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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |