Audiometry - The Testing of Human Hearing

Benchmarking of Noise Exposures
in Selected South Australian

workplaces Part of a Stakeholder
Compliance Campaign
JULY 2008
Benchmarking of Noise Exposures in Selected South Australian Workplaces
Benchmarking of Noise Exposures in Selected South

Australian workplaces Part of a Stakeholder
Compliance Campaign
Acknowledgement
This review was commissioned by the Office of the Australian Safety and
Compensation Council (the Office of the ASCC), in the Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). The review
was undertaken by Dr Warwick Williams, National Acoustic Laboratory,
which provided this research report.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this document can only assist you in the
most general way. This document does not replace any statutory
requirements under any relevant State and Territory legislation. The
Office of the ASCC accepts no liability arising from the use of or reliance
on the material contained on this document, which is provided on the
basis that Office of the ASCC is not thereby engaged in rendering
professional advice. Before relying on the material, users should carefully
make their own assessment as to its accuracy, currency, completeness
and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate
professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.
To the extent that the material on this document includes views or

recommendations of third parties, such views or recommendations do not
necessarily reflect the views of Office of the ASCC or indicate its
commitment to a particular course of action.
Copyright Notice
Commonwealth of Australia 2008
ISBN 978 0 642 32810 6
This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce
this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your
personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart
from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights
are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights
should be addressed to Commonwealth Copyright Administration,
Attorney-Generals Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit,
Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca
Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 i

Table of Contents
Benchmarking of Noise Exposures in Selected South Australian
workplaces Part of a Stakeholder Compliance Campaign ..................... i
Acknowledgement ......................................................................... i
Disclaimer .................................................................................... i
Copyright Notice............................................................................ i
Table of Contents .......................................................................... ii
Glossary ....................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ....................................................................... v
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Methodology ................................................................ 2
Chapter 3: Results ......................................................................... 8
Sites visited................................................................................. 8
Week I ..................................................................................... 8
Week II .................................................................................... 9
EXAMPLE #1 ...............................................................................10
EXAMPLE #2 ...............................................................................10
EXAMPLE #3 ...............................................................................11
EXAMPLE #4 ...............................................................................12
EXAMPLE #5 ...............................................................................12
Chapter 4: Data Base Fields for noise exposure estimations........ 14
Main database fields ....................................................................14
Explanation of fields.....................................................................15
Chapter 5: Suggestions ............................................................... 16
Suggested field methodology for the collection of noise exposure data16
Large and medium business .......................................................16
Small business .........................................................................16
Chapter 6: Generalised outcomes from this work ........................ 18
Chapter 7: Future directions for testing the model ...................... 19
Chapter 8: Conclusion.................................................................. 20
Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 ii

References .................................................................................. 21
Appendix I - Noise Survey Data form .......................................... 23
Appendix II - Summary of workplace exposure data (de-

identified) ................................................................................... 24
Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 iii

Glossary
ASCC Australian Safety and Compensation Council
BNL Background noise level
BNEL Basic noise exposure level
DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Relations
Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 iv

Executive Summary
Noise data surveillance was carried out in South Australian workplaces to
find a satisfactory method of gathering workplace noise exposure data
that could be used to construct a national noise exposure data base.
Noise exposure data was gathered during visits to selected South

Australian workplaces with the aim of finding out how the data could be
used to construct typical noise exposure profiles of workers at those
sites. The workplaces were selected following a workplace Noise Audit
carried out by SafeWork SA. The noise project is part of a larger project
concerning Workplace Hazard Exposure Surveillance in Australian
workplaces.
The data gathering reported in this report was funded by the Office of the
Australian Safety and Compensation Council (the Office of the ASCC),
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
(DEEWR), and carried out by Warwick Williams, Senior Research Engineer
at the National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood.
Traditionally gathering noise levels and exposure duration data from the
various tasks and processes is carried out in workplaces, and then that
data is used to calculate total exposure. This results in a large amount of
data and detail that, while accurate, is prone to uncertainties. This
uncertainty is primarily due to day-to-day variations in both the tasks
performed and their duration. Tracking these day-to-day variations may
be theoretically possible and practical on a small scale but is neither
possible nor desirable on a large or national scale.
Three methods are suggested for small, medium and large workplaces
respectively, that simplify the noise exposure estimation process and
which express the result with a similar degree of statistical uncertainty
that would otherwise arise through the measurement process itself.
Large workplaces, such as factories or production lines, typically have a

relatively steady noise present throughout the workplace. This
background noise may vary from place to place and within the different
work areas but generally it tends to be all pervasive. Rather than attempt
to document in detail the varying levels it is suggested that a spatial
average of the noise is made at a representative number of typical work
locations. This average background noise (BNL) along with either the
normal shift time, or the time for which workers are exposed to the
noise, is then be used as the typical basic noise exposure level (BNEL) for
the individuals who work in this workplace.
For workplaces that have some steady, hazardous background noise and
where additional noisy tasks are regularly carried out, the background
noise level would be calculated as above with the extra noise exposure
added to estimate the total overall noise exposure.
Some workplaces, such as a small workshop or an open area typically

have background noise that is considered to be below a hazardous level.
Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 v

