Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimation of the field attenuation of hearing protection devices: sample size necessary to provide acceptable reproducibility

Evaluating Earplug Performance over a 2-Hour Work Period with a Fit-Test System

Workers rely on hearing protection devices to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss. This study aimed to evaluate changes in attenuation over time for properly fit devices when worn by workers exposed to hazardous noise. Earplug fit testing was accomplished on 30 workers at a brewery facility with three types of foam and three types of premolded earplugs. The personal attenuation ratings (PARs) were measured before and after a 2-hour work period while exposed to hazardous noise levels. The minimum acceptable initial PAR was 15 dB. Average decreases in PAR ranged from -0.7 to -2.6 dB across all six earplug types. Significant changes in PAR were observed for the Foam-1 ( p  = 0.009) and Premold-3 ( p  = 0.004) earplugs. A linear mixed regression model using HPD type and study year as fixed effects and subject as random effect was not significant for either fixed effect ( α  = 0.05). Ninety-five percent of the final PAR measurements maintained the target attenuation of 15 dB. Properly fitting earplugs can be effective at reducing worker's noise exposures over time. The potential for a decrease in attenuation during the work shift should be considered when training workers and establishing the adequacy of protection from hazardous noise exposures.

Personal attenuation ratings versus derated noise reduction ratings for hearing protection devices

National and international regulatory and consensus standards setting bodies have previously proposed derating hearing protector ratings to provide a better match between ratings determined in a laboratory and the real-world measurements of attenuation for workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has proposed a derating scheme that depends upon the type of protector. This paper examines four real-world studies where personal attenuation ratings (PARs) were measured at least twice, before and after an intervention in earplug fitting techniques. Results from these studies indicate that individualized earplug fitting training dramatically improves a worker's achieved PAR value. Additionally, derating schemes fail to accurately predict the majority of achieved PARs. Because hearing protector fit testing systems are now readily available for use in the workplace, personal attenuation ratings provide a better estimate of worker noise exposures and are able to identify those persons who need additional instruction in fitting hearing protection devices.

The insertion loss distribution function of an ear plug, and its implications for the ear plug acceptability

INTRODUCTION

In order to establish the acceptability of a hearing protector device (HPD) used in a given noisy environment, two key elements must be known with the highest possible accuracy: the insertion loss of the HPD and the associated variability. Methods leading to objective field measurements of insertion loss have become widely available in the last decade and have started to replace the traditional subjective "Real-Ear Attenuation at Threshold" (REAT) laboratory measurements. The latter have long been known to provide a gross overestimate of the attenuation, thus leading to a strong underestimate of the worker's exposure to noise.

METHODS

In this work we present objective measurements of the insertion loss of an ear plug, carried out using the E-A-Rfit procedure by 3M on a large sample of 36 female and 64 male subjects. This large number of independent measurements has been exploited to calculate the distribution function of effective noise levels, that is noise levels that take into account the use of the HPD. The knowledge of the distribution function has in its turn allowed the calculation of the uncertainty on the effective noise levels.

RESULTS

This new estimate of uncertainty (6 to 7 dB) is significantly larger than most previous estimates, which range between 4 and 5 dB when using objective data but with an improper uncertainty propagation, and around 3 dB when using REAT subjective data. We show that the revised new estimate of uncertainty is much more realistic as it includes contributions that are missed by the other methods.

CONCLUSIONS

By plugging this revised estimate of uncertainty into the criterion for checking the acceptability of the HPD, a better assessment of the actual protection provided by the HPD itself is possible.

Inter-laboratory comparison of three earplug fit-test systems

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sponsored tests of three earplug fit-test systems (NIOSH HPD Well-Fit, Michael & Associates FitCheck, and Honeywell Safety Products VeriPRO). Each system was compared to laboratory-based real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) measurements in a sound field according to ANSI/ASA S12.6-2008 at the NIOSH, Honeywell Safety Products, and Michael & Associates testing laboratories. An identical study was conducted independently at the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL), which provided their data for inclusion in this article. The Howard Leight Airsoft premolded earplug was tested with twenty subjects at each of the four participating laboratories. The occluded fit of the earplug was maintained during testing with a soundfield-based laboratory REAT system as well as all three headphone-based fit-test systems. The Michael & Associates lab had the highest average A-weighted attenuations and smallest standard deviations. The NIOSH lab had the lowest average attenuations and the largest standard deviations. Differences in octave-band attenuations between each fit-test system and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) sound field method were calculated (Atten_fit-test - Atten_ANSI). A-weighted attenuations measured with FitCheck and HPD Well-Fit systems demonstrated approximately ±2 dB agreement with the ANSI sound field method, but A-weighted attenuations measured with the VeriPRO system underestimated the ANSI laboratory attenuations. For each of the fit-test systems, the average A-weighted attenuation across the four laboratories was not significantly greater than the average of the ANSI sound field method. Standard deviations for residual attenuation differences were about ±2 dB for FitCheck and HPD Well-Fit compared to ±4 dB for VeriPRO. Individual labs exhibited a range of agreement from less than a dB to as much as 9.4 dB difference with ANSI and REAT estimates. Factors such as the experience of study participants and test administrators, and the fit-test psychometric tasks are suggested as possible contributors to the observed results.

