nearest workstation (Figure 3). Mea- Most call center operators used headsets, either monaural or
surements were taken at seated operator ear height (1.2 m). binaural (i.e., with one or two earphones). Very few were still
Background noise thus measured at the first 10 call centers using handsets, which are now tending to disappear completely
surveyed was compared with background noise measured at throughout the industry; handsets were thus excluded from our
the same time at six fixed points at different locations through- tests. One operator used an ear insert and was included in our
out the open-plan area (at vacant operator positions). Results tests. All the equipment used was fitted with noise-canceling
were comparable. This latter procedure was adopted thereafter microphones. Very few cordless headsets were encountered
because of its simplicity of use, as the instrumentation could (10 out of 117), and those were all monaural.
remain at the same location while all measurements were being Fifty percent of the call centers surveyed used a comput-
taken. It is also more accurate because recordings can be made erized telephone system, where headset volume is adjusted
throughout the workday. either using a softphone (software operating as a telephone
unit) or with the computer sound card. The remaining systems
SURVEY DESCRIPTION featured a conventional turret, usually allowing volume control
from plus/minus control knobs.
Call Center Descriptions Headsets were connected directly or through a junction
The call centers taking part in the measurement survey box to the telephone system. Junction boxes were of two
represent multiple sectors within the industry; however, mea- types: a device termed an “amplifier” by manufacturers, or
surements were made in four centers that provide outsourcing a protection device. Although they are called amplifiers, these
even though this particular sector employs a high number of devices have two functions: amplifying the incoming signal
operators. Call center distribution is shown in Table I. From 2 to as set by the operator, and limiting the incoming signal be-
16 operators were surveyed in each call center, depending on its low a specific value, therefore acting as compressors in the
size and the time allowed for the measurement. Noise exposure latter case. Protection devices fulfill the same functions but
also remove unwanted tones from the speech signal, such as
acoustic shocks. In addition, they are supposed to help users
TABLE I. Call Center Distribution comply with regulations, which actually means that the headset
instantaneous acoustic level is limited to ensure that daily noise
No. of Call No. of exposure will not exceed 80 dB(A).
Sector Centers Operators
Call center outsourcing 4 32 RESULTS
Public authorities 2 7
Exposure to Noise
Banks and insurance companies 3 14
Measurements were taken for 117 operators at 21 call cen-
Telephony and Internet 3 12
ters. The result quoted for each operator is the mean equivalent
Telephone sales 5 33
diffuse field level for the recorded conversations and the noise
After-sale services 4 19
exposure. Mean equivalent diffuse field levels range from 60 to
Total 21 117
90 dB(A). Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of these levels,

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene June 2012 383

 action value. This result proves that call center workers can
be exposed to noise levels exceeding the regulatory exposure
action values, although their noise exposure levels remain
rather low compared with what can be typically observed in
others’ industrial activities.

Comparisons in the Literature

Results were compared with those obtained by Patel et
al.(13) (Health and Safety Executive, U.K.) in 2002, by Peretti
et al.(14) (Italian academics) in 2003, and by Dajani et al.(15)
(Australian institutional team) in 1996. All used the same
methodology (manikin technique). Compared with Patel, the
FIGURE 4. Distribution of call mean equivalent diffuse field levels
data distributions exhibit similar trends; however, noise levels
for 117 operators. (or equivalent diffuse field levels LA,M,DF according to the
11904-2 standard) and exposure estimates found by Patel
were approximately 3 dB higher. The noise level distribution
of which 88% are lower than 80 dB(A), i.e., only 14 operators
obtained by Patel for 150 operators is a normal distribution
were likely to be exposed to noise levels above 80 dB(A).
centered on 77 dB(A), and the noise level distribution mea-
Noise exposure results from listening to the caller only. Tones,
sured in this study is also normal but centered on 74 dB(A).
such as ringtones when operators have to call consumers, do
In Patel’s study, noise levels extend from 65 to 88 dB(A) as
not have a significant contribution.
opposed to 60 to 90 dB(A) in our study. The difference arises
The daily noise exposure Leq,8h (i.e., 8-hr equivalent sound
when, as in the Patel study, most operators set their sound
pressure level) was derived from the mean equivalent diffuse
volume to maximum, while in our study, approximately 50%
field level for the recorded conversations and from information
did so.
on the amount of time operators spend daily listening to calls
Measurement procedure differences may also be involved
through their headsets. Background noise was not included in
or, more likely, different telephone and communications equip-
the calculation as it is a negligible contribution. Call centers
ment. In particular, in 2001, digital protection devices had
collect detailed call statistics, especially the mean call duration
only recently been placed on the market. Peretti obtained
and call rate per hour, from which it is easy to deduce the time
the same normal distribution as in the present study. The
an operator spends listening to speech transmitted through
noise levels mean value is also the same, i.e., 74 dB(A), and
their headset during calls each day. Figure 5 illustrates the
noise levels extend from 58 to 87 dB(A). Dajani did not provide
distribution of daily noise exposure estimates.
the distribution but obtained noise levels ranging between 70
Daily noise exposure estimates are typically lower than
and 84 dB(A) and a noise levels average of 74 dB(A). Our new
the equivalent diffuse field levels because operators do not
series of measurements is thus consistent with those reported
stay on the phone continuously throughout their working day,
elsewhere in the world.
but they are not directly interrelated. The noise exposure
distribution is somewhat different because it is affected by
Background Noise Measurements
activity differences.
Background noise levels ranged from 50 to 62 dB(A) (Fig-
Seven of the 117 operators studied were exposed to noise
ure 6). Eighty percent were below 58 dB(A). Recommenda-
levels exceeding the 80 dB(A) first exposure action value
tions require background noise levels to be lower than 55
and, in one case, exceeding the 85 dB(A) second exposure
dB(A) to ensure acoustic comfort.(5–7) This background noise
limit is satisfied in 20% of the call centers, which were the only

