Quality of Life and Acoustic Comfort in Educational

Environments of Curitiba, Brazil

*Gustavo Levandoski, and †Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin, *Dourados, and yCuritiba, Brazil

Summary: Background. It is believed that poor classroom acoustics leads to lower levels of student learning
and exposes teachers vocal folds to greater physical wear and tear.
Objective. This study sought to compare the quality of life by World Health Organization (whoqol-bref) ques-
tionnaire of 61 teachers working at schools with different acoustic conditions.
Methods. This paper reports on a descriptive exploratory study aimed at ascertaining the following: (1) outdoor
sound pressure levels in the immediate surroundings of two primary schools; (2) background noise levels inside
classrooms; (3) reverberation times in classrooms; (4) the teacher's perception of noise in the work environment;
(5) the teacher’s vocal intensity in the classroom; and (6) the teacher’s perceived quality of life.
Results. It was found that the quality of life of teachers, as well as the major causes of acoustic discomfort, do
not stem from a source outside the classroom, halls, and physical education classes. Instead, they originate inside
the classroom and are caused by students during school hours; the teachers’ vocal intensity exceeds the limits of
tolerability both in schools that provide acoustic comfort and in those that do not.
Conclusions. The basic conditions required to ensure the health of the participants in this study during their
workday were found to be unsatisfactory.
Key Words: Quality of life−Sound pressure levels−Reverberation time−Vocal intensity−Teachers.

RESUMO estudo durante o exercício de sua profiss~ao n~ao s~

INTRODUÇ AO: e No ambiente escolar acredita-se que uma
má condiç~ ao ac ustica no ambiente escolar, acarrete em
menores níveis de aprendizado ao aluno e maior desgaste
físico as pregas vocais do professor. OBJETIVO: Desta
maneira o estudo buscou comparar o nível de qualidade de
vida através do whoqol-bref entre 61 professores que trabal-
ham em escolas com padr~ ao ac 
ustico diferente. METODO:
Este estudo trata-se de uma pesquisa descritiva de caráter
exploratoria que buscou verificar: (1) o nível de press~ao
sonora no entorno das escolas; (2) nível de ruído de fundo
no interior das salas de aula; (3) tempo de reverberaç~ao das
salas de aula (4) a percepç~
ao do professor ao ruido no ambi-
ente de trabalho; (5) intensidade vocal de fala do professor
em sala de aula; e (6) o nível de qualidade de vida do profes-
sor. RESULTADO: Foi constatado que o nível de quali-
dade de vida dos docentes, bem como as maiores causas de
incomodo ao conforto ac ustico n~ao s~ao oriundas de uma
fonte exterior a sala de aula, corredores e aulas de educaç~ao
física, mas sim originada do interior da sala de aula provo-
cado pelos pr oprios alunos durante o horário de aula; a
intensidade vocal dos professores é superior aos limites tol-
eráveis; tanto nas escolas que possuem conforto ac ustico,
como nas escolas que apresentam um ambiente de descon-
forto acustico.CONCLUSAO: e As condiç~ oes básicas neces-
sárias para a sa ude dos professores participantes deste
Accepted for publication May 19, 2020.
From the *Teacher at the Federal University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, MS,
Brazil; and the yCNPq Research Productivity Scholarship - Level1B, Laboratory of
Environmental and Industrial Acoustics and Acoustic Comfort − LAAICA, Poly-
technic Center, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Gustavo Levandoski E-mail:
glevandoski@gmail.com
Journal of Voice, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 436.e9−436.e16
0892-1997
© 2020 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.05.030
ao satis-
fat
orias.
Palavras-chave: qualidade de vida, nível de press~ ao
sonora, tempo de reverberaç~ao, intensidade vocal, profes-
sor.
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies on acoustic quality in the work environ-
ment have been conducted in Brazil to examine the strong
association between noise pollution and occupational haz-
ards for the voice/vocal folds, that affect the life of the
worker. These studies, which monitored noise levels in
urban spaces1 as well as acoustic comfort in offices,2 public
parks,1,3 and classrooms in universities and schools,4-6
revealed that perceived noise levels exceed the legal limits.
In Brazil, occupational risks for workers exposed to inad-
equate work environments are covered by labor standards.
