Measurement of Hearing Protection Devices Performance in the Workplace during Full-Shift Working Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of hearing protection devices (HPDs), when used in workplace conditions, has been shown over the years to be usually lower than the labeled values obtained under well-controlled laboratory conditions. Causes for such discrepancies have been listed and discussed by many authors. This study is an attempt to understand the issues in greater details and quantify some of these factors by looking at the performance of hearing protectors as a function of time during full work shift conditions. METHODS: A non-invasive field microphone in the real ear (F-MIRE)-based method has been developed for measuring the effectiveness of different HPDs as a function of time in the workplace. Details of the test procedures, the equipment used, and the post-processing operations are presented and discussed. The methodology was developed in such a way that a complete time and frequency representation are possible. The system was used on a total of 24 workers in eight different companies. Work shifts of up to 9-h long were recorded. Various types of earmuffs and one type of molded earplugs were tested. RESULTS: Attenuation data reported as a function of time showed, for most workers tested, considerable fluctuations over entire work shift periods. Parts of these fluctuations are attributed to variations in the low-frequency content in the noise (in particular for earmuffs) as well as poor insertion and/or fitting of earplugs. Lower performances than laboratory-based ones were once again observed for most cases tested but also, important left and right ear differences were obtained for many individuals. When reported as a function of frequency, the attenuation results suggested that the few approximations used to relate the measurements to subjective real-ear-attenuation-at-threshold (REAT) data were realistic. CONCLUSIONS: The use of individualized attenuation data and performance ratings for HPDs as well as a good knowledge of the ambient noise in the workplace are key ingredients when evaluating the performance of hearing protectors in field conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".