Byrne David C, Murphy William J, Krieg Edward F, Ghent Robert M, Michael Kevin L, Stefanson Earl W, Ahroon William A
a NIOSH - Robert A. Taft Laboratories , Cincinnati , Ohio.
b NIOSH , Cincinnati , Ohio.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017 Apr;14(4):294-305. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1250002.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sponsored tests of three earplug fit-test systems (NIOSH HPD Well-Fit, Michael & Associates FitCheck, and Honeywell Safety Products VeriPRO). Each system was compared to laboratory-based real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) measurements in a sound field according to ANSI/ASA S12.6-2008 at the NIOSH, Honeywell Safety Products, and Michael & Associates testing laboratories. An identical study was conducted independently at the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL), which provided their data for inclusion in this article. The Howard Leight Airsoft premolded earplug was tested with twenty subjects at each of the four participating laboratories. The occluded fit of the earplug was maintained during testing with a soundfield-based laboratory REAT system as well as all three headphone-based fit-test systems. The Michael & Associates lab had the highest average A-weighted attenuations and smallest standard deviations. The NIOSH lab had the lowest average attenuations and the largest standard deviations. Differences in octave-band attenuations between each fit-test system and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) sound field method were calculated (Atten - Atten). A-weighted attenuations measured with FitCheck and HPD Well-Fit systems demonstrated approximately ±2 dB agreement with the ANSI sound field method, but A-weighted attenuations measured with the VeriPRO system underestimated the ANSI laboratory attenuations. For each of the fit-test systems, the average A-weighted attenuation across the four laboratories was not significantly greater than the average of the ANSI sound field method. Standard deviations for residual attenuation differences were about ±2 dB for FitCheck and HPD Well-Fit compared to ±4 dB for VeriPRO. Individual labs exhibited a range of agreement from less than a dB to as much as 9.4 dB difference with ANSI and REAT estimates. Factors such as the experience of study participants and test administrators, and the fit-test psychometric tasks are suggested as possible contributors to the observed results.
美国国家职业安全与健康研究所（NIOSH）赞助了对三种耳塞适配性测试系统（NIOSH HPD Well-Fit、Michael & Associates FitCheck和霍尼韦尔安全产品公司的VeriPRO）的测试。在NIOSH、霍尼韦尔安全产品公司和Michael & Associates测试实验室，根据ANSI/ASA S12.6 - 2008标准，将每个系统与声场中基于实验室的阈值处真实耳衰减（REAT）测量结果进行比较。美国陆军航空医学研究实验室（USAARL）独立进行了一项相同的研究，并提供了其数据以纳入本文。在四个参与测试的实验室中，对二十名受试者测试了Howard Leight Airsoft预成型耳塞。在使用基于声场的实验室REAT系统以及所有三种基于耳机的适配性测试系统进行测试期间，耳塞的封闭适配性得以保持。Michael & Associates实验室的平均A加权衰减最高，标准差最小。NIOSH实验室的平均衰减最低，标准差最大。计算了每个适配性测试系统与美国国家标准学会（ANSI）声场方法之间的倍频程带衰减差异（Atten - Atten）。用FitCheck和HPD Well-Fit系统测量的A加权衰减与ANSI声场方法显示出约±2 dB的一致性，但用VeriPRO系统测量的A加权衰减低估了ANSI实验室衰减。对于每个适配性测试系统，四个实验室的平均A加权衰减并不显著高于ANSI声场方法的平均值。与VeriPRO的±4 dB相比，FitCheck和HPD Well-Fit的残余衰减差异标准差约为±2 dB。各个实验室与ANSI和REAT估计值的一致性范围从小于1 dB到高达9.4 dB的差异不等。研究参与者和测试管理人员的经验以及适配性测试心理测量任务等因素被认为可能是导致观察结果的原因。