However, occupations that are considered insalubrious
ensure the worker is entitled to benefits such as reduced
daily workload if his exposure provenly exceeds the toler-
ance limit harmful to health. Brazil’s Regulatory Standard
for Insalubrious Activities and Operations7 indicates that
the maximum exposure to noise should not exceed 85 dB
during an eight-hour working day. However, studies have
shown that the workday of a primary school teacher may
exceed 12 classroom hours per day.8
It is believed that poor classroom acoustics leads to lower
levels of student learning and exposes teachers to greater
physical wear and tear.9 An example of this was reported by
another researcher, who found that when the ceiling finish-
ing material of a classroom was removed and replaced with
another material, the room’s acoustic quality failed to meet
the standards.10 However, administrative decisions often
interfere in the acoustic quality of classrooms when school
Gustavo Levandoski and Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin
buildings require renovations. This means that the acoustic
quality of classrooms, in terms of reverberation time (<1
second), originally classified as satisfactory based on
national and international standards, it may be negatively
impacted by renovations. The high levels of background
noise in the classroom force teachers to raise their vocal
intensity to ensure a better understanding of their speech.11
Notwithstanding the above, few studies have attempted
to associate parameters of acoustic comfort with the teach-
er’s vocal intensity in the classroom and/or with factors that
indicate levels of discomfort which affect the occupational
health of teachers.9,12-15
Studies on the vocal intensity of preschool teachers in
Sweden found that their profession involves high vocal
demands, putting them at great risk of developing health
problems, such as vocal nodules and vocal fatigue.14 Even
so, it is known that many teachers suffering from health
problems caused by vocal impairment do not seek medical
care.16 Based on the literature, people who have never
sought medical care to solve voice problems and hearing
loss are considered to be healthy.14 A large part of these
problems is attributed to poor classroom acoustics, so a
noise dose meter is an effective tool to check for prolonged
voice use.17
In Brazil, it was found that the sound pressure levels in
86% of fitness centers exceeded the tolerance limit.18 This
forces fitness instructors who do not have a voice amplifier
to compete with the background noise by increasing their
vocal intensity to be heard.19 In such conditions, it is the
teacher's own vocal intensity that becomes the causative
agent of sound emission.15 Therefore, remaining in this type
of working environment can be detrimental to the quality of
life of teachers, and in the long term, contribute to exacer-
bating an occupational disease.
The term “quality of life” does not have only one mean-
ing, but is used to define subjectively people’s life status.20
Using the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Bref
questionnaire (WHOQOL-Bref),21 studies analyzing the
quality of life of teachers found that university professors
enjoy a higher quality of life than elementary school
teachers.8,22,23 It has also been reported that in the popula-
tion of southern Brazil, low-income women with low educa-
tion and some groups of people suffering from chronic
diseases have a low quality of life.24
The environmental domain represents, among other
aspects, the physical environment in which individuals live,
such as noise pollution, traffic, and climate. As indicated by
numerous surveys,8,22,23,25 the average values found in this
domain are lower than those found in other domains (physi-
cal, psychological, and social relations). Thus, this study
sought to compare the quality of life of teachers working in
schools with different acoustic conditions.
METHOD AND RESULTS
This descriptive exploratory study was aimed at ascertain-
ing: (1) sound pressure levels in the immediate surroundings
Quality of Life and Acoustic Comfort 436.e10
of two schools; (2) background noise levels inside class-
rooms; (3) reverberation times in classrooms; (4) the teach-
er's perception of noise in the work environment; (5) the
teacher’s vocal intensity in the classroom; and (6) the teach-
er’s perceived quality of life.
All the participants signed an informed consent form
describing the procedures and the intention of the research,
based on the Ethical Standards and Procedures for Research
Involving Humans (196/96) established by Brazil’s National
Health Commission. The procedures were evaluated and
approved by the Research and Ethics Committee of the
Federal University of Paraná, under Protocol No. 15031.
The descriptive statistical analysis was performed based on
central tendency and dispersion, by SPSS version 18. The
Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate the quantitative vari-
ables normality.The analyses were inferential, using the
Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests as a nonpara-
metric procedure and adopting a significance level of 5%.
Study 1 −Characterization of the environment (Objectivs:
(1) sound pressure levels in the immediate surroundings of
two schools; (2) background noise levels inside classrooms;
(3) reverberation times in classrooms).
The outdoor noise levels in the areas surrounding the
schools were measured using a Br€ uel&Kjaer 2260 sound
level meter, and are represented in decibels (dB). Four mea-
surement points, 20 meters apart, were chosen around the
perimeter of each school, and three measurements were
taken at each point, each lasting 5 minutes. The measure-
ments were taken in the afternoons on school days, in the
absence of atypical sound sources such as rain or strong
wind, as recommended by the Brazilian technical standard
NBR-10151.26
The sound pressure levels inside classrooms with open
windows were then measured, as specified by the Brazilian
standard NBR 10152− Sound levels for acoustic comfort,27
while the students were playing in the schoolyard during the
break. Four classrooms in each school were selected, using
simple random sampling as the criterion of choice. Three
measurements lasting 3 minutes were taken in each class-
room with windows facing the street. School no. 1, consid-
ered acoustically comfortable, is located in the central area
of the city, next to a public park, and was built in the 1930s.
The classrooms, whose volume is194 m3
(3.70 £ 5.90 £ 8.90 meters), have wooden floors and brick
walls and ceilings. School no. 2, considered acoustically
uncomfortable, is located at the outer perimeter of the
downtown area and is characterized mainly by heavy traffic
flowing to a highway. The latter school was built in the
1950s, and its classrooms, with a volume of 168 m3
(3.50 £ 6.00 £ 8.00 meters), have ceramic floors and brick
walls and ceilings, shown in Figure 1.
An important parameter that affects the acoustic quality
of rooms is reverberation time −RT. In this study, the RT
was measured according to the premises contained in ISO
3382-2 − “Acoustics − Measurement of room acoustic
parameters − Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary
rooms”.28 The measurements were taken using the
436.e11 Journal of Voice, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2022

FIGURE 1. Reverberation time measurement.

following devices: 1) an omnidirectional sound source, 2) a
measuring amplifier, and 3) a Br€ uel&Kjaer 2260 two-chan-
nel sound analyzer. With regard to reverberation time (RT),
according to the DIN 18041 standard, classrooms must
present an average RT of up to 1.0 second at frequencies of
500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz in order to be considered ideal for
study.29
Table 1 shows the equivalent continuous sound levels
(Leq) in the area surrounding the schools and inside the
classrooms. The outdoor Leq measured in the surroundings
of Schools 1 and 2 of this study was 69.0 dB and 73.5 dB,
respectively. According to the Brazilian technical standard27
for acoustic comfort in school buildings, background noise
that is comfortable for the human ear may vary up to
50 dB, although a maximum level of 60 dB can be consid-
ered acceptable. The sound limits established by Curitiba
Municipal Law No.10625 for the city’s downtown area are
65 dB(A) in the morning and 60 dB(A) in the afternoon.
Although the equivalent continuous sound level in the
area surrounding School 1 (Leq = 69.0 dB) was higher than
the level established,27 the school’s buildings are far away
from road traffic. As a consequence, the average Leq mea-
sured inside its classrooms was 54.9 dB, which complies
with the standard established.26 With regard to reverbera-
tion time, according to the German standard DIN 18041,29
in order to be considered ideal for study, classrooms must
present an average of up to 1.0 second at the frequencies of
500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz. The results of the Mann-Whitney
U test applied to identify differences between groups indi-
cated that the two schools presented significantly different
background noise levels both outdoors and inside their
classrooms. Based on this finding, School 1 was character-
ized as acoustically “comfortable“ and School 2 as “uncom-
fortable” for teaching.
A vehicle count was made simultaneously at the points
where the sound pressure levels were measured around the

TABLE 1.
Characterization of the Equivalent Continuous Sound Levels (Leq) at the Two Schools
School 1 (acoustically comfortable) School 2 (acoustically uncomfortable) P
Outdoor Leq
Front gate 70.1 dB 73.6 dB
Side opposite the front gate 66.9 dB 74.3 dB
Left side 72.3 dB 74.2 dB
Right side 66.7 dB 71.9 dB
Average outdoor Leq 69.0 dB 73.5 dB 0.037*
Indoor Leq
Classroom 1 54.7 dB 73.8 dB
Classroom 2 54.6 dB 77.3 dB
Classroom 3 55.5 dB 70.3 dB
Classroom 4 55.1 dB 74.7 dB
Average indoor Leq 54.9 dB 74.0 dB < 0.001*
Reverberation time
Classroom 1 0.91 sec 1.67 sec
Classroom 2 0.88 sec 1.76 sec < 0.001*
* P < 0.05
Gustavo Levandoski and Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin
TABLE 2.
Quality of Life Rating (WHOQOL-Bref) of the Teachers at Schools 1 and 2
Total of the sample
(n = 61)
Overall Domain 66.2
Physical Domain 68.9
Psychological Domain 68.6
Social Relationships 69.9
Domain
Environmental Domain 61.2
*P < 0,05 (Mann-Whitney)
schools. A total of 506 cars, 51 motorcycles, 24 trucks, and
18 buses were counted at the four outdoor measuring points
around School 2 (acoustically uncomfortable). In contrast,
a total of 295 passenger cars, 16 motorcycles, 6 trucks, and
9 buses were counted at the four outdoor measuring points
around School 1(acoustically comfortable). This indicates
that variability invehicle flow contributed to increasing the
background noise, particularly in the classrooms of School
2, aggravating the noise pollution.
Study 2 − Characterization of the participants (Objectives:
(4) the teacher's perception of noise in the work environ-
ment; (5) the teacher’s vocal intensity in the classroom; and
(6) the teacher’s perceived quality of life.
