Noise Measurement and Effects - Case Study Example

Noise Measurement and Effects [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Disadvantages of providing hearing protection with too high a class rating 3 Noise Protectors 5 Sources of noise levels and acoustic trauma in call centres 7 Background noise 7 Acoustic shocks 8 Effects of Acoustic shocks and background noise on call centre staff 9 Hearing Loss 9 Tinnitus 10 Additional Ear symptoms 10 Neck and head symptoms 10 Psychological reactions 10 c) Guidelines for the operation of the call centre to reduce the risk of hearing loss 11 Workplace environment 11 Workplace design 11 Technical provisions 12 Conclusion 12 References 13 Introduction Occupational hearing loss that is noise induced is a critical economic and health issue in Australia. Between 2002 and 2007, some 16,500 workers made successful claims for industrial hearing loss. Statistics by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC) approximated that around 1 million of workers, (representing 10.5 to 12 percent of the Australian workforce) were exposed to noise (Work Safe Australia 2010). Essentially, the burden for Occupational noise-induced hearing loss is on the workers themselves and their families, as well as their employers and the wider community. Usually, exposure to excessive noise at workplace is linked to a range of adverse effects aside from hearing loss. Studies have also linked it to fatigue and annoyance, as well as severe health implications such as hypertension (Work Safe Australia 2010). Based on this background, this report presents the disadvantages of providing hearing protection with too high a class rating. In addition, the paper explores the sources of noise levels and acoustic trauma in call centres and the effects they have on the staff. The report will also provide guidelines for the operation of the call centre to reduce the risk of damage to their staff. Lastly, recommendations for noise control options will be provided. Disadvantages of providing hearing protection with too high a class rating SafeWork SA (2008) defines noise as the damaging or unwanted sound that is capable of harming a person’s hearing as well as cause health implications such as hypersensitivity, increased heart rate or blood pressure. It can also hamper effective communication at the workplace. The preferred range of hearing for a healthy person should be between 20 Hz (Hertz) and 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). It is generally perceived that reduction in exposure to noise levels of about 70 dB(A) is tolerable. However, over protection through the use of hearing protectors of higher than preferred class rating or SLC80 also have its share of disadvantages. A potential problem includes difficulty in communication. Earmuffs with high class a rating of under 70 dB(A) have the capability to hinder and individual from hearing. Since communication is essential in all forms of work, effective communication enables duties to be fulfilled with minimal misunderstanding. Based on this perspective, a potential problem related to using ear protectors with too high a rating would be poor work output (SafeWork SA 2008). This implies that using hearing protection with too high a class rating reduces work output. Therefore, recommended standards should therefore be used. A case in point is when an a trainee at a manufacturing plant wears earmuffs with high class a rating of under 70 dB(A) hindering him from hearing instructions from a supervisor. Virtually, the trainee is also cut off from interacting verbally or using sounds with other members in the workforce (Safe Work Australia 2008). Additionally, an individual may be exposed to possible dangers at workplace. Using earmuffs with too high a rating implies that an individual is not able to hear any sound from the surrounding. When it comes to occupational health and safety, such a scenario is critically unhelpful (Safe Work Australia 2008). For instance, an individual will not be able to hear warning signs when using machines or equipments, thus exposing the entire workplace to danger. An individual may also not be alerted in time in case of hazards such as fire. This implies that using hearing protection with too high a class rating exposes the workforce to dangers. A case in point is when an individual working at a lathe machines fails to hear a fire alarm because of the heavy earmuffs. The employee evacuates the building late and sustains fire injuries. Hearing protection with too high a class rating can cause the feelings of isolation (Mulki et al 2008). Generally, when workers have to wear earmuffs with high class a rating of under 70 dB(A), workers are hindered from engaging in team activities. High chances are that overwhelming feelings of seclusion is unhealthy for building strong work relations where employees work interdependently. To the organization, this has the effect of compromising on the quality of output. To an individual, it may cause mental health problems such as depression. A case in point is when employees at a production plant are forced to wear heavy earmuffs hindering them from interacting freely. The result is employees tend to view each other as strangers. Generally, hearing protection with too high a class rating is a turn off to employees since they are heavier. Additionally, the have greater clamping force on the head, which make them more uncomfortable to wear. In this case, introducing such hearing protectors with higher that SL80 will most likely face rejection from workers due to their discomfort. Hence, failure to use such hearing protectors exposes the workers to risks of hearing loss or conditions such as tinnitus (Westcott 2006). Noise Protectors Noise protector must be approved in compliance with the Australian Standard Australian Standard AS/NZS 1270 Acoustics - Hearing protectors. Therefore, manufacturers should provide information on the capability of the equipment to reduce noise, as ranging between Class 1 and 5 (or SLC80 rating). For instance, when an individual has an exposure level of 98 dB(A) at 8 hours, then a hearing protector with SLC80 rating of between 18 and 21 dB (Class 3) will adequately attenuate the exposure to noise to below the recommended rating of 85 dB(A) (Table 1). Figure 1: Classification of hearing protectors for LAeq,8h greater than 85 dB(A). In selecting hearing protectors for utilisation in noisy places with peak levels of more than 140dB(C): for impulse noise from tools and impacts, one should wear a Class 5 hearing protector. For impulse noise from blasts, one should wear earplugs with at least Class 3, combined with earmuffs of any classification (Workplace Health and Safety Queensland 2011). Company Name Earplugs SLC80 Class rating 3M E-A-R Swerve with FLEX 28 Tips 20dB 3 E-A-R Swerve with Comfort Tips 23dB 4 E-A-R soft Yellow Neons Earplugs 23dB 4 E-A-R soft Yellow Neon Blasts Earplugs 23dB 4 E-A-R soft SuperFit Earplugs 23dB 4 E-A-R soft FX Earplugs 26dB 5 E-A-R Metal Detectable Earplugs 23dB 4 3M 1100 Foam Earplugs 21dB 3 E-A-R Express Pod Earplugs 19dB 3 E-A-R flex Hearing Protectors 15dB 2 3M Earplugs Peltor Deluxe Earmuffs - 30dB 5 Peltor Low Profile Earmuffs - H6 Series 22dB 4 Peltor H31 Earmuff 28dB 5 Peltor Food Industry Earmuff H9A-02 26dB 5 Peltor Premium Earmuff X4 Series 31dB 5 3M Earmuff 1426 26dB 5 Earplugs ProChoice ProBell Disposable Corded Earplugs - EPYC 27dB 5 ProBuller Disposable Uncorded Earplugs 27dB 5 ProBand Headband Earplugs – HBEP 14dB 2 Earmuffs Viper Earmuffs - EMVIP 26dB 5 Cobra Earmuffs – EMCOB 28dB 5 Python Earmuffs – EMPYT 31dB 5 Howard Leight Ear Plugs Single-Use Max 37dB 4 Multiple-Use SmartFit 30dB 3 Earmuffs Clarity Headband Earmuffs 30dB 3 Clarity Forestry Kit Figure 2: Common hearing protectors with their class ratings Sources of noise levels and acoustic trauma in call centres A study by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2011) revealed that workers at call centres face a range of hazards. These include; acoustic trauma originating from abrupt noise levels, such as from feedback into their headsets or abrupt change in volume. Second, from background noise that originates from incoming calls and lastly, from stressors at workplace and background noise. Background noise Background noise at workplace may include radios played by the other workers, conversations by other workers and noise from air conditioner. Additionally, background noise from the caller’s location may make a worker at a call centre to increase the volume on their headset resulting into a sudden increase in the level of noise passed into their ears. Further, some communication systems may also experience interferences or feedback capable of causing spikes, or even squeals from the headset. This may make the workers to lack control over the level of noise transmitted into their ears or over the volume of the headset (Lawton 2003). With regard to background noise, the main source of noise is conversations with other operators and the callers. A study of call operator in Sweden revealed that unsatisfactory conditions are the major sources of noise at the call centres. In a study that surveyed 1183 workers, it was found that 74 percent of the workers revealed the major source of noise as background noise levels, with the biggest noise sources being the voice of other operators as they conversed over the phone, and the ventilation systems (NIOSH 2011). Other leading sources of background noise include fax machines, the ringing of the telephones and noise form printers. A survey of 15 call centres in Britain by Patel and Broughton (2002) revealed that music was an additional source of background noise, as some call centres allowed the operators to play music. Acoustic shocks A study by Patel and Broughton (2002) found that the major noise exposure to call operators at the call centres is through their headsets. The study found that higher levels of noise at call centres were caused by fax tones, high pitched tones and holding tones from cellphones (Smagowska 2010; Comcare 2011). The researchers however commented that the duration of these noises are short and are therefore not likely to affect the call operator’s noise exposure (Patel and Broughton 2002). A study in Australia that examined 123 cases of acoustic shocks in 103 call centres revealed that most acoustic shock resulted from adjusting volume levels due to the caller’s background noise (NIOSH 2011). A survey of 15 Patel and Broughton (2002) in Britain reported that much of the acoustic shock was caused by callers peaking with loud voices, callers who sued cordless telephones as well as calls that were made in noisy environment such as homes with crying babies, factories and manufacturing plants or calls made in busy highways. Poor reception and high pitched tones transmitted by headsets were also identified as a major cause of acoustic shocks. Other highlighted sources of acoustic shock included the annoying tones that occured when callers dialled requested numbers while the operators were hung on the line (Grooyhoff 2005). Effects of Acoustic shocks and background noise on call centre staff According to Lawton (2003), workers at call centres who make injury claims generally report three types of symptoms. There have been cases of reported hearing loss resulting from acoustic events, or an initiated ringing (tinnitus) in the affected ears. These show an injury to the inner ear. Next, there have been cases of blockage of the ear, numbness in the ear or recurrent pain in the ear. Lastly, there have been cases of reported reactions and emotional responses resulting from acoustic shock incidents, associated panic or anxiety (Commission for Occupational Safety and Health 2005). Hearing Loss Call operators may suffer from high-frequency losses, which is an indicator of noise-induced hearing loss. A survey on noise-induced hearing loss undertaken on call operators revealed that most hearing losses resulted from acoustic shock signal (Lawton 2003). Tinnitus Tinnitus refers to a sensation of sound that lacks an identifiable acoustical or physiological origin that may be perceived in one or both years. The symptom often occurs in a range of time scales, ranging from few seconds to become progressively audible. A survey of 18 call centres suffering from the symptom revealed that 11 operators claimed that their tinnitus has resulted from acoustic shock events (Safe Work Australia 2008). Additional Ear symptoms Call operators reported cases of earaches, numbness in the ear and in some instances muffled hearing after an acoustic shock (Lawton 2003). These symptoms may develop progressively over the months into stabbing pains in the ears or recurrent episodes of dizziness. Neck and head symptoms Studies have also revealed that background noise and acoustic shocks may cause unpleasant feelings in the head, such as tingling, numbness or a burning sensation near the affected ear. Tingling and numbness may also be experienced in the neck, shoulders and the face (ASCC 2006). Psychological reactions A study of the effects or background noise and acoustic on call operators revealed that most of the affected workers complained of debilitating emotional response or reaction to every day sounds capable of causing distress (ASCC 2006). These could also lead to fear of sounds, which cause mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety and panic attacks. Others included recurrent headaches. c) Guidelines for the operation of the call centre to reduce the risk of hearing loss In managing the effects of acoustic incidents and background noise at call centres, there is a need to demonstrate adherence to occupational health and safety (OHS). Three key elements must be integrated. These include work environment (such as training), workplace design (such as acoustic requirement and technical control systems (such as compliance with telecommunication requirements) (Pinosova, Liptia and Lumnitzer 2011). Workplace environment Call centres should have a range of varieties in place. These include ventilation, temperature and humidity control systems, places for provision of meals, a workstation set up and telephone headsets. Other ways of creating a good work environment