See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268231039

A vision of the environmental and occupational noise pollution in Malaysia

Article in Noise and Health · November 2014

DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.144429 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

21 1,221

1 author:

Keng Yuen Foo

Universiti Sains Malaysia
121 PUBLICATIONS 7,899 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable wetland design protocol for water quality improvement View project

Development of solar power operated thermoelectric device for isothermal amplification diagnostics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Keng Yuen Foo on 04 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 I
SC ISSN 1463-1741
ith &
w SE
d
e A
d ex MB Impact Factor® for 2012:
In E, E
N 1.648
LI
ED
M
Noise & Health • Volume 16 • Issue 73 • November-December 2014 • Pages 343-***

A Bi-monthly Inter-disciplinary International Journal

www.noiseandhealth.org

November-December 2014 | Volume 16 | Issue 73

 A vision of the environmental and occupational noise
pollution in Malaysia

Foo Keng Yuen1,2

Environment and Occupational Health Programme, School of Health Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150 Kubang
1

Kerian, Kelantan, 2River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre, Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE) for Service,
Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

Abstract
Environmental noise remains a complex and fragmented interplay between industrialization, population growth,
technological developments, and the living environment. Next to the circulatory diseases and cancer, noise pollution
has been cited as the third epidemic cause of psychological and physiological disorders internationally. A reliable and
firm relationship between the cumulative health implications with the traffic annoyance and occupational noise has
been established. This agenda has called for an integrated, coordinated, and participatory approach to the reliable
protection of noise interference. Despite several fragmented policies, legislation and global efforts have been addressed;
the noise pollution complaints have been traditionally neglected in developing countries, especially in Malaysia. This
paper was undertaken to postulate an initial platform to address the dynamic pressures, gigantic challenges, and
tremendous impacts of noise pollution scenario in Malaysia. The emphasis is speculated on the traffic interference
and assessment of industrial and occupational noise. The fundamental importance of noise monitoring and modeling
is proposed. Additionally, the confronting conservation program and control measure for noise pollution control are
laconically elucidated.

Keywords: Environmental noise, industrial, monitoring, occupational noise, traffic

Introduction Road transportation noise represents the major contributor

Noise is perceived as an environmental stressor and
nuisance, from road traffics, railways, airports, industrial
sites and domestic activities.[1] Noise pollution has been
synonymous with the urban settlements, industrialization,
rapid housing expansions, population growth and
technological developments. Environmental noise
interferes with the social behavior and manifest in the
form of psychological and physiological disorders through
a variety of mechanisms. Exposure to a continuous noise
of 85-90 dBA could lead to progressive hearing loss and
changes of the threshold sensitivities. These annoyance
reactions are associated with the degree of magnitude,
variety, and severity on the daily activities. Table 1
summarizes some noise levels commonly observed in the
daily life.[2]
Access this article online
Quick Response Code: Website:
www.noiseandhealth.org
DOI:
10.4103/1463-1741.144429
PubMed ID:
***
responsible to environmental violations, mainly generated
by the frictional contact between vehicle and the air,
between tires with the road surface, rolling noise of engine
at speeds higher than 50 km/h for passenger cars, and at
speeds higher than 80 km/h for lorries.[3] Domestic noise
is derived from the premises or installations related to the
catering trade (restaurant, cafeterias and discotheques), live
or recorded music, sporting events, playgrounds, car parks,
domestic animals, ventilation systems, office machines, and
home appliances. Meanwhile, offensive industrial noise is
a disruptive sound pattern that can generally be classified
into continuous machinery noise, high-speed repetitive
actions, flow-induced noise, and working tools associated
with furnaces, generators and electro-mechanical devices in
the working environment.[4] Table 2 outlines the maximum
permissible sound level (LAeq) according to the receiving
zones.[5]
The health impacts of noise pollution can be seen as a
pyramid in Figure 1. These potential implications of noise
exposure are numerous, pervasive, persistent, cumulative
and augmented synergistically and antagonistically, with
corresponding real (economic) and intangible (well-being)
losses. An explicit link between environmental noise with
the activation of sympathetic and endocrine systems has

427 Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16:73, 427-436

 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise

been witnessed, resulting in the changes of blood pressure, pituitary and adrenal gland stimulation, suppression of the
hypertension, peripheral vasoconstriction and cardiovascular immune response, and female reproduction and fertility
disease.[6] Scientific evidence[7] has proposed that chronic failures. Scientific evidences have suggested that these
aircraft noise exposure may impair reading comprehension interactive impacts of multiple noises showed greater effects
and long-term memory among children whereas high noise than simply summing the individual stressors, with chronic
level of industrial settings is subjected to nausea, headaches, sympathetic arousal or states of helplessness.[9]
argumentativeness and modulation of mood and anxiety
[Figure 2]. Epidemiological studies have shown that irregular According to the World Health Organization (WHO),
traffic noise of 45 dBA has been interlinked to the interference approximately 10 million of adults and 5.2 million of children
of daily activities, sleeping, rest, study, communicating, in the United States are suffering from the irreversible
and adverse health implications such as frustration, lower noise-induced hearing impairment, and 250 million
tolerance, and changes of blood compositions.[8] Specifically, populations worldwide are exposed to the dangerous levels
road traffic annoyance is a major culprit with reported of environmental noise daily.[10] In spite of the disrupting
negative symptoms of hearing loss, gastric secretion, interference of environmental noise are well-documented,
these noise levels complaints have been traditionally taken
Table 1: Some noise levels commonly observed in the daily life for granted in developing countries, especially in Malaysia.
Noise level (dBA) Activity In this sense, this narrative review attempts to address the
0 Threshold of hearing dynamic pressure, key challenges, and confronting mitigating
38 Library measures of noise management practices in Malaysia.
40 Living room Within this framework, the environmental annoyance
58 Conversational speech of transportation noise, assessment of occupational and
66 Business office industrial noise, and implementation of noise monitoring
80 Average street traffic
and modeling are elucidated. Besides, the conservation
100 Pneumatic chipper
program and control measures for the promotion of best noise
125 Firecrackers
140 Jet take off (25 m) and threshold of pain
management practices are outlined.