A total of 61 teachers participated, intentionally chosen
due to their accessibility, as follows: Sociology (n = 14), Por-
tuguese and English (n = 12), Mathematics (n = 8), History
(n = 8), Physical Education (n = 5), Biology (n = 5), Arts
(n = 3), Chemistry (n = 3), Geography (n = 2), and Physics
(n = 2). The inclusion criteriafor participation were being in
good health, not undergoing any drug therapy, a complete
tertiary education, more than two years of experience as a
primary and secondary school teacher; and a work week of
more than 10 hours.
The teachers answered the WHOQOL-Bref question-
naire, which contained 26 questions pertaining to the pre-
ceding fortnight. Two questions refer to the individual
perception of quality of life, and the other questions are sub-
divided into four domains: physical, psychological, social
relations and the environment.21 The perception of back-
ground noise was verified by the inventory of auditory and
extra-auditory effects of exposure to noise.19
The vocal intensity or sound pressure level (SPL) of
teachers' voices was measured in the situation of normal
speech in the classroom during 45-minute class periods. The
SPL was measured using a Br€ uel&Kjaer 4445 noise dose
meter, whose microphone is clipped to the shirt-front, as
required by ISO 9921.30
Of the 61 participants in the study, 39 were women and
22 were men. The participants ranged in age from 23 to
63 years, with an average age of 38 years; 49.2% worked
full time at their respective schools,and 73.8% drove their
own car to work.Over half the teachers (68%) have more
than 5 years of teaching experience, while 54% have more
Quality of Life and Acoustic Comfort 436.e12
School 1 (acoustically School 2 (acoustically P
comfortable) (n = 29) uncomfortable) (n = 32)
65.7 66.7 0.783
70.6 67.2 0.410
68.4 68.7 0.947
66.9 72.7 0.258
59.9 63.1 0.316
than 20 years of experience. At the time of this study,
50.8% of the participants were married, and 60.7% were
childless.
As for noise perception in the workplace, the question-
naire revealed that 55.7% of the teachers perceive high
noise levels, while 68.9% state that the classroom is the
place with the highest noise pollution.Among all the
teachers, 34.4% claimed that they had to make a tremen-
dous vocal effort to overcome the background noise, and
27.9% often had to resort to shouting. Among the partic-
ipants, 27.9% reported hoarseness; 13.1% presented fail-
ing voice; 18.0% felt fatigued when speaking, and 32.8%
reported daily pain or a burning sensation in the throat
at the end of the workday.
A comparison was made between the two schools con-
cerning the environmental noise sources that most annoy
the teachers, eg, vehicle traffic, noise from nearby construc-
tion sites, the school yard, sports court, and classrooms.
This comparison revealed a statistical difference only for
two background noise sources: vehicle traffic and noise
from construction sites (P = 0.015), indicating that the
teachers at School 2 are more bothered than those at School
1 by environmental noise caused by these sources.
In response to the question “How would you assess your
quality of life?” on the WHOQOL-Bref questionnaire,
63.8% of the respondents rated their quality of life as
“good” and “very good” (on a 5-point Likert scale, these
answers correspond to the highest scores). In the overall
evaluation of the general domain of quality of life of the
participants taken together, the results indicate an average
score of 66.2 points. This result should be interpreted on a
scale of (0-100 points), with a “good” quality of life rating
corresponding to a score of 100 or close to 100. A compari-
son of the quality of life of teachers at Schools 1 and 2 indi-
cated that there were no significant differences between the
domains: (overall, physical, psychological, social relations,
and environment). The same held true in a comparison of
the teachers’ stated quality of life with respect to gender,
tobacco use, and marital status.
Table 3 lists the mean values of the equivalent vocal
intensity level; maximum and minimum measured by the
noise dose meter clipped to the shirt-front. The measure-
ment refers to the teacher’s speaking voice in the classroom.
436.e13 Journal of Voice, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2022

TABLE 3.
Average Values of the Statistical Parameters Pertaining to the Teachers’ Vocal SPL Measured in the Classroom During
Classes
Total of the sample (n = 61) School 1 (acoustically comfortable) School 2 (acoustically P
(n = 29) uncomfortable) (n = 32)
LAeq 87.3 88.3 86.5 0.033*
LAmax 98.3 98.6 98.0 0.209
LAmin 57.8 57.9 57.7 0.882
L10 91.5 92.4 90.6 0.033*
L50 83.9 85.0 82.9 0.066
L90 71.7 72.4 71.0 0.330
* P < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney)

The other indicators (L10, L50, L90) represent the average
percentage of time that teachers spent using their vocal
intensity.
