Hearing conservation programs (HCPs): the effectiveness of one company's HCP in a 12-hr work shift environment
- PMID: 2392973
- DOI: 10.1080/15298669091369907
Hearing conservation programs (HCPs): the effectiveness of one company's HCP in a 12-hr work shift environment
Abstract
An existing hearing conservation program (HCP), originally designed when an 8-hr work shift schedule was in effect, was evaluated at a plant site where a 12-hr work shift schedule is now utilized. The study included the following phases: a noise analysis of the work environment, HCP evaluation through the use of audiometric data base analysis (ADBA), applying ADBA procedures and a comparison of the shift in hearing threshold levels (HTLs) for the 8-hr and 12-hr work shifts, and an evaluation of the hearing protection devices (HPDs) being used at the facility over the 12-hr work shift by measuring temporary threshold shift (TTS). The mean measured employee time-weighted average (TWA) in the process area where the TTS study was conducted was 92 dBA. It was found that the existing HCP is at best marginal. The most likely causes of this less-than-desirable rating are inadequate audiometric testing procedures and inadequate HPD utilization. Furthermore, it was concluded that, at this time, the introduction of the 12-hr work shift has had no impact on the level of effectiveness of the HCP. In evaluating the three HPDs in use at the facility (3-M foam earplug, E-A-R foam earplug, and Bilsom Soft earplug), it was found that they all offered effective protection from noise at all audiometric test frequencies (0.5 to 6 kHz) except 0.5 kHz. All three HPDs exhibited TTS at 0.5 kHz with the TTS measured significant at the p less than 0.05 level for the E-A-R and 3-M wearer groups.
Similar articles
-
The contribution of focus groups in the evaluation of hearing conservation program (HCP) effectiveness.J Safety Res. 2004;35(1):91-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.12.001. J Safety Res. 2004. PMID: 14992850
-
The effectiveness of hearing protection among construction workers.J Occup Environ Hyg. 2005 Apr;2(4):227-38. doi: 10.1080/15459620590932154. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2005. PMID: 15788384
-
Group mean hearing threshold changes in a noise-exposed industrial population using personal hearing protectors.Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1987 Jan;48(1):23-7. doi: 10.1080/15298668791384300. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1987. PMID: 3565259
-
Individual fit-testing of earplugs: a review of uses.Noise Health. 2011 Mar-Apr;13(51):152-62. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.77216. Noise Health. 2011. PMID: 21368441 Review.
-
Occupational hearing conservation.Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1991 Apr;24(2):403-14. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1991. PMID: 1857619 Review.
Cited by
-
Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 7;7(7):CD006396. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006396.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28685503 Free PMC article.
-
Work shift duration: a review comparing eight hour and 12 hour shift systems.Occup Environ Med. 1998 Apr;55(4):217-29. doi: 10.1136/oem.55.4.217. Occup Environ Med. 1998. PMID: 9624275 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Strategy for prevention and control of the risks due to noise.Occup Environ Med. 2000 Jun;57(6):361-9. doi: 10.1136/oem.57.6.361. Occup Environ Med. 2000. PMID: 10810124 Free PMC article.
-
Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss: a Cochrane systematic review.Int J Audiol. 2014 Mar;53 Suppl 2(0 2):S84-96. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.857436. Int J Audiol. 2014. PMID: 24564697 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Miscellaneous