However, these areas often have individual tasks that are particularly
noisy. For these workplaces an average noise level of all of the hazardous
noise tasks is calculated and, using the estimated typical total exposure
time, the overall exposure calculated.
To summarise as a general principle there are considered to be three

typical workplace noise exposure situations:
> those with a relatively steady background noise level;
> those with a steady background noise and extra noise exposure from
individual specific tasks; and
> those with minor background noise but with the significant noise
exposure arising from multiple individual tasks.
The suggested field methodology for collecting noise exposure data is

to:
> make in-the-field gathering of noise exposure for building a National
Noise Hazard Data Base simple and easy for the data collector and
data processor;
> be as representative as possible taking all practical considerations into
account;
> assume that the business does produce noise such that there is a
potential exposure;
> for large workplaces with continuous noise take several representative
noise level readings (LAeq) such that an average basic noise level
can be estimated;
> note any significant noise sources capable of adding 3 dB or more to
the LAeq,8h that should be included in the basic noise exposure level
(BNEL) calculation. The calculation of the basic noise exposure level
with the 95% CI will give the range of noise exposures in this
workplace. The upper range of the 95% CI can be used to represent
the worst case condition; and
> for small workplaces or workshops with occasional hazardous noisy
tasks, average the noise level(s) of the tasks and this coupled with
the typical all up exposure time will represent the typical noise
exposure condition for individuals working at these premises.
Simplifying the suggested methodology may introduce some degree of

uncertainty but these uncertainties outweigh the more complicated and
detailed attempts at noise exposure measurement at a national level.
With practice and experience, reasonably representative noise exposure

data should be able to be conveniently gathered when, for example,
inspectors are visiting work sites. This data should be suitable to enter
into a National Noise Exposure data base.
Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 vi

Chapter 1: Introduction
In July 2006, the Australian Safety and Compensation Councils (ASCC)
Occupational Health and Safety Working Group requested that the Office
conduct a series of concept studies that would provide examples of the
kinds of data that could result from an occupational disease hazard
exposure surveillance project. The study reported in this paper examined
several concept issues pertaining to the surveillance project. Specifically,
the aim of this project was to use noise exposure data gathered through
visits selected South Australian workplaces and to see how the noise
exposure data can be used to construct typical noise exposure profiles of
workers at those sites. The visited sites were selected following a
workplace Noise Audit carried out by inspectors from SafeWork SA. Noise
exposure profiles constructed from the data which can subsequently be
directed toward building a data base of noise exposure in Australian
workplaces and of Australian workers.
This project is part of a larger project concerning Workplace Hazard

Exposure Surveillance in Australian workplaces and was funded by the
Office of the ASCC, DEEWR, and carried out by Warwick Williams, Senior
Research Engineer at the National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood.
Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 1

Chapter 2: Methodology
The workplaces visited for detailed study were selected from a number of
sites that had been part of a Noise Audit Campaign conducted under the
direction of Joe Crea of SafeWork SA. During the Noise Audit Campaign
approximately 120 South Australian workplaces were visited by SafeWork
SA Inspectors and audited with respect to their knowledge and
compliance with the current South Australian and National occupational
noise management requirements.
The sites proposed for follow up noise measurements were selected by

Su Mon Kyaw-Myint from the Office of the ASCC and Warwick Williams
from NAL with the assistance of Joe Crea and Richard Ebel from
SafeWork SA. The sites were chosen as a representative selection of
workplaces over a wide range of Industry Groups, Sectors and Sizes.
In the process of regular research, access to these work sites would

normally be very difficult. However, access was facilitated through the
excellent work of Richard Ebel, a SafeWork SA Inspector who assisted
with the selection of workplaces and arranged the site visits. All of the
visits went smoothly and the individuals at each of the work sites
responsible for OHS were extremely co-operative.
The selected sites were visited over two separate weeks in February and
March, 2007, and measurements made of typical noise exposures to
which workers at the sites could be expected to be routinely exposed.
Also any particularly noisy processes that may make a significant
additional contribution to an individuals overall noise exposure were also
noted and measured.
During the first measurement week (6 9 Feb) it was decided that a

change of measurement format and direction was required as the amount
of noise exposure data that can be gathered could be potentially
overwhelming and perhaps lead to meaningless results.
The form of the data gathered was changed in order to represent the
Industry Group, Sector and Size in order to generally reflect the exposure
levels of those who work directly in that industry. This does not reflect
the noise exposure levels of all who work in that industry, only those who
are directly involved on the shop floor. It does not reflect management,
clerical or other ancillary staff.
In the conventional course of events when the noise exposure of an

individual worker is required there are two methods that can be followed.
The first is the sampling method where the noise levels for particular
tasks are measured, estimates are made of the expected average
duration of the tasks and the exposure level for each task is calculated.
Finally the task exposure levels are summed to produce the daily
exposure level. For comparison with exposure standards these daily
levels must be normalised to an eight hour working day as the exposure
standard is expressed in terms of an eight hour working day.

The second common method for gathering the noise exposure over the
day is to attach a personal noise exposure meter to the individual for the
days work and to gather the total days exposure at the conclusion of the
work shift. While the use of a personal exposure meter, commonly
referred to as a dosimeter, can gather detailed levels for the particular
day it is worn, the levels from day-to-day are usually quite variable
depending on the types of activities and time taken on each activity.
Both of these techniques have their respective advantages and

disadvantages for obtaining a representative value of the days noise
exposure level (Royster et al: 2000; Lester et al: 2001). Variability in the
exposure levels must be considered, for example, during the day, from
day-to-day, week-to-week and even, in some cases, over the working
year (Fehring: 2003). A representative value can only be stated in terms
of an exposure level and a confidence interval around that exposure
level. A single figure will not be representative except in the case of an
upper confidence level or lower confidence level.
However, either method involves much detailed work on the part of those
responsible for gathering the exposure values and considerable
consumption of resources calculating the exposure and the
representative average daily exposure. If this is necessary for each
individual then the task becomes almost unmanageable when
contemplating a possible national data base.
During the initial week of on site measurements it rapidly became

