Lutz Eric A, Reed Rustin J, Turner Dylan, Littau Sally R, Lee Vivien, Hu Chengcheng
a Mining Safety and Health Program, Environmental and Occupational Health, Division of Community, Environment, and Policy, Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona , Tucson , Arizona.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12(5):287-93. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2014.987385.
Noise exposures and hearing loss in the mining industry continue to be a major problem, despite advances in noise control technologies. This study evaluated the effectiveness of engineering, administrative, and personal noise controls using both traditional and in-ear dosimetry by job task, work shift, and five types of earplug. The noise exposures of 22 miners performing deep shaft-sinking tasks were evaluated during 56 rotating shifts in an underground mine. Miners were earplug-insertion trained, earplug fit-tested, and monitored utilizing traditional and in-ear dosimetry. The mean TWA8 noise exposure via traditional dosimetry was 90.1 ± 8.2 dBA, while the mean in-ear TWA8 was 79.6 ± 13.8 dBA. The latter was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) personal exposure limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. Dosimetry mean TWA8 noise exposures for bench blowing (103.5 ± 0.9 dBA), jumbo drill operation (103.0 ± 0.8 dBA), and mucking tasks (99.6 ± 4.7 dBA) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than other tasks. For bench blowing, cable pulling, grinding, and jumbo drill operation tasks, the mean in-ear TWA8 was greater than 85 dBA. Those working swing shift had a significantly higher (p < 0.001) mean TWA8 noise exposure (95.4 ± 7.3 dBA) than those working day shift. For percent difference between traditional vs. in-ear dosimetry, there was no significant difference among types of earplug used. Reflective of occupational hearing loss rate trends across the mining industry, this study found that, despite existing engineering and administrative controls, noise exposure levels exceeded regulatory limits, while the addition of personal hearing protection limited excessive exposures.
尽管噪声控制技术有所进步,但采矿业中的噪声暴露和听力损失仍然是一个主要问题。本研究通过工作任务、工作班次以及五种耳塞类型,使用传统剂量测定法和入耳式剂量测定法评估了工程控制、行政控制和个人噪声控制的有效性。在一个地下矿井的56个轮班期间,对22名从事深井挖掘任务的矿工的噪声暴露情况进行了评估。对矿工进行了耳塞插入培训、耳塞适配测试,并使用传统剂量测定法和入耳式剂量测定法进行监测。通过传统剂量测定法测得的平均8小时时间加权平均(TWA8)噪声暴露为90.1±8.2分贝,而入耳式平均TWA8为79.6±13.8分贝。后者显著低于美国矿山安全与健康管理局(MSHA)90分贝的个人暴露限值(p<0.05)。凿岩爆破(103.5±0.9分贝)、台车钻孔作业(103.0±0.8分贝)和出渣任务(99.6±4.7分贝)的剂量测定平均TWA8噪声暴露显著高于其他任务(p<0.05)。对于凿岩爆破、拉电缆、打磨和台车钻孔作业任务,平均入耳式TWA8大于85分贝。中班工作的人员的平均TWA8噪声暴露(95.4±7.3分贝)显著高于白班工作的人员(p<0.001)。对于传统剂量测定法与入耳式剂量测定法之间的百分比差异,所使用的耳塞类型之间没有显著差异。反映整个采矿业职业性听力损失率趋势的是,本研究发现,尽管现有的工程和行政控制措施存在,但噪声暴露水平仍超过监管限值,而增加个人听力保护措施则限制了过度暴露。