View in EDS

A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF MEASURING PERSONAL NOISE EXPOSURE*.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF MEASURING PERSONAL NOISE EXPOSURE*.
Authors: SHACKLETON, S.1, PINEY, M. D.2
Source: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 10/01/1984, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p373-390. 18p.
Abstract: The accuracy with which hand-held Sound Level Meter (SLM) surveys could be used to measure the mean noise exposure of subjects from 25 occupational categories in a steel foundry was assessed. The noise exposure of foundry personnel was measured by repeat noise dosimetry until each subject's mean daily exposure could be calculated within 95% confidence limits of approximately ±2 dB(A) Leq. Then in a series of five l-day surveys, the same individuals' mean noise exposures were assessed by experienced noise surveyors using hand-held precision integrating SLMs. The results of the two measurement methods were compared. Allowance was made for the effects on measurement of a body-mounted microphone when using dosemeters. In 7 cases the hand-held SLM surveys significantly underestimated the mean exposure measured by dosimetry by between 2.4 and 7.2 dB(A) Leq (=0.05). A further 7 subjects' noise exposures could not be assessed by SLM and in no cases did the SLM surveys indicate a higher average exposure than the dosemeters. The exposure of some 37% of the potentially noise-exposed population was either unmeasurable or underestimated by the hand-held SLM survey method. Observations and analysis of the temporal sequence of the dosemeter results suggest the existence of a ‘novelty effect’ at the start of a dosemeter measurement series. The ‘effect’ wore off rapidly and made little difference to the estimates of mean personal noise exposure. Although dosemeters are usually less precise than hand-held devices, their use under certain circumstances is viewed as essential when assessing personal exposure. The types of job where noise dosemeters should be used to measure exposure are identified. The limitations of the short investigative noise survey are discussed and it is recommended that, to ensure a thorough site survey and the most cost-effective use of the hygienist's time, greater use be made of dosemeters. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]
Copyright of Annals of Occupational Hygiene is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:The accuracy with which hand-held Sound Level Meter (SLM) surveys could be used to measure the mean noise exposure of subjects from 25 occupational categories in a steel foundry was assessed. The noise exposure of foundry personnel was measured by repeat noise dosimetry until each subject's mean daily exposure could be calculated within 95% confidence limits of approximately ±2 dB(A) Leq. Then in a series of five l-day surveys, the same individuals' mean noise exposures were assessed by experienced noise surveyors using hand-held precision integrating SLMs. The results of the two measurement methods were compared. Allowance was made for the effects on measurement of a body-mounted microphone when using dosemeters. In 7 cases the hand-held SLM surveys significantly underestimated the mean exposure measured by dosimetry by between 2.4 and 7.2 dB(A) Leq (=0.05). A further 7 subjects' noise exposures could not be assessed by SLM and in no cases did the SLM surveys indicate a higher average exposure than the dosemeters. The exposure of some 37% of the potentially noise-exposed population was either unmeasurable or underestimated by the hand-held SLM survey method. Observations and analysis of the temporal sequence of the dosemeter results suggest the existence of a ‘novelty effect’ at the start of a dosemeter measurement series. The ‘effect’ wore off rapidly and made little difference to the estimates of mean personal noise exposure. Although dosemeters are usually less precise than hand-held devices, their use under certain circumstances is viewed as essential when assessing personal exposure. The types of job where noise dosemeters should be used to measure exposure are identified. The limitations of the short investigative noise survey are discussed and it is recommended that, to ensure a thorough site survey and the most cost-effective use of the hygienist's time, greater use be made of dosemeters. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]
ISSN:00034878