Annoyance and Interference of Transportation Noise

Table 2: The maximum permissible sound level (LAeq) according
to the receiving zones
Category
Daytime Night time
Noise sensitive area, low density residential,
institutional (School, Hospital), worship areas
Suburban residential. Medium density areas,
public spaces, parks, recreational areas
Urban residential, high density areas, designated
mixed development areas (commercial)
Commercial business zones
Designated industrial zones
Traffic noise, defined as undesirable annoyances related
Noise level, Leq dBA
to the rapid growth of towns, cities and population, has
50 40 been recognized as a serious threat to the quality-of-life
in most industrialized nations.[11] This pervasive form of
55 45 noise pollution is routinely generated by the transportation
sources, mainly motor vehicles, aircrafts and railway
60 50 trains.[12] In particular, highway traffic has been cited as the
most widespread source of noise, and the most prevalent
65 55
70 60
cause of interference worldwide. The discomfort related
to the continuous noise exposure may create an unpleasant
condition, and hinder the hospitality on the point duty
officers, toll plaza employees, and residential communities
of the surrounding area.

Figure 1: World Health Organization pyramid of health effects

of noise Figure 2: Auditory and extra-auditory effects of noise

Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16 428

 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise
A study of noise exposure on point duty officers in Kuala
Lumpur has been conducted by Thomas et al.[13] from April
2002 to March 2003. Sound level measurements were taken 3
times a day on 32 points, which were divided into four zones.
The sound level meter was omni directional to the source of
traffic at the height of 1.5 m above ground and 3 m away
from the traffic personnel according to the requirements of
ISO 1996. The individual susceptibility to noise induced
hearing loss (NIHL) was determined, and a questionnaire
was designed on the working experience, number of working
hours, knowledge of occupational safety and health (OSH),
knowledge and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE),
background of residence, numbers of visits and problems of
hearing loss to 130 respondents.
Based on the field measurements, the traffic noise levels were
between 75 and 85 dBA in general, and occasionally, it reached
90 dBA due to the heavy traffic volume. Besides, 80% of
the traffic personnel who underwent audiometric evaluation
showed sensor neural hearing loss, while 70% were found to
have NIHL, characterized by a dip at 4 kHz on an audiogram.
The incidence was higher among those who served a longer
duration, mainly ascribed to the noise exposure from the use
of fire-arms.[14] Results from the questionnaires detected that
>90.8% of the respondents spent >5 h a day on point duty,
without the provisions of hearing protectors and education
on OSH and the Factories and Machinery Act. The findings
alerted the suitably use of hearing protection equipment,
discouraged the working duration for 4 h in a stretch, and
recommended audiometric tests and hearing conservation
program (HCP) for all personnel exposed to high-level noises.
Similarly, Nadaraja et al.[15] have attempted to determine the
overall noise level in Serdang Raya, Malaysia, with a view
to look into the residents’ perceptions and awareness about
the noise problem on their sleep disturbance. The noise level
measurement was conducted using the continuous day night
sampling method.[16] The types and quantity of vehicles that
passed through the area were recorded, and a questionnaire
survey comprised of 11 questions regarding the socioeconomic
and demographic data, level of annoyance, activities and
evaluation on the sleeping disturbance was carried out on the
basis of randomized sampling method. It is visible that motor
vehicles constituted the dominant source of traffic noise, with
37,000 vehicles passed by the residential area.
Comparison of the collected data showed that the noise
level has exceeded the standards and guidelines in day and
night time limit permitted by WHO, and regulations of
Australia, Germany, Japan, Korea, Philippines and Malaysia
[Table 3].[15] Surprisingly, findings from the society survey
revealed that >70% of the respondents considered the traffic
flow was light or tolerable, while only a small proportion
of them reported traffic noise interference, where these
respondents woke up more often, experienced worse sleeping
quality and felt sleepy during their daytime job. This scenario
429
Table 3: Recommended noise level standards and guidelines by
WHO and selected countries
Selected noise level standards Noise level, Leq dBA
Daytime Night time
WHO recommended health criteria 55 45
Germany (noise level guidelines) 45 35
Australia (recommended outdoor 45 35
background noise level)
Japan (environmental quality standards) 45 35
Korea (environmental quality goal) 50 45
Philippines (environmental quality 50 40
noise standards)
Malaysia (planning guidelines for 65 60
environmental noise limits and control)
WHO = World Health Organization
was primarily attributed to most of the residents, who were
staying there for >19 years to get used with the traffic noise,
and had adapted it as part of their living environment. The
survey outcome also outlined the hope of the respondents to
enjoy a peaceful, quitters and conducive living environment.
The study highlighted the necessity to promote awareness
about the risks of daily exposure to noise disturbance and
implementation of proper noise control measures such as
erection of effective noise barriers by the local authorities.
The discomfort related to the continuous exposure of traffic
noise at the Sungai Besi Toll Collection Plaza, located at
Seri Kembangan, Selangor among the highway toll plaza
employees, highway maintenance and repair crews, and
highway inspector has been explored by Azmi et al.[17] The
potential of noise exposure was assessed using sound level
meter and noise dosimeter according to the National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) occupational
exposure sampling strategy manual and ISO 9612 Acoustic-
Guidelines,[18] at 20 toll booths for 5 days. The questionnaire
survey that divided into four sections, demographic, workplace
information, perception toward noise and symptoms of
potential NIHL was participated by 71 workers. Result
illustrated that majority of the toll tellers were at a high risk of
NIHL, and annoyance from chronic exposure to sound levels
hazardous of hearing. The mean continuous equivalent level
mean maximum level and mean peak level for noise exposure
were identified at 79.2 ± 1.4, 107.8 ± 3.6, and 136.6 ± 9.9
dBA, respectively. The study suggested the installation of
noise monitoring program, hearing protection devices (HPDs),
training, audiometric testing, application of engineering and
administrative control, and enforcement of Environmental
Quality (Motor Vehicle Noise) Regulations. The findings
could be extended to other toll plazas that experienced high
traffic volume and the hazard of noise exposure.
Transverse roadway strip (TRS) is a common approach
alerts the road users to a roadway changing environment, by
generating excessive vibration, pulsating or impulse noise,
similar to the sound of knocking a hammer, firecrackers or
an explosion. Accordingly, Haron et al.[19] have evaluated the
Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16
 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise
external noise produced by the installation of rumble strips
in Kg. Batu 30 of Pengkalan Raja, Pontian, Johor, a rural
settlement area with a population in 60 native houses, and to
anticipate the annoyance response due to the installation of
TRS. A Pulsar sound level meter and a sound level calibrator
were applied for the noise level measurement at locations
with and without the installation of TRS throughout the
investigation. The equivalent continuous equal energy level
(LAeq), applied to the impulse or fluctuating noise level, and
the statistical levels L10, L50, and L90, the percentile levels
exceeding 10%, 50% and 90% of the elapsed time respectively
were measured. Results revealed that the traffic noise index
increased drastically with the presence of TRS, recorded the
LAeq, L10, L50, and L90 levels of 82, 78, 73, 54, and 67 dBA,
respectively. The findings ascertained a strong annoyance of
the installation to the community, which prompted vigorous
actions and complaints from the local residents.
Meanwhile, Fadhil et al.[20] have examined the acceptable
noise levels for the expansion of Batu Berendam Airport,
Malacca to the community of the surrounding area. The
proposed site is currently a domestic airport and serves as
the center for Malaysian Flying Academy since 1987. On the
stage of expansion, this airport will be complemented with
modern aeronautical devices while the terminal complex will
be reconstructed by a new 7,000 m2 terminal equipped with
international standard amenities. Noise sampling was carried
out within the radius of 3 km from the airport, particularly
within a residential district to obtain baseline noise
information at three consecutive periods, morning, afternoon
and evening. The noise levels were measured at every 5 min
using a digital sound level meter, where the environmental
noise parameters, the equivalent sound level (Leq) and day-
night sound level (Ldn) were recorded.
Result showed that the expected annoying noise level,
generated from the fixed-wing aircraft and ground operations,
is greater than the WHO guideline limit. To resolve with the
above requirements, the design of takeoff and landing lengths,
which would affect the safety of the aircraft operations and
neighboring community, need to be carefully developed based
on the actual flight tests and operational data. Additionally,
the implementation of appropriate buffer zones, including the
noise barriers and site design, must be relocated according to
the growing air traffics, number of airlines and corporate jets
operations.
The effects of transportation noise to the traffic employees
and local residents are summarized in Table 4. Comparison
of these studies addressed an urgency to promote the
awareness, knowledge of OSH, attitude, and practice on
PPEs. Additionally, the implementation of noise monitoring
program, training, audiometric testing, application of
engineering and administrative control, and enforcement
of environmental quality regulations were suggested. The
external annoyance from the installation of rumble strips
Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16
and expansion of the airport was highlighted. These findings
are important at both society and the individual level in
regulating in an efficient planning of road traffic activity to
secure minimum comfort to the affected populations.
At the global level, the abatement of traffic and construction
noise has been more effective in the United States, with the
establishment of Noise Control Act, Aircraft Noise Policy
and Aviation Noise Abatement Policy.[21] These regulations
aimed primarily to protect the residents at the peak traffic hour
LAeq of 67 dB. In the European countries and cities, various
directives regarding noise emissions from different sources,
such as motor vehicles, railway systems, aircraft, household
appliances, and outdoor machinery have been applied to draw
strategic noise maps for the assessment of noise from major
transport infrastructures and in communities with >100,000
inhabitants.[22] In Japan, the environmental quality standards
for noise has been implemented against all types of traffic noise
sources,[23] and in Australia, environment protection acts and
environment protection policies are regulated to prescribe the
maximum noise levels for different classes of motor vehicles
with specifications for testing procedures.[24] Until date,
the community noise ordinances and global noise policies
are being revised in many parts of the world to incorporate
more stringent noise limits and criteria. Even though some
successful reduction of road vehicles and aircraft noise has
been witnessed, the corresponding reduction of receiver noise
values has not been apparent, due to the growing population,
traffic and citizen’s requirements for a better quality-of-life.[25]
Assessment of Industrial and Occupational Noise
Occupational safety and health is a cross-disciplinary subject
concerning the safety, health care and welfare engaged
in an employment or working environment.[26] Industrial
and occupational noise is a pervasive hazard with many
adverse effects, including elevated blood pressure, reduced
performance, sleeping difficulties, annoyance and stress,
tinnitus, NIHL, and temporary threshold shift.[27] In the
perspective, a perception survey on the public attitudes
and level of awareness regarding the odor, noise and visual
impact of sewage treatment plants has been carried out in
selected areas in Selangor, and the Federal Territory of
Kuala Lumpur.[28] The study was conducted for a period of
2 weeks, where 225 of households were interviewed in 22
different housing estates, with majority of the respondents
had at least primary education, and 84.9% had at least
secondary education. A wide range of topics related to the
reasons, feelings and complaints about living in the vicinity
of sewage treatment plants were questioned. Several housing
developers were interviewed to obtain a wider purview of
the actual situation. It was discovered that industrial noise,
emitted by electrical motors and pumps, aerators, rotating
discs and splashing of water, from the sewage plants appeared
to be a profound psycho-environmental factor affecting the
430
 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise

Table 4: The annoyance of transportation noise to the traffic employees and local residents
Year Subjects Noise level Noise Main findings References
(dBA) sources
2002 Point duty officers 75-85 Road traffic 80% of the traffic personnel who underwent audiometric evaluation Thomas et al.[13]
showed SNHL, while 70% were found to have noise-induced hearing loss
2010 Residents 72.9-80.5 Road traffic The noise level had exceeded the recommended standards and guidelines Nadaraja et al.[15]
of WHO Health Criteria
2010 Toll plaza employees, 126.7-146.5 Road traffic Majority of the employees were at a high risk of NIHL, and annoyance Azmi et al.[17]
maintenance and repair crews from chronic exposure to sound levels hazardous of hearing, with the
and highway inspectors mean peak level of 136.6 ± 9.9 dBA
2012 Residents 82 TRS The traffic noise index increased drastically with the presence of TRS, Haron et al.[19]
recorded the mean peak level of 82 dBA
2012 Residents 68.66-71.88 Airport The expected annoying noise level, generated from the fixed-wing aircraft Fahhil et al.[20]
and ground operations, is > the WHO guideline limit
TRS = Transverse roading strip, SNHL = Sensor neural hearing loss, NIHL = Noise induced hearing loss, WHO = World Health Organization

public’s acceptance, and nuisance to the nearby residents. A
startling finding of the perception survey was the low level
of awareness, where 30% of the respondents could not even
identify the sewage treatment systems, while 59% of them
were either unsure about the purpose of the treatment system.
Similarly, Malakahmad et al.[29] have identified and accessed the
existing occupational hazards at a local sewage treatment plant
for total population of 11,500 through Occupational Health
and Safety Management System, and properly managed the
identified hazards based on a systematic approach. The data were
collected via review of literatures, questionnaire distributions,
interviews with experts, site inspection and observation. Report
of accident investigations, statistics, published documents,
regulations and code of practice were reviewed. Chemical
safety data sheet and material safety data sheet, which provide
information on hazardous materials, control measures first-aided
and emergency responses were considered.
Result revealed that biological hazards (38.4%) showed the
highest rate of exposure, followed by physical (34.6%) and
chemical hazards (27.0%) in a descending order. Interestingly,
excessive noise, generated by the applications of pumps for
wastewater flow, and blowers for air supply constituted the
major on-site risk, with the Leq of 94.2 dBA. This observation
is vulnerable to auditory effects, which include both hearing
loss and speech interference and psychological/sociological
impacts such as annoyance, and sleeping interference.
Implementation of sound absorbers indicated that the existing
noise (94.2 dBA) was reduced to 92.1 dBA and 90.6 dBA
by the application of carpet and cardboard, respectively. The
findings highlighted the unsafe conditions encountered by the
wastewater treatment plant operators.
The wooden furniture manufacturing industry is the fastest
growing subsector in Malaysia, both in terms of workforce
employment and foreign exchange earnings. The noise
annoyance emancipating from the wood machining
processes, specifically structural vibration of machine
frames, aerodynamic turbulence of the rotating tools and
dust, and wood chips extraction systems remains a debatable
concern among the wood manufacturing workers.[30]
Accordingly, a study has been carried out to determine the
dust, noise and chemical solvents exposure, and to identify
the extent of hearing damage among the wooden furniture
industry workers from 30 selected factories, in the South
East Asian region, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and
Vietnam.[31] It was conducted over a period of 9 months
between March and November, 2009, with the assistance of
national furniture trade associations in seven distinct parts.
Noise-level measurements were performed using a calibrated
portable sound level meter, complying with BS6504. The
possible noise-induced hearing problems were quantified by
audiometric tests, with the aid of audio-chambers in the range
of 500-8000 Hz, for 500 Hz intervals.
Results revealed that 43% of the factories workers were
exposed to the noise level higher than the recommended
permissible limit, with 25.8% of them had a slight handicap
with permanent threshold shift between 30 and 40 dBA,
while 8.9% of the workers showed a significant handicap with
permanent threshold shift >40 dBA. Rough milling department,
which involved heavy-duty operations, molding, ripping, and
planning was regarded as the major noise contributor, recorded
the highest noise-level of 130 dBA. The study also demonstrated
that low attention was concentrated to the application of
hearing protective devices. The finding could be tailored to be
a reliable representative of the wooden furniture manufacturing
industries on the regional scale. The responsibility to enforce
and ensure the compliance of effective law within the wooden
manufacturing factories was highlighted.
Meanwhile, a structured survey was undertaken to examine
the determinants of workers’ safety climate, including noise
exposure in the Malaysian wooden furniture industry.[32]
The relationship between the safety practices, safety level,
and the primary health and safety concerns within 30
wooden furniture manufacturing factories was evaluated.
The five-part structured analysis, safety climate and safety
precautions, safety practices, safety level, and health and
safety issues enabled the identification of primary risk factors
among the factory workers. The study strengthened the

431 Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16

 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise

essential need of human resource practices, consultations and
safety management system, as advocated by the ISO 18000
scheme. More specifically, commitment to safety knowledge
and trainings had illustrated a statistically significant impact
to drive for an improving of safety, productivity and quality.
The electronics industry developed coincided with the New
Economic Policy and Industrialization Strategy in the early of
1970s. Till 1980s, it has been pointed out that the incidence
rate of occupational illness among the semiconductor workers
was three folds higher than the general manufacturing
industries. Chee and Rampal[33] have attempted to identify the
health problems commonly experienced by the workers on 24
semiconductor factories listed in two geographical clusters,
Bayan Lepas, Penang and Selangor, selected from the Malaysian
Industrial Development Authority list. The self-administered
survey on socio-demographic characteristics, physical working
conditions, chemical usage, and health problems took place in
the allocated factories between July 1999 and March 2000. A
total of 968 women workers, aged between 18 and 54 years, were
participated in this study. Noise exposure (39.6%) was cited as
the most confronting physical hazards, reported a significant
association with the self-reported stress, irregular menstruation
and dysmenorrhea among the manufacturing workers.
Whereas, a survey has been conducted to investigate the
relationship between environmental factors, workstation design
(heat, noise and lighting) that influents the job satisfaction
and discomfort level among 210 operators in four automotive
manufacturing companies in Malaysia.[34] The questionnaires
comprised 67 Likert-type multiple choice items,[35] that divided
into five sections: Demographic, discomfort level, satisfaction
factors, workstation design, and working environment. The
gathered information illustrated that 58.3% of the respondents
were exposed to high level of noise, with the correlation, r =
0.441. The study suggested the importance to establish a balance
between the job satisfaction and employees’ health and safety.
The environmental noise scenario and impact analysis of
four different industrial projects in Malaysia: Petronas
refinery extension project MG-3, Janamanjung power station
in Perak, roller compacted concrete plant in Semenyih
and co-generation plant in Melaka have been presented to
establish the existing background noise level, and to identify
the significant noise sources during the operations.[36] Noise
level measurements were carried out on 16-17th April, 2003,
and the LAeq noise levels at these monitoring stations varied
between 45.2 and 76.2 dBA during day-time, and 42.8-56.0
dBA during night-time. These findings are representative of
the typical noise impacts from the industrial development
project in Malaysia. In the same vein, Zolfagharian et al.[37]
have conducted a structured interview with 15 construction
professionals, aimed at prioritizing the frequency and
severity of environmental impacts across the residential
buildings in Malaysia. Construction activities were identified
as the second contributory sources of noise pollution. The
findings outlined the need of effective plans to promote the
awareness and knowledge of construction practitioners, and
implementations of noise control strategies by construction
of barriers, and application of noise protective tools.
Table 5 depicts the assessment of industrial and occupational
noise for different industries. Comparison of the research
findings indicated that occupational exposure to industrial
noise is dependent on a variety of determining parameters,
particularly type of industry, workplace-specific factors,

