Comparison of Perceived and Quantitative Measures of Occupational Noise Exposure
Comparison of Perceived and Quantitative Measures of Occupational Noise Exposure
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/annhyg/men071
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Seixas, Noah
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Neitzel, Richard;Daniell, William;Seixas, Noah
目标：在很长一段时间内高度可变的噪声暴露的特性提出了一个重大的挑战。常见的暴露评估策略（例如根据职务信息分配暴露水平）可能无法为可变暴露提供足够的暴露对比度或精确度。主观暴露数据可提供替代或补充暴露评估策略。本研究评估了感知和定量测量exposure.Methods：20名受试者被招募在三个不同的噪声环境（连续，间歇性和高度可变）的工作场所。全轮班定量测量（n = 206），每个主题在4个轮班超过2周。通过对受试者第一次（n = 58）和最后一次（n = 57）监测班次的调查以及受试者在每次监测班次期间完成的时间轴日志收集感知暴露数据。结果：时间轴对数数据表明，受试者能够区分不同的噪声水平和噪声变异程度。在连续和高度可变的站点上，关于感知暴露可变性和冲动性的调查项目表现良好。暴露分组策略之间的对比分析表明，职称一般不会产生统计上不同的暴露组，几个调查项目提供了更大的对比度比职称。从调查项目预测的曝光精度是相当的，或略好于，职称的几个调查项目，除了调查项目的预测模型，其中包括职称提高模型拟合和precision.Conclusions：补充感知噪声暴露信息似乎提供承诺，提高曝光估计，特别是对个人的高度可变的曝光。
Objectives: Characterization of highly variable noise exposures over long periods of time presents a major challenge. Common exposure assessment strategies such as assignment of exposure levels based on job title information may not provide adequate exposure contrast or precision for variable exposures. Subjective exposure data may offer an alternative or complementary exposure assessment strategy. This study evaluated the relationship between perceived and quantitatively measured exposure.Methods: Twenty subjects were recruited at each of three worksites with different noise environments (continuous, intermittent and highly variable). Full-shift quantitative measurements (n = 206) were made on each subject during four workshifts over 2 weeks. Perceived exposure data were collected via surveys on subjects' first (n = 58) and last (n = 57) monitored shifts, as well as through timeline logs completed by subjects during each monitored shift. The first survey focused on the first shift only, while the second survey covered the whole 2-week period.Results: Timeline log data suggested that subjects could differentiate between different noise levels and degrees of noise variability. Survey items on perceived exposure variability and impulsiveness performed well at the continuous and highly variable sites. Analyses of contrast between exposure grouping strategies showed that job title generally did not produce statistically distinct exposure groups and that several survey items provided greater contrast than job title. The precision of exposures predicted from survey items was comparable to, or slightly better than, that of job title for several survey items, and the addition of survey items to prediction models which included job title improved model fit and precision.Conclusions: Supplemental perceived noise exposure information appears to offer promise for improving exposure estimates, particularly for individuals with highly variable exposures.