environmental noise pollution in the city of curitiba, brazil

Environmental noise pollution in the city ofCuritiba, Brazil

Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin*, Fabiano Belisario Diniz,Wiliam Alves Barbosa

Laboratorio de Acustica Ambiental, Universidade Federal do Parana, Departamento de EngenhariaMecanica,

Centro Politecnico, Bairro Jardim das Americas CEP: 81531-990, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil

Received 14 February 2001; received in revised form 18 July 2001; accepted 20 July 2001

Abstract

This paper presents the results obtained in a study on environmental noise pollution in thecity of Curitiba, Brazil. The equivalent sound level values—LAeq, 2hr—were measured and

tabulated for 1000 locations spread over the urban zones of the city of Curitiba. It has beenfound out that 93.3% out of the locations display during the day equivalent sound levels over65 dB(A), and 40.3% out of the total number of locations measured display during the day

extremely high values of equivalent sound levels: over 75 dB(A).# 2002 Published by ElsevierScience Ltd.

1. Introduction

The city of Curitiba, with 1,500,000 inhabitants, is the capital of Parana state.Parana along with Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul states, occupies theSouthern Region of Brazil. Curitiba, founded in 1693, is one of the oldest cities inthe country. The economy of Parana State, until 20 years ago, was agriculturebased. The industrialization is somewhat recent. Along with the economical growthof the State and especially of the capital Curitiba, significant structural changes inthe city have been observed. Some examples can be cited:

a. migration of country people to urban areas in search of more lucrative jobs inautomobile construction and other industries;

Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 351–358

www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

0003-682X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PI I : S0003-682X(01 )00052 -4

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55-41-361-3433; fax: +55-41-266-0222.

E-mail address: [email protected] (P.H.T. Zannin).

b. Increasing number of circulating vehicles in urban streets;c. Increasing activities in civil construction in order to build new homes for thenew inhabitants.

The increasing number of living people and vehicles has led to the appearance of anew subject that has been recently introduced into the University curriculum: noisepollution. In countries with severe social problems such as Brazil, urban noise hasnot been receiving enough attention. However, some researchers have showed theproblem of environmental noise in other Brazilian large cities such as Sao Paulo [1],Rio de Janeiro [2], Belo Horizonte [3] and Porto Alegre [4,5].Noise pollution and its consequent influence over the environment and life quality

of human beings may be considered a ‘‘hot topic’’ in scientific research. Many noisesurveys treating the problem of noise pollution in many cities throughout the worldhave been conducted [6–22]. In some surveys such as in [17], noise impact was trea-ted as a stress inductor, and in consequence the role of noise as a risk factor forhuman health is discussed. Maschke [17] says that the induced stress by noise has apsychosocial component. Such studies are almost non-existent in Brazil.The objective of the present research was to show the noise level measurements

carried out in different urban zones of the city of Curitiba. Measured noise levelswere classified according to the environmental legislation in effect in the city [23] andaccording the HUD criterium [24].

2. Experimental apparatus

Noise levels were measured by means of the following equipments: Bruel andKjaer Mediator 2238 and Bruel and Kjaer Investigator 2260, both type 1 integratingand logging sound level meters [25].

3. Results and discussion

The city of Curitiba is divided into urban zones, each of them with a particularnoise emission limit according to the municipal law number 8583 from 1995, whichlegislates about urban noise and public comfort [23]. The allowable limits for eachzone in particular can be observed in Table 1.In the present survey the measurements were carried out during the afternoon in

1000 locations spread through all zones listed in Table 1. This means that the cityhas been divided at the rate of one location for each 1500 inhabitants. The dis-tribution of the measurement sites per zone can be seen in Table 2. A non-regulargrid was used to distributed the measurement points throughout the city, (Table 2).The bias effect, the proximity to roads an to building facades were avoided. Fig. 1shows the distribution of the measured points spread through the city of Curitiba.All measurements were carried out during working days and under ideal meteor-

ological conditions: no wind and no rain. The duration of each measurement in each

