DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Task-specific Noise Exposure Assessment of Firefighters

  • Kang, Taesun (Department of Health and Safety Engineering, Semyung University)
  • Received : 2019.09.22
  • Accepted : 2019.10.28
  • Published : 2019.12.31

Abstract

Objectives: The main purpose of this study was to assess firefighters' daily personal noise exposure and explore noise levels related to specific tasks and their contributions to total noise exposure using 24-hour full-shift noise exposure measurements with task-based data. Methods: Noise exposure was assessed for eight firefighters (two rescuers, two drivers, and four suppressors) using time-activity diaries. We collected a total of 24 full-shift personal noise sample sets (three samples per a firefighter). The 24-hour shift-adjusted daily personal noise exposure level (Lep,d), eight weekly personal noise exposures (Leq,w), and 40 task-specific Leq values (Leq activity) were calculated via the ISO/NIOSH method. Results: The firefighter noise-sample datasets showed that most firefighters are exposed to noise levels above EU recommended levels at a low-action value. The highest noise exposure was for rescuers, followed by drivers and suppressors. Noise measurements with time-at-task information revealed that 82.3% of noise exposure occurred when checking equipment and responding to fire or emergency calls. Conclusions: The results indicate that firefighters are at risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Therefore, efforts at noise-control are necessary for their protection. This task-specific noise exposure assessment also shows that protective measures should be focused on certain tasks, such as checking and testing equipment.

Keywords

References

  1. Reischl U, Bair HS, Reischl P. Fire fighter noise exposure. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1979; 40(6): 482-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298667991429868
  2. Reischl U, Thrift GH, Reischl P. Occupation related fire fighter hearing loss. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1981; 42(9): 656-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668191420468
  3. Kales SN, Freyman RL, Hill JM, Polyhronopoulos GN, Aldrich JM, Christiani DC. Firefighters’ hearing: a comparison with population databases from the International Standards Organization. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(7): 650-656. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-200107000-00013
  4. Hong O, Samo DG. Hazardous decibels: hearing health of firefighters. AAOHN journal: official journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses. 2007; 55(8): 313. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990705500803
  5. Ide CW. Hearing losses in wholetime firefighters occurring early in their careers. Occup Med. 2011; 61(7): 509-511. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqr062
  6. Kang TS, Hong OS, Kim KS, Yoon CS. Hearing among male firefighters: a comparison with hearing data from screened and unscreened male population. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 2015; 25(1): 106. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2014.72
  7. Tubbs R. Health hazard evaluation: Memphis Fire Department, Memphis, Tennessee. 1990 Contract No.: 86-138.
  8. Tubbs R. Evaluating risk of noise induced hearing loss for firefighters in a metropolitan area (Publication No. 88-0290-2460). Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1994 Contract No.: 88-0290-2460.
  9. Tubbs R. Evaluating Risk of Noise Induced Hearing Loss for Fire Fighters (Publication No. 89-0026-2495). Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1995.
  10. Kirkham TL, Koehoorn MW, Davies H, Demers PA. Characterization of Noise and Carbon Monoxide Exposures among Professional Firefighters in British Columbia. Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 2011; 55(7): 764-774. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mer038
  11. Neitzel RL, Hong O, Quinlan P, Hulea R. Pilot task-based assessment of noise levels among firefighters. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2013; 43(6): 479-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.05.004
  12. Chung I, Chu IM, Cullen MR. Hearing effects from intermittent and continuous noise exposure in a study of Korean factory workers and firefighters. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1): 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-87
  13. Lim-kyu L, Tae Sun K, Seung Hon H, Jung In K, Young Suk Y, Chung Sik Y. Noise Exposure according to the Time Activity Pattern and Duties of Firefighters. Korean Journal of Environmental Health. 2011; 37(2): 94-101.
  14. European Union. Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise). Official Journal of the European Union L42, 15/02/20032003. p. 38-44.
  15. Health and Safety Executive. Controlling Noise at Work: The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, Guidance on Regulations. London, UK: Health and Safety Executive; 2005.
  16. International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics: Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of Noise-induced Hearing Impairment-International Standard ISO 1999. Second ed. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 1990.
  17. Neitzel R, Daniell W, Sheppard L, Davies H, Seixas N. Evaluation and comparison of three exposure assessment techniques. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene. 2011; 8(5): 310-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.568832
  18. W.Alberti P. The Pathophysiology of the ear. In: Goelzer B, Hansen CH, Sehrndt GA, editors. Occupational exposure to noise: Evaluation, prevention and control. Dortmund, Germany: Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA); 2001. p. 49.
  19. Kang T-S, Lee L-K, Kang S-C, Park D-U, Kim RH, Yoon C-S. Assessment of noise measurements made with a continuous monitoring in time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2013; 134(1): 822-921. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4807810
  20. The National Emergency Management Agency. The Main Statistics of Korea NEMA. In: The National Emergency Management Agency, editor. 2012.