Axelsson K, Axelsson A, Jonsson A
Scand Audiol. 1978;7(4):247-53. doi: 10.3109/01050397809076293.
Two groups of noise-exposed workers were compared with respect to their use of ear protectors. One group had a severe, noise-induced hearing loss; the other group had normal hearing. Both groups were composed of workers of similar age and total duration noise-exposure. It was found that those with normal hearing had used ear protectors considerably more than those with severe hearing loss. Interestingly, quite a few workers had normal hearing in spite of working in noise for many years without ear protectors. Also, quite a few workers had a severe hearing loss in spite of frequent use of ear protectors. The reasons for not using ear protectors were analysed as also was the condition of the protectors and frequency with which they were replaced. Plastic ear plugs were preferred by 44%, vinyl foam ear plugs by 26%, fibreglass down by 18%, and ear muffs by 11% of the workers. In general, the condition of the ear protectors was good. Surprisingly, one-third of the workers did not use ear protectors, many of them because they had not realized that the environment they worked in had a noise intensity level above the injury risk level.
对两组接触噪音的工人使用耳塞的情况进行了比较。一组有严重的噪音性听力损失;另一组听力正常。两组工人年龄相仿,总的噪音接触时长相近。结果发现,听力正常的工人使用耳塞的频率比有严重听力损失的工人高得多。有趣的是,相当多的工人尽管多年在有噪音的环境中工作且未使用耳塞,但听力仍正常。此外,相当多的工人尽管频繁使用耳塞,仍有严重的听力损失。分析了不使用耳塞的原因以及耳塞的状况和更换频率。44%的工人更喜欢使用塑料耳塞,26%的工人喜欢乙烯基泡沫耳塞,18%的工人喜欢玻璃纤维耳塞,11%的工人喜欢耳罩。总体而言,耳塞的状况良好。令人惊讶的是,三分之一的工人不使用耳塞,其中许多人是因为他们没有意识到自己工作的环境噪音强度超过了伤害风险水平。