Changes over time in audiometric thresholds in a group of automobile stamping and assembly workers with a hearing conservation program

American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 482-487

  Brink, Luann L ^a   Talbott, Evelyn O ^b   Altonburks, J ^b   Palmer, Catherine V ^c  

^a Mfg Technologies Directorate   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Auto workers; Cohort study; Hearing loss; NIHL; Noise; Time weighted average

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NOISE REDUCTION; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPEECH; AGE; CAR; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; INDUSTRIAL NOISE; METHODOLOGY; NOISE INJURY; SEX DIFFERENCE; TIME;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; AUTOMOBILES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEARING LOSS, NOISE-INDUCED; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE, OCCUPATIONAL; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; SEX FACTORS; SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T; TIME FACTORS; HUMANS;

EID: 0036651760     PISSN: 15428117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15428110208984737     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Canlon, B.: The effect of acoustic trauma on the tectorial membrane, stereocilia, and hearing sensitivity: Possible mechanisms underlying damage, recovery, and protection. Scand. Audiol. 17(suppl.) (1988).
2. Ramazzini, B.: Diseases of workers (De morbis artificum, 1713). Trans. Wilmer Cave Wright. New York: Hafner Publishing, 1964.
3. Millar, J.D.: Screening and monitoring: Tools for prevention. J. Occup. Med. 28:544–546, 1986.
4. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure Revised Criteria 1998 (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication no. 98-126). Cincinnati, Ohio: NIOSH, 1998.
5. Hellstrom, P.A.: Individual differences in peripheral sound transfer functions: Relation to NIHL. In A. Axelsson, R.P. Hamernik, and D. Henderson, editors, Noise Induced Hearing Loss. New York: Thieme, 1995.
6. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Noise (HSM73–1101). Cincinnati, Ohio: NIOSH, 1982.
7. “Occupational Noise Exposure; Hearing Conservation Amendment, Final Rule.” Federal Register 48(46) (8 March 1983) pp. 9738–9783.
8. Berger, E.H.: Laboratory attenuation of earmuffs and earplugs both singly and in combination. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 44:321–329 (1983).
9. Riko, K., and P.W. Alberti: How ear protectors fail: A practical guide. In P.W. Alberti, editor, Personal Hearing Protection in Industry pp. 323–338. New York: Raven Press, 1982.
10. Royster, L.H.: An evaluation of the effectiveness of two different insert types of ear protection in preventing TTS in an industrial environment. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 41:161–169 (1980).
11. Royster, L.H.: Effectiveness of three different types of ear protectors in preventing TTS. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66(suppl. 1):S66 (1979).
12. Berger, E.H.: Laboratory estimates of the real world performance of hearing protectors. In PW Alberti, editor, Personal Hearing Protection in Industry, pp. 299–314. New York: Raven, 1982.
13. Edwards, R.G., W.P. Hauser, N.A. Moiseev, A.B. Broderson, and W.W. Green: Effectiveness of earplugs as worn in the workplace. Sound Vib. 12:12–22 (1978).
14. Edwards, R.G., A.B. Broderson, W.W. Green, and B.L. Lempert: A second study of the effectiveness of earplugs as worn in the workplace. Noise Control Eng. 20:6–15 (1983).
15. Bruhl, P., A. Ivarsson, and N.G. Toremalm: Noise-induced hearing loss in an automobile sheet-metal pressing plant. A retrospective investigation covering 25 years. Scand. Audiol. 23:83–91.
16. Savell, J.F., and E.H. Tothman: Group mean hearing threshold changes in a noise-exposed industrial population using personal hearing protection. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 48:23–27 (1987).
17. Pell, S.: An evaluation of a hearing conservation program. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 33:60–70 (1972).
18. Pell, S.: An evaluation of a hearing conservation program—a five-year longitudinal study. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 34:82–91 (1973).
19. Gosztoni, RE.: The effectiveness of hearing protective devices. J. Occup. Med. 17:569–580 (1975).
20. Adera, T., A.M. Donahue, B.D. Malit, and J.C. Gahdos: Assessment of the proposed draft American national standard method for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs. J. Occup. Med. 35:568–573 (1993).
21. Adera, T., C. Amir, and L. Anderson: Use of comparison populations for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention programs. AIHAJ 61:11–15 (2000).
22. Adera, T., C. Amir, and L. Anderson: Time trends analysis of hearing loss: an alternative approach to evaluating hearing loss prevention programs. AIHAJ 61:161–165 (2000).
23. Thompson, S.J., and E.O. Talbott: Auditory and Non-Auditory Health Risks Related to Occupational Noise Exposure. Final Report, prepared for UAW-GM National Join Committee on Health and Safety (NJCHS) Occupational Health Advisory Board, submitted May 15, 1996.
24. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, v. 60. New York: McGraw Hill, 1997.
25. Representative Committee on Conservation of Hearing: Guide for the evaluation of hearing impairment. Am. Acad. Ophthalmol. Otolaryngol: 236–238 (1959).
26. Axelson, K., A. Axelsson, and A. Jonsson: Aspects on personal noise protection. Scand. Audiol. 7:247–253 (1978).
27. Smith, C.R., J.N. Wilmoth, and T.E. Borton: Custom-molded earplug performance: A retrospective study. Scand. Audiol. 9:113–117