include job induction training, to ensure that call operators comply with ways of reducing acoustic incidents and background noise and proper use of communication equipment. Playing music and using mobile phones at the call centres should also be restricted (NIOSH 2011; Wells et al 2013). Workplace design Call centres should ensure that call operators are able to communicate effectively. Acoustic conditions within the call centres should also have sound absorbent walls and floors to enhance intelligibility of conversations over the phone (Safe Work Australia 2011). Technical provisions The telephone systems used at call centres should comply with the standards set out by AS/ACIF S004:2001. This means they should have voice frequency performance recommended for use at call centres. The ear drum’s frequency should be limited to a maximum level of 120db SPL. To protect call operators from acoustic incidents, a device should be incorporated between the telephone and the handset to monitor the incoming signals such as for the high-pitched acoustic tones to disallow tones within milliseconds without interfering with speech signals (Hansen and Goelzer n.d.). Call operators should also be provided with a range of communication headsets that provide arrange of adjustable volume controls (NIOSH 2011). Conclusion Excessive exposure to noise can be reduced successively by proper use of legitimate hearing protective devices that can reduce noise to acceptable levels. However, over protection through the use of hearing protectors of higher than preferred class rating or SLC80 may also hinder and individual from hearing, expose workers to possible dangers at workplace or cause workers to have feelings of isolation. Next, workers at call centres face a range of hazards. These include from acoustic incidents and background noise, which causes hearing loss, initiated ringing (tinnitus) in the affected ears, blockage of the ear or recurrent pain in the ear. In managing the effects of acoustic incidents and background noise at call centres, there is a need to demonstrate adherence to occupational health and safety and use equipment capable of reducing noise that range between Class 1 and 5 (or SLC80 rating). References ASCC 2006, Work-Related Noise Induced Hearing Loss In Australia, Australian Safety and Compensation Council, Canberra, viewed 20 Nov 2013, http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/418/WorkRelated_Noise_Induced_Hearing.pdf Comcare 2011, Acoustic Incidents, viewed 20 Nov 2013, http://www.comcare.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/95690/acoustic_incidents.pdf Commission for Occupational Safety and Health 2005, Code Of Practice Occupational Safety And Health In Call Centres, viewed 20 Nov 2013, http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/worksafe/pdf/codes_of_practice/code_call_centre.pdf Groothoff, B 2005, "Acoustic Shock in Call Centres," Australian Acoustical Society Vol. 9 No. 11, 35-340 Hansen, C & Goelzer, B n.d., Engineering Noise Control, University of Adelaide, South Australia Lawton, B 2003, "Audimetric Findings in Call Centre Workers Exposed to Acoustic Shock," Proceedings of the Institure of Acoustics Vol. 25 No. 4, pp.250-258 Mulki, J, Jaramillo F & Marshall, G 2007, “Lone Wolf Tendencies and Salesperson Performance,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 27, pp.25-38 NIOSH 2011, Reducing Noise Hazards for Call and Dispatch Center Operators, The National Noise Hazards for Call and Dispatch Center Operations, viewed 20 Nov 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/wp-solutions/2011-210/pdfs/2011-210.pdf Patel, J & Broughton, K 2002, "Assessment of the Noise Exposure of Call Centre Operators," Ann. Occup. Hyg. Vol. 46 No. 8, pp.65-661 Safe Work Australia 2010, Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Australia, Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Barton Pinosova, M, Liptia, P & Luminitzer, E 2011, "Ways And Methods to Reduce Noise at Workplaces," ACTA Technica Corviniensis, Vol. IV, pp.99-102 Safe Work Australia 2011, Managing Noise And Preventing Hearing Loss At Work: Code Of Practice, Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Barton Smagowski, B 2010, "Noise at Workplaces in the Call Centre" Archives of Acoustics, Vol 35 No. 2, pp.253-264 Wells, L, Berger, E & Kieper, R 2013, "Noise Session 1aNS: Advanced Hearing Protection and Methods of Measurement I," Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 19, pp.1-8 Westcott, M 2006, "Acoustic Shock Injury," Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Vol. 126, pp54-58 Workplace Health and Safety Queensland 2011, Personal hearing protectors—Selection, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Queensland Read More