OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE AMONGST ROAD CONSTRUCTION

WORKERS

KAMILAH MOHD SAID

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Construction)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

AUGUST 2015

iii

This thesis is specially dedicated to my beloved parents

and children

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Almighty Allah for helping and giving me the strength and

ability to complete my study successfully. My deep gratitude and appreciation goes

to Dr Zaiton Haron, who has supported me mentally and physically during my

study. She guided and encouraged me from early to the end of the journey.

My deep sense of gratitude go to Mah Sing Group, Kimlun Corporation and Bina

Water Sdn. Bhd, for their cooperation and help during data collection stage.

My appreciation also extend to my research group members and colleagues who

have given me their support and shared their knowledge which aided me in my

thesis. Last but not the least, my sincere appreciation also extends to my beloved

parents and all my family members for their support and encouragement.

v

ABSTRACT

Overexposure among construction workers to hazardous noise level may

affect workers safety and health. The aim of this study is to determine the level of

noise exposure among road construction workers. To achieve this aim, the sound

power level of construction machineries, workers noise exposure level and the

prevalence of hearing loss symptoms and hearing ability among them were

measured. Sound power level of machineries were measured according to ISO

112000. The workers consist of operator of machineries, site supervisors and premix

workers were measured according to Peraturan-Peraturan di bawah Akta Kilang

dan Jentera 1967 (Akta 139) P.U. (A) 1/89 Factories and Machinery (Noise

Exposure) Regulations 198. A total of seventy three workers who worked in road

work, drainage and pavement stage were measured their noise exposure level. These

workers also were evaluated their hearing loss symptoms and hearing ability using

questionaire survey and interview. Machineries consisting of roller compacter, back-

pusher, vibratory roller and paver have high sound power level. There are 44% of

workers including operators, site supervisors and premix workers had experienced

noise level above hazardous level (≥85 dBA). Vibratory roller operator obtaining

high exposure level with the highest exposure appeared in pavement stage. Highest

prevalence symptoms of hearing loss was recorded in road work stage with 39% of

workers positive hearing loss due to factors of workers’ age, racing and karaoke

activity. Poor hearing ability were observed for workers with age of 60 years old and

greater. It is suggested that workers exposed to noise greater than 85 dBA should

wear hearing protection device (HPDs) with suitable NRR values. In conclusion,

road construction workers also exposed to hazard which require them to wear

hearing protection.

vi

ABSTRAK

Pendedahan berlebihan bunyi bising di paras yang berbahaya di kalangan

pekerja binaan memberi kesan terhadap kesihatan dan keselamatan pekerja. Tujuan

penyelidikan ini adalah untuk mendapatkan tahap pendedahan bunyi di kalangan

pekerja pembinaan jalan . Untuk mencapai tujuan ini, tahap kuasa bunyi jentera

pembinaan, tahap pendedahan bunyi bising di kalangan pekerja dan kewujuadan

simptoms kehilangan pendengaran serta tahap pendengaran di kalangan pekerja

diukur. Tahap kuasa bunyi jentera diukur mengikut ISO 112000. Pekerja yang terdiri

daripada operator jentera, penyelia tapak dan pekerja turapan diukur mengikut

Peraturan-Peraturan di bawah Akta Kilang dan Jentera 1967 (Akta 139) P.U. (A)

1/89 Factories and Machinery (Noise Exposure) Regulations 198. Sejumlah 73

pekerja yang bekerja di dalam kerja jalan,kerja perparitan dan kerja turapan telah

diukur tahap pendedahan bunyi bising mereka. Pekerja-pekerja ini juga dinilai

kewujudan simptoms kehilangan pendengaran dan tahap pendengaran menggunakan

bancian dan temu bual. Jentera yang terdiri daripada penggelek, traktor, penggelek

bergegar dan penurap mempunyai kuasa bunyi yang tinggi. Sebanyak 44% pekerja

daripada operator jentera, penyelia tapak dan pekerja turapan mengalami pendedahan

bunyi bising di atas paras bahaya (≥85 dBA). Operator penggelek bergetar

merekodkan paras pendedahan bunyi tertinggi dengan pendedahan tertinggi

direkodkan dalam kerja turapan. tendedahan bunyi tertinggi direkodkan oleh

penggelek bergetar dari kerja turapan. Kewujudan simptoms kehilangan pendengaran

tertinggi direkodkan oleh kerja jalan dengan 39% pekerja positif simptoms

kehilangan pendengaran disebabkan oleh factor umur pekerja, aktiviti berlumba dan

karaoke. Tahap pendengaran yang buruk didapati pada pekerja yang berumur lebih

daripada 60 tahun. Cadangan untuk pekerja yang terdedah pada bunyi bising

melebihi 85 dBA boleh meggunakan alat pelindung pendengaran dengan nilai NRR

yang sesuai. Kesimpulannya, pekerja pembinaan jalan juga terdedah kepada bahaya

yang memerlukan mereka memakai alat pelindung pendengaran.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TOPIC PAGE

TITLE i

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

LIST OF SYMBOL xviii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION xix

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background of Study 2

1.3 Problem Statement 2

1.4 Aim and Objectives 3

1.5 Research Scope 3

1.6 Significance of Research 4

viii

1.7 Brief Methodology 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 6

2.2 Road Construction 6

2.3 Noise Source 7

2.4 Factory and Machinery (Noise Exposure) Regulation

1989 10

2.4.1 8-hour Time-Weighted Average (TWA) 11

2.5 Hearing Protection Device (HPDs) 11

2.6 Hearing Loss 14

2.6.1 Audiometric Test 15

2.6.2 Tinnitus 18

2.6.3 Inability to Communicate 18

2.7 Other Health Effects 19

2.8 Conclusion 19

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 21

3.2 Research Design and Procedure 21

3.3 Sound power level of construction

machineries from different road construction stages 24

3.4 Noise exposure levels of road construction workers 27

3.5 The effects of noise exposure on workers 30

3.6 Significant factors affected noise exposure level and

ix

prevalence symptoms of hearing loss 32

3.6.1 Normality Test 32

3.6.2 Correlation Test (Pearson, Spearman and

Fisher Exact Test) 33

3.6.3 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis 33

3.6.4 Logistic Regression Analysis 34

3.6.5 T-test 35

3.6.6 Kruskall Wallis non-parametric test 36

3.6.7 One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 37

3.7 Suitable NRR values of hearing protector for construction

workers. 38

3.8 Conclusion 40

4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

4.1 Introduction 41

4.2 Road Construction Stages (Road work, Drainage

work and Pavement) 41

4.3 Sound Power Level of Construction Machineries 45

4.4 Noise Exposure Level of Construction Worker 46

4.4.1 Noise Exposure in Road Work Stage

48

4.4.2 Noise Exposure in Drainage Stage 49

4.4.3 Noise Exposure in Pavement Stage 50

4.5 Factors affeted Noise Exposure Level and Prevalence

Symptoms of Hearing Loss 51

4.5.1 Normality Test 51

4.5.2 Correlation Test 52

x

4.5.3 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis 53

4.6 TWA of Building and Road Construction Workers 54

4.7 Safety 57

4.8 Prevalence of Hearing Loss Symptoms 56

4.9 Other Causes of Hearing loss 58

4.9.1 Correlation Test 60

4.9.2 Logistic Regression Analysis 59

4.10 Hearing Ability of Construction Worker 60

4.10.1 Association between Hearing Ability with Age

and Experience in Construction Sector 61

4.11 Suitable NRR values of hearing protector for construction

workers 64

4.12 Discussion and conclusion 65

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction 67

5.2 Conclusion 68

5.3 Recommendations 71

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 FMR 1989 Permissible Noise Exposures 13

2.2 Simplified guidance on selection of hearing protection 14

3.1 Rating of Hearing Ability 31

3.2 Dummy Variables in Logistic Regression Analysis 35

3.3 Suitable NRR for Overexposed Worker 39

4.1 Workers from different sites and stages 42

4.2 Significant different in Sound Power Level 46

4.3 Significant Different in Daily Noise Exposure and Peak

Level of Noise between Stages 47

4.4 Descriptive Analysis of machine’s operator 51

4.5 Normal Distribution of Parameter 52

4.6 Correlation Test (TWA) 52

4.7 Results of Multiple Linear Regression 53

4.8 T-test for TWAs of Construction Workers in Different

Sites 55

4.9 Correlation Test (Prevalence of Hearing Loss) 59

4.10 Logistic Regression Analysis 59

4.11 Suitable Hearing Protector for overexposed workers 63

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Noise spectrum of workers that work with and without

use machinery 9

2.2 Daily noise exposure of construction workers 10

2.3 Hearing protector 12

2.4 Relation between hearing loss and duration of exposure 16

2.5 Mean hearing levels according to years in construction 17

2.6 Rate of hearing loss among construction workers in

screening audiometry between industry 17

3.1 Framework of research methodology 23

3.2 Positions of sound level meter for noise emission level

Measurement 24

3.3 Distometer 25

3.4 Sound Level Meter 26

3.5 Schematic diagram of noise measurement for dynamic

Machinery 27

3.6 Personal Noise Dosimeter 28

3.7 Backhoe’s operator is wearing Dosimeter 29

3.8 Quest Pro Technologies Software 29

3.9 Briefing to the worker in the measurement process 30

4.1 Mean TWA, Sound Power (Lw) and Peak Level (Lcpk) in

Three Construction Stages 44

4.2 Mean Sound Power Level of Machinery 45

4.3 Percentage of workers exposed according FMR 1989 46

4.4 Workers exposure level according to stages 47

xiii

4.5 Worker’s daily noise exposure Level in road work stage 48

4.6 Noise Exposure Level of Workers in Drainage stage 49

4.7 Noise exposure level of workers in Pavement Stage 50

4.8 Range of Exposure of Building and Road Construction

Worker 54

4.9 Workers expression towards noise interfere with

workers’ communication 56

4.10 Perception workers on noise masking shouts 56

4.11 Percentage prevalence hearing loss symptoms 57

4.12 Hearing ability of construction workers 60

4.13 Association between hearing ability and workers’

experience 62

4.13 Association between hearing ability and worker’s age 62

4.14 Protected TWA level of overexposed workers 63

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

OSHA = Ocupational Safety and Health Administration

NIOSH = National Institute of Safety and Health

NIHL = Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

HPDs = Hearing Protection Devices

PPE = Personal Protective Equipment

dB = Decibel without frequency weighting

dBA = Decibel in A-Weighted

NRR = Noise Reduction Rating

HCP = Hearing Conservation Program

ER = Exchange Rate

ISO = International Organization for Standardization

MLR = Multiple Linear Regression

TWA = 8-hoursTime-Weighted Average

xv

LIST OF SYMBOLS

LAeq = A-Weighted Daily Noise Exposure Level

Lw = Sound Power Level

R = Distance (m)

Te = Time of measurement

T0 = 8 hours time of measurement

Lavg = Exposure level over the entire time of measuremt

Lmin = Minimum exposure level

Lmax = Maxmimum exposure level

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Sample of questionnaire 77

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Malaysia is one of the rapidly industrializing countries. Major and minor

construction projects, including road construction are all over Malaysia which

indicate that the road construction is increasing every year. This growth was viewed

as an accomplishment for our nation, but the noise generated from construction

activities were observed to affect worker’s safety and health. Noise is one of a

common problem at workplace in most countries. Generally, noises from

construction sites are generated by construction machineries. The noise generated by

these machineries