Evaluation of noise levels and noise sources in an Irish neonatal intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVES: This study: (i) quantified the typical noise levels in an Irish neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and compared the values to recommendations by the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) and the European Standards for Care for Newborn Health (EFCNI) and to occupational exposure limit value and exposure action values; and (ii) qualified the perception of noise levels and the sources of noise across the various stakeholders within a typical NICU. METHODS: A noise survey was conducted in an Irish NICU. Observations identified practices and behaviours in the NICU that potentially had an impact on noise levels. Noise levels were compared to occupational exposure limits and AAP and EFCNI standards. A noise perception survey was conducted to identify noise sources and awareness of noise levels in the NICU. Results were analysed using SPSS Statistics to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Noise levels recorded were consistent with previous similar studies and in all cases, the average noise levels recorded exceeded the 45 dBA as recommended by the AAP and EFCNI. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) between noise levels recorded on the day shift compared to the night shift. The perception of noise levels reported by nurses versus parents was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.001). 38.3% of all respondents reported having received no information or training with regard to noise in the NICU. There was a statistically significant difference in the perception of who is most likely to be affected by noise in the NICU, with nurses reporting those most likely to be affected by noise were patients, and parents reporting those most likely to be affected were staff (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the hypothesis that noise levels within the NICU are of concern and require regular assessment and monitoring. Training and awareness programmes are an important component to ensuring all persons in the NICU recognise their potential impact on noise levels in the NICU and in reducing the risk for patients and staff.

Evaluation of hand-arm and whole-body vibrations in construction and property management.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and measure the magnitude of hand-arm vibration (HAV) and whole-body vibration (WBV) sources (tools, vehicles etc.) in use within a previously unexamined sector: a construction and property management company. To evaluate the effect of factors such as age of tool, materials being worked on, number and location of tool handles, tool weight, and manufacturer brand on HAV magnitude and the effect of factors such as manufacturer machine brand, terrain, and work task on WBV magnitude. DESIGN: This study was carried out in a construction and property management company, employees (n = 469) working in the engineering services and maintenance departments who use vibrating equipment as part of their work were invited to participate. Two hundred and eighty-nine employees working as general operatives, excavator drivers, stone masons, carpenters, labourers, fitters, welders, and gardeners agreed to participate. METHODS: A total of 20 types of hand tool (n = 264) and 11 types of vehicle (n = 158) in use within the company were selected for inclusion in the study. Five pieces of equipment had never previously been measured. Vibration measurements were carried out in accordance with ISO 5349-1 (Mechanical vibration-measurement and assessment of human exposure to hand transmitted vibration-Part 1: general guidance. 2001) (HAV) and ISO 2631-1 (Mechanical vibration and shock: evaluation of human exposure to WBV in the working environment. Part 1-general requirements. 1997) (WBV). Vibration measurements were made while workers were operating the equipment as part of their normal work activities. RESULTS: A wide range of vibration emission values were recorded for most tool types, e.g. orbital sanders (1.39-10.90 m s⁻²) and angle grinders (0.28-12.25 m s⁻²), and vehicle, e.g. forklifts (0.41-1.00 m s⁻²) and tractors (0.04-0.42 m s⁻²). Vibration magnitudes were largely consistent with those found in previous studies. The highest HAV magnitude was measured on a demolition hammer (13.3 m s⁻²) and the highest WBV magnitudes were measured on an excavator with a rock breaking attachment (5.81 m s⁻²). HAV magnitudes were found to be particularly strongly influenced by tool age, while WBV magnitudes varied with work activity and terrain. CONCLUSIONS: Within the construction and management company, few hand tools (3 of 20) exceeded the exposure action values (EAV) specified in the European Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive 2002/44/EC [On the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of works to the risks arising form physical agents (vibration)], when used for an 8-h period. HAV magnitudes were found to be very dependent on tool age, highlighting the importance of a tool maintenance programme incorporating tool work life prediction supported by regular vibration exposure measurements. Most of the vehicles (10 of 11) tested in this study exceeded the EAV specified for WBV, when operated for 8 h. WBV magnitudes were found to be dependent on the work task and thus, job rotation could be employed to control WBV exposures to acceptable levels.

Evaluating worker vibration exposures using self-reported and direct observation estimates of exposure duration.

The objective of this study was to compare objective and subjective methods of collecting exposure time data for hand arm vibration (HAV) and whole-body vibration (WBV), and to evaluate the impact of inaccurate exposure times' on the calculation of the average vibration exposure over an 8 h working day A(8). The study was carried out in the engineering services and maintenance departments of a construction and property management company. Worker exposure time data was collected using three methods, questionnaire surveys, daily worker interviews and 8 h direct workplace observations. Vibration magnitudes (m/s(2)) were measured for a range of hand tools and vehicles, and daily vibration exposure estimates A(8) were calculated using exposure times observed, reported in interview and self reported in the questionnaire. Results from the study showed that self-reported exposure time estimates from the questionnaire survey were a factor of 9.0 (median value) times greater for HAV and a factor of 6.0 (median value) times greater for WBV when compared with direct observation estimates. Exposure times reported in interview were higher, than those observed, but more reliable than those self reported in the questionnaire; a factor of 2.1 (median value) times greater for HAV and a factor of 1.4 (median value) times greater for WBV. A(8) values calculated using questionnaire exposure times were up to 66% and 75% greater for sources of HAV and WBV respectively when compared to A(8) values calculated using observed exposure times. For the purposes of carrying out a reliable risk assessment, results from this study indicate that direct measurements of worker exposure time are not recommended over questionnaires especially where work is highly variable for example in construction and property management. Worker interviews or direct workplace observation methods were found to be reliable alternative methods for collecting exposure time.