The SPL of the teachers’ speaking voice during a 45-min-
ute class was 87.3 dB(A), with a minimum and maximum
peak interval of 49.4 to 101.2 dB(A). The Mann-Whitney
test revealed that the average vocal intensity of teachers at
School 2 (acoustically uncomfortable) was statistically
lower than that of teachers at the acoustically comfortable
school. Despite this difference in vocal intensity, the SPL of
the speaking voice of 96.7% of the teachers was higher than
80 dB(A).
Table 4 compares the SPL of the teachers’ speaking voice
in relation to the school level (elementary and middle
school); the teachers’ sex; marital status (married and sin-
gle), and working period (morning, afternoon, and evening).
A difference was found only in the maximum vocal intensity
level between the working periods (morning, afternoon, and
night), indicating that the average vocal intensity of teachers
working in the evening was significantly lower. Thus, it can
be stated that the high level of vocal intensity is a common
problem among teachers.
The ISO 9921/2003 standard30 warns about the risks of
improper use of the voice in the performance of vocal com-
munication. Table 5 describes the vocal intensity of teachers
in the classroom, classified according to the above standard.
Based on the above, it can be stated that none of the teach-
ers used a speaking voice classified as “normal” while per-
forming their professional activities.
A positive and significant correlation was found between
the Leq of the teachers’ vocal intensity and the number of
students per class (r = +0.511, P < 0.001). According to the
coefficient of determination of the bivariate linear regres-
sion, the relationship between the level of vocal intensity of
the teachers and the number of students per class indicated
an effect of 24.8%.
DISCUSSION
Noise pollution is a problem that gradually worsens the sub-
jective perception of the general population. Studies con-
ducted in Curitiba, in the state of Paraná, Brazil, have
shown that the noise levels in 65.4% of the city’s public
parks exceed the permissible limit established by the local

TABLE 4.
Average SPL of the Teachers’ Vocal Intensity in the Classroom During Class as a Function of Sex, Work Period, Level of
Education and Marital Status
No. LAeq LAmax LAmin
Sex Male 22 87.1 97.8 59.2
Female 39 87.4 98.6 57.0
P 0.717 0.130 0.074
Period Morning 17 87.5 98.5’ 58.5
Afternoon 27 88.0 98.8’ 58.6
Evening 17 86.1 97.3b 55.7
P 0.176 0.025* 0.101
School level Elementary 23 87.7 98.7 57.9
Middle 38 87.1 98.0 57.7
P 0.500 0.208 0.909
Marital status Single 21 87.8 98.6 59.3
Married 31 87.4 98.1 57.3
P 0.743 0.389 0.163
* P < 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis test; Mann-Whitney a-b)
Gustavo Levandoski and Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin Quality of Life and Acoustic Comfort 436.e14

TABLE 5.
Classification of Teachers’ Vocal Intensity According to ISO 9921
Total of the sample School 1 (acoustically School 2 (acoustically P
(n = 61) comfortable) (n = 29) uncomfortable) (n = 32)
Relaxed (64-69) dB(A) - - -
Normal (70-75) dB(A) - - - 0.082
Moderate (76-81) dB(A) 5 (8.2%) - 5 (15.6%)
Loud (82-87) dB(A) 26 (42.6%) 13 (44.8%) 13 (40.6%)
Very loud (88-93) dB(A) 30 (49.2) 16 (55.2%) 14 (43.8%)
Shouting (above 94) dB(A) - - -
* P < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney)

standards.3 The sound pressure levels in schoolswhose
buildings are distant from road traffic were found to be
acceptable,5 unlike those in school buildings in the proxim-
ities of road traffic.31 In this study, which was also per-
formed in the city of Curitiba, School 2 (acoustically
uncomfortable) is located closer to heavyroad traffic than
School 1, presenting average outdoor and indoor equivalent
continuous sound levels (Leq) of 73.5 dB (P = 0.037) and
74.0 dB (P <0.001). The situation of School 2 differed signif-
icantly from that of School 1, which is located further away
from heavy vehicle traffic, and thus provides greater acous-
tic comfort to teachers and students.
Notwithstanding the above, School 1 has some character-
istics that worsen the quality of the learning environment.
Although the classrooms in the two schools have similar
volumes (School 1: 194 m3; School 2: 168 m3), the number
of students assigned to each classroom differs significantly.
While School 1 assigns more than 35 students to each class-
room, School 2 assigns fewer than 20 students to each class-
room. The coefficient of determination of the bivariate
linear regression indicated that the number of students per
classroom exerts an effect of 24.8% in relation to the teach-
ers’ level of vocal intensity. In a study conducted in Brazil-
ian classrooms, it was found that the reverberation time
only reached adequate levels when the classrooms were fully
occupied with more than 40 students. However, this number
of students in a classroom increases the level of background
noise, impairing speech intelligibility.6
Augustynska11 reported sound pressure levels of 84.7 dB
in school corridors and 80.2 dB in the cafeteria when stu-
dents were outside their classrooms. In this study, when
classes were over, we found an equivalent sound pressure
level of 81.9 dB in the corridors of School 1 and 78.2 dB in
School 2.