Hearing protector fit testing with off-shore oil-rig inspectors in Louisiana and Texas

OBJECTIVE

This field study aimed to assess the noise reduction of hearing protection for individual workers, demonstrate the effectiveness of training on the level of protection achieved, and measure the time required to implement hearing protector fit testing in the workplace.

DESIGN

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted field studies in Louisiana and Texas to test the performance of HPD Well-Fit.

STUDY SAMPLE

Fit tests were performed on 126 inspectors and engineers working in the offshore oil industry.

RESULTS

Workers were fit tested with the goal of achieving a 25-dB PAR. Less than half of the workers were achieving sufficient protection from their hearing protectors prior to NIOSH intervention and training; following re-fitting and re-training, over 85% of the workers achieved sufficient protection. Typical test times were 6-12 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Fit testing of the workers' earplugs identified those workers who were and were not achieving the desired level of protection. Recommendations for other hearing protection solutions were made for workers who could not achieve the target PAR. The study demonstrates the need for individual hearing protector fit testing and addresses some of the barriers to implementation.

Do hearing protectors protect hearing?

BACKGROUND

We examined the association between self-reported hearing protection use at work and incidence of hearing shifts over a 5-year period.

METHODS

Audiometric data from 19,911 workers were analyzed. Two hearing shift measures-OSHA standard threshold shift (OSTS) and high-frequency threshold shift (HFTS)-were used to identify incident shifts in hearing between workers' 2005 and 2009 audiograms. Adjusted odds ratios were generated using multivariable logistic regression with multi-level modeling.

RESULTS

The odds ratio for hearing shift for workers who reported never versus always wearing hearing protection was nonsignificant for OSTS (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92-1.64) and marginally significant for HFTS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00-1.59). A significant linear trend towards increased risk of HFTS with decreased use of hearing protection was observed (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The study raises concern about the effectiveness of hearing protection as a substitute for noise control to prevent noise-induced hearing loss in the workplace.

Measurement of impulse peak insertion loss for four hearing protection devices in field conditions

OBJECTIVE

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed an impulse noise reduction rating (NRR) for hearing protection devices based upon the impulse peak insertion loss (IPIL) methods in the ANSI S12.42-2010 standard. This study tests the ANSI S12.42 methods with a range of hearing protection devices measured in field conditions.

DESIGN

The method utilizes an acoustic test fixture and three ranges for impulse levels: 130-134, 148-152, and 166-170 dB peak SPL. For this study, four different models of hearing protectors were tested: Bilsom 707 Impact II electronic earmuff, E·A·R Pod Express, E·A·R Combat Arms version 4, and the Etymotic Research, Inc. Electronic BlastPLG™ EB1.

STUDY SAMPLE

Five samples of each protector were fitted on the fixture or inserted in the fixture's ear canal five times for each impulse level. Impulses were generated by a 0.223 caliber rifle.

RESULTS

The average IPILs increased with peak pressure and ranged between 20 and 38 dB. For some protectors, significant differences were observed across protector examples of the same model, and across insertions.

CONCLUSIONS

The EPA's proposed methods provide consistent and reproducible results. The proposed impulse NRR rating should utilize the minimum and maximum protection percentiles as determined by the ANSI S12.42-2010 methods.

Results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency interlaboratory comparison of American National Standards Institute S12.6-1997 Methods A and B

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Environmental Protection Agency sponsored the completion of an interlaboratory study to compare two fitting protocols specified by ANSI S12.6-1997 (R2002) [(2002). American National Standard Methods for the Measuring Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors, American National Standards Institute, New York]. Six hearing protection devices (two earmuffs, foam, premolded, custom-molded earplugs, and canal-caps) were tested in six laboratories using the experimenter-supervised, Method A, and (naive) subject-fit, Method B, protocols with 24 subjects per laboratory. Within-subject, between-subject, and between-laboratory standard deviations were determined for individual frequencies and A-weighted attenuations. The differences for the within-subject standard deviations were not statistically significant between Methods A and B. Using between-subject standard deviations from Method A, 3-12 subjects would be required to identify 6-dB differences between attenuation distributions. Whereas using between-subject standard deviations from Method B, 5-19 subjects would be required to identify 6-dB differences in attenuation distributions of a product tested within the same laboratory. However, the between-laboratory standard deviations for Method B were -0.1 to 3.0 dB less than the Method A results. These differences resulted in considerably more subjects being required to identify statistically significant differences between laboratories for Method A (12-132 subjects) than for Method B (9-28 subjects).