apparent that an extremely large amount of noise data could be gathered
from each work site about individual workers, work tasks and work
locations. In most cases while the different noise levels (LAeq) may
appear to be significant the actual variation that these differences bring
to the final calculated noise exposure level (LAeq,8h) are usually not
significant and are within measurement error.
A decision was made that it would not be practical on any large scale to
include all of the possible variations and combinations of noises to which
individuals are exposed during their work. The major reasons for this
decision are as follows.
> Including a wide variety of noise measurements for every
occupation/job may be seen as increasing the detail involved in the
work and thus increasing accuracy. However, while the actual noise
level for particular tasks may be relatively constant, for example when
using a particular power tool, the time duration of task may vary thus
significantly changing the overall exposure level.
> Increasing the number of noise measurements in a data base will
rapidly lead to a data base with a large amount of information that
can actually begin to retard progress.
> Any apparent increase in accuracy by gathering additional data can be
lost through measurement errors and a subsequent increase in the
uncertainty of the final result.

> Introducing distinctions between exposures that are too fine in

nature can make generalisations about the final results more difficult.
Detailed assessments for workplace hazard exposure surveillance are

certainly appropriate for assessing individuals and when looking at
defined tasks in specific workplaces This is where such tools as the task
based exposure model (T-BEAM) or task exposure matrix (TEM)
(Goldberg: 1997; Eduard: 1999; Susi 2000); the job exposure matrix
(JEM) (Hoare: 1983/4;Benke et al: 2000); individual exposure
monitoring (IEM) (Paulsen: 2006); self-reported exposure measures
(SREM) (Kromhout et al: 1992); and expert assessments (Luce et al:
1993) are appropriate. However, it seems that the more detailed the
approach the more chance there is of differences between the
judgements of expert opinions which can lead to differences in assessed
exposure (Luce et al: 1993). This has the implication that along with the
attempt to increase the accuracy of the assessment there is a
corresponding increase in the uncertainty of the estimation.
These tools have primarily been applied to detailed chemical and dust
exposure situations where individuals are closely monitored or examined
for their exposure. The T-BEAM methodology has been applied to noise
exposure on a long term basis, in the order of months, examining the
noise exposure of seasonal workers constructing pipelines across the
Canadian tundra (Southgate: 2005) and over a year long period for the
estimation of the average noise exposure of military tank crews (Fehring:
2003).
Some attempts have been and are currently being made to construct a
data base of noisy tasks that are undertaken by various industries and
occupations (Methner et al: 2000; EC: 2007) with the aim of using these
data bases as a data source for a noise exposure matrix. Interested
parties can apply the data to particular occupations by selecting the
appropriate noise exposure levels from the data base and calculating a
predicted overall noise exposure level for that occupation. In 2005 the
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work produced a report
utilising both detailed and generalised noise measurements together with
subjective evaluations of noise exposure in an attempt to develop a wider
view of the noise exposure problem at workplaces across the European
Union.
Each of the respective tools have their uses and there have been some
comparative studies between the different models illustrating why
particular models are superior to others (Kromhout et al: 1992; Luce et
al: 1993: Benke et al: 2000) with the task based and expert assessment
methods tending to be rated as the most accurate. Difficulties do arise
with the certainty of the final noise exposure calculations. This is because
while the appropriate noise level may be known, uncertainties exist with
the estimation of the actual exposure time of the activity. Golberg and
Hemon (1993) discussed the difficulties in assessing individual exposure
mentioning in particular: variation in the individual work stations; work
routines; use of communal and individual protective equipment; and

exposure to multiple hazardous substances, in the case of noise, for

example, the combination noise and ototoxic agents.
While detailed methods are useful on a relatively small scale they are not
particularly amenable for setting up a National Workplace Hazard
Exposure data base where a more generalised measure is acceptable and
more suitable. All of the measurement tools are approximations suitable
for different applications.
For example, a (machine) operator working in the metal based,

manufacturing industry for a small firm of less that five employees,
constructing custom made cabs for motor vehicles is exposed to a very
different noise background compared to a machine operator working in
the metal based, manufacturing industry for a large employer on a motor
vehicle production line. On a production line there are many more
operations continuously happening in the operators close vicinity and
many more people involved in those operations. Thus there tends to be a
higher continuous, overall noise background in a production environment.
In a small body building business the noisy work tends to be sporadic,
located in specific areas and carried out by single individuals. Hence in
the interests of simplification, a generalisation can be made that the
dominant noise exposure hazard in the larger workplace will come from
the higher continuous background noise from operating machinery while
in the smaller industry most of the exposure hazard will come from the
individual tasks.
Using this methodology it would be reasonable to estimate the noise

exposure levels in other similar work places by taking a number of
representative noise sample measurements and the arithmetical average
value as the nominal exposure level. This average is the background
noise level (BNL). The basic noise exposure level (BNEL) is the
background noise level multiplied by the duration of the exposure to the
background noise. This is similar to the calculation of an individuals noise
exposure as expressed in combined Australian/New Zealand Standard
AS/NZS 1269.1 (2005).
The BNEL is calculated from the equation,
BNEL = BNL + 10 log10 {T/8} dB (1)
where,
BNL is the average of the sampled background noise levels in the working
environment; and
T is the total exposure time over the work shift;
The division by 8 normalises the BNEL to an equivalent LAeq,8h.

If a particular individual carries out a task that increases the total noise
exposure by a significant degree then this added exposure is included. It
is suggested that the overall exposure (LAeq,8h) should be increased by
at least 3 dB (ie doubling the exposure) if the particular activity is to be
included. The choice of an increase of a minimum of 3 dB has been
selected because a doubling of exposure is a significant increase and
because measurements less than this are in the order of magnitude of
the expected measurement error.
Other significant sources of noise are included in the summation by use

of the equation:
0.1(LAeq,Ti)
BNEL = 10 log10 [{i (Ti x 10 )}/T] + 10 log10 (T/8) (2)
where,
LAeq,Ti is the noise level of the particular task;
Ti is the duration of the individual noise source(s) including the BNL; and
T is the total noise exposure time (the sum of the Ti).
For the majority of large and medium sized work places there will only be
the background noise with occasionally one or perhaps two significant
extra noise sources. For small sized work places there will be a low BNL
but this will usually be relatively unimportant compared to individual
significant noise sources that provide the majority of the workplace noise
hazard.
Take for example a large production line. For individual machine

operators or process workers on the line, their noise hazard will come
directly from the line as their job tasks do not include any operations
away from the production line. In a small manufacturing workshop
however, the main background noise will come from the ever present
radio and the occasional noise from specialised (noisy) tasks by other
workers, perhaps some metal grinding or hammering. Thus for
estimating the exposure hazard in the first case equation (1) will suffice
while in the second case equation (2) will be required.
The BNEL could be expected to provide reasonable results for large and
medium sized work places and for small sized work places perhaps with
some modification as necessary. Note: the BNEL is an A-weighted dB
value.
Most small work places that are noisy typically have a single workshop
area where noisy functions are performed and they are not usually
performed on a continuous basis. Thus if a longer term background noise
level was measured, for example for 30 minutes, this could represent a
starting point. If there are particularly noisy activities undertaken that

could add significantly to the daily noise exposure by at least 3 dB these

must be included.
It should be noted that it is fairly conventional for acoustic consultants to

consider the error in noise level measurements to be in the order of 3 dB
when only a single sample measurement is taken. If there is more than
one measurement then an estimate of the error is derived from the
standard deviation of the values.
While the proposed method of estimating noise exposures is certainly not

as detailed as an individual methodology, in particular noise dosimetry, it
has the potential to be much simpler in implementation on a larger scale.
The use of the upper 95% CI level will present the typical worst case
situation and is similar to the process that is frequently employed when
carrying out chemical exposure determination when detailed analysis of
extensive data becomes time consuming and expensive (Checkoway,
Pearce & Crawford-Brown: 1989).
The information is relatively easy to gather during a relatively short visit

(one to two hours) to the work site. Even in a large business sufficient
data can be such that reasonable determinations can be made of
expected noise exposures of those working there. Satisfactory measures
could be made using a Class 2 Integrating-averaging Sound Level Meter
(ISLM) as the measurements are not required to be very detailed and
accurate but to provide an indication of relevant conditions.
It is never possible to know exactly what exposure is over a long period.

Even with continuous monitoring there are uncertainties in measurement
and to attempt to ensure greater accuracy demands greater resources.
The method suggested should provide a more than adequate estimation
of workplace noise exposures with an estimated degree of uncertainty.
For the purposes of a National Data Base this should prove more than
adequate. The following calculations in Results using gathered data
provides typical, practical examples.

Chapter 3: Results
The following provides a summary of the sites visited during the two
study visits.
Sites visited
Week I
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
AM mining sector, drilling
PM metal bases manufacturing, auto body building
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
AM metal based manufacturing, auto components
PM manufacturing, wine making
Thursday, 8 February 2007
AM mineral manufacturing, concrete products
manufacturing, aluminium windows
PM manufacturing, iron forging
Friday, 9 February 2007
AM wood based manufacturing, kitchens manufacturing
motor vehicle manufacturing, caravan construction/repair
PM metal based manufacturing, air-conditioning ducting

Week II
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
AM wholesale & retail, food processing
metal based manufacturing, sheet metal manufacturing
PM construction, site services, demolition
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
AM metal based manufacturing, aluminium die-casting
construction, site services, concrete services
PM agricultural, saw-milling
Thursday, 8 March 2007
AM manufacturing, non-metallic processing,
manufacturing, food and beverage, brewing
PM manufacturing, food and beverage, bottling
Friday, 9 March 2007
AM transport, rail, rail car maintenance
construction, concrete services
PM food & beverage, meat processing,
manufacturing, cardboard packaging
The measurement results for the visited sites are presented in a

summarised form in Appendix #1. The original result pages are held at
the NAL facility at Chatswood.
The following are specific examples of the use of this suggested system
and a calculation of the BNEL at particular, sampled work sites.

EXAMPLE #1
Industry group: Manufacturing;
Sector: Motor vehicle manufacturing;
Size: Large (>250 people)
The first example is of measurements taken at a large scale

manufacturing plant site visited during this study. This site manufactures
car parts in the form of struts and shock absorbers. At this location more
than 30 individual noise (LAeq,T) measurements were gathered from
various work locations on and around the production line. The measured
LAeq,T varied from 78 dB for some fitters and tool makers who worked
some distance from the actual production line but who also frequently
work on or near the operating production line itself, up to 93 dB for
machine operators who work in the vicinity of particularly noisy, but not
constantly noisy, tasks. Sample times represented the typical time
required to carry out the specific task.
Most of the production operators working on the production line are

exposed to noise levels in the range 77.7 to 93.3 dB. The mean of the
measured levels (n = 35) was 85.6 (SD = 3.8) with an expanded 95%
confidence interval of 7.4 dB (1.96 SD). This mean value includes
both continuous noise and impulse noise. The maximum, measured
LCpeak was 117.4 dB. The work shift when exposed to the BNL is eight
hours.
BNEL = BNL + 10 log10 {(typical exposure time)/8} = 85.6 7.4 dB, ie

[78.2, 93.0]. If the error for any individual measurement is taken as 3
dB then the 95% CI can be considered to encompass all of the
individually measured values from 77.7 to 93.3 dB.
EXAMPLE #2
Industry group: Mineral processing;
Sector: Construction materials;
Size: Medium (~ 40 people)
This company produces pre-cast concrete products such as pipes, road

culverts and drainage pits. The work site is spread over a large open site
with main work areas enclosed in semi-weather proof sheds. One
particular work area where concrete pipes are spun produces
significantly more noise compared to other work areas and hence treated
as a significant extra noise exposure source.
For the majority of areas (n = 7) the mean noise level is 82.3 dB (SD =
2.9) with a 95% CI of 5.7 dB. The pipe spinning area (n = 3) had a

mean noise level of 92.7 dB (SD = 2.6) with a 95% CI of 5.1 dB. Shift
length is eight hours.
BNEL = BNL + 10 log10 {(typical exposure time)/8} = 82.3 5.7 dB for

the normal areas, and 92.7 5.1 dB for the spinning area. Both 95%
CIs include the range of measured values of [81.5 to 84.7] and [90.5 to
95.6] respectively.
EXAMPLE #3
Industry group: Manufacturing;
Sector: Motor vehicle bodies;
Size: Small (6 people)
This is a small business specialising in custom bodies for vehicles,

typically tray for utilities. They employ about four trades people, one
apprentice and an office assistant with a medium size, open factory area
and separate office. Each employee tends to be working on a specific
project or job for which they are responsible. The mean background noise
was 85.9 dB with a sample time of 16 minutes. In this situation the
measurement uncertainty is considered by most acoustic consultants to
be in the order of 3 dB.
Specific noisy activities are periodically undertaken by various individuals

while they are working on their particular project(s). These are nibbling,
grinding, welding, chipping, drilling and cutting of metal products. The
average exposure level of these activities is 93.8 dB (SD = 5.6), 95% CI
= 10.9 dB.
Shift length is eight hours. If it is assumed that each individual works for
seven of the eight hours with the BNL at 85.9 dB and for one hour at
93.8 dB, then the summation of these is given by the equation (2)
above,
BNEL = 10 log10 [1/8 (7 x 100.1x85.9 + 1 x 100.1x93.2)] + 0
= 88.1 dB
For the 95% CI the range of levels should come from the extra significant
noisy activities so that the BNEL is expressed as 86.8 10.9 dB (75.9 to
97.7). This would certainly cover the measured range, including
uncertainties of 3 dB, of activities [84.5 to 100.5] even if the extra
activities were undertaken for significantly longer than the one hour
suggested.

EXAMPLE #4
Industry group: Food and Beverage;
Sector: Livestock processing;
Size: Large
A large poultry processing plant processing up to 550K chickens per

week, however, there are only about 15 people at any one time in the
noisy areas. The areas that were visited in this plant were only the noisy
areas between where chickens arrived, are hung, killed, de-feathered and
cleaned to the stage where they can then be sorted for sale as whole
chickens (fresh or frozen) or for various chicken bits. The work area was
quite noisy with a background noise of 88.8 dB (SD = 2.8, n = 7) and a
95% CI of 5.5 dB. Shift length is eight hours.
The BNEL is 88.8 5.5 dB this covers the range of measurements of

[84.3 to 93.1].
EXAMPLE #5
Industry group: Mining;
Sector: Site services;
Size: Medium
This drilling is a medium sized company but there are only three people
who work on the outside drill rig at any one time. The average
background noise was 91.2 dB (SD = 6.6) and the 95% CI was 12.9
dB. The wide CI is due to the fact that there can be a 10 dB variation in
the noise from when the drill is operating to idling while a new drill
section is being inserted. The actual shift time when the drill rig is
operating is estimated to be six hours.
BNEL = BNL + 10 log10 {(typical exposure time)/8}
= 91.2 + 10 log10 (6/8) = 91.2 1.2
= 90.0 dB.
The BNEL of 90.0 12.9 dB encompasses the range of measured values

[84.7 to 97.9].
From these examples the calculated BNEL and the expanded uncertainty
interval can be seen to give a reasonable first approximation to the noise
exposure of individuals working in those industries. Taking the first
example from the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, it can be said

that 95% of individuals will be exposed to an LAeq,8h of 78.2 dB or

greater, 50% to 85.6 of greater and 5% to 93.0 dB or greater.

Chapter 4: Data Base Fields for noise exposure

estimations
Data gathered in the field can be entered into an appropriate spread
sheet or data base for analysis. A guide to the main fields that are
required to be considered is outlined below.
Main database fields
<Business name> company trading name, will line up with other data bases
<Industry group> manufacturing, community services, construction,

transport & storage, agriculture, wholesale & retail,
mining, etc ..
<Sector> eg wood work, mineral processing, saw milling, etc..
<Size> small, medium, large
<Site> location, eg factory, workshop, construction site, open

field, etc,
<Occupation/job operator, process worker, tradesperson, etc,

description>
<Normal shift length> Typical (hrs)
Typical with overtime (hrs)
<Typical exposure time> Exposure time to B/G noise level over a standard working
day (8 hrs)
<Background noise LAeq> typical A-weighted noise levels in the work area (dB),
several readings may need to be taken and an average
calculated
<Daily exposure> Calculated from above previous two parameters
<Extra noisy task(s)> ie those that will raise the LAeq,8h by at least 3 dB
<Duration of above hours