Table 5: The assessment of industrial and occupational noise for different industries
Year Subjects Industry Main findings References
1990 Households Sewage treatment plant Industrial noise, emitted by electrical motors and pumps, aerators, Tso et al. [28]
rotating discs and splashing of water, from the sewage plants was
the psycho-environmental factor affecting the public’s acceptance
2012 Wastewater treatment Sewage treatment plant Industrial noise, generated by the applications of pumps for Malakahmad et al.[29]
plant operators wastewater flow, and blowers for air supply, constituted the major
on-site risk, with the equivalent noise level (Leq) of 94.2 dBA
2010 Factories workers Wooden furniture 43% of the factories workers were exposed to the noise level Ratnasingam et al.[31]
higher than the recommended permissible limit, and 25.8% of
them had a slight handicap with permanent threshold shift between
30 and 40 dBA, while 8.9% of the workers showed a significant
handicap with permanent threshold shift >40 dBA
2003 Manufacturing Electronics Noise exposure (39.6%) was cited as the most confronting physical Chee and Rampal[33]
workers hazards, and associated with the self-reported stress, irregular
menstruation and dysmenorrhea among the manufacturing workers
2010 Manufacturing Automotive manufacturing 58.3% of the respondents were exposed to high level of noise, with Ismail et al.[34]
workers companies the correlation, r = 0.441
2008 Operators Petroleum refinery The LAeq noise levels varied between 45.2 and 76.2 dBA during Ismail et al.[36]
Roller compacted concrete plant day-time, and 42.8-56.0 dBA during night-time
Co-generation plant
Power station
2012 Construction Construction Construction activities were identified as the second contributory Zolfagharian et al.[37]
practitioners sources of noise pollution

Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16 432

 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise
including facility and process, raw materials, machinery,
tools, engineering and work practice controls, the use of
personal protective devices, and duration of the interference.
Today, excessive occupational noise exposure is a pervasive
hazard with considerable social, physiological and economic
implications.[38] In the United States, >30 million of workforces
are exposed to the time-weighted average sound levels of
above 85 dBA.[39] In the European Union, 28% of workers
surveyed reported that at least one-fourth of the time, they are
occupationally exposed to noise loud enough that they would
have to raise their voices to hold a conversation.[40] Despite a
statistical summary on the industrial noise exposure for most
developing and non-industrialized countries is not available,
high occupational noise exposure levels have been reported
in 17 studies conducted in 12 countries in South America,
Africa and Asia.[41]
Accordingly, NIOSH has recommended a national
framework for the effective reduction of workplace noise and
more targeted hearing loss preventive programs specific to
the characteristics of these industries and occupation groups:
1. Initial and annual audits of procedures,
2. Assessment of noise exposures,
3. Engineering or administrative control of noise exposures,
4. Audiometric evaluation and monitoring of workers’
hearing,
5. Use of hearing protectors for exposures >85 dBA,
6. Education and motivation of workers, and
7. Good record keeping.[42]
Environmental Noise Monitoring and Modeling
Today, the development of computational monitoring and
mathematical simulation related to the transportation or
propagation of noises, and associated with the complexity
of sources, receivers or predictive models, have become a
challenging issue for improving public health and quality of
life. Noise prediction models play a vital role to assess the
contemporary changes of traffic, railway, airport, factory or
design schemes of town planning. A study took a closer look
into the background noise level and dominant noise sources
in several selected locations in Malaysia, has been carried out
by Ismail et al.[43] at Lahad Datu to present the noise scenario
for East Malaysia, JanaManjung, Perak to represent the West
Peninsular Malaysia, Tangga Batu, Melaka to represent Mid-
West Peninsular Malaysia, Terengganu to represent East
Peninsular Malaysia, and Lido, Johor to represent South
Peninsular Malaysia.
Baseline sound levels were monitored for two different
periods, day-time and night-time readings, and noise
descriptors, such as L10, L90 and Leq were recorded. West
Peninsular Malaysia (Janamanjung Perak) illustrated
the highest day and night-time Leq of 75.5 dBA, while
Mid-West Peninsular Malaysia (Tangga Batu, Melaka)
433
noted the lowest day and night-time Leq, 55.0 and 53.1
dBA, respectively. These data are useful as a reference
and guideline for future regulations on noise limit to
be implemented for the urban areas in Malaysia. The
analysis would benefit the researchers and policy makers,
especially for those who involve directly with the noise
pollution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) with
the Department of Environment, Malaysia.
Noise models are established to assess the degree of noise
annoyance for a given projected road, highway, railway,
airport, factory or town planning. Since 1950s, traffic noise
prediction models were designed to estimate the single vehicle
sound pressure, based on a constant speed experiments. The
earliest road traffic noise model was given in the Handbook
of Acoustic Noise Control.[44] With the help of computer
graphic programs, the predicted noise levels can be presented
by a noise exposure map.
According to the diffused-field theory, Abdullah and Nor[45]
have developed an adaptive three-dimensional Gauss-
Legendre Quadrature technique to simulate the propagation
of outdoor noise from sources with variable shapes and power
distribution. The method takes into the account of geometry
of a defined sound source, and produces appropriate contours
conforming to the shape of sources. The noise sources are
modeled as an array of point sources, in the form of lines,
planes and three-dimensional blocks. The simulation is
accepted to represent the real scenario, with the overall level
difference <±1.2 dB. This mathematical approach has been
successfully implemented in a number of EIA studies in
Malaysia.
The inferences drawn about the noise-working efficiency
relationship are often referred to the actual surveys, but not
supported by the mathematical formalism. This underlines
the need to model the cause-effect relationships in the
context of noise-working efficiency linkages. A fuzzy model
for predicting the effects of noise pollution as a function of
noise level, time exposure and age of the operators has been
presented.[46] The noise level of grass trimmer, equipment
widely used in the maintenance of grass areas in Malaysia
was measured, and the age, time exposure, task, and
performance of 300 workers for three interval time, 2, 5, and
8 h respectively, were recorded. The modeling system was
proposed into four sequential steps: Identification of input
and output variables, selection of input and output variables,
determination of the functions for input and output variables,
and formation of the set of IF-THEN rules. The result was
visualized in the form of graphs, and compared with the safe
exposure limit recommended for the industrial workers. The
findings inferred that the working efficiency depends on the
time exposure in related to the age and noise level, where the
reduction follows a logarithmic behavior in the noise range
of 85-115 dBA. These studies outlined the prominent role of
noise monitoring and modeling systems as a convenient way
Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16
 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise
for predicting the effects of noise pollution, and yields a real-
value output from the on-site monitoring information.
In short, a proper modeling of noise production is a powerful
tool for the effective simulation of the behavior of acoustic
waves in the external environment. Independent of the bases
of available data, which are sometimes very limited, and of
the choice of calculation method for reliable prediction of
changing environment, noise prediction models constitute
an essential toolbox that deeply validate the propagation,
sources’ characterization, dose-effect correlation, or
qualitative and quantitative determination of the acoustic
noise.[47,48] These growing numerical models have been
effectively applied to a number of different situations
in which noise pollution must be analyzed, predicted or
reduced.
Conservation Program and Control Measures
In Malaysia, the HCP was introduced under the Noise
Regulation 1989,[49] with the main objectives to protect
industrial workers from noise exposure and prevent
NIHL. HCP was divided into seven major sections, the
government policy and owner policy, noise exposure
monitoring, noise control, providing HPD, audiometric
program and treatment, training program and record
keeping. Although the enactment of Noise Regulation has
been enforced for >14 years, the industries’ compliance
toward HCP remains unknown.
In the perspective, a cross-sectional study has been conducted
from July 2003 to September 2003 among 167 industries
registered to the Department of Occupational Safety and
Health, Negeri Sembilan, with the main objectives to
determine the factors influencing HCP, and to assess their
compliance to HCP.[50] The survey also aimed to identify
the association between HCP with the prevalence of hearing
