Objective and Subjective Assessment of the Sound Attenuation Efficiency Obtained by Custom Moulded Earplugs with Various Acoustic Filters – a Preliminary Study
Methods: Measurements of the acoustic attenuation obtained by custom moulded earplugs with designed F1, F2, and F3 acoustic filters (internal diameters dF1 = 1:25 mm, dF2 = 0:85 mm, and dF3 = 0:45 mm), as well as full insert earplugs (without any acoustic filters) were carried out using two methods: objective and subjective. The objective measurements were carried out in an anechoic chamber. The artificial head (High-frequency Head and Torso Simulator Brüel & Kjær Type 5128) was located at a distance of 3 m, directly opposite the loudspeaker. The test signal in the measurements was pink noise – in the frequency range up to 12.5 kHz and the level 85, 90, and 95 dB. The hearing protectors with and without acoustic filters were mounted in the Head and Torso Simulator which was connected with Pulse System Brüel & Kjær. Five normal hearing subjects participated in the subjective measurements. A pink noise signal was used for one-third octave bands: 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz. The attenuation value was defined as the difference (in dB) between the hearing threshold of the test signal with a hearing protector and the hearing threshold determined without a hearing protector.
Results: The results of the objective method proved that in addition to the significant impact of frequency on the attenuation values, the type of filter used in custom moulded earplugs also had a significant effect. In addition, the results of the objective method showed that in the whole frequency range the highest attenuation values are shown by the full earplugs, achieving slightly above 45 dB for frequency of 8 kHz. The attenuation values obtained from subjective measurements also confirmed that both the frequency and type of filter significantly affect the attenuation values of the tested hearing protectors.
Conclusions: The results of this study did not confirm the hypothesis that the measurement method had no significant effect on the attenuation characteristics of self-designed custom moulded earplugs with different types of acoustic filters. The largest differences in attenuation values between the type of measurement methods occur for the low frequency band (250 Hz) and for higher frequencies (4000 Hz mainly). The change of the internal diameter of the F1 filter from 1.25 mm to 0.85 mm (F2 filter) did not significantly affect the attenuation
ANSI/ASA-S12.42-2010 (2010), Methods for the measurement of insertion loss of hearing protection devices in continuous or impulsive noise using microphone-inreal-ear or acoustic test fixture procedures, Acoustical Society of America, http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FASA+S12.42-2010.
Berger E.H. (2005), Preferred methods for measuring hearing protector attenuation, [in:] Inter-Noise, Environmental Noise Control, The 2005 Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, 7–10 August, Rio de Janeiro.
Biabani A., Aliabadi M., Golmohammadi R., Farhadian M. (2017), Individual fit testing of hearing protection devices based on microphone in real ear, Safety and Health at Work, 8(4): 364–370, doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2017.03.005.
Bockstael A. et al. (2011), Speech recognition in noise with active and passive hearing protectors: a comparative study, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(6): 3702–3715, doi: 10.1121/1.3575599.
Brown A.D., Beemer B.T., Greene N.T., Argo T. IV., Meegan G.D., Tollin D.J. (2015), Effects of active and passive hearing protection devices on sound source localization, speech recognition, and tone detection, PLOS ONE, 10(8): e0136568, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136568.
Davis R.R., Murphy W.J., Byrne D.C., Shaw P.B. (2011), Acceptance of a semi-custom hearing protector by manufacturing workers, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 8(12): D125–130, doi: 10.1080/15459624.2011.626262.
Directive 2003/10/EC (2003), Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise), [in:] Directive 2003/10/EC, European Parliament, Council of the European
Fackler C.J., Berger E.H., Murphy W.J., Stergar M.E. (2017), Spectral analysis of hearing protector impulsive insertion loss, International Journal of Audiology, 56(Sup1): 13–21, doi: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1257869.
Hiselius P., Edvall N., Reimers D. (2015), To measure the impact of hearing protectors on the perception of speech in noise, International Journal of Audiology, 54(Sup1): S3–S8, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.973539.
Journal of Laws (2014), The Regulation of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of 6 June 2014, item 817, on the maximum permissible concentrations and intensities of agents that are hazardous for health at the workplace.
Killion M.C. (2012), Factors influencing use of hearing protection by trumpet players, Trends in Amplification, 16(3): 173–178, doi: 10.1177/1084713812468514.
Kozłowski E., Młynski R. (2017), Measurement of earmuffs attenuation at high audible frequencies, Archives of Acoustics, 42(2): 249–254, doi: 10.1515/aoa-2017-0027.
Lee K., Casali J.G. (2017), Development of an auditory situation awareness test battery for advanced hearing protectors and TCAPS: detection subtest of DRILCOM (detection-recognition/identification-localization-communication), International Journal of Audiology, 56(Sup1): 22–33, doi: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1256505.
Lie A. et al. (2016), Occupational noise exposure and hearing: a systematic review, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 89(3): 351–372, doi: 10.1007/s00420-015-1083-5.
Młynski R., Kozłowski E., Adamczyk J. (2014), Assessment of impulse noise hazard and the use of hearing protection devices in workplaces where forging hammers are used, Archives of Acoustics, 39(1): 73–79, doi: 10.2478/aoa-2014-0008.
Norin J.A., Emanuel D.C., Letowski T.R. (2011), Speech intelligibility and passive, level-dependent earplugs, Ear and Hearing, 32(5): 642–649, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31821478c8.
PN-EN-ISO 4869-2 (2018), Acoustics. Hearing protectors – Part 2: estimation of effective A-weighted sound pressure levels when hearing protectors are worn, Polish Committee for Standardization.
PN-EN-ISO-4869-3 (2007), Acoustics. Hearing protectors – Part 3: Measurement of insertion loss of earmuff type protectors using an acoustic test fixture, Polish Committee for Standardization.
PN-EN-ISO-8253-2 (2010), Acoustics. Audiometric test methods – Part 2: Sound field audiometry with pure-tone and narrow-band test signals, Polish Committee for Standardization.
PN-EN-ISO-9612 (2011), Acoustics. Determination of occupational noise exposure – Engineering method, Polish Committee for Standardization.
PN-N-01307 (1994), Permissible noise values in the workplace. Measurement requirements, Polish Committee for Standardization.
Samelli A.G., Gomes R.F., Chammas T.V., Silva B.G., Moreira R.R., Fiorini A.C. (2018), The Study of Attenuation Levels and the Comfort of Earplugs, Noise and Health, 20(94): 112–119.
Sliwinska-Kowalska M., Zaborowski K. (2017), WHO environmental noise guidelines for the european region: a systematic review on environmental noise and permanent hearing loss and tinnitus, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10): 1–19, doi: 10.3390/ijerph14101139.
Zimpfer V., Sarafian D. (2014), Impact of hearing protection devices on sound localization performance, Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8: 1–10, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00135.
Copyright © Polish Academy of Sciences & Institute of Fundamental Technological Research (IPPT PAN)