Open HSI menu
Subscribe Login

Home / Articles and Press Releases / Article / Workplace Hearing Protection

CATEGORIES

  • Latest Issue
  • Above The Neck Protection
  • Chemical Protection
  • Confined Space
  • Construction
  • Emergency Procedures
  • Energy, Oil and Mining Industries
  • Eye Protection
  • Fall Protection
  • Gas Detection
  • Hand Protection
  • Hazardous and Explosive Atmospheres
  • Health and Safety Awareness
  • Hearing Protection
  • Heat and Flame
  • Lighting and ATEX
  • Noise Monitoring
  • Personal Protective Equipment
  • Respiratory Protection
  • Safety Footwear
  • Safety Technology
  • Safety Training
  • Slips, Trips and Falls
  • Wellbeing at Work
  • Working at Height
  • Working Rights

MORE

  • Press Releases
  • Events
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Magazines

COMPANY

  • About
  • Advertising
  • Newsletter
  • Contact
Open HSI menu
Subscribe

Home / Articles and Press Releases / Article / Workplace Hearing Protection

CATEGORIES

  • Latest Issue
  • Above The Neck Protection
  • Chemical Protection
  • Confined Space
  • Construction
  • Emergency Procedures
  • Energy, Oil and Mining Industries
  • Eye Protection
  • Fall Protection
  • Gas Detection
  • Hand Protection
  • Hazardous and Explosive Atmospheres
  • Health and Safety Awareness
  • Hearing Protection
  • Heat and Flame
  • Lighting and ATEX
  • Noise Monitoring
  • Personal Protective Equipment
  • Respiratory Protection
  • Safety Footwear
  • Safety Technology
  • Safety Training
  • Slips, Trips and Falls
  • Wellbeing at Work
  • Working at Height
  • Working Rights

MORE

  • Press Releases
  • Events
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Magazines

COMPANY

  • About
  • Advertising
  • Newsletter
  • Contact

CATEGORIES

  • Article
  • Press Release
  • Above The Neck Protection
  • Chemical Protection
  • Confined Space
  • Construction
  • Emergency Procedures
  • Energy, Oil and Mining Industries
  • Eye Protection
  • Fall Protection
  • Gas Detection
  • Hand Protection
  • Hazardous and Explosive Atmospheres
  • Health and Safety Awareness
  • Hearing Protection
  • Heat and Flame
  • Lighting and ATEX
  • Noise Monitoring
  • Personal Protective Equipment
  • Respiratory Protection
  • Safety Footwear
  • Safety Technology
  • Safety Training
  • Slips, Trips and Falls
  • Wellbeing at Work
  • White Papers
  • Working at Height
  • Working Rights

Article

Workplace Hearing Protection

By Dermot Moloney

| Read Bio

Published: February 13th, 2017

Share this article

Introduction

Studies of noise-exposed populations clearly indicate that time spent working in noisy workplaces may lead to Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL). According to Basner et al (2013) NIHL can be caused by sound pressure levels higher than 75 to 85 dBA in industrial settings. It’s the combination of sound pressure levels and exposure time, however, that is critical in most cases.

Data on the impact of hearing loss varies from one region to another; however, in the USA it has been estimated that over 11% of the total workforce reports varying degrees of hearing difficulty. Of the reported hearing difficulties, approximately 25% can be attributed to workplace exposure (Tak and Calvert, 2008).

- hsi -

A 2013 US study concluded that circa 18% of noise-exposed workers have material hearing impairment (Masterson et al, 2014) as defined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 1998) criterion. Furthermore, an international review of NIHL concluded that occupational noise exposure causes between 7% and 21% of the hearing loss among workers (Lie et al, 2016).

Assessing noise exposures

In most jurisdictions noise levels are averaged during surveys using a metric known as the Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level (Leq). The Leq value describes an equivalent steady noise level, i.e., the unfluctuating noise level at each measurement position that would have an equivalent energy level to the actual fluctuating noise over the duration of the sampling interval.

Leq is always an ‘equal energy measure’ corresponding to the 3 dB exchange rate, never to any other exchange rate (Marsh and Richings, 1998). In the USA, however, OSHA prescribes the use of a Time Weighted Average (TWA) noise exposure and in order to measure this an LAvg noise index is used.

In the USA LAvg is specified in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) legislation and it is defined as ‘the average sound level over the measurement period’ and normally a Threshold Value is used during the calculation of LAvg where any levels below the Threshold Value are not included (OSHA, 2016). With some noise monitoring instrumentation, results in terms of both LAvg and LAeq are given.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 1999 (ISO, 2013) defines the index referred to as the noise exposure level normalised to a nominal 8-hour working day, which is designated LEX, 8h.

In simple terms, the LEX, 8h is a measure of the average noise energy a person is exposed to during a working day. It is determined by the average noise level and the amount of exposure time accumulated (A-weighted sound energy) during the working day.

Critical global differences

The following paragraphs look at the critical differences between European and USA legislation.

In the EU, wide-ranging legal obligations arise when the LEX, 8h of any employee exceeds 80 dBA (this is known as the Lower Exposure Action Value (LEAV). More onerous obligations arise in the EU when an employee’s LEX, 8h exceeds 85 dBA, which is known as the Upper Exposure Action Value (UEAV).

Hmnuitdpebzbfp4vtutl - hsi -

Under current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, 2003) regulations, workers are not permitted to be exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) equal to or greater than 90 dBA. In effect this appears to be equivalent to an LEX, 8h of 90 dBA. To put this into context, however, at LEX, 8h levels of 90 dB one fifth of all workers will become ‘socially handicapped’ by the time they retire (Robinson, 1987). The higher the noise exposure, the greater the likelihood and severity of damage.

While OSHA regulations require employers to implement a Hearing Conservation Programme if workers are exposed to levels higher than an 8-hour TWA of 85 dBA, there is a very important difference between EU and USA assessment methodology. This is because OSHA uses a 5 dB exchange rate, meaning the noise energy doubles with each additional 5 dB. The exchange rate which is predominantly used worldwide (and the one recommended by NIOSH, 2016) is 3 dB. This means that workers in the US can be exposed to much higher levels of noise for much longer than their European counterparts.

In the USA the principal regulations concerning occupational noise in the manufacturing, utilities and service sectors (CFR 1910.95) provide for a Permissible Exposure Level of 90 dBA. In contrast to this, EU legislative requirements are markedly more stringent with extensive controls and obligations arising at 80 dBA (the LEAV).

Throughout the EU, employers are compelled to introduce Hearing Conservation Programmes when the LEX, 8h exceeds 80 dBA (the Lower Exposure Action Value) and this requirement does not apply in the USA until the 8-hour TWA exceeds 85 dBA.

EU employers are compelled to reduce the exposure of workers as far as is reasonably practicable by means of technical and/or organisational measures when the LEX, 8h exceeds 85 dBA (Directive 2003/10/EC). This is obviously more onerous than the US requirement that feasible administrative or engineering controls must be initiated when the TWA exceeds 90 dBA (CFR 1910.95). Furthermore, when considering the need for engineering or administrative controls, only those exposures to sound levels greater than 90 dBA are used in the USA calculation. It is therefore clearly evident that EU noise control criteria are more protective of workers’ hearing.

Consensus, controversies, complacency

There is universal consensus that the extent of hearing damage in exposed populations is directly proportional to the degree of exposure. While questions and controversies continue about the precise relationship between exposure and hearing loss, exposure for 15 minutes per day at an average noise level of 115 dBA would be determined to give rise to an LEX, 8h of 100 dBA (using European and ISO criteria). This would apply, as a matter of fact, throughout most jurisdictions, based on the predominantly espoused 3 dB exchange rate as specified by the ISO and most international authorities. Thus, this daily level of exposure (115 dBA for 15 minutes) although legally permissible in the USA is 20 dB higher than that which is deemed to be hazardous in Europe. Therefore, it is evident that the European occupational assessment methodologies are irrefutably more protective of workers’ hearing than those in the USA. In fact, this has resulted in a wide range of US agencies advocating for change and enforcement of stricter controls.