impairment and standard threshold shift. Data were collected
by self-administered questionnaires about the socio-
demographic status, type of industry, ownership, number
of employees, duration of operation and formation of the
Occupational Safety and Health Committee. It was found
that only 41.3% of these industries were fully complied to
the program, with most industries were least compliant in
using engineering or administrative controls. The results
were in according to the hypotheses that the compliance is
higher among industries, which are owned by the foreign
investors, with at least 150 workers, shorter duration in
operation, and hire officers in charge of HCP as compared to
the opposite groups. The study strengthened the importance
of HCP, as an effort to tackle with the hearing problems
among the industrial workers. The findings could be applied
as a reference to improve the enforcement of policies and
regulations by the relevant authority.
Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16
Meanwhile, Wong et al.[51] have organized a low cost and
simple ergonomic intervention for occupational health and
safety (OHS) improvement on a conventional line (CL) in a
semiconductor factory in Malaysia. A validated questionnaire,
on the employees’ demographic data (age, gender and service
years), work-shift (morning, afternoon or night) and job
scope (wire-bonding, die-bonding, molding, plating, trim-
form or testing) was designed on the basis of Sinclair’s[52]
and Sekaran’s[53] guidelines. The auditory assessment was
conducted to determine the extent of noise production while
direct observation provides an insight into the effectiveness
of those interventions. Results showed that the operators
were exposed to the noise disturbance higher than 90 dBA
for the 8-h shift. The interventions introduced the integration
of noise insulating covers, personal protection devices, and
installation of an elevated platform and extra exhaust fans.
These interventions have successfully rectified the workers’
OHS and better working environment. The finding could
be empirically applied in other semiconductor/electronics
factories, particularly among industrially developing
countries (IDCs) that share the similar manufacturing
processes.
Zulkifli et al.[54] have advanced an investigation to examine
the potential of coir fiber in replacing synthetic and mineral
based fibers for sound control applications. The effects
of porous layer backing and perforated plate on sound
absorption coefficient were evaluated. The samples were
tested at the acoustic lab of Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, National University of Malaysia, according to
the ASTM E 1050-98 international standards. Experimental
results showed that coconut coir fiber with perforated plate
gave higher value at lower frequencies of 600-2,400 Hz. The
optimum value for coconut coir fiber with perforated panel
was around 0.94-0.95 at the frequency range of 2,600-2,700
Hz. The finding demonstrated the feasibility of this innovative
sound absorption panel for real practical application, due to
their renewable, nonabrasive, cheaper, abundantly availability
and environmental friendly as compare to the synthetic based
materials.
Conclusively, the establishment of noise conservational
amendment, education, training, operations and motivational
programs, including the consistent use of engineered controls
and personal hearing devices, administrative scheduling to
limit noise exposure, and reliable prediction on the dangers
of noise propagation is a protective compliance to improve
the knowledge, attitudes, and practice for environmental and
occupational noise pollution control.[55] To further encourage
the conservational capabilities, a new alliance between the
government and consensus organizations, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, NIOSH, and National
Hearing Conservation Association associated with individual
perceptions of vulnerability, seriousness of the hearing loss
threat, and OSH for the development of good hearing health
and best management practices should be promoted.[56]
434
 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise
Conclusion
The commencement of the 21st century represents a
global pressure towards the tremendous impacts of rapid
urbanization, population growth, environmental noise and
the natural environment. Compelling evidence has identified
the adverse impacts of environmental and occupational
noise on the health of the global population. This narrative
review evaluates the distribution of noise pollution problem
in Malaysia. Results from the survey, monitoring, short term
and longitudinal studies have positioned the noise pollution
scenario in Malaysia at a critical level. This highlighted the
resurgent need of practical solutions by the government,
non-governmental organizations and educational institutions
to generate a healthy working and living environment. The
plan espouses the organization of environmental awareness
and conservative program, enforcement of environmental
protection rules, and the establishment of EIA prior to
projects approval. Conclusively, more integrated actions
and practical strategies should be pursued systematically to
underpin the inter-agency collaboration, public engagement
and innovation, which are paramount towards building a
sustainable future.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by
Universiti Sains Malaysia under the Short Term Grant scheme
(Project No. 304/PPSK/61312127).
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Foo Keng Yuen,
Environment and Occupational Health Programme,
School of Health Sciences, Health Campus,
Universiti Sains Malaysia,
16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
E-mail: k.y.foo@usm.my
References
1. Bhanap I. An analysis of roadway noise at residential estates in close
proximity to expressways in Singapore. Noise Health 2013;15:183-9.
2. Diniz FB, Zannin PH. Noise impact caused by electrical energy substations
in the city of Curitiba, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 2004;328:23-31.
3. Sandberg U. Plenary paper published in the Proceedings of the 2001
International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering
The Hague, The Netherlands, 2001, August 27-30.
4. Ristovska G, Lekaviciute J. Environmental noise and sleep disturbance:
Research in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and Newly
Independent States. Noise Health 2013;15:6-11.
5. Department of Environment. The Planning Guidelines for Environmental
Noise Limits and Control. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment; 2007.
6. Rahma MS, Mustafa BE, Razali A, Shamsuddin N, Althunibat OY. The
correlation between serum leptin and blood pressure after exposure to
noise at work. Noise Health 2013;15:375-8.
7. Fyhri A, Aasvang GM. Noise, sleep and poor health: Modeling the
relationship between road traffic noise and cardiovascular problems. Sci
Total Environ 2010;408:4935-42.
435
8. Babisch W. Updated exposure-response relationship between road
traffic noise and coronary heart diseases: A meta-analysis. Noise Health
2014;16:1-9.
9. Muzet A. Environmental noise, sleep and health. Sleep Med Rev
2007;11:135-42.
10. Seidman MD, Standring RT. Noise and quality of life. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 2010;7:3730-8.
11. Sharma A, Bodhe GL, Schimak G. Development of a traffic noise
prediction model for an urban environment. Noise Health 2014;16:63-7.
12. Lercher P, Widmann U. Association and moderation of self-reported
hypotension with traffic noise exposure: A neglected relationship. Noise
Health 2013;15:205-16.
13. Thomas N, Mariah AN, Fuad A, Kuljit S, Philip R. Noise exposure
and noise induced hearing loss among Kuala Lumpur traffic point duty
personnel. Med J Malaysia 2007;62:152-5.
14. Sewell RK, Song C, Bauman NM, Smith RJ, Blanck P. Hearing
loss in Union Army veterans from 1862 to 1920. Laryngoscope
2004;114:2147-53.
15. Nadaraja B, Wei YX, Abdullah R. Effect of traffic noise on sleep:
A case study in Serdang Raya, Selangor, Malaysia. Environ Asia
2010;3:149-55.
16. Department of Environment. The Planning Guidelines for Environmental
Noise Limits and Control. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment; 2004.
17. Azmi SNS, Dawal SZM, Tuan Ya TMYS, Saidin H. Occupational noise
exposure among toll tellers at toll plaza in Malaysia. Am Inst Phys
2010;5:409-19.
18. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9612-1997.
Acoustics-guidelines for the measurement and assessment of exposure
to noise in a working environment. Geneva: International Standard
Organization; 1997.
19. Haron Z, Othman MH, Yahya K, Yaacob H, Hainin MR, Yusof MB.
Noise produced by transverse rumble strips: A case study on rural
roadways. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng (IOSRJMCE) 2012;1:12-6.
20. Fadhil M, Rafidah S, Shreeshivadasan C. Assessment on the permittance
of noise impact levels from the expansion of Batu Berendam Airport,
Malacca, Malaysia. Int J Environ Sci 2012;2:1470-83.
21. Finegold LS, Finegold MS, Maling GC. A review of United States noise
policy, Proc. Inter-Noise, Special Feature Article; 2002. p. 51-63.
22. Schwedler HU, editor. Noise Abatement in European Towns and Cities.
Strategies, Concepts and Approaches for Local Noise Policy. Berlin:
European Academy of the Urban Environment; 1999.
23. Yamazaki K, Tachibana H. New Japanese environmental quality
standards for noise. Proced Int Noise 1999;3:1970-4.
24. Crocker MJ. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control. Canada: John
Wiley & Sons; 2007. p. 1-1569.
25. Kihlman T, Kropp W. City traffic noise — A local or global problem.
Noise Control Eng J 2001;49:165-9.
26. Vaillancourt V, Nélisse H, Laroche C, Giguére C, Boutin J,
Laferriére P. Comparison of sound propagation and perception of three
types of backup alarms with regards to worker safety. Noise Health
2013;15:420-36.
27. Kelly AC, Boyd SM, Henehan GT, Chambers G. Occupational
noise exposure of nightclub bar employees in Ireland. Noise Health
2012;14:148-54.
28. Tso CP, Low KS, Balamururan G. Public perception towards sewage
treatment plants in selected Areas in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. Environmentalist 1990;10:85-93.
29. Malakahmad A, Downe AG, Fadzil1 SD. Application of occupational
health and safety management system at sewage treatment plants. Kuala
Lumpur: IEEE BEIAC; 2012. p. 347-50.
30. Ratnasingam J, Ioras F, Abrudan IV. An evaluation of occupational
accidents in the wooden furniture industry — A regional study in South
East Asia. Saf Sci 2012;50:1190-5.
31. Ratnasingam J, Natthondan V, Ioras F, McNulty T. Dust, Noise and
chemical solvents exposure of workers in the wooden furniture industry
in South East Asia. J Appl Sci 2010;10:1413-20.
32. Ratnasingam J, Ioras F, Bennet M. Malaysian wooden furniture industry:
Study of safety standards, compliance and consequential implications.
Int Wood Prod J 2010;1:15-20.
Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16
 Yuen: Environmental and occupational noise
33. Chee HL, Rampal KG. Relationship between selected health problems
and exposures among women semiconductor workers in Malaysia. Med
J Malaysia 2003;58:387-98.
34. Ismail AR, Haniff MH, Kim CB, Deros BM, Makhtar NK. A survey
on environmental factors and job satisfaction among operators in
automotive industry. Am J Appl Sci 2010;7:2256-61.
35. Rodeghier M. Survey with Confidence: A Practical Guide to Survey
Research Using SPSS. 1st ed. Chicago: SPSS Inc.; 1996.
36. Ismail AR, Mansor MR, Nor MJ, Nuawi MZ, Zulkifli R, Rahman MN,
et al. Comparative studies and impact analysis of environmental noise
modeling from Malaysian industrial projects. WSEAS Trans Environ
Dev 2008;4:666-75.
37. Zolfagharian S, Nourbakhsh M, Irizarry J, Ressang A, Gheisari M.
Environmental impacts assessment on construction sites. Indiana:
Constr Res Congr; 2012. p. 750-9.
38. Hughes H, Hunting KL. Evaluation of the effects of exposure to organic
solvents and hazardous noise among US Air Force Reserve personnel.
Noise Health 2013;15:379-87.
39. Marisol CB, Diarmid CL, Kyle S, editors. Assessing the burden of
disease from work-related hearing impairment at national and local
levels. Occupational Noise: World Health Organization Protection
of the Human Environment. Geneva: Environmental Burden of
Disease; 2004.
40. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW). Monitoring
the State of Occupational Safety and Health in the European Union-Pilot
Study. Luxembourg; 2000.
41. Nelson DI, Nelson RY, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M. The global
burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Am J Ind Med
2005;48:446-58.
42. Tak S, Davis RR, Calvert GM. Exposure to hazardous workplace noise
and use of hearing protection devices among US workers — NHANES,
1999-2004. Am J Ind Med 2009;52:358-71.
43. Ismail AR, Nor MJ, Mansor MR, Tahir MF, Zulkifli R. Environmental
noise assessment and modeling in Malaysia: A comparative monitoring
study. Eur J Sci Res 2009;30:236-44.
44. Bolt RH, Lukasik SJ, Nolle AW, Frost AD. Handbook of Acoustic
Noise Control WADC Technical Report. Wright Air Development
Center; 1952. p. 52-204.
Noise & Health, November-December 2014, Volume 16
View publication stats
45. Abdullah S, Nor MJ. The utilisation of an adaptive 3D Gauss-Legendre
quadrature in the simulation of sound propagation outdoors for sources
with variable power distribution. Appl Acoust 2001;62:65-83.
46. Mallick Z, Kaleel AH, Siddiqui AN. An expert system for predicting the
effects of noise pollution on g trimming task using fuzzy modeling. Int
J Appl Environ Sci 2009;4:389-403.
47. Schenone C. Numerical Modeling of Environmental Noise. 2nd
International Conference on Advances in Computational Tools for
Engineering Applications, ACTEA; 2012. p. 114-9.
48. Lakusic S, Dragcevic V. Toward noise modelling in urban areas 2008.
Proceedings-2nd Asia International Conference on Modelling and
Simulation, AMS; 2008. p. 666-71.
49. Sirajuddin H. Study on the use of personal protective equipment among
workers of a steel industry (PERWAJA) in Terengganu. Thesis for
Master Programme, University Kebangsaan Malaysia; 1995.
50. Nor Saleha IT, Noor Hassim I. A study on compliance to hearing
conservation programme among industries in Negeri Sembilan,
Malaysia. Ind Health 2006;44:584-91.
51. Bin WS, Richardson S, Yeow PH. An ergonomics study of a
semiconductors factory in an IDC for improvement in occupational
health and safety. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2010;16:345-56.
52. Sinclair MA. Subjective assessment. In: Wilson JR, Corlett EN, editors.
Evaluation of Human Work-A Practical Ergonomics Methodology.
London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1995. p. 69-100.
53. Sekaran U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach.
New York, USA: Wiley; 2003.
54. Zulkifli R, Nor MJM. Noise control using coconut coir fiber sound absorber
with porous layer backing and perforated panel. Am J Appl Sci 2010;7:260-4.
55. Suter AH. The hearing conservation amendment: 25 years later. Noise
Health 2009;11:2-7.
56. Fausti SA, Wilmington DJ, Helt PV, Helt WJ, Konrad-Martin D.
Hearing health and care: The need for improved hearing loss prevention
and hearing conservation practices. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005;42:45-62.
How to cite this article: Yuen FK. A vision of the environmental and
occupational noise pollution in Malaysia. Noise Health 2014;16:427-36.
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
436