352 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 351–358

site was one hour, each site measured in duplicate. The first measurement was car-ried out while people were returning home from work between 12:00 and 01:00 pm.Having lunch at home is still a characteristic present in many Brazilian cities. Thesecond measurement was carried out when people were returning home after aworking day, between 06:00 pm and 07:00 pm. The two LAeq measurements wereaveraged for each site to find a single LAeq, 2hr value. The distribution of the mea-sured equivalent sound level (LAeq, 2hr) values across all measurement locations canbe seen in Table 3. Table 4 shows the zone distribution of the measured equivalentsound levels. A plot of the mean values in different zones is given in Fig. 2.Observing Tables 3 and 4, we can notice that in 37 locations, representing 3.7%

out of the total number of locations considered in our survey, the equivalent soundlevels (LAeq, 2hr) have a maximum value of 55 dB(A), meaning that they are inaccordance to the city urban legislation. Observing only Table 4, it is possible to seethat the previously mentioned locations are all located in the residential zone. In oursample for this zone formed by 350 locations, this represents 10.6% out of themeasured points. Downtown and Industrial zones also have some measurement sitesin accordance with the local legislation: 29 sites in the former (2.9% out of themeasured locations) and 38 sites in the latter (3.8% out of the measured locations).The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recommends

the following noise levels for residential areas, measured outdoors:

LAeq449 dB(A)—clearly acceptable49 <LAeq462 dB(A)—normally acceptable62 <LAeq476 dB(A) — normally unacceptableLAeq>76 dB(A)—clearly unacceptable

Table 1

Limits for urban noise [dB(A)]

Zone Day—07:00 am Rest—07:00 pm Night—10:00 pm

Limit—07:00 pm Limit—10:00 pm Limit—07:00 am

Residential 55 50 45

Mixed 60 55 55

Services 65 60 55

Downtown 70 60 60

Industrial 70 60 60

Table 2

Distribution of measurement sites

Zone Number of locations Percentage (%)

Residential 350 35

Mixed 75 7.5

Services 239 23.9

Downtown 97 9.7

Industrial 239 23.9

P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 351–358 353

By considering the above criterium, all the 37 locations mentioned above can beclassified as normally acceptable. It is noticeable by looking at Table 4 that themeasured LAeq, 2hr in 15 locations belonging to the residential zone ranged between55 and 60 dB(A). These values do not satisfy the law number 8583 which states a 55

Fig. 1. Zone distribution throughout the city of Curitiba.


dB(A) limit for this zone, but according to the HUD criterium they are still classifiedas normally accepted.Table 4 shows that no location in the mixed zone satisfies the limits showed in

Table 1. which states the maximum value of 60 dB(A) for the maximum soundemission at daytime. The mixed zone includes residential areas with strong com-mercial activity. By applying the HUD criterium to this case it is noticeable that90.7% out of the 75 locations in this zone range from 65<LAeq, 2hr480 dB(A),being considered as normally unacceptable. In seven locations the LAeq, 2hr exceeded76 dB(A), being classified as clearly unacceptable. The Table 4 also shows that in theservice zone no location satisfies the criteria of Table 1. So, all 239 locations mea-sured in this zone, exceed the day limit of 65 dB(A), as the sound levels range from65 <LAeq, 2hr480 dB(A).

Table 3

Distribution of the measured LAeq, 2hr values in 1000 different sites in the city of Curitiba

LAeq, 2hr [dB(A)] Number of sites Percentage

(%)

LAeq, 2hr450 7 0.7

50<LAeq, 2hr455 30 3

55<LAeq, 2hr460 15 1.5

60<LAeq, 2hr465 15 1.5

65<LAeq, 2hr470 127 12.7

70<LAeq, 2hr475 403 40.3

75<LAeq, 2hr480 321 32.1

80<LAeq, 2hr485 82 8.2

85<LAeq, 2hr490 0 0

LAeq, 2hr>90 0 0

Table 4

Distribution of the measured LAeq, 2hr values per zone

LAeq, 2hr [dB(A)] Residential Mixed Services Downtown Industrial Total

Local legislation

[dB(A)]

55 60 65 70 70

Locations % Locations % Locations % Locations % Locations %

LAeq, 2hr450 7 100 – – – – – – – - 7

50<LAeq, 2hr455 30 100 – – – – – – – - 30

55<LAeq, 2hr460 15 100 – – – – – – – - 15

60<LAeq, 2hr465 – – – – – – 7 46.7 8 53.3 15

65<LAeq, 2hr470 45 35.5 15 11.8 15 11.8 22 17.3 30 23.6 127

70<LAeq, 2hr475 134 33.3 38 9.4 142 35.2 37 9.2 52 12.9 403

75<LAeq, 2hr480 104 32.4 15 4.7 82 25.5 31 9.7 89 27.7 321

80<LAeq, 2hr485 15 18.3 7 8.5 – – – – 60 73.2 82

Locations per zone 350 75 239 97 239 1000


Fig. 2 shows the average sound levels for all measurements per zone. It is clearlynoticeable that all values exceed the limits specified by the environmental legislationfor the city of Curitiba according to Table 1. It is also noticeable that the averagevalue for all measurements made in residential zones is classified as normally unac-ceptable according to the HUD criterium.During the realization of this study it was observed that traffic noise was the major

source of environmental noise pollution. These results agree with the previousresults of a social survey carried out in the city of Curitiba [26]. The findings of thissocial survey showed that traffic noise was the major source of annoyance for thecitizens. In the paper by Maschke [17], he wrote that the sound level category of66–70 dB(A) is to be regarded as the threshold of health impairments. According tothis, from the point of view of preventive medicine, an equivalent sound pressurelevel of 65 dB(A) should be maintained as the limiting value of exposure to trafficnoise during the day. From Table 3, we can notice that in 933 locations, whichrepresents 93.3% of the total locations considered in our 1000-location sample, thevalues of the equivalent sound levels range from 65<LAeq, 2hr485 dB(A). So, it isnoticeable that the major part of the population, i.e., 93.3%, is daily exposed tosound emission levels greater than 65 dB(A) everyday, considered by preventivemedicine as the limit value one can be exposed to [17]. Table 3 also shows that

Fig. 2. Mean LAeq, 2hr values per zone. Residential: 75.6 dB(A); mixed: 76.4 dB(A); services: 74.0 dB(A);

downtown: 73.4 dB(A); industrial: 78.1 dB(A).


80.6% of the population is exposed to noise levels greater than 70 dB(A), consideredas the threshold of health impairments.

4. Conclusions

At the end of this study we can conclude that the city of Curitiba one of the mostpopulated cities in Brazil, and considered as a model of urban development in thethird world, is environmentally noise polluted. About 93.3% of the locations mea-sured in this study show during the day equivalent sound levels over 65 dB(A), thelimit for preventive medicine. Over forty percent (40.3%) of the locations measuredshow during the day extremely high values of equivalent sound levels over, 75dB(A). A widely accepted scientific fact is that living in ‘‘black acoustics zones’’[12,17], where the equivalent sound level is higher than 65 dB(A), put an urbanpopulation in a high risk category for numerous noise subjective effects, includingpsychological, sleep, and behavioral disorders.Among all things that can be done to relieve the environmental noise pollution

problem in the city of Curitiba, the most effective one is the to promote awareness ofthe population about the risks of daily exposure to high noise levels. Noise abate-ment is less of a scientific problem but primarily a policy problem, and this is not yetunderstood in Curitiba as well as in Brazil.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper would like to thank the following people for giving helpand support during the realization of the long and lasting measurements: AlfredoCalixto, Fernanda Pereira and Marco Santin. The authors would also like to thankthe government of Federal Republic of Germany by means of the German AcademicExchange Service (DAAD — Deutscher Akdemischer Austauschdienst)—and thegovernment of Federal Republic of Brazil by means of the CNPq—Conselho Nacio-nal de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento — for the financial support for the acquisition ofthe sound meters. Without this equipment the survey would not have been possible.

References

[1] Bertoli SR, Paiva CEL. Exposicao nao ocupacional ao ruıdo de passageiros de trens metropolitanos

da grande Sao Paulo. XIX Meeting of the Brazilian Society of Acoustics, 15–19 April 2000, Belo

Horizonte/Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2000. p. 386-391.

[2] Arruda FR, Coelho JLB, Slama JG. Aapectos do Controle de Ruıdo Urbano na Cidade do Rio de

Janeiro. In: XIX Meeting of the Brazilian Society of Acoustics, 15–19 April 2000, Belo Horizonte/

Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2000. p. 410–5.

[3] Barros CJO. Analise Espacial do Controle da Poluicao Sonora em Belo Horizonte. XIX Meeting of

the Brazilian Society of Acoustics, 15–19 April 2000, Belo Horizonte/Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2000. p.

380–5.

[4] Sattler MA. Urban noise survey for the city of Porto Alegre. Acustica 1999;85:356.


[5] Schimitt NIM, Pumo ML, Muhle LA, Coelho D, Moura VP, Oliveira RS. XIX Meeting of the

Brazilian Society of Acoustics, 15–19 April 2000, Belo Horizonte/Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2000. p. 398–

403.

[6] Schultz TJ. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;64:377–465.

[7] Sadan AA, Onyeonwu, Ayorinde EO, Ogisi FO. Community attitudinal noise survey and analysis of

eight nigerian cities. Applied Acoustics 1986;49:49–69.

[8] Job RFS. Community response to noise. J Acoust Soc America 1988;83:991–1001.

[9] Stansfeld SA, Sharp DS, Gallacher J, Babishw. Road traffic noise. Noise Sensitivity and Psycholo-

gical Disorder Psychological Medicine 1993;23:977–85.

[10] Aparicio-Ramon DV, Suarez-Varela MMM, Garcia AG, et al. Subjective Annoyance Caused by

Environmental Noise. Journal of Environmental Pathology. Toxicology and Oncology 1993;12:237–

43.

[11] Shaw EAG. Noise environments outdoors and the effects of community noise exposure. Noise

Control Engineering Journal 1996;44:100–18.

[12] Belojeviæ G, Jakovleviæ B. Subjective reactions for traffic noise with regard to some personality

traits. Environmental International 1997;23:221–6.

[13] Yoshida J, Osada Y. Effects of road traffic noise on inhabitants of Tokio. Journal of Sound and

Vibration 1997;205:517–22.

[14] Arana M, Garcia A. A Social survey on the effects on environmental noise on the residents of

Pomplona, Spain. Applied Acoustics 1998;53:245–53.

[15] Sadan AA, Onyeonwu, Ayorinde EO, Ogisi FO. Road traffic noise survey and analysis of source

major urban centers in Nigeria. Noise Control Engineering Journal 1998;46:146–58.

[16] Babisch W, Ising H, Gallacher JEJ, Sweetnan PM, Elwood PC. Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk:

the caerphilly and speedwell studies, third phase—10—year to follow up. Archives of Environmental

Health 1999;54:210–6.

[17] Maschke C. Preventive medical limits for chronic traffic noise exposure. Acustica 1999;85:448.

[18] Kurra S, Morinoto M, Maehoura ZI. Transportation noise annoyance—a simulated environmental

study for road, railway and aircraft noises, part 1: overall annoyance. Journal of Sound and Vibra-

tion 1999;220:251–78.

[19] Moehler U, Liepert M, Schuemer R, Griefahn B. Differences between railway and road traffic noise.

Journal of Sound and Vibration 2000;231:853–64.

[20] Passchier-Kerneer W, Paschier WF. Noise exposure and public health. Environmental Health Per-

spectives 2000;108:123–31.

[21] Abdel-Razia IR, Zeid Q, Seh M. Noise measurements in the community of nablus in palestine.

Acustica 2000;86:578–80.

[22] Zeid Q, Seh M, Abdel-Razia IR. Measurement of the noise pollution in the community of Araba.

Acustica 2000;86:376–8.

[23] Bruel and Kjaer. Technical documentation 2238 and 2260 integrating and logging sound level meter.

Denmark: Naerum, 1995 and 1998.

[24] Environmental Protection Agency, Curitiba, Lei Municipal 8583, 1995 (in Portuguese).

[25] Reynolds DD. Engineering principles of acoustics. Boston: Allyen and Bacon, 1981 p. 641.

[26] Zannin PHT, Calixto A, Barbosa WA, Diniz FB. Environmental noise survey for the city of Cur-

itiba. In preparation.


environmental noise pollution in the city of curitiba, brazil

Documents