Cargando…

Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace

The measurement of noise exposure from communication headsets poses a methodological challenge. Although several standards describe methods for general noise measurements in occupational settings, these are not directly applicable to noise assessments under communication headsets. For measurements u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nassrallah, Flora G., Giguère, Christian, Dajani, Hilmi R., Ellaham, Nicolas N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918685/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26960783
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.178479
_version_ 1782439152366649344
author Nassrallah, Flora G.
Giguère, Christian
Dajani, Hilmi R.
Ellaham, Nicolas N.
author_facet Nassrallah, Flora G.
Giguère, Christian
Dajani, Hilmi R.
Ellaham, Nicolas N.
author_sort Nassrallah, Flora G.
collection PubMed
description The measurement of noise exposure from communication headsets poses a methodological challenge. Although several standards describe methods for general noise measurements in occupational settings, these are not directly applicable to noise assessments under communication headsets. For measurements under occluded ears, specialized methods have been specified by the International Standards Organization (ISO 11904) such as the microphone in a real ear and manikin techniques. Simpler methods have also been proposed in some national standards such as the use of general purpose artificial ears and simulators in conjunction with single number corrections to convert measurements to the equivalent diffuse field. However, little is known about the measurement agreement between these various methods and the acoustic manikin technique. Twelve experts positioned circum-aural, supra-aural and insert communication headsets on four different measurement setups (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3.3 artificial ears, and acoustic manikin). Fit-refit measurements of four audio communication signals were taken under quiet laboratory conditions. Data were transformed into equivalent diffuse-field sound levels using third-octave procedures. Results indicate that the Type 1 artificial ear is not suited for the measurement of sound exposure under communication headsets, while Type 2 and Type 3.3 artificial ears are in good agreement with the acoustic manikin technique. Single number corrections were found to introduce a large measurement uncertainty, making the use of the third-octave transformation preferable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4918685
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49186852016-07-14 Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace Nassrallah, Flora G. Giguère, Christian Dajani, Hilmi R. Ellaham, Nicolas N. Noise Health Original Article The measurement of noise exposure from communication headsets poses a methodological challenge. Although several standards describe methods for general noise measurements in occupational settings, these are not directly applicable to noise assessments under communication headsets. For measurements under occluded ears, specialized methods have been specified by the International Standards Organization (ISO 11904) such as the microphone in a real ear and manikin techniques. Simpler methods have also been proposed in some national standards such as the use of general purpose artificial ears and simulators in conjunction with single number corrections to convert measurements to the equivalent diffuse field. However, little is known about the measurement agreement between these various methods and the acoustic manikin technique. Twelve experts positioned circum-aural, supra-aural and insert communication headsets on four different measurement setups (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3.3 artificial ears, and acoustic manikin). Fit-refit measurements of four audio communication signals were taken under quiet laboratory conditions. Data were transformed into equivalent diffuse-field sound levels using third-octave procedures. Results indicate that the Type 1 artificial ear is not suited for the measurement of sound exposure under communication headsets, while Type 2 and Type 3.3 artificial ears are in good agreement with the acoustic manikin technique. Single number corrections were found to introduce a large measurement uncertainty, making the use of the third-octave transformation preferable. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4918685/ /pubmed/26960783 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.178479 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Noise & Health http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Nassrallah, Flora G.
Giguère, Christian
Dajani, Hilmi R.
Ellaham, Nicolas N.
Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace
title Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace
title_full Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace
title_fullStr Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace
title_short Comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace
title_sort comparison of direct measurement methods for headset noise exposure in the workplace
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918685/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26960783
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.178479
work_keys_str_mv AT nassrallahflorag comparisonofdirectmeasurementmethodsforheadsetnoiseexposureintheworkplace
AT giguerechristian comparisonofdirectmeasurementmethodsforheadsetnoiseexposureintheworkplace
AT dajanihilmir comparisonofdirectmeasurementmethodsforheadsetnoiseexposureintheworkplace
AT ellahamnicolasn comparisonofdirectmeasurementmethodsforheadsetnoiseexposureintheworkplace