Because OSHA legislation continues to use an exchange rate (and consequently a set of statutory controls) which have been established to be overly lax, it follows that a significant deficit has arisen between the risk of NIHL and the enforcement regime which currently applies in the USA. In an authoritative review of the risk of NIHL, Prince et al (1997) concluded that based on current exposure levels, approximately 25% of US workers will develop permanent hearing loss. Given that the 50th anniversary of the first federally mandated US legislation (Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, 1969) for hearing conservation is approaching, it is difficult to understand the complacency.

The preventive potential of reducing noise exposure has led to mandatory hearing loss prevention programmes in many countries. However, the reportedly continuing high rate of occupational noise induced hearing loss casts doubt upon the effectiveness of these standards or people’s compliance with them (Verbeek et al, 2012).

Noise control and hearing protection

Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the health and safety of workers (referred to as the Framework Directive) provides a well-defined hierarchy for implementing workplace preventative measures, with risk avoidance taking uppermost priority. Thus, the cornerstone of the EU’s legislation emphasises the need to eliminate risk. Furthermore, the 1989 Machinery Directive and subsequent amendments (89/392/EEC and 2006/42/EC) have ensured that since 1993 most machinery supplied in the EU has fulfilled essential health and safety requirements.

The Machinery Directive sets out procedures and standards that manufacturers must conform to and only conforming machinery is permitted to carry the CE mark. The provisions are designed to ensure that the accidents and injuries caused by the use of machinery can be reduced. The EU emphasis, therefore, is on inherently safe design and construction of machinery and on proper installation and maintenance. This works in harmony with the Physical Agents (Noise) Directive with the latter providing a commercial incentive for equipment designers and manufacturers to produce quieter or ‘silenced’ alternatives.

According to Lang and Maling (2007) noise-emission requirements in manufacturing facilities are more stringent in the EU than in the United States. They also state that the challenge to the United States is to develop an effective national noise control policy that covers products from conception to implementation.

The US position seems in stark contrast to the European emphasis on preventive measures and on first analysis it could be excused as being a dated policy. However, there has been no significant revision despite the intervening years and the overwhelming consensus is that the current regime is inadequate. For example, on the matter of ‘violations’ OSHA’s latest operations manual states that current enforcement policy:

“Allows employers to rely on personal protective equipment and a hearing conservation programme, rather than engineering and/or administrative controls, when hearing protectors will effectively attenuate the noise to which employees are exposed to acceptable levels… Hearing protectors which offer the greatest attenuation may reliably be used to protect employees when their exposure levels border on 100 dBA” (OSHA, 2016b).

This permitted reliance on hearing protection appears particularly ill-advised given the almost overwhelming evidence of its shortfalls in protecting workers’ hearing.

Shortfalls of hearing protectors

Hearing protection devices (HPDs) are often regarded as the last line of defence and as a control mechanism their success is impeded by many factors. Researchers worldwide have identified the selection and fitting of HPD to be limiting factors and many studies have concluded that the most common reason for failing to wear protection was discomfort.

In the USA Lusk (2002) reported that workers inconsistently use protectors when exposed to high noise levels, with compliance ranging from 18% to 77% and Daniell et al (2005) found that only 62% of interviewed employees said they always (or almost always) used hearing protection when they were exposed to loud noise. Their findings are broadly comparable to those of other researchers, although the proportions change from one survey to the next. Morata et al (2001) concluded that 64% of a sample of significantly exposed workers indicated that they wore hearing protectors, but only 20% stated that they wore the device all the time when noise exposed.

Interestingly, Rabinowitz et al (2007) in a 10-year study of hearing loss rates amongst 6,217 employees, concluded that the greatest burden of preventable occupational hearing loss was found in workers whose noise exposure averaged 85 dBA or less. This may be due to the success of the companies’ Hearing Conservation Programme (requiring the use of protectors at levels above 85 dB) but it serves to highlight that US workers with exposures below 85 dBA are vulnerable and that they continue to suffer NIHL.