It was found that 72.4% of the teachers of the latter
school believe that the greatest noise-related annoyance
originates inside the classroom itself. Research has shown
that noise generated by students in neighboring classrooms
is the main source of annoyance to teachers,6 and that noise
levels are higher (P < 0.001) in the afternoon than in the
morning. Be that as it may, regardless of the age or working
hours of teachers, 67.5% of them feel annoyed by high noise
levels.32
The noise caused by human speech is one of the main
sources of annoyance for workers in open-plan offices.33
For most students, the most annoying sound during class is
the teacher’s voice.6 Studies have shown that even children
can distinguish between good and bad sounds in the school
environment,34 and that only 8% of students are bothered
by noise sources originating from the school environment.6
Several studies have analyzed the vocal intensity of teach-
ers using a noise dose meter. Astolfi35 reported that the aver-
age number of vocal efforts of teachers in Italian schools,
without differentiating the participants’ sex, was 65.3 dB(A)
while reading a text for 60 seconds in the classroom. Also in
primary schools in Italy, Bottalico36 measured an average
vocal intensity of 59.9 dB(A), with a maximum of 62.1 dB
(A) among women and 57.7 dB(A) among men, during a
constant period of 4 hours of evaluation. Augustynska11
reported finding vocal intensities ranging from 65 to 75 dB
(A) among primary school teachers in Polish schools. In a
study involving Brazilian teachers, the measured vocal
intensity was found to vary between 93.3 and 96.2 dB(A)
during an average time of 96 minutes.37 A correlation was
found between the teachers’ vocal intensity and classroom
noise, with more numerous symptoms of discomfort after
4 hours of teaching classes, although the vocal intensity var-
ied from 54.3 to 86.6) dB(A).38
Teachers working in the afternoon reached a 5 dB(A)
higher speech sound pressure level than those teaching
morning classes (P < 0.05).36 In Table 5, note that none of
the teachers used a normal level of speech intensity, as clas-
sified by ISO 9921.30 Another aggravating factor is that dur-
ing 10% of class time, ie, 4 minutes and 50 seconds, the voice
intensity of teachers remains at SPLs equivalent to 91.5 d
(B), and during 50% of class time, their voice intensity
remains at SPLs of 83.9 d(B). If one extrapolates these val-
ues, taking as reference the number of classes taught daily,
one would conclude that a teacher with a weekly workload
of 40 hours should have his workload reduced from 25 to
30 hours a week, due to the length of time he is exposed to
the noise source, which, in this case, is emitted by his own
voice.
The findings regarding the teachers’ perceived quality of
life revealed higher scores than those found among the gen-
eral population in southern Brazil, except for the domain of
436.e15
social relations.24 However, a comparison of these findings
with those from a sample of Brazilian elementary school
teachers indicated similar scores in all the domains (physi-
cal, psychological, social relations, and environment),23,25
albeit lower than those reported for university professors.22
Studies have revealed a significant difference in the qual-
ity of life when a comparison is made with some characteris-
tics specific to teachers. According to Penteado,25 the
perceived quality of life of men and women is the same. On
the other hand, Levandoski22 found that male teachers have
a better quality of life than female teachers. However, in
this study, no differences were found in a comparison of
teachers from the standpoints of age differences, levels of
academic qualifications, and workload.
Workplace noise exposure can lead to different types of
auditory responses in the worker, depending on risk charac-
teristics and exposure time.39 According to the Brazilian
standard,7 people that work in environments with occupa-
tional noise above 85 dB should use hearing protectors.
Studies aimed at identifying a correlation between the
health status and living conditions of people who work in
noisy environments found that, among dentists and nurses,
exposure to occupational noise contributed to diminishthe
self-perceived health of these workers, even when their expo-
sure to occupational noise did not characterize their activity
as insalubrious.39 Teachers and pupils in Brazilian pre-
schools are already exposed to average noise levels ranging
from 58 to 83 dB in various parts of the school.12
CONCLUSIONS
The primary objective of this study was to examine and
comparethe work environments of two elementary schools
with different acoustic characteristics. The secondary objec-
tive was to determine whether the teachers at the two
schools presented differences in terms of their perceived
quality of life and occupational health. The primary objec-
tive revealed differences in the acoustic environments of the
two schools. However, in the opinion of teachers, based on
perceived noise in the work environment, the main source
of acoustic discomfort does not originate outside the class-
room, corridors and school gyms, but inside the classroom,
caused by the students themselves during classes.