FIGURE 5. Distribution of noise exposure levels for 117

operators. FIGURE 6. Mean ambient noise level—21 call centers.

384 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene June 2012


FIGURE 7. Ambient noise level compared to headset maximum
level.
centers where personnel did not complain about background
noise. Our overall impression was the same, and we now
recommend compliance with this 55 dB(A) background noise
limit, although 58 dB(A) may be considered acceptable if
this level lasts less than 1 hr. A call center is certainly too
noisy above 60 dB(A). These limits take into account the
attenuation provided by the headset, but in general, telecom-
munication headsets, even binaural ones, do not provide much
attenuation.
Background noise is closely related to the working area per
operator. In our survey, the working area is calculated as the
ratio between the open-plan surface and the number of opera-
tors working. Our measurements show that it is impossible to
achieve the 55 dB(A) noise limit with a working area of less
than 7 m2 per operator, and that it is fairly difficult below 10
m2 per operator. Acoustic treatment of the open-plan area is
also an important factor.
There was concern that the level of background noise may
affect the volume setting selected by the operator. To relate
volume settings to background noise, the maximum noise
level (Fast max LDF,H,Aeq ) recorded during calls was compared
with the background noise Leq(A) recorded at the same time.
Surprisingly, there is no direct correlation between these two
quantities (Figure 7), although the maximum noise level is
well correlated to the volume setting, which was established
throughout the test using the answering phone. Background
noise obviously must influence the setting of the headset
listening or noise level, but this does not appear to be the
only factor. Others factors such as operator age, habits, and
equipment must be of equal importance.
CONCLUSION
T wenty-one call centers were included in the survey and
exposure to noise was assessed for 117 operators. Call
center operators are exposed to noise delivered only by their
headsets. Noise exposure of only 7 of the 117 operators ex-
ceeded the lower exposure action value defined in current noise
regulations, and only one value of operator noise exposure
exceeded the upper exposure action value. No operators were
exposed to noise levels above the regulation exposure limit.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
If we consider only the noise level to which the operator
is exposed during a call, also termed the equivalent diffuse
field level LDF,H,Aeq , the measured levels did not exceed 90
dB(A) and did not exceed 80 dB(A) for the majority of the
operators (88%). The risk of hearing impairment is therefore
considered minimal, which is a conclusion similar to that of
previous surveys.
Unlike exposure to noise, background noise levels are often
high with regard to recommendations for office workers. In
our survey and according to standards(4,5) or literature rec-
ommendations,(6,7) operators seldom worked in a comfortable
acoustic environment (20%), the majority (60%) worked in
an uncomfortable acoustic environment, and 20% worked in
what is considered a noisy environment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Noise Exposure
The risk of hearing impairment is considered minimal.
There are, however, some recommendations and considera-
tions that would improve operator exposure to noise. Equip-
ment selection is critical because it must allow both reception
and emission levels to be adjusted (e.g., microphone volume
setting). Telephone equipment manufacturers have been proac-
tive and have supplemented their product ranges with digital
protection devices or amplifiers to attenuate the noise levels
delivered by headsets. Workstations should be equipped with
these devices. As long as they have been tested using the proper
test procedure, these devices ensure that operators will not be
exposed to noise levels exceeding regulation limits.(16)
Operators can also be exposed to a sudden increase in
the noise transmitted by their headsets. This phenomenon is
referred to as “acoustic shock” and can have various causes.
Protection devices can remove the risk of experiencing acous-
tic shocks. According to their manufacturers, they are also
supposed to improve intelligibility, but this was not verified
during our tests.
Volume setting on the telephone equipment should be easy
to adjust and visible. Indeed, when an operator takes a call,
he/she has to collect a large amount of information from the
caller and may overlook adjusting the noise level for the call.
Our survey showed that operators rarely adjust the volume set-
ting and, therefore, often work at the maximum volume setting.
Operator training is also a significant issue. Operators obvi-
ously prefer software-related training and quickly forget basic
equipment operation. Generally, operators receive little regular
training or even retraining (for example, when equipment is
changed). Apart from the acoustic point of view, headsets are
seldom regularly cleaned, and ear cushions were not regularly
changed at any of the call centers. We conclude that call center
operators are unlikely to be exposed to exposure noise levels
above the regulation exposure action and limit values, but the
choices of equipment, training, and information are key issues