task(s)>
<Standard exposure PPE, isolation, admin, buy quiet, etc

controls>
<Comments/notes> written comments or points of note

Explanation of fields
<Business name> This is the business name under which the company or organisation operates. This field
allows linkage to other business data bases.
<Industry group> Indicates the main industry with which the organisation is concerned, for example,
manufacturing, agriculture, mining, etc,
<Sector> Indicates the main area of interest of the Industry, eg meat processing, motor vehicle
manufacturing, etc,
<Size> Size of operation, usually small, medium or large.
<Site> Not so much the physical location of the business (the address that can be found
through the Business name) but rather an indication of what the work place is, for
example a small factory, workshop, production line, an open field. It can provide some
clues as to the possible acoustic properties of the immediate work area.
<Occupation/job This should describe the typical work undertaken by the individual(s) of interest in this
description> work place.
<Normal shift This will usually be an eight hour day. Some sites, the mining industry for example,
length> may routinely use shift lengths longer than eight hours. If this is the case, there
may be a requirement to undertake some more complex calculations to estimate the
average daily noise exposure level as required by AS/NZS 1269.1: 2005
<Typical exposure The time over which the individual(s) of interest are exposed to the Background noise.
time> This will probably less than the total work time or shift length.
<Background noise The background LAeq in which the individual of interest spends the majority of their work
LAeq> (noise exposed) time. It is measured by a sampling method suitable to both the work
place and any typical noisy work cycle over which the noise may vary.
<Daily exposure> The product of the background noise and the exposure time normalised to and eight
hour day resulting in an LAeq,8h. In some extreme cases, for example remote, fly-in/fly-
out mining sites average daily exposures may need more complex calculations to be
taken into consideration. The daily exposure would be calculated using either of the
equations (1) or (2).
<Extra noisy For any task to be considered in this category the daily noise exposure, LAeq,8h, from the
task(s)> task must be raised by at least 3 dB. In the case, for example, of a small workshop if
there are a number of noisy tasks then it is suggested that an average level of all the
noisy tasks be calculated and this used for simplicity as the typical extra noise.
<Duration of above <Duration of above task(s)> The total duration when considering the Particularly noisy
task(s)> task. If an average of the noisy tasks is being used, as in a small work place, then an
estimate of the total noisy task time should be utilised.
<Standard exposure <Standard exposure controls> This is simply a comment field where the normal noise
controls> exposure management processes are noted. This may simply say that the use of
hearing protectors is really the only management measure considered. Some
organisations may limit the number of people in the immediate area or isolate particular
activities.
<Comments/notes> <Comments/notes> Any interesting or particular point that the observer feels should
be made. Perhaps the company has a purposeful buy quiet program or some novel
ways of reducing noise exposure that are worthy of mention.

Chapter 5: Suggestions
Suggested field methodology for the collection of

noise exposure data
In the field the gathering of noise exposure for the purposes of building a
National Noise Hazard Data Base should not be too complex or arduous
for the data collector. This procedure is designed to be simple and to be
as representative as possible taking all practical considerations into
account. The assumption is made that the business does produce noise
such that there is a potential exposure hazard and that it is not a quiet
business with only some annoying noises.
Large and medium business
For large and medium sized businesses where the noisy areas are fairly
wide spread and continuous in nature it should be sufficient to take
several representative noise level readings (LAeq) such that an average
BNL can be estimated for the work area. If there are significant other
noise sources (capable of adding 3 dB or more to the LAeq,8h) these
should also be noted so that they can be included in the calculation of the
BNEL. The calculation of the BNEL with the 95% CI will give the range of
noise exposures in this work place. The upper range of the 95% CI can
be used to represent the worst case condition. Calculations are made
using equation (1) or as necessary equation (2).
Small business
For small businesses/workshops a general background noise level should

be taken for a representative sample time and then any or all of the
individual noisy activities should be measured. The sum of the BNL and
the additional noise hazards will represent the worst case condition and
are expressed by equation (2).
Example of a standard operating procedure for visiting workplace

premises for the purpose of gathering noise exposure data for this site.
> For this work site what represents the general noise exposure hazard
in this workplace for most individuals?
> Calculate an average of these from as many sample readings as you
consider necessary.
> Note the exposure time and shift length.
> What extra noise sources exist that will significantly raise the overall
noise exposure by at least 3 dB?
> Note all such sources and calculate an average noise level.

> How long on a typical day would these extra, significant exposures
last?
> Note this total time.

Chapter 6: Generalised outcomes from this work

From each of the above examples a reasonable generalisation should be
able to be made about the typical noise exposure of individuals who work
at sites similar to those presented. This generalisation should be within
an order of accuracy and reliability required for the proposed National
Data base.
The accuracy and reliability of this suggested method could be verified

through a comparison with results calculated from a standard noise
survey of similar sites followed by exposure calculations for individuals.
The comparison would not only include the actual noise exposures but
the total resources (time and money) required. There is an opportunity
for this in the proposed Queensland workplace noise audit. The level of
skill required to implement this methodology is not particularly high and
can be taught in a relatively short time. The main requirement is the
consistency of methodology for the single individual and across all
individuals carrying out measurements.