As for the perceived quality of life, no significant differ-
ence was found between the teachers of the two schools in
their respective domains (general, physical, psychological,
social relations, and environment). However, the average
overall perceived quality of life of the participants showed
higher values than the average Brazilian population and
was similar to that reported in other studies also involving
elementary school teachers.
Noise pollution is an obvious cause for concern when it
comes to teachers’ health. The basic conditions required to
ensure the health of the participants in this study during
their workday were found to be unsatisfactory. The teach-
ers’ vocal intensity was found to exceed the limits of tolera-
bility for hearing safety, which also indirectly worsens the
Journal of Voice, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2022
auditory condition of the students. Not only did the schools
in question fail to present safe sound pressure levels for
teachers to perform their professional activities, but also the
number of students in the classrooms was considered to be a
risk factor for occupational health.
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS
 The authors state that they do not have potential con-
flicts of interest
 Author (Gustavo Levandoski) did not receive research
grants.
 The author (Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin)
received research grants. CNPq-1B (Number: 303786 /
2014-0)
 All the participants signed an informed consent form
describing the procedures and the intention of the
research, based on the Ethical Standards and Proce-
dures for Research Involving Humans (196/96) estab-
lished by Brazil’s National Health Commission. The
procedures were evaluated and approved by the
Research and Ethics Committee of the [Edited for
Review Process]. (attachment).
REFERENCES
1. Zannin PHT, Szeremetta B. Avaliaç~ao da poluiç~ao sonora no parque
Jardim Bot^anico de Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil. [Evaluation of noise pol-
lution in the Botanical Garden of Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil]. Cad Saude
Publica. 2003;19:683–686. (in Portuguese).
2. Passero CRM, Zannin PHT. Acoustic evaluation and adjustment of an
open-plan office through architectural design and noise control. Appl
Ergon. 2012;43:1066–1071.
3. Szeremeta B, Zannin PHT. Analysis and evaluation of soundscapes in
public parks through interviews and measurement of noise. Sci Total
Environ. 2009;407:6143–6149.
4. Zannin PHT, Engel MS, Fiedler PEK, et al. Characterization of envi-
ronmental noise based on noise measurements, noise mapping and
interviews: a case study at a university campus in Brazil. Cities.
2013;31:317–327.
5. Zannin PHT, Ferreira AMC. Field measurements of acoustic quality
in university classrooms. J Sci Ind Res. 2009;68:1053–1057.
6. Zannin PHT. Occupational noise in urban buses. Int J Ind Ergon.
2006;36:901–905.
7. Norma Regulamentadora. Atividades e Operaç~oes Insalubres: NR-15.
[Regulatory Standard for Insalubrious Activities and Operations: NR-
15 (1992)]. Atlas: S~ao Paulo; 1992. (in Portuguese).
8. Fernandes MH, Rocha VMD. Impact of the psychosocial aspects of
work on the quality of life of teachers. Rev Bras psiquiatria.
2009;31:15–20.
9. Brunskog J, Gade AC, Bellester GP, et al. Increase in voice level and
speaker comfort in lecture rooms. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125:2072–
2082.
10. Zannin PHT, Fiedler PEK, Bunn F. Reverberation time in classrooms
Case Study: When an administrative decision changes acoustic quality.
J Sci Ind Res. 2013;72:506–510.
11. Augusty nska D, Kaczmarska A, Mikulski W, et al. Assessment of
teachers' exposure to noise in selected primary schools. Arch Acoustics.
2010;35:521–542.
12. Zenari MS, Bitar ML, Nemr NK. Efeito do ruído na voz de educado-
ras de instituiç~
oes de educaç~ao infantil. [Effect of noise on the voice of
educators of institutions of early childhood education]. Rev Saude Pub-
lica. 2012;46:657–664. (in Portuguese).
Gustavo Levandoski and Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin
13. Gaskill CS, O’Brien SG, Tinter SR. The effect of voice amplification
on occupational vocal dose in elementary school teachers. J Voice.
2012;26:667–e19.
14. S€odersten M, Granqvist S, Hammarberg B, et al. Vocal Behavior and
vocal loading factors for preschool teachers at work studied with binaural
DAT recordings. J. Voice. 2002;16:356–371.
15. Ryherd S, Kleiner M, Waye KP, et al. Influence of a wearer’s voice on
noise dosimeter measurements. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012;131:1183–1193.
16. Lima MFEM, Lima-Filho DO. Work and health conditions of univer-
sity professors. Ci^encias & Cogniç~ao. 2009;14:062–082.
17. Carroll T, Nix J, Hunter E, et al. Objective measurement of vocal
fatigue in classical singers: A vocal dosimetry pilot study. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg. 2006;135:595–602.