Neitzel et al (2014) highlighted one of the key weaknesses of Hearing Conservation Programmes (HCPs) even where relatively good hearing protection practices prevail. They state that most HCPs utilise lagging indicators of program performance, such as trends in audiometric test results, and will therefore always be reactive in nature. By the time a trend in hearing loss is identified, irreversible damage to workers’ hearing has already occurred.

In a separate publication that year, Groenewold et al (2014) concluded that, as currently practiced, the use of hearing protectors is inadequate. Furthermore, they stated that hearing protection is not currently working as an effective substitute for noise control. Their findings emphasise the importance of eliminating hazardous noise exposure in the workplace rather than relying on the use of hearing protectors.

Effective hearing protection

Despite their limitations, hearing protection devices can provide a potentially effective and reliable means of protecting workers’ hearing. For any HPD to be effective, regard must be had to numerous factors, including: the potential attenuation of the HPD, the actual exposure conditions (intensity and frequency of noise), correctness of fit, duration of use, ease of use, and user acceptability. Despite this, decisions on selecting and purchasing HPDs are generally based on two key criteria – unit cost and noise reduction rating (NRR).

The octave-band method of calculating attenuation in a workplace theoretically provides the most accurate estimate of the sound level under the HPD. This is because the calculation includes both the laboratory estimated attenuation of the device and the actual spectrum and level of the noise in which it will be worn. The ISO describes two additional methods to estimate HPD performance in ISO Standard 4869-2 (ISO, 1995). Described as the HML method and SNR method, these are regarded as simplified procedures, while the octave-band method is described as an exact reference method.

Regardless of what methods are used to determine the overall attenuation, it is important to note that the actual attenuation provided in the workplace is substantially less than that measured in a laboratory. Laboratory measurement reflects the maximum attenuation that can be expected with a device under the most favourable conditions, e.g. the device is new and in good condition, available in the correct size and is properly fitted and worn under ideal circumstances.

In reality many of the conditions of the laboratory test which are essential to obtain optimum performance are not achievable in the workplace. This is partly because of the emphasis in some laboratory testing in determining the maximum attenuation for very short time periods (five to 10 minutes), while totally disregarding the comfort of the subjects during the fitting of the protectors.

Poor workplace performance arises due to a number of factors such as:

  • Inadequate training
  • Incorrect size or incompatibility with other PPE
  • Incorrect fitting of the devices
  • Slippage of the devices during use
  • Deterioration of the devices and modifications by the employees that degrade the attenuation

In practice, an individual’s noise exposure can be substantially underestimated when it is computed from laboratory attenuation data. For this reason, it is recommended that the performance of the protectors is penalised by 4 dB to account for real world performance, i.e., the noise level at the ear as computed using ISO Standard 4869-2, should in each instance have a real world factor of +4 dBA applied.

For the vast majority of applications, this 4 dB ‘penalty’ will not be problematical and most hearing protectors are likely to provide a degree of overprotection. Furthermore, caution should be exercised to avoid the selection of protectors which provide unnecessarily high attenuation. Such devices can cause communication difficulties and they have the potential to be less comfortable than protectors with lower attenuation. These critical factors (along with regulatory inertia and risk perception) are major barriers to the adoption of pragmatic and effective hearing protection practices and workers worldwide appear to be reluctant to wear HPDs.

In the vast majority of cases, noise levels in workplaces will involve ambient noise levels below 95 dBA. Because of this, the fit and comfort of hearing devices as well as their practicality of use contribute more to their potential effectiveness than does their published attenuation capability. While some exposure scenarios will require a highly rated HPD, many commonly used HPDs will potentially provide a degree of ‘over-protection’.

In theory, we should generally aim for an attenuated daily personal exposure level of approximately 75 dBA at the ear. This is merely a guideline, however, and once employees can hear all necessary alarms and warning signals, the key factors to consider are the comfort of the HPD and the likelihood that it is worn whenever necessary.