Chapter 7: Future directions for testing the model

The most obvious way of testing the suggested models would be to carry
out a noise survey of representative workplaces using traditional
methodology and independently survey using the suggested method(s).
The resulting overall estimations of exposures for the workplaces from
the two methods can then be directly compared.
Alternative methods of testing would be to look at the incidence and

claims data for hearing loss and the degree of loss with the predicted
level of hearing loss from the estimated exposures while matching for
industry type and size, years of working, etc. This may be possible to do
in a detailed way using data that is gathered by W A WorkCover as they
have regulations requiring submission of audiometric test data or in a
more general way from appropriate State, Territory or Commonwealth
data. New Zealand data could also be utilised if a cooperative programme
is arranged.
The methodology suggested here for workplace noise exposures should

be equally applicable in principle for other typical workplace exposure
hazards such as dust, vapour and chemical exposures. Some modification
may be required as increasing levels of accuracy become desirable but
the method should more than suffice for a first approximation.

Chapter 8: Conclusion
The outcomes of this work illustrate that with a bit of practice and
experience reasonably representative noise exposure data may be
conveniently gathered when, for example, inspectors are visiting work
sites either during routine visits or for other purposes. This data should
be more than satisfactory for the commencement of a National Noise
Exposure data base.
While there may be some degree of uncertainty due to the simplification

of the suggested methodology these uncertainties are more than offset
by the simplicity of the methodology and the errors introduced by more
complicated and detailed attempts at noise exposure measurement.

References
Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1269.1: 2005 Occupational
noise management Part 1: measurement and assessment of noise
emission and exposure, Standards Australia, Sydney.
Benke, G, Sim, M, Fritschi, L & Aldred, G (2000) Beyond the Job

Exposure Matrix (JEM: the Task Exposure Matrix (TEM), Amm occup Hyg,
Vol 44, No 6: 475 482.
Checkoway, H, Pearce, N & Crawford-Brown, DJ (1989) Research

methods in Occupational Epidemiology, Oxford University Press, New
York.
DIN 45645-2 (1997) Determining noise rating levels from measured

data, German Industrial Standard, Deutsches Institut fr Normung,
Berlin.
EC (2007) Noise Database, Mechanical Equipment Noise Emissions for

Outdoor Equipment, European Commission,
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/mechan_equipment/noise/citizen/index.html
Eduard, W & Bakke, B (1999) Experiences with task-based exposure

assessment in studies of farmers and tunnel workers, Norsk
Epidemiology, Vol 9(1): 65 - 70
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2005) Noise in Figures,
a Risk Observatory Thematic Report produced by the European Agency
for Safety and Health at Work, Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg, Belgium.
Fehring, AJ (2003) Real World Noise Exposure of tank Crews A case

study, unpublished Master of Safety Science thesis, School of Safety
Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Goldberg, M & Hemon, D (1993) Occupational Epidemiology and

Assessment of Exposure, International journal of Epidemiology 22(6
Suppl.2): S5 S9.
Goldberg, M, Levin, SM, Doucette, JT & Griffin, G (1997) A Tasked-Based

Approach to Assessing Lead Exposure Aong Iron Workers Engaged in
Bridge Rehabilitation, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol 31:
310 318.
Hoar, Shiela (1983 4) Job Exposure Matrix Methodology, J Toxicol

Clin Toxicol, 21(1 & 2): 9 26.
Kromhout, H, heederik, D, Dalderup, LM & Kromhout, D (1992)

Performance of Two General Job-Exposure matricies in a Study of Lung
Cancer Morbidity in the Zutphen Cohort, American Journal of
Epidemiology, Vol 136, No 6 698 711.

Lester, H, Malchaire, J, Arbey, HS & Tiery, L (2001) Strategies for Noise

Surveys in Occupational Exposure to Noise: Evaluation, Prevention and
Control Edited by B Goelzer, CH Hansen & GA Sehrndt, special report
published by the Federal Institute for Safety and Health, Dortmund,
Germany for the World Health Organisation
Luce, D, Gerin, M, Berrino, F, Pisani, P & Leclerc, A (1993) Sources of

discrepancies between a job exposure matrix and a case by case expert
assessment for occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood-dust,
International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 22, Supplement 2, S113
120.
Methner, MM, McKernan, JL & Dennison, JL (2000) Task-Based Exposure

Assessment of Hazards Associated with New Residential Construction, a
report for Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Vol 15(11):
811 819.
Paulsen, R (2006) Noise Exposure of Construction Workers, a paper

presented at Euronoise 2006, May 30th June 01st, Tampare, Finland.
Royster,LH, Berger, EH & Royster, JD (2000) Noise Surveys and Data

Analysis in The Noise Manual, 5th Edition, ed EH Berger, LH Royster, JD
Royster, DP Driscoll & M Layne, American Industrial Hygiene Association,
Fairfax, Va, USA.
Southgate, LM (2005) A Task-Based Investigation of Noise Exposure To

Selected pipeline Construction Workers, unpublished Master of Safety
Science thesis, School of Safety Science, University of New South Wales,
Sydney.
Susi, P, Goldberg, M, Barnes, P & Stafford, E (2000) The Use of a

Tasked-based Exposure Assessment Model (T-BEAM) for Assessment of
Metal Fume Exposures During Welding and Thermal Cutting, Applied
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Vol 15(1); 26 38.

Appendix I - Noise Survey Data form
Industrial measurements for Noise Exposure Project 2007
Location: Date:
Conducted by:
Calibration:
Occupation: Industry:
Job description:
Task: LAeq:
B/G noise levels: LCpeak:
Time on task:(hours) Frequency of task: (per

day/week/month)
Usual shift length: (hours)
Detailed description of task: (including tools and materials used)
Exposure controls: (elimination, administrative, buy quiet,

engineering, PPE; etc are these control measures effective?)
List other tasks performed by this person:
Other interesting information: (Are other workers present when this

task is performed?; Are controls being used? Are controls adequate?)

