Epidemiological Evidence for the Effectiveness of the Noise at Work Regulations

are designed to minimise risk of occupational noise-induced hearing loss in the UK. The present study examined their effectiveness in a longitudinal field study, where participants were seen annually over a period of 3 years. Audiometric and otoacoustic emission measures were obtained in 154 recruits aged 18-25 years at risk of noise-induced hearing loss through occupational exposure and 99 non-exposed controls. The study had power to detect approximately 1-2 dB change per year, which is a smaller change than would be expected in the noise-exposed participants without protection. There were no significant effects on auditory function, or rate of change in function, of risk group when other potential explanatory variables were taken into account. Nor were there significant effects when contrasting exposed participants working in companies demonstrating relatively lower or higher compliance with the Regulations. Noise levels in exposed participants averaged approximately 88-89 dB(A) before accounting for hearing protection. The only significant effects on hearing demonstrated in the study were small effects of estimated social noise prior to the study, for example at nightclubs or from personal audio systems. Limitations of the study arise from the range of noise level encountered and the restricted duration of the study, which precludes showing longer-term effects. The companies involved in the study are not necessarily representative of the UK in terms of their compliance. Within these limitations, no evidence for lack of effectiveness of the Regulations was found. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank Russell Ecob, who designed and implemented the statistical modelling elements of the work. Gordon Brown contributed to the design of the compliance assessment schedule and carried out all of the assessments. Dr Stephen Karmy advised on the original design of the study and recruitment of participants. Several research assistants performed the data collection aspects of the study over its duration-in Nottingham: Kim Holmes and very special thanks to Kezia Hills who tested virtually all the participants; in Horswell. The MLS otoacoustic …

[1]  H. Spencer,et al.  Occupational noise and demographic factors in hearing. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[2]  Mariola Sliwinska-Kowalska,et al.  Otoacoustic emissions in industrial hearing loss assessment. , 2001, Noise & health.

[3]  M. Lutman,et al.  Methods for early identification of noise-induced hearing loss. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[4]  M E Lutman,et al.  Are Normal Hearing Thresholds a Sufficient Condition for Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions? , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  G Buller,et al.  Automatic classification of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions using an artificial neural network. , 1998, British journal of audiology.

[6]  M. Lutman,et al.  Differential diagnostic potential of otoacoustic emissions: a case study. , 1989, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[7]  M. Furst,et al.  The effect of longitudinal noise exposure on behavioral audiograms and transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions , 2007, International journal of audiology.

[8]  E Borg,et al.  Effect of interaction between noise and toluene on auditory function in the rat. , 1988, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[9]  L. Heller,et al.  Reliability of Transient‐Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Mark E. Lutman,et al.  The prevalence and type of social noise exposure in young adults in England. , 2000, Noise & health.

[11]  R Probst,et al.  A review of otoacoustic emissions. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  M. Blaszkewicz,et al.  Occupational toluene exposure and auditory function: results from a follow-up study. , 2003, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[13]  M. Lutman,et al.  Reliable identification of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions using signal-processing techniques. , 1993, British journal of audiology.

[14]  M. Lutman,et al.  Hearing in Young Adults: Report to ISO/TC43/WG1. , 1999, Noise & health.

[15]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Frequency resolution as a function of hearing threshold level and age. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  M. Lutman,et al.  The distribution of hearing threshold levels in the general population aged 18-30 years. , 1994, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[17]  Mark E. Lutman,et al.  Field Sensitivity of Targeted Neonatal Hearing Screening by Transient‐Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[18]  A. Davis,et al.  The prevalence of hearing impairment and reported hearing disability among adults in Great Britain. , 1989, International journal of epidemiology.

[19]  Avi Ravid,et al.  Otoacoustic Emissions in Early Noise-Induced Hearing Loss , 2007, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[20]  R Probst,et al.  Monitoring the effects of noise exposure using transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions. , 1993, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[21]  R Neitzel,et al.  Predictors of hearing threshold levels and distortion product otoacoustic emissions among noise exposed young adults , 2004, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[22]  J. J. Knight Hearing and Noise in Industry , 1970 .

[23]  L. Heller,et al.  Low-level otoacoustic emissions may predict susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  P A Smith,et al.  Comparison of manual and computer-controlled self-recorded audiometric methods for serial monitoring of hearing. , 1989, British journal of audiology.

[25]  Temporary threshold shift and otoacoustic emissions after industrial noise exposure. , 1995, Scandinavian audiology.

[26]  B Erlandsson,et al.  Comparison of the hearing threshold measured by manual pure-tone and by self-recording (Békésy) audiometry. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[27]  M. Parazzini,et al.  Effect of aspirin on phase gradient of 2F1–F2 distortion product otoacoustic emissions , 2005, Hearing Research.

[28]  A R Thornton,et al.  High rate otoacoustic emissions. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  A. Davis,et al.  Longitudinal study of hearing. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[30]  P. Zalewski,et al.  Effects of impulse noise on transiently evoked otoacoustic emission in soldiers Efectos del ruido impulsivo sobre las emisiones otoacústicas evocadas por transitorios en soldados , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[31]  Lynne Marshall,et al.  A longitudinal study of changes in evoked otoacoustic emissions and pure-tone thresholds as measured in a hearing conservation program , 2004, International journal of audiology.