These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is it necessary to penalize impulsive noise +5 dB due to higher risk of hearing damage?
    Author: de Toro MA, Ordoñez R, Reuter K, Hammershøi D.
    Journal: J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3808-17. PubMed ID: 21682404.
    Abstract:
    It is studied whether the +5 dB penalty for impulsiveness established by ISO 1999:1990 accounts for a higher risk of noise-induced hearing loss. A total of 16 normal-hearing human subjects were exposed for 10 min to two types of binaural industrial-recordings: (1) a continuous broad-band noise normalized to L(EX,8 h)=80 dBA and (2) the combination of the previous stimulus with an impulsive noise normalized to L(EX,8 h)=75+5(db penalty)=80 dBA (peak level 117 dBC and repetition rate of 0.5 impacts per second). Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) were measured in a broad frequency range before and in the following 90 min after the exposure. The group results show that the continuous exposure had a bigger impact on DPOAE levels, with a maximum DPOAE shift of approximately 5 dB in the frequency range of 2-3.15 kHz during the first 10 min of the recovery. No evident DPOAE shift is seen for the impulsive + continuous stimulus. The results indicate that the penalty overestimated the effects on DPOAE levels and support the concept that the risk of hearing loss from low-level impulses may be predicted on an equal-energy basis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]