• 환경위생공학
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.123-134
• /
• 1998

The study was performed to investigate the differences among various evaluation criteria for noise-induced hearing loss(NIHL). The subjects were 100 workers who had received detailed audiometric examinations after the periodic annual examination for hearing loss. The evaluation criteria included were as follows: The criterion I was NIHL of 50dB or greater at 4,000Hz in either ear which is one of the legal requirements for determining occupational hearing loss in Korea. The criterion II was NIHL of 40dB or greater by 4-divided classification(a+b+c+d/4 at 500Hz(a), 1,000Hz(b), 2,000Hz(c), 4,000Hz(d)) which is also one of the legal requirements for determining occupational hearing loss in Korea. The criterion III was NIHL of 31dB of greater by 6-divided classification(a+2b+2c+d/6) which is the workers' compensation standard. The criterion IV was NIHL of 40dB or greater by 6-divided classification(a+2b+2c+d/6), the criterion used to prohibite workers to be employed in the noisy workplace. The criterion V was NIHL of 40dB or greater by 3-divided classification(a+b+c/3) which is the guideline of the Japanes Labour Department. The results were as follows; 1. The percentage of workers with NIHL by the criterion I was the highest(96%) and covered all workers with NIHL diagnosed by other criteria. Therefore, this criterion was the most sensitive one for early detection of NIHL among various evaluation criteria. 2. The percentage of workers with NIHL by the criterion II was 29% of the subjects, but all of them could be diagnosed as having NIHL by the criterion I and 33.1% of the NIHL by the criterion III could not be covered by the criterion II. Thus, this criterion was not considered suitable as an initial step for determining occupational hearing loss. 3. The percentage of workers with NIHL by the criterion III was 45% of the subjects. This percentage was 46.9% of the NIHL by the criterion I and was estimated to cover 3.6% of all noise exposed workers. 4. The percentage of workers with NIHL by the criterion IV was 28% of the subjects, but 37.8% of the NIHL by the criterion III and 70.8% of the NIHL by the criterion I were not covered by the criterion. Therefore, these workers could have been employed in the noisy workplaces. 5. Employed relocation which was one of the post management methods was an option in the criterion I in Korea and in the criterion V in Japan. The number of NIHL by the criterion I was 6.7times greater than that by the criterion V. Thus, although employee relocation was not used exclusively, many more workers with NIHL could have been relocated. In conclusion, this study revealed that the criteria being used for managing occupational hearing loss showed a lack uniformity among them. In addition, since these criteria are all relied on the total threshold shifts caused by the noise exposure at the time of hearing test with no consideration given to the past noise exposure history nor age, it can be said that they are not an effective tool for occupational hearing loss management. Since legal requirements are usually followed after being diagnosed as having NIHL, it is recommended that a uniform diagnostic criterion should be used to minimize confusion. Pre-employment hearing tests should also be utilized so as to managing occupational hearing loss after employment rather than being used as a legal roadblock of prohibiting workers with mild hearing loss from being employed. Thus, what is needed is an establishment of a rational criterion for occupational hearing loss management rather than for legal requirements.