in limiting their exposure to noise and in preventing them from
experiencing acoustic shocks.
June 2012 385
Background Noise
One of the main factors influencing background noise is the
call center office layout and, particularly, the area per operator.
Our survey shows that the area per operator must be larger than
7 m2 and ideally should be greater than 10 m2. Another main
factor that influences background noise is reverberation. To
control reverberation, ceilings should be covered with Class
A acoustic tiles. According to ISO 11654,(17) acoustic tiles are
classified on the basis of their efficiency from Class E (the
worst) to Class A (the best), and because background noise
arises mainly from call speech, ceiling tiles should be 40 mm
thick to ensure high acoustic absorption at speech frequencies.
For the same purpose, floors should be carpeted. In addition,
operators should be separated by acoustic partitions if the
working area per operator is less than 10 m2. Finally, air
conditioning and lighting systems should be properly designed
and maintained.
The following recommendations arise from our observation
during the study. To control background noise, customer rela-
tions training and support in the event of conflict should be con-
sidered important issues. Operators who badly manage their
caller, especially in the event of conflict, will simultaneously
increase their noise exposure and background noise when
they raise their voices. Finally, operator behavior in the open-
plan area is also significant. Personal conversations should be
conducted out of range in another location, which could imply
installing a break room. An operator should request informa-
tion or assistance (e.g., from supervisor) by phone and not by
shouting. Training sessions should be organized away from an
operator’s workstation (unlike previous recommendations, this
advice is frequently followed). All these recommendations are
necessary, although some are challenging and some are costly
to implement, but they highlight the difficulties involved in
controlling background noise at an acceptable level in such
workplaces.
REFERENCES
1. D’Errico, A., P. Caputo, U. Falcone, et al.: Risk factors for upper
extremity musculoskeletal symptoms among call center employees. J.
Occup. Health 52(2):115–124 (2010).
2. Warwick, W.: Noise exposure levels from personal stereo. Int. J. Audiol.
44:231–236 (2005).
386 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
3. Axelsson, A.: Recreational exposure to noise and its effects. Noise Control
Eng. J. 44:127–134 (1996).
4. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Ergonomic Re-
quirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs)—Part
5: Workstation Layout and Postural Requirements (ISO 9241-5). [Stan-
dard] Geneva: ISO, 1998.
5. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Acoustics
—Recommended Practice for the Design of Low-Noise Workplaces
Containing Machinery—Part 1: Noise Control Strategies (ISO 11690-
1) [Standard] Geneva: ISO, 1996.
6. Wisner, A.: Audition et bruits [Audition and noise] In Précis de
physiologie au travail (Physiology at Work), Vol. 2. Paris: Masson, 1967.
pp. 3–72. [In French]
7. Beranek, L.: Acoustics, hearing and psychoacoustic criteria. In Acous-
tics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954; Reissued 1986 by Acoustical Society
of America, 1987.
8. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Acoustics
—Determination of Sound Emission from Sound Sources Placed Close to
the Ear—Part 2: Technique Using a Manikin (ISO 11904-2) [Standard].
Geneva: ISO, 2004.
9. “ITU-T Work Programme Recommendation P.58. Head and Torso Simu-
lator for Telephonometry.” [Online] Available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T
(accessed March 27, 2012).
10. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): Occluded-Ear
Simulator for the Measurement of Earphones Coupled to the Ear by
Ear Insert (IEC Pub. 711:1981). Geneva: IEC, 1981.
11. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Acoustics
—Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure—Engineering Method
(ISO 9612). [Standard] Geneva: ISO, 2009.
12. Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of the European Union on the Minimum Health and
Safety Requirements Regarding the Exposure of Workers to the
Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Noise). Brussels, February 6,
2003.
13. Patel, J.A., and K. Broughton: Assessment of the noise exposure of call
center operators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 46(8):653–661 (2002).
14. Perretti, A., F. Pedrielli, M. Baiamont, F. Mauli, and A. Fa-
rina: “Headphone Noise: Occupational Noise Exposure Assessment
for Communication Personnel.” Presented at Euronoise, the Fifth
European Conference on Noise Control, Naples, Italy, May 19–21,
2003.
15. Dajani, H., H. Kunov, and B. Seshagiri: Real-time method for the
measurement of noise exposure from communication headsets. Appl.
Acoustics 49(3):209–224 (1996).
16. Trompette, N., and J. Chatillon: “Risk Assessment for the Hearing of
the Operators of Call Centers and Prevention Solutions.” Note Scientifique
et Technique, NS 289. Paris: INRS, 2010. [In French]
17. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Acoustics
—Sound Absorbers for Use in Buildings. Rating of Sound Absorption
(ISO 11654). [Standard] Geneva: ISO, 1997.
June 2012