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: Traffic noise annoyance in the LIFE-adult study in Germany: Exposure-response relationships and a comparison to the WHO curves.
    Author: Romero Starke K, Schubert M, Kaboth P, Gerlach J, Hegewald J, Reusche M, Friedemann D, Zülke A, Riedel-Heller SG, Zeeb H, Seidler A.
    Journal: Environ Res; 2023 Jul 01; 228():115815. PubMed ID: 37003550.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Noise annoyance is the second-highest cause of lost disability-adjusted life-years due to environmental noise in Europe. Evidence on exposure-response relationships (ERRs) for traffic noise annoyance with more accurate exposure values is still needed. OBJECTIVES: In an analysis of the population-based LIFE-Adult study in Leipzig, Germany, we aimed to investigate the effect of road, railway (train and tram), and aircraft noise on high annoyance (HA). METHODS: Traffic exposure data was taken for 2012 and data on noise annoyance was evaluated between 2018 and 2021. HA was defined according to international standardized norms. We calculated risk estimates using logistic regression, controlling for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, and compared our ERRs with those from the last WHO review on this topic. RESULTS: Aircraft noise had the highest relative risk for noise-related HA (OR = 12.7, 95% CI: 9.37-17.10 per 10 dB Lden increase). The road and railway traffic risk estimates were similar to each other (road: OR = 3.55, 95% CI: 2.78-4.54; railway: OR = 3.31, 95% CI: 2.77-3.97 per 10 dB Lden increase). Compared to the WHO curves, the proportion of highly annoyed individuals was somewhat lower for road and rail traffic noise, but higher for aircraft noise. DISCUSSION: Aircraft noise is particularly annoying. There were differences between our study's ERRs and those in the WHO review, especially for aircraft noise. These differences may be partly explained by the improved accuracy of the exposure values, as we considered secondary road networks and tram noise, and by a lack of a nighttime flight ban at the Leipzig airport. Geographical, regional and climatic variations, inconsistency in HA cut-offs, as well as temporal developments in the annoyance experience may also explain the differences. Since ERRs serve as a basis for decision making in public policies, regular updates of the curves based on new evidence is recommended.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]