The Occupational Health Hazard: Noise in a Carpentry Shop - Case Study Example

The Occupational Health Hazard: Noise in a Carpentry Shop Name Institution Name Course Name and Code Date Introduction The report presents information on occupational hazard around the use of machines and noise. The report starts with an overview of the case study through presenting information on the nature of the hazard: noise. The second part presents information on relevant literature about noise and health and safety issues around noise. The third part discusses the current management practices and approaches in fulfilling the occupational objectives. The forth part recommends on the appropriate practices and frameworks to champion occupational health and safety at the carpenter shop. Overview of Case Study/Nature of the Hazard The current situation is an occupational health hazard that is noise. The working area is a carpenter worship in which different machines are been used. The ones producing the most noise of more than 85 dB are three old machines in which the machines operates 8 hours per day. Each machine is operated by one individual; in normal circumstances, the workers should not be exposed to more than 85 dB of noise. The carpenter workshop is used and some activities that take place include cutting different shapes of wood and utilize six machines but three of these machines are old. Even though three machines are still new and other activities that take place in the carpenter workshop, the major problem is the noise produced. Brief Review of Relevant Literature Woodworking machines generate a lot of noise (Shrestha et al. 2012). Short term exposure to the noise may result in a temporary hearing loss but when an individual is exposed for a longer time, it can result in permanent hearing damage. An employee may not realize the problem since it is gradual process indicating that it is important to implement health and safety measures (Bhardwaj, Khan and Farooq, 2014). Hearing loss occurs when an individual is exposed to more than 85 decibels over a period of working hours (Bleck and Wettberg, 2012). To determine whether the sound may contribute to damage, the following test can be conducted: when an individual is unable to hear someone who is two metres away when talking normally, the potential of hearing loss is evident. Understanding noise from the carpenter shop is one thing but it is also important to describe the sound levels. A sound level is determined through analysing sound power level, sound pressure level and sound intensity level (Fujishiro et al., 2013). Sound intensity level describes the rate in which sound energy flows and it is quantified in terms of watts per square metre (Hagström, Schlünssen, and Eriksson, 2016). The higher the intensity the higher the energy it possesses and the threshold value is important in maintaining the hearing capacity. Sound pressure is used to determine the ‘loudness’ of a sound. It results in pressure fluctuations generated in the air, which then the ear can withstand and also used as a basis of expressing sound as decibel. The current allowed or threshold that an individual can work is less than 85 decibels: 0 dB is the threshold of hearing, 50 dB is comfortable audibility, 70-80 db is discomfort and annoyance, 90 dB is a permanent hearing loss, 130 dB threshold of pain and 150 dB is instantaneous damage. HSE (2017) states that people working in woodworking shops are exposed to different levels of noise and sometimes the exposure exceeds the recommended value of 85 dB. HSE (2017) advises that sound control should be in place and HSE has provided examples of sources of noise and approximate loudness. For example, multi-cutter moulders produce around 105 dB, thicknessers 104 dB and vertical spindle moulders around 100 dB. HSE (2017) proposes numerous strategies to reduce noise levels at the workshop, which includes changing to quieter tooling, effective maintenance of machines, provides enclosures for machines that are the noisy and strategic placement of machines depending on the amount of noise produced. Sound pressure defines a specific location relative to the source of the noise (Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska et al., 2013). Some variables influencing sound pressure level include point of measurement, the source, and the environment. Frequency and loudness influence the perception of sound and analysing sound source focuses on these areas (Metwally et al. 2012). The working range of human ear is between 45 and 11,200 Hz and any frequency outside of these limits are inaudible (Witter et al. 2014). The human ear perceives sound at different frequency meaning the sound also fluctuates depending on the frequency. The production of sound is one aspect and the material component is another thing. Some materials are able to transmit, absorb and reflect sound (Chang et al. 2013). The effectiveness of reflection, absorption, and transmission depend on the frequency spectrum of the sound and the nature of the material. Obtaining transmission, reflection and absorption coefficients are crucial in designing sound proofing structures and work environments (Yoon et al. 2015). Materials that are able to absorb sound can be classified into three categories: porous materials, non-porous materials and perforated materials (Bleck and Wettberg, 2012). Understanding the coefficients is crucial in embracing prevention measures to control or manage sound and noise. For example, the transmission coefficient is directly linked to the noise frequency, material thickness and the density of the material. Working in an open environment can reduce the effect of noise but working in an enclosed space creates more problems (Gnoni and Bragatto, 2013). Enclosed space sound consists of two components, which are a direct sound field and reverberant sound field. The