Appendix II - Summary of workplace exposure data (de-identified)
Shift Extra
Business length Exposure B/G 95% noisy 95%
ID Industry Size Site Occupation (h) time (h) noise SD CI tasks Duration SD CI
1 construction medium open field drill rig operator 8.0 6.0 91.2 6.6 12.9
2 manufacturing small w/shop body builder 8.0 8.0 85.9 3.0 5.1 93.8 1.0 5.6 10.9
factory/production machine
3 manufacturing large line operator 8.0 8.0 85.7 3.8 7.4
4 manufacturing large maintenance area Trades 8.0 8.0 77.7 3.0 5.1
5 manufacturing large test laboratory Operators 8.0 8.0 74.3 3.0 5.1 89.0 2.0 3.0 5.1
6 manufacturing medium factory Operators 8.0 0.5 82.2 3.0 5.1
assembler/
9 manufacturing large factory operator 8.0 8.0 82.1 5.9 11.5
factory/production
10 manufacturing large line Operators 8.0 8.0 90.0 6.1 11.9
11 manufacturing large factory Operators 8.0 8.0 81.5 5.9 11.5

Shift Extra
12 manufacturing small w/shop Trades 8.0 8.0 60.1 3.0 5.1 81.9 1.0 3.0 5.1
13 manufacturing medium w/shop trades/operators 8.0 5.0 89.5 5.8 11.4
factory/production
15 manufacturing medium factory Operators/trades 8.0 8.0 81.7 3.6 7.0
16 construction medium building site Operators 8.0 8.0 87.4 7.5 14.7
17 manufacturing medium factory Operators 8.0 8.0 86.8 1.1 2.1 93.9 6.0 3.0 5.1
18 manufacturing small various sites Operators 8.0 4.0 106.0 3.2 6.2
22 manufacturing factory Operators 8.0 8.0 80.7 1.1 2.2
23 manufacturing w/shop Trades 8.0 8.0 71.4 9.9 19.5

Shift Extra
factory/production operators,
24 manufacturing large line bottling 8.0 8.0 92.1 4.1 8.1
factory/production
25 manufacturing large line Operators, kegs 8.0 8.0 81.3 4.2 8.3
factory/production operators,
26 manufacturing large line brewing 8.0 8.0 70.1 3.0 5.1
factory/production
factory/production
28 manufacturing large line syrup mixers 8.0 8.0 76.2 3.0 5.1
transport and
29 storage large open workshop Trades 8.0 8.0 69.0 3.0 8.0 88.3 7.2 14.1
quarry/ batching operators,

30 construction large plant drivers 8.0 1.0 86.6 1.1 2.1 77.8 1.0 3.0 5.1
31 manufacturing small factory Operators 8.0 8.0 88.2 4.1 8.0
factory,
32 manufacturing medium production line Operators 8.0 8.0 84.7 3.5 6.8

Audiometry - The Testing of Human Hearing

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Audiometry - The Testing of Human Hearing

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Benchmarking of Noise Exposures

in Selected South Australian

Benchmarking of Noise Exposures in Selected South

To the extent that the material on this document includes views or

ISBN 978 0 642 32810 6

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 i

Table of Contents .......................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ....................................................................... v

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................. 1

Chapter 2: Methodology ................................................................ 2

Chapter 3: Results ......................................................................... 8

Chapter 4: Data Base Fields for noise exposure estimations........ 14

Main database fields ....................................................................14

Chapter 5: Suggestions ............................................................... 16

Suggested field methodology for the collection of noise exposure data16

Large and medium business .......................................................16

Small business .........................................................................16

Chapter 6: Generalised outcomes from this work ........................ 18

Chapter 7: Future directions for testing the model ...................... 19

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 ii

Appendix I - Noise Survey Data form .......................................... 23

Appendix II - Summary of workplace exposure data (de-

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 iii

BNL Background noise level

BNEL Basic noise exposure level

DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 iv

Noise exposure data was gathered during visits to selected South

Large workplaces, such as factories or production lines, typically have a

Some workplaces, such as a small workshop or an open area typically

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 v

To summarise as a general principle there are considered to be three

The suggested field methodology for collecting noise exposure data is

Simplifying the suggested methodology may introduce some degree of

With practice and experience, reasonably representative noise exposure

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 vi

This project is part of a larger project concerning Workplace Hazard

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 1

The sites proposed for follow up noise measurements were selected by

In the process of regular research, access to these work sites would

During the first measurement week (6 9 Feb) it was decided that a

In the conventional course of events when the noise exposure of an

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 2

Both of these techniques have their respective advantages and

During the initial week of on site measurements it rapidly became

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 3

> Introducing distinctions between exposures that are too fine in

Detailed assessments for workplace hazard exposure surveillance are

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 4

exposure to multiple hazardous substances, in the case of noise, for

For example, a (machine) operator working in the metal based,

Using this methodology it would be reasonable to estimate the noise

The BNEL is calculated from the equation,

BNEL = BNL + 10 log10 {T/8} dB (1)

T is the total exposure time over the work shift;

The division by 8 normalises the BNEL to an equivalent LAeq,8h.

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 5

Other significant sources of noise are included in the summation by use

LAeq,Ti is the noise level of the particular task;

T is the total noise exposure time (the sum of the Ti).

Take for example a large production line. For individual machine

Australian Safety and Compensation Council, April 2007 6

could add significantly to the daily noise exposure by at least 3 dB these