Research on the protective effects and influencing factors of hearing protection device in different industries
10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20240424-00186
- VernacularTitle:不同行业护听器防护效果及其影响因素研究
- Author:
Shibiao SU
1
;
Xi ZHONG
;
Qifan HUANG
;
Qinyu OU
;
Yingyin ZHANG
;
Zepeng LI
;
Xi LUO
;
Simin CHEN
;
Zhaoying HUANG
Author Information
1. 广东省职业病防治院职业卫生评价所，广州 510300
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Noise;
Hearing protection device;
Personal attenuation rating;
Protection effect;
Influencing factors
- From:
Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases
2025;43(7):508-512
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the current situation of the protective effect of hearing protection device (HPD) worn by manufacturing workers and discuss their possible influencing factors.Methods:A total of 3634 noisy workers were surveyed and tested. The study conducted surveys of workers on the use of HPD. The 3M TM E-A-R Fit TM binaural verification system was used to measure the personal attenuation device (PAR) of workers wearing HPD. Results:The M ( Q1, Q3) of baseline PAR obtained by 3634 workers was 12 (2, 19) dB. There was a statistically significant difference in baseline PAR among the three types of HPDs ( H=336.39, P<0.01) . After pairwise comparison, it was found that the baseline PAR of workers wearing foam earplugs and earmuffs was higher than that of pre-molded earplugs ( P<0.01) . There were differences in baseline PAR among workers in different industries ( Z=359.73, P<0.01) . Education level, age of using HPD, types of HPDs, noise exposure intensity, with or without knowledge of correct methods, and comfort evaluation were the main factors affecting baseline PAR ( P<0.05) . There were 1536 workers (43.4%) failed the baseline PAR test. After the intervention, the median PAR increased significantly from 1 (0, 6) dB (baseline) to 18 (14, 22) dB (after the intervention) ( P<0.01) . The follow-up test found that the follow-up PAR of 328 workers was higher than the baseline PAR of the initial test, and the follow-up PAR was higher than the post-intervention PAR of the initial test ( P<0.01) . Conclusion:Under the conditions of this study, the protective effect of HPD was affected by factors such as incorrect understanding of wearing methods, exposure to high-intensity noise, low education level, a short period of time of HPD use and low comfort of hearing protectors. The protective effect could be improved through training, optimizing the wearing of hearing protector models, and follow-up interventions. Enterprises should use suitability verification to ensure the correct selection and wearing of noisy workers.