direct sound field travels directly from the source to the listener and it is the common source (Sivakumar, Arunachalam and Solomon, 2012). The reverberant sound field reaches a listener after reflection “bouncing” from a room surface (Bleck and Wettberg, 2012). Variables associated with the direct field include the location of the source in the enclosed space, the distance between the listener and the source, and the source’s acoustic power. Conversely, the reverberation component relies on the amount of sound reflection and the number of reflections before reaching the listener. The reverberated and direct field is directly linked to the room surface area and average absorption coefficient. Understanding these variables enables customisation of the working space with the aim of reducing sound produced. Exposure to sound has numerous health effects. The ear operates through adjusting pressure fluctuations that are generated by the incoming air (Bleck and Wettberg, 2012). The human hearing mechanism is made of four important components, which are the auditory nerve pathway, the inner ear, the middle ear and the external (outer) ear. These components work in different ways in receiving and transmitting the air ways resulting in vibration of the ear drum, which results in perceiving the sound/noise: the more the frequency, the potential damage to the ear drum and other parts of the ear. Extensive exposure to loud noise levels contributes to noise induced hearing loss. There are non-auditory and auditory effects of exposure to loud levels of sound (Bleck and Wettberg, 2012). Noises that are below noise induced hearing loss cause impaired communication and concentration, annoyance and irritation. The non-auditory effects include annoyance, interference with communication and performance, interference with performance, interference with sleep, and may contribute to psychological and physiological health effects (Canfeng, Shujie, and Dong, 2012). It is also associated with stress at work and other cardiovascular related complications. The auditory effects are conductive and perceptive in nature (Thurston 2013). Perceptive hearing damage is directly linked to noise induced hearing loss while conductive hearing disorders are linked with the elements the forms the ear. Some of the health complications due to conductive complications include otosclerosis, ossicles dislocation, blocked Eustachian tube, perforated eardrum and impacted wax. Therefore, the nature of the sound and the level impacts differently but the outcome is health and safety complications. For example, continuous exposure to loud sound may impair safety related directives. HSE (2017) advises if all measures have been implemented and the sound levels are still high, the solution is the provision of personal protective equipment and devices. Hearing protection should be encouraged and effectively worn to address complications associated with high noise levels (Lie et al., 2016). The hearing protective devices should reduce the audible sound and should not be less than 70 dB since less than this would prevent communication or be unable to hear warning signals (Tint et al. 2012). The workings at the workshops also influence the hearing protective equipment such as the use of semi-aural or semi-insert earplugs and earmuffs since these components are easy and quick to fit and remove. In addition, continuous training on usage and inserting of the protection is important. Choosing the right hearing protection should be based on numerous factors including cheapness and repeated use of protection (Metidieri et al. 2013). The hearing protection should also provide additional benefits such as customisation and easiness of communication (Suadicani, Hein and Gyntelberg, 2012). The hearing protective equipment should be level dependent protection encouraging effective communication during the quieter intervals and customisation of the moulded plugs to ensure the employees can easily fit and also be comfortable while working. Furthermore, health surveillance should be encouraged and employees checked frequently to determine whether the exposure affects their hearing capacities. Current Management Practice in respect of Noise Hazard At the carpenter shop, there are numerous sources of noise but the common ones are the three old machines and another three machines that are still new. The old machines produce sounds of more than 85 dB, which is dangerous to the three operators. The carpentry shop should provide a single set of hearing protective equipment meaning it does not consider the changes in the technology and the amount of noise produced. For example, the hearing equipment is appropriate for the newer machines but they are not appropriate for the older machines. Changes have to be made in which hearing protective devices should be provided based on the produced sounds and the comfort of the persons operating the machines. The positioning of the machines is inappropriate because the machines are within the same vicinity with other carpenter activities. It means that all the employees are exposed to the loud noise and sounds. In a real sense, the carpenter shop equipment that produces noise should have been placed in a different area to reduce exposure to noise. Even though there are plans to reconfigure and reconstitute the working areas, appropriate medical surveillance has also been proposed. The purpose is to check the hearing health condition, and determine whether there are some workers who want immediate health/medical care. Therefore, these proposals of placing the equipment that produces the most noise in a specific location and also providing specific hearing equipment would reduce the potential for occupational health hazards. Awareness and understanding the problem is a major problem because the workers have worked for long at the shop. The