Institute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Institute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Environ Res. 2023 Jul 1;228:115815. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115815. Epub 2023 Mar 31.
Noise annoyance is the second-highest cause of lost disability-adjusted life-years due to environmental noise in Europe. Evidence on exposure-response relationships (ERRs) for traffic noise annoyance with more accurate exposure values is still needed.
In an analysis of the population-based LIFE-Adult study in Leipzig, Germany, we aimed to investigate the effect of road, railway (train and tram), and aircraft noise on high annoyance (HA).
Traffic exposure data was taken for 2012 and data on noise annoyance was evaluated between 2018 and 2021. HA was defined according to international standardized norms. We calculated risk estimates using logistic regression, controlling for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, and compared our ERRs with those from the last WHO review on this topic.
Aircraft noise had the highest relative risk for noise-related HA (OR = 12.7, 95% CI: 9.37-17.10 per 10 dB L increase). The road and railway traffic risk estimates were similar to each other (road: OR = 3.55, 95% CI: 2.78-4.54; railway: OR = 3.31, 95% CI: 2.77-3.97 per 10 dB L increase). Compared to the WHO curves, the proportion of highly annoyed individuals was somewhat lower for road and rail traffic noise, but higher for aircraft noise.
Aircraft noise is particularly annoying. There were differences between our study's ERRs and those in the WHO review, especially for aircraft noise. These differences may be partly explained by the improved accuracy of the exposure values, as we considered secondary road networks and tram noise, and by a lack of a nighttime flight ban at the Leipzig airport. Geographical, regional and climatic variations, inconsistency in HA cut-offs, as well as temporal developments in the annoyance experience may also explain the differences. Since ERRs serve as a basis for decision making in public policies, regular updates of the curves based on new evidence is recommended.
在欧洲，因环境噪声导致丧失的伤残调整生命年（DALY）中，噪声烦恼是第二大主要原因。仍需要更多具有更准确暴露值的交通噪声烦恼的暴露-反应关系（ERR）证据。
在德国莱比锡基于人群的 LIFE-Adult 研究的一项分析中，我们旨在研究道路、铁路（火车和电车）和飞机噪声对高度烦恼（HA）的影响。
2012 年采集交通暴露数据，2018 年至 2021 年评估噪声烦恼数据。根据国际标准化规范定义 HA。我们使用逻辑回归计算风险估计值，控制年龄、性别和社会经济地位，并将我们的 ERR 与该主题的世界卫生组织（WHO）最近一次审查进行比较。
飞机噪声对与噪声相关的 HA 的相对风险最高（每增加 10dB L，比值比 [OR] = 12.7，95%置信区间 [CI]：9.37-17.10）。道路和铁路交通的风险估计值彼此相似（道路：OR = 3.55，95% CI：2.78-4.54；铁路：OR = 3.31，95% CI：2.77-3.97 per 10dB L 增加）。与 WHO 曲线相比，道路交通噪声和铁路交通噪声的高度烦恼个体比例略低，但飞机噪声的比例较高。
飞机噪声特别烦人。我们的研究 ERR 与 WHO 审查中的 ERR 存在差异，尤其是飞机噪声。这些差异部分可能是由于暴露值的准确性提高所致，因为我们考虑了次要道路网络和电车噪声，并且莱比锡机场没有夜间飞行禁令。地理、区域和气候差异、HA 切点的不一致以及烦恼体验的时间发展也可能解释这些差异。由于 ERR 是公共政策决策的基础，因此建议根据新证据定期更新曲线。
