A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey (ONHS)
A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey (ONHS)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1121/1.418053
复制
发表时间：
1997-02-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Gilbert, SJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Prince, MM;Stayner, LT;Gilbert, SJ
本文介绍了一个新的分析数据，从1968年至1972年国家职业安全与健康研究所（NIOSH）的职业噪声和听力调查（ONHS）。人群包括1172名（792名噪声暴露者和380名“对照”者），主要是来自美国各行业的白色男性工人。分析的重点是风险估计如何根据各种模型假设而变化，包括剂量反应曲线的形状和低噪声暴露工人（或对照组）的噪声暴露量。Logistic回归模型被用来描述听力障碍的风险与年龄，职业噪声暴露，暴露时间。对听力障碍的几种定义进行了过度风险估计。听力障碍通常表示为双耳在选定频率下的平均听力阈值水平（HTL）大于25 dB。双耳平均值中包含的频率为（1）1-4 kHz的发音加权平均值，（2）0.5、1和2 kHz的未加权平均值，以及（3）1、2和3 kHz的未加权平均值。结果表明，时间加权平均声级低于85分贝的超额风险估计是敏感的统计模型的形式和假设的声级的“控制”组暴露。听力障碍定义中使用的频率的选择影响了过度风险估计的大小，这取决于年龄和暴露时间。虽然数据限制在85 dB以下，但年龄分层分析提供了在80 - 84 dB、85-89 dB和90-102 dB范围内的过度风险的证据。由于在85 dB以下的风险量化方面存在不确定性，新的数据收集工作应侧重于更好地描述剂量反应和纵向听力调查，包括暴露于85 dB以下的8小时时间加权噪声水平的工人。将结果与ANSI S3.44-1996给出的方法产生的超额风险估计值进行比较。
This paper describes a new analysis of data from the 1968-72 National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) Occupational Noise and Hearing Survey (ONHS). The population consisted of 1172 (792 noise-exposed and 380 ''controls'') predominately white male workers from a cross section of industries within the United States. The analysis focused on how risk estimates vary according to various model assumptions, including shape of the dose-response curve and the amount of noise exposure among low-noise exposed workers (or controls). Logistic regression models were used to describe the risk of hearing handicap in relation to age, occupational noise exposure, and duration exposed. Excess risk estimates were generated for several definitions of hearing handicap. Hearing handicap is usually denoted as an average hearing threshold level (HTL) of greater than 25 dB for both ears at selected frequencies. The frequencies included in the biaural averages were (1) the articulation-weighted average over 1-4 kHz, (2) the unweighted average over 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz, and (3) the unweighted average over 1, 2, and 3 kHz. The results show that excess risk estimates for time-weighted average sound levels below 85 dB were sensitive to statistical model form and assumptions regarding the sound level to which the ''control'' group was exposed. The choice of frequencies used in the hearing handicap definition affected the magnitude of excess risk estimates, which depended on age and duration of exposure. Although data were limited below 85 dB, an age-stratified analysis provided evidence of excess risks at levels ranging from 80 to 84 dB, 85-89 dB, and 90-102 dB. Due to uncertainty in quantifying risks below 85 dB, new data collection efforts should focus on better characterization of dose-response and longitudinal hearing surveys that include workers exposed to 8-hour time-weighted noise levels below 85 dB. Results are compared to excess risk estimates generated using methods given by ANSI S3.44-1996.