workers have become used to the situation till a time that they are not wearing the sound protection devices. The argument the workers say is the uncomfortable nature of the hearing protective devices, and the complications of removing and putting on since the machines are sometimes used in short intervals. The workers also say all the equipment are in the same location stating that the solution is an adaptation to the working environment and requirements. Generally, the carpenter shop can be viewed in terms of a plan-do-check-act framework that informs on the effective management approach. The following is the description of the framework as implemented at the carpentry shop: Plan The phase involves identification of processes and objectives that influence the expected output or goals. The carpenter shop is to ensuring health and safety is encouraged and sustained at the workplace. The carpenter shop analyses potential sources of noise, and advice the employees on appropriate measures to counter any potential problems. For example, the carpenter shop can pin point the sources of noises, the way the employees operate and generally a review of the processes that define the activities within the establishment (Suadicani, Hein and Gyntelberg, 2012). Then, the management formulates strategies and measures that can be implemented towards creating a sustainable workplace environment. Do The do phase presents implementation and execution of processes and plan as identified in the planning phase. For example, the employees can be told to wear the hearing protective equipment and also to create a safety and protective environment. In addition, equipment measuring sound and noise produced should be recorded overtime and frequent medical check up should be implemented (Suadicani, Hein and Gyntelberg, 2012). All these processes target improved safety and health measures. Check The phase ensures the management checks the plan relative to outcomes (Yu et al., 2013). It is a measurement of the effectiveness of the different processes and analysing whether there are areas that require improvement (Suadicani, Hein and Gyntelberg, 2012). Different tools such as graphical representation and charting of the data can be used to determine the effectiveness of the processes in place. It also enables understanding any potential deviation, and problems creating ineffectiveness of the processes. Hence, checking enables comparing what was planned against what was obtained. Act If analysis of the check phase is an improvement of previous practices, it becomes the standard or baseline. Especially, if there are any deviations, critical review of the processes should be analysed and alternative framework proposed (Yu et al., 2013). The aim is to improve the entire processes. For example, when problems are identified with the hearing, the changes can be classified as ineffective meaning alternative approaches can be implemented. Recommendations The following are some of the recommendations that the carpenter shop should integrate into its operational requirements: i. Continuous training and development – the training and development should not focus only on noise hazards but the use of the equipment. For example, reducing the speed of equipment operation to the slowest speed would reduce the noise and even prevent the potential of other hazards (Lou, 2013). The employees should be told on the importance of using a solid floor to set the machines, use rigid equipment frames and the machines/equipment should not be in contact with walls (Aw, Gardiner, and Harrington, 2013). Training and development should target informing the employees about potential problems and ensure the employees point to the problem or takes precautionary measures. ii. Awareness, continuous health surveillance and medical testing – a culture change should be encouraged whereby the employees take responsibility of other employees (Yu et al., 2013). For example, the employees should inform others when the worker wants to start a machine and also indicate the importance of wearing protective equipment. In addition, continuous health and medical checking are important to address any complication before it becomes worse. Combing both health awareness and operational awareness is important in furthering health and safety regime. iii. Isolating noisy equipment – there are three machines that are old and produces most of the noise. The equipment should be isolated and kept in a place categorically classified as a noisy region (Aw, Gardiner, and Harrington, 2013). In addition, these equipment should be supported with the use of springs and rubber footings to reduce amplification and radiation of noise via processes such as vibrations. Moreover, use of sound absorbent hoods around areas in which operation is required meaning isolating and using different forms of suspension can reduce the amount of noise. iv. Effective maintenance system and practices – the maintenance of motors and other moving parts is crucial in reducing the source of sounds/noise (Aw, Gardiner, and Harrington, 2013). Maintenance includes properly balancing blades, blades and other rotating parts, maintaining proper bolts and belt tensions, replacing work parts and cleaning and lubricating the equipment. v. Reclassification/classification of processes – in a workshop, there are numerous activities that take place (Noweir, Bafail, and Jomoah, 2014). For example, the finishing off the carpentry works may not produce a sound such as the grinding and cutting the timber. These finishing and painting activities should be located away from the noisy areas. The strategy is to create different spaces at the workshop depending on sounds/noise and other potential hazards. Conclusion In conclusion, noise hazards are common at the carpenter shop. There are three old machines and three newer machines among other equipment that generate noise. The potential of hearing health and medical complications are possible and the solution is for the carpentry shop to implement numerous measures. These measures include effective maintenance systems and practices, reclassification of processes, isolating noisy machines, continuous training and development and effective medical and health system. References Aw, T.C., Gardiner, K. and Harrington, J.M., 2013. Occupational health: Pocket consultant. John Wiley & Sons. Bhardwaj, S., Khan, A.A. and Farooq, O., 2014. Ergonomic assessment of wood routing task. In 3rd International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Assistive Technologies, Chandigarh. Bleck, D. and Wettberg, W., 2012. Waste collection in developing countries–Tackling occupational safety and health hazards at their source. Waste Management, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 2009-2017. Canfeng, Z., Shujie, Y. and Dong, L., 2012. Comprehensive control of the noise occupational hazard in cement plant. Procedia Engineering, vol. 43, pp. 186-190. Chang, T.Y., Hwang, B.F., Liu, C.S., Chen, R.Y., Wang, V.S., Bao, B.Y. and Lai, J.S., 2013. Occupational noise exposure and incident hypertension in men: a prospective cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 177, no. 8, pp. 818-825. Fujishiro, K., Diez-Roux, A.V., Landsbergis, P.A., Jenny, N.S. and Seeman, T., 2013. Current employment status, occupational category, occupational hazard exposure and job stress in relation to telomere length: the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Occup Environ Med, vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 552-560. Gibson, J.M., Brammer, A.S., Davidson, C.A., Folley, T., Launay, F.J. and Thomsen, J.T., 2013. Burden of disease from occupational exposures. In Environmental Burden of Disease Assessment (pp. 133-191). Springer Netherlands. Gnoni, M.G. and Bragatto, P.A., 2013. Integrating major accidents hazard into occupational risk assessment: An index approach. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 751-758. Hagström, K., Schlünssen, V. and Eriksson, K., 2016. Exposure to Softwood Dust in the Wood Industry. Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, vol. 73, pp. 801-823. Health and Safety Executive. 2017. Noise. Retrieved from http://www.hse.gov.uk/woodworking/noise.htm Lie, A., Skogstad, M., Johannessen, H.A., Tynes, T., Mehlum, I.S., Nordby, K.C., Engdahl, B. and Tambs, K., 2016. Occupational noise exposure and hearing: a systematic review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 351-372. Lou, J., 2013. Control Strategies of the Health Hazards of Wood Dust to the Woodworking. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Green Communications and Networks 2012 (GCN 2012): Volume 1 (pp. 145-152). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Metidieri, M.M., Rodrigues, H.F.S., de Oliveira, F.J.M.B., Ferraz, D.P., de Almeida Neto, A.F. and Torres, S., 2013. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL): literature review with a focus on occupational medicine. International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 208-212. Metwally, F.M., Aziz, H.M., Mahdy-Abdallah, H., ElGelil, K.S.A. and El-Tahlawy, E.M., 2012. Effect of combined occupational exposure to noise and organic solvents on hearing. Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 901-907. Noweir, M.H., Bafail, A.O. and Jomoah, I.M., 2014. Noise Pollution in Metalwork and Woodwork Industries in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 661-670. Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska, M., Dudarewicz, A., Zaborowski, K., Zamojska, M. and Sliwinska-Kowalska, M., 2013. Noise induced hearing loss: Research in central, eastern and south-eastern Europe and newly independent states. Noise and Health, vol. 15, no. 62, p. 55. Shrestha, I., Shrestha, B.L., Pokharel, M., Amatya, R.C.M. and Karki, D.R., 2012. Prevalance of Noise Induced Hearing Loss among Traffic Police Personnel of Kathmandu Metropolitan City. Kathmandu University Medical Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 274-278. Sivakumar, I., Arunachalam, K.S. and Solomon, E.G.R., 2012. Occupational health hazards in a prosthodontic practice: review of risk factors and management strategies. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 259-265. Suadicani, P., Hein, H.O. and Gyntelberg, F., 2012. Occupational noise exposure, social class, and risk of ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality-a 16-year follow-up in the Copenhagen Male Study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, pp. 19-26. Thurston, F.E., 2013. The worker's ear: A history of noise‐induced hearing loss. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 367-377. Tint, P., Tarmas, G., Koppel, T., Reinhold, K. and Kalle, S., 2012. Vibration and noise caused by lawn maintenance machines in association with risk to health. Agronomy Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 251-260. Top, Y., Adanur, H. and Öz, M., 2016. Comparison of practices related to occupational health and safety in microscale wood-product enterprises. Safety Science, vol. 82, pp. 374-381. Witter, R.Z., Tenney, L., Clark, S. and Newman, L.S., 2014. Occupational exposures in the oil and gas extraction industry: State of the science and research recommendations. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 847-856. Yoon, J.H., Hong, J.S., Roh, J., Kim, C.N. and Won, J.U., 2015. Dose—response relationship between noise exposure and the risk of occupational injury. Noise & Health, vol. 17, no. 74, p. 43. Yu, W., Lao, X.Q., Pang, S., Zhou, J., Zhou, A., Zou, J., Mei, L. and Yu, I.T.S., 2013. A survey of occupational health hazards among 7,610 female workers in China's electronics industry. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 190-195. Read More