School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Fellow of the Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine - Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Phys Eng Sci Med. 2022 Mar;45(1):107-114. doi: 10.1007/s13246-021-01087-y. Epub 2022 Jan 13.
At a major hazard facility, cases of occupational noise-induced hearing loss have occurred despite the use of hearing protection devices. Preliminary measurements of personal attenuation ratings (PAR) suggested that earplugs may not achieve the attenuation implied by their Australian SLC80 Class designation in field-use conditions. We examined the relationship between PAR and the SLC80 classification for earplugs, as a good understanding of the attenuation provided by earplugs under normal field-use conditions, rather than in laboratory settings, is vital to their effective use as a control measure for noise exposure. A cross-sectional study was performed with 65 volunteers. Participants were recruited from Operations and Maintenance Technicians at the major hazard facility. The participants had their PARs checked with different earplug types using the 3 M™ E-A-Rfit™ system. We examined the PARs measured and also assigned a 'pass' or 'fail' rating depending on whether the earplug achieved 22 dB attenuation. 22 dB attenuation for 80% of users is the minimum to meet the definition for Australian SLC80 Class 4 hearing protection. None of the earplug types achieved 22 dB attenuation for 80% of users when tested in field-use conditions. There were statistically significant differences in the frequency of achieving a 'Pass', and in PAR, depending on earplug type. Roll-down foam earplugs may provide superior attenuation compared to pre-moulded earplugs. Earplugs are unlikely to achieve the attenuation found in laboratory conditions during field-use. Personalised selection of hearing protection devices based on fit-testing results should be encouraged.
在重大危险源设施中,尽管使用了听力保护装置,但仍发生了职业性噪声聋病例。初步测量个人衰减等级(PAR)表明,耳塞在现场使用条件下可能无法达到其澳大利亚 SLC80 级别的衰减值。我们研究了耳塞的 PAR 与 SLC80 分类之间的关系,因为了解耳塞在正常现场使用条件下而不是在实验室环境下提供的衰减值对于将其作为噪声暴露控制措施的有效使用至关重要。我们进行了一项横断面研究,共有 65 名志愿者参与。参与者是从重大危险源设施的运营和维护技术员中招募的。使用 3M™ E-A-Rfit™ 系统对不同类型的耳塞进行了参与者的 PAR 检查。我们检查了测量的 PAR 值,并根据耳塞是否达到 22dB 衰减值来分配“通过”或“失败”的评级。80%的用户达到 22dB 衰减值是符合澳大利亚 SLC80 类 4 听力保护的最低要求。在现场使用条件下测试时,没有一种耳塞类型能达到 80%的用户 22dB 的衰减值。根据耳塞类型,“通过”的频率和 PAR 值存在统计学上的显著差异。滚落式泡沫耳塞与预成型耳塞相比,可能提供更好的衰减效果。耳塞在现场使用过程中不太可能达到实验室条件下的衰减值。应鼓励根据适合性测试结果个性化选择听力保护装置。