18. Deus MJ, Brittes J. Os efeitos da exposiç~ao á m usica e avaliaç~ao
acustica do ambiente em professores de academia de ginástica. [Effects
of exposure to music and acoustic evaluation of the environment on
gym teachers] In. Congresso Nacional de Acustica. 2000;31:1–7. (in
Portuguese).
19. Libardi A, Gonçalves CGO, Vieira TP, et al. o em sala de aula e a
percepç~ao dos professores de uma escola de ensino fundamental de
Piracicaba. [Noise in the classroom and teachers’ perception of it in a
primary school in Piracicaba]. Disturbios da comunicaç~ ao. 2006;18
(2):167–178. (in Portuguese).
20. Fleck MPA, Louzada S, Xavier M, et al. ç~ao da vers~ao em portugu^es
do instrumento abreviado de avaliaç~ao da qualidade de vida “WHO-
QOL-Bref”. [Application of the Portuguese version of the abbreviated
instrument of quality life WHOQOL-bref]. Rev Saude Publica.
2000;34:178–183. (in Portuguese).
21. Whoqol Group. Development of the World Health Organization
WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med.
1998;28:551–558.
22. Levandoski G, Cieslak F, Zannin PHT. Assessment of the quality of
life and vocal heahlt of university professors. (Org.). In: Zannin, ed.
1ed. Noise and Ergonomics in the Workplace. 1, Nova York: Nova Sci-
ence Publishers; 2013:59–70. v.
23. Oliveira MGM. Stress, síndrome do burnout e qualidade de vida em
docentes da área de sa ude [Stress, burnout syndrome and quality of life
of health professors] (Doctoral thesis in Administration) -USP Ribeir~ao
Preto. Ribeir~ao Preto: USP; 2009. (in Portuguese).
24. Cruz LN, Polanczyk CA, Camey SA, et al. Quality of life in Brazil:
normative values for the Whoqol-bref in a southern general population
sample. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(7):1123–1129.
Quality of Life and Acoustic Comfort 436.e16
25. Penteado RZ, Pereira IMTB. Qualidade de vida e sa ude vocal de pro-
fessores. [Quality of life and vocal health of teachers]. Rev Saude Pub-
lica. 2007;41:236–243. (in Portuguese).
26. Associaç~ao Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. Ac ustica: avaliaç~ao do
ruído em áreas habitadas, visando o conforto da comunidade: procedi-
mento. [Brazilian Association of Technical Standards − ABNT. NBR
10151 (2000): Acoustics: Noise assessment in populated areas, seeking
the comfort of the community,]. Rio de Janeiro. 2000. (in Portuguese).
27. Associaç~ao Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. Níveis de ruído para con-
forto ac ustico: procedimento. [Brazilian Association of Technical
Standards. NBR 10152 (1987). Sound levels foracoustic comfort]. Rio
de Janeiro. 1987. (in Portuguese).
28. ISO 3382-2. Acoustics - Measurement of room acoustic parameters -
Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary rooms. German. 2006.
29. Deutsches Institut f€ur Normung (Germany). Schallschutz in Schullen:
DIN 18041. Germany, 1998. (in German).
30. ISO 9921. Ergonomics - Assessment of speech communication. 2003.
31. Zannin PHT, Zwirtes DPZ. Evaluation of the acoustic performance of
classrooms in public schools. Applied Acoustics. 2009;70:626–635.
32. Eysel-Gosepath K, Daut T, Pinger A, et al. Effects of noise in primary
schools on health facets in German teachers. Noise Health.
2012;14:129.
33. Rashid M, Zimring C. A review of the empirical literature on the rela-
tionships between indoor environment and stress in health care and
office settings: Problems and prospects of sharing evidence. Environ
Behav. 2008;40:151–190.
34. Dockrell JE, Shield B. Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environ-
ment at school and at home. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004;115:2964–2973.
35. Astolfi A, Pellerey F. Subjective and objective assessment of acoustical
and overall environmental quality in secondary school classrooms. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008;123:163–173.
36. Bottalico P, Astolfi A. Investigations into vocal doses and parameters
pertaining to primary school teachers in classrooms. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 2012;131:2817–2827.
37. Assad JP, Gama ACC, Santos JN, et al. The Effects of amplification
on vocal dose in teachers with dysphonia. J. Voice. 2019;33:73–79.
38. Mendes ALF, Lucena BTL, Ara ujo AMGD, et al. Voz do professor:
sintomas de desconforto do trato vocal, intensidade vocal e ruído em
sala de aula. Codas. 2016;28:168–175.
39. Ganime JF, Silva LA, Robazzi MDC, et al. Ruído como risco ocupa-
cional: uma revis~ao da literatura. [Noise as an occupational risk: a lit-
erature review. Enfermagem global. 2010:1–15. (in Portuguese).