Some other important issues to consider when choosing and using HPDs include:

  • Employees should have a choice of HPDs so they can select the most comfortable solution
  • Make sure the HPD is appropriate for the type and duration of the noise exposure
  • All HPDs should be correctly stored and maintained
  • HPDs must be compatible with other protective equipment
  • Training should be given on why the HPD is necessary, when it should be used, how it should be worn and how to store and maintain it properly and safely
  • Employees must immediately report any defects in HPD or any concerns about the performance of HPDs

Often the importance of workers’ hearing is rarely appreciated until their occupational exposure diminishes it irreparably. Furthermore, in many cases the risk of hearing loss is poorly understood and for this reason occupational noise training should always be given the necessary attention it warrants.

This training should form an essential element in the armoury required to address the prevalent risk perception issues within industry. Moreover, it should be rigorously pursued in fulfilment of the employers’ Duty of Care.

Share this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dermot Moloney

Dermot is a Chartered Scientist, an Acoustician and Occupational Hygienist. Since graduating in 1986 with a BSc he has been engaged in fulltime consultancy and has completed an MSc in Occupational Hygiene (with distinction), a First Class Honours MSc (Env. Protection) and an MSc in Applied Acoustics – with distinction.

Connect with Dermot Moloney

Visit Website

POPULAR POSTS BY Dermot Moloney

Istock 867499378 - hsi -

Article

Occupational Vibration

Istock 1286448063 - hsi -

Article

Occupational Noise Exposure

Istock 482852385 0 104 1125 2000 - hsi -

Article

Surveying and Assessing Noise

Istock 149319838 0 156 1688 3000 scaled - hsi -

Article

Workplace Hearing Protection

Get email updates

Sign up for the HSI newsletter

Keep up-to-date through the power of email with Europe's largest audited safety magazine - delivering the latest news and products to satisfy all your occupational safety needs.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

FEATURED ARTICLES

Article

 Thameslink Traffic Management Programme

Press Release

‘Working At Height’ Remains Biggest Danger

Press Release

“Uncertainty and Ignorance” Risks More Asbestos Deaths

Advertisement

SOCIAL MEDIA

HSI on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/HSIMagazine/

Advertisement

SOCIAL MEDIA

HSI on Twitter

hsimagazine HSI Magazine @hsimagazine ·
25 Jan

Global gas sensing leader @ionscience has today formally announced the addition of a high-specification Particulate Matter (PM) sensor to its portfolio.

Read all about this exciting addition!
https://www.hsimagazine.com/press-release/worlds-best-performing-particulate-matter-pm-sensor-now-available-from-ion-science-ltd/

#hsimagazine #ionscience #particulatematter

Reply on Twitter 1618280038557970432 Retweet on Twitter 1618280038557970432 Like on Twitter 1618280038557970432 Twitter 1618280038557970432

Advertisement

SUBSCRIBE

Stay up to date with our newsletter

    • Keep up-to-date with Europe’s largest audited safety magazine

 

    • Delivering the latest news and products to satisfy all your occupational safety needs

 

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Subscribe

SUBSCRIBE TO HSI MAGAZINE

5 reasons to subscribe to our digital and print package

  • Stay up to date from anywhere in the world, with instant access to the latest issue straight from your phone, tablet or laptop.
  • Trust that you’re getting the best content from our range of internationally accredited authors.
  • Get full access to our archives and see how occupational safety has evolved with us over the years.
  • Enjoy our monthly newsletter curated with up-to-the-minute news and a selection of editor’s top picks.
  • Hot off the press and straight to your door – look forward to your own glossy copy of HSI, delivered five times a year
Subscribe View Subscription levels

STAY SAFE & INFORMED

Subscribe to the best health & safety articles, news, products and regulations

Find out more

Stay up to date with our newsletter

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

ABOUT

  • About HSI International
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

YOUR ACCOUNT

Sign In Register Account Subscribe to HSI

RESOURCES

Request Media Pack

CONNECT

ACCREDITATIONS

Copyright Bay Publishing 2023. All Rights reserved.

Designed & Built by:
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT