Occupational noise exposure and hearing loss of workers in two plants in eastern Saudi Arabia
Introduction
Occupational exposure to excessive noise is commonly encountered in a great variety of industrial processes. The resulting injury of occupational hearing loss is a well-recognized and global problem, and affects many subjects both civilians and military (Fletcher and Chandler, 1983, Hessel and Sluis, 1987, Alleyne et al., 1989, Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, 1990). Occupational hearing loss continues to be among the 10 leading occupational diseases in both Canada (Alleyne et al., 1989) and the United States (Anon, 1986). In the US about 11 million workers are exposed to potentially hazardous noise levels in the work place (NIOSH, 1988). In Sweden, about 9% of the total work force are exposed continuously to a hazardous noise level (Ivarsson et al., 1992). Noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) is very costly. Approximately 100 million dollars are paid annually for compensation in Sweden (Ivarsson et al., 1992). The Canadian compensation board estimated the average cost per hearing loss claim to be C$14 000 (Alleyne et al., 1989). In the United States, compensation for hearing is estimated as US$200 million for the calendar year 1990 (Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, 1990).
Occupational hearing loss resulting from exposure to high noise level depends not only on exposure time but also on the frequency, intensity, and the type of noise (continuous or impact). During the last few decades, greater understanding of the effects of noise on hearing have led to minimum standards for noise exposure being adopted and legislation passed to limit noise exposure has been enacted in many countries. However, difficulties have arisen where there was no pre-employment audiometry and unknown previous occupational noise exposure as in developed countries.
In Saudi Arabia, many industries have been established since the 1970s. Many within the work force of these industries were and are exposed to occupational hazards and consequently are at high risk of work-related diseases. Though work-related diseases are amenable to prevention through the recognition, evaluation, and control of the hazards in an ideal world, effective practice of occupational health and hygiene has yet to be fully accepted and developed in Saudi Arabia as in the other developed countries. To date few studies have been conducted in Saudi Arabia to investigate the occupational hazards, such as noise, and its health effects on the working population. Against this background, the investigators designed and progressed an epidemiological study of noise exposure and hearing loss among workers in two plants in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.
The specific objectives of the study were: to estimate levels of current and past occupational noise exposure, to determine the extent and pattern of hearing loss among the study population, to assess the risk factors that influence hearing loss at each of the conventional frequencies tested, and finally to evaluate the knowledge and practice of workers to noise hazards.
Section snippets
Subjects and methods
Workers from two factories in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia were selected for this cross-sectional study. One factory manufactured steel pipes and the other manufactured air conditioning units. The study was conducted between 1996 and 1999. 269 exposed subjects were randomly selected from a total workforce of 600 from the two factories. Similarly 99 non-exposed subjects (non-industrial noise exposed subjects) were randomly selected from the administrative staff of the two factories and
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 6.0). Normality of the audiometric data was first tested by computing the skewness and kurtosis. Descriptive statistics, means, medians, standard deviations were calculated to describe central tendencies in each of the groups. T-test for independent samples, and median test were used to evaluate the differences between mean and median of the groups, and between right and left ears in each group respectively. Two-way analysis of variance was performed to
Demographic characteristics of the study population
The majority, 66% (244 subjects), of the study population were less than 35 yr of age. Of these, 170 (70%) were exposed. The mean of age of the total exposed subjects was 32.9 (SE=0.5) yr compared with 30.2 (SE=0.7) for the non-exposed subjects (P=0.003). Of the total exposed subjects, 182 (67.7%) had a current duration of exposure of less than 5 yr, with a mean of 4.5 (SE=0.3) yr for the total exposed subjects. However the majority of the exposed subjects (56.5%) worked for 5 yr or more before
Discussion
No significant difference was found between right and left ears of the exposed subjects after exclusion of those who reported firing guns. This finding indicates that the adverse noise effect is generally bilateral and symmetrical, as defined by Alberti (1988). The occurrence of hearing loss as a result of prolonged exposure to a noise level greater than 85 dB(A) without ear protection is well documented in the literature (Berger et al., 1978, Dobbie, 1985, WHO, 1986). The present study also
Conclusion
This study has clearly shown that the workforce within both factories included in this study are at high risk of developing noise induced hearing loss due to excessive occupational exposure to noise. Though legislation to control noise exposure exists in Saudi Arabia, poor compliance in relation to wearing and enforcement of wearing and/or attitude and education to hearing loss and noise exposure suggests legislation is poorly enforced. A well-defined, comprehensive, and enforcable noise
Acknowledgements
The authors are deeply indebted to the adminstration of the two factories that participated in this study, and particularly the participants for their co-operation.
References (38)
- et al.
Hearing parameters in noise exposed industrial workers
Auris Nasus Larynx
(1998) Leading work related diseases and injuries
MMWR (USA)
(1986)Tinnitus in occupational hearing loss: nosalogical aspects
Journal of Otolaryngology
(1987)Noise and the ear
- et al.
Costs of workers' compensation claims for hearing loss
Journal of Occupational Medicine
(1989) - et al.
Occupational noise exposure and hearing levels
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal
(1981) - Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Bio-Acoustics Division, Aberdeen, Md. Information determined from data obtained by...
- et al.
Equivalent–continuous noise level as a measure of injury from impact and impulse noise
Annals of Occupational Hygiene
(1971) - et al.
Risk factors for hearing loss at different frequencies in a population of 47388 noise-exposed workers
Journal of the Acoustic Society of America
(1991) Earlog 5: Hearing Protector Performance: How they Work and What Goes Wrong in the Real World
(1980)
Presumed noise-induced permanent threshold shift resulting from exposure to an A-weighted Leq of 89 dB
Journal of the Acoustic Society of America
Noise and Man
Hearing and Noise in Industry
Effects of aircraft noise on hearing and auditory pathway function of airport employees
Journal of Occupational Medicine
Non-auditory effects of noise in industry
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
Industrial audiometry and the otologist
Laryngoscope
Comparison of occupational hearing losses among military engineers and their civilian counterparts
Journal of Auditory Research
Efficacy of enforcement in an industrial hearing conservation program
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal
The attenuation of some hearing protectors used in the workplace
Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Cited by (85)
Awareness about the relation of noise induced hearing loss and use of headphones at Hail region
2022, Annals of Medicine and SurgeryThe prevalence of occupational exposure to noise: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury
2021, Environment InternationalCitation Excerpt :Nine studies were rated as “probably low” for this item, in general, because indirect evidence suggested that inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment and enrolment procedures, and participation/response rates were similar across groups (Bauer et al., 1991; Chang and Chang, 2009; de Souza et al., 2015; Rachiotis et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2012; Souza et al., 2001; Toppila et al., 2001; Vihma, 1981; Zhao et al., 1991). Finally, ten articles were rated as “low” risk of bias for this domain because, in general, the descriptions of the target population, inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment and enrolment procedures, participation/response rates were adequately detailed (Ahmed et al., 2001; Attarchi et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2017; Hong et al., 1998; Melamed et al., 1997; Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska et al., 2016; Shi, 2009; Solecki, 2008; Sriopas et al., 2017) (Fig. 3). From the 52 cross-sectional included studies, the performance bias was rated “high” for four studies, due to exposure assessors and study personnel were not blinded or were incompletely blinded, and the exposure assessment was likely to be influenced by the lack of blinding(Liu et al., 2015; Macca et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2012).
Evaluation of Noise Levels at a District Hospital
2024, Lecture Notes in Civil EngineeringEpoxidised natural rubber in latex related products
2023, Epoxidised Natural Rubber: Properties & Applications