Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland (Department of Physical Hazards).
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2022 Jun 8;35(3):309-325. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01816. Epub 2022 Mar 9.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the hearing status of operators of low-frequency ultrasonic devices compared to employees exposed to audible noise at a similar A-weighted sound pressure level (SPL) but without ultrasonic components.
Standard pure-tone audiometry, extended high-frequency audiometry (EHFA), transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE), and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE), as well as questionnaire surveys were conducted among 148 subjects, aged 43.1±10.8 years, working as ultrasonic device operators for 18.7±10.6 years. Their exposure to noise within the ultrasonic and audible frequency range was also evaluated. The control group comprised 168 workers, adjusted according to gender, age (±2 years), tenure (±2 years), and the 8-hour daily noise exposure level (L) of ±2 dB.
The ultrasonic device operators and the control group were exposed to audible noise at L of 80.8±3.9 dB and 79.1±3.4, respectively. The Polish maximum admissible intensity (MAI) values for audible noise were exceeded in 16.8% of the ultrasonic device operators, while 91.2% of them were exposed to ultrasonic noise at SPL>MAI values. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the hearing threshold levels (HTLs) up to 3 kHz, while the ultrasonic device operators exhibited significantly higher (worse) HTLs, as compared to the control group, in the range of 4-14 kHz. The results of the DPOAE and TEOAE testing also indicated worse hearing among the ultrasonic device operators. However, the differences between the groups were more pronounced in the case of EHFA and DPOAEs.
The outcomes of all hearing tests consistently indicated worse hearing among the ultrasonic device operators as compared to the control group. Both EHFA and DPOAE seem to be useful tools for recognizing early signs of hearing loss among ultrasonic device operators. nt J Occup Med Environ Health. 2022;35(3):309-25.
本研究旨在评估低频超声设备操作人员的听力状况，并与暴露于相似 A 加权声压级（SPL）但无超声成分的可听噪声的员工进行比较。
对 148 名年龄为 43.1±10.8 岁、从事超声设备操作工作 18.7±10.6 年的人员进行了标准纯音测听、扩展高频测听（EHFA）、瞬态诱发耳声发射（TEOAE）和畸变产物耳声发射（DPOAE）检测，以及问卷调查。还评估了他们在超声和可听频率范围内的噪声暴露情况。对照组包括 168 名工人，根据性别、年龄（±2 岁）、工龄（±2 岁）和 8 小时日噪声暴露水平（L）±2dB 进行了调整。
超声设备操作人员和对照组分别暴露于 L 为 80.8±3.9dB 和 79.1±3.4dB 的可听噪声中。16.8%的超声设备操作人员的波兰可允许强度（MAI）值超过了可听噪声的最大值，而 91.2%的人员暴露于 SPL>MAI 值的超声噪声中。两组人员在 3kHz 以下的听力阈值水平（HTLs）方面无显著差异，但与对照组相比，超声设备操作人员在 4-14kHz 范围内的 HTLs 明显更高（更差）。DPOAE 和 TEOAE 测试结果也表明，超声设备操作人员的听力较差。然而，EHFA 和 DPOAE 的结果表明，两组之间的差异更为显著。
所有听力测试的结果均表明，与对照组相比，超声设备操作人员的听力较差。EHFA 和 DPOAE 似乎都是识别超声设备操作人员听力损失早期迹象的有用工具。国际职业医学与环境卫生杂志。2022;35(3):309-25.
