Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Semin Hear 2023; 44(04): 485-502
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769498
Review Article

Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss among Workers at a Hammer Forge Company

Scott E. Brueck
1   Division of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio
,
Judith Eisenberg
1   Division of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio
,
Edward L. Zechmann
1   Division of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio
,
William J. Murphy
2   Stephenson and Stephenson Research and Consulting, LLC, Batavia, Ohio
,
Edward Krieg
1   Division of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio
,
Thais C. Morata
1   Division of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluated continuous and impact noise exposures and hearing loss among workers at a hammer forge company. Full-shift personal noise exposure measurements were collected on forge workers across 15 different job titles; impact noise characteristics and one-third octave band noise levels were assessed at the forge hammers; and 4,750 historic audiometric test records for 483 workers were evaluated for hearing loss trends. Nearly all workers' noise exposures exceeded regulatory and/or recommended exposure limits. Workers working in jobs at or near the hammers had full-shift time-weighted average noise exposures above 100 decibels, A-weighted. Impact noise at the hammers reached up to 148 decibels. Analysis of audiometric test records showed that 82% of workers had experienced a significant threshold shift, as defined by NIOSH, and 63% had experienced a standard threshold shift, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All workers with an OSHA standard threshold shift had a preceding NIOSH significant threshold shift which occurred, on average, about 7 years prior. This evaluation highlights forge workers' exposures to high levels of noise, including impact noise, and how their hearing worsened with age and length of employment.

Keywords

noise - impact noise - noise-induced hearing loss - hearing loss - hammer forge

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.




Publication History

Article published online:
16 June 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kerns E, Masterson EA, Themann CL, Calvert GM. Cardiovascular conditions, hearing difficulty, and occupational noise exposure within US industries and occupations. Am J Ind Med 2018; 61 (06) 477-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tak S, Davis RR, Calvert GM. Exposure to hazardous workplace noise and use of hearing protection devices among US workers–NHANES, 1999-2004. Am J Ind Med 2009; 52 (05) 358-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 NIOSH. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational noise exposure (revised criteria 1998). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 98-126; 1998
    PubMed
  • 4 Rösler G. Progression of hearing loss caused by occupational noise. Scand Audiol 1994; 23 (01) 13-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rabinowitz PM, Davies HW, Meinke DK. Auditory and non-auditory health effects of noise. In: Meinke DK, Berger EH, Driscoll DP. eds. The Noise Manual, 6th ed. Falls Church, VA: AIHA Press; 2022: 79-97
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Masterson EA, Themann CL, Luckhaupt SE, Li J, Calvert GM. Hearing difficulty and tinnitus among U.S. workers and non-workers in 2007. Am J Ind Med 2016; 59 (04) 290-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Taylor W, Lempert B, Pelmear P, Hemstock I, Kershaw J. Noise levels and hearing thresholds in the drop forging industry. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (03) 807-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Suvorov G, Denisov E, Antipin V. et al. Effects of peak levels and number of impulses to hearing among forge hammering workers. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2001; 16 (08) 816-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sułkowski W, Kowalska S, Lipowczan A, Prasher D, Raglan E. Tinnitus and impulse noise-induced hearing loss in drop-forge operators. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 1999; 12 (02) 177-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kardous CA, Willson RD, Hayden CS, Szlapa P, Murphy WJ, Reeves ER. Noise exposure assessment and abatement strategies at an indoor firing range. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2003; 18 (08) 629-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kardous CA, Willson RD. Limitations of using dosimeters in impulse noise environments. J Occup Environ Hyg 2004; 1 (07) 456-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yan H, Kardous CA, Murphy WJ. NIOSH Impulsive-Noise Measurement System (NIMS). Proceedings of NoiseCon 2004; 2004: 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kardous CA, Willson RD, Murphy WJ. New dosimeter design for monitoring exposure to impulsive noise. Applied Acoustics Journal 2005; 66 (08) 974-998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Franks JR. . The role of audiometric data management in hearing loss prevention: audiometric data management. In: Proceedings: Best practices in hearing loss prevention. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-157; 1999
    PubMed
  • 15 Heyer N, Morata TC, Pinkerton LE. et al. Use of historical data and a novel metric in the evaluation of the effectiveness of hearing conservation program components. Occup Environ Med 2011; 68 (07) 510-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Masterson EA, Tak S, Themann CL. et al. Prevalence of hearing loss in the United States by industry. Am J Ind Med 2013; 56 (06) 670-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Arslan E, Orzan E. Audiological management of noise induced hearing loss. Scand Audiol Suppl 1998; 48: 131-145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rivin E. Noise abatement of industrial production equipment. In: Crocker M. ed. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2007: 987-994
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Lam YW, Hodgson DC. The prediction of ringing noise of a drop hammer in a rectangular enclosure. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93 (02) 875-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kamal AA, Mikael RA, Faris R. Follow-up of hearing thresholds among forge hammering workers. Am J Ind Med 1989; 16 (06) 645-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Saidur R, Rahim NA, Hasanuzzaman M. A review on compressed-air energy use and energy savings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010; 14 (04) 1135-1153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Beamer B, McCleery T, Hayden C. Buy quiet initiative in the USA. Acoust Aust 2016; 44 (01) 51-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR 211 Subpart B, Hearing Protection Device Labeling, Sept 29, 1978. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register; 1978
    PubMed
  • 24 Murphy WJ, Stephenson MR, Byrne DC, Witt B, Duran J. Effects of training on hearing protector attenuation. Noise Health 2011; 13 (51) 132-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Berger EH, Franks JR, Lindgren F. International review of field studies of hearing protection attenuation. In: Axelsson A, Borchgrevink H, Hamernik RP. eds. Scientific Basis of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 1996: 361-377
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Berger EH, Franks JR, Behar A. et al. Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103 (02) 665-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Franks JR, Murphy WJ, Johnson JL, Harris DA. Four earplugs in search of a rating system. Ear Hear 2000; 21 (03) 218-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Joseph A, Punch J, Stephenson M, Paneth N, Wolfe E, Murphy WJ. The effects of training format on earplug performance. Int J Audiol 2007; 46 (10) 609-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rabinowitz PM, Galusha D, Ernst CD, Slade MD. Audiometric “early flags” for occupational hearing loss. J Occup Environ Med 2007; 49 (12) 1310-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Masterson EA, Sweeney MH, Deddens JA, Themann CL, Wall DK. Prevalence of workers with shifts in hearing by industry: a comparison of OSHA and NIOSH Hearing Shift Criteria. J Occup Environ Med 2014; 56 (04) 446-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 International Standard Organization 1999 (ISO 1999). Acoustics—Estimation of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, Annex B3 U.S. Population from the NHANES Survey. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Pfander F, Bongartz H, Brinkmann H, Kietz H. Danger of auditory impairment from impulse noise: a comparative study of the CHABA damage-risk criteria and those of the Federal Republic of Germany. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67 (02) 628-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sulkowski WJ. Hearing impairment caused by impulse noise: survey in the drop forging industry. Scand Audiol Suppl 1980; 12 (Suppl. 12) 307-317
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Starck J, Pekkarinen J, Pyykkö I. Impulse noise and hand-arm vibration in relation to sensory neural hearing loss. Scand J Work Environ Health 1988; 14 (04) 265-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Zhao YM, Qiu W, Zeng L. et al. Application of the kurtosis statistic to the evaluation of the risk of hearing loss in workers exposed to high-level complex noise. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (04) 527-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Davis RI, Qiu W, Heyer NJ. et al. The use of the kurtosis metric in the evaluation of occupational hearing loss in workers in China: implications for hearing risk assessment. Noise Health 2012; 14 (61) 330-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Qiu W, Murphy WJ, Suter A. Kurtosis: a new tool for noise analysis. Acoust Today 2020; 16 (04) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kryter KD, Ward WD, Miller JD, Eldredge DH. Hazardous exposure to intermittent and steady-state noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1966; 39 (03) 451-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Ryan AF, Kujawa SG, Hammill T, Le Prell C, Kil J. Temporary and permanent noise-induced threshold shifts: a review of basic and clinical observations. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (08) e271-e275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Davies H, Marion S, Teschke K. The impact of hearing conservation programs on incidence of noise-induced hearing loss in Canadian workers. Am J Ind Med 2008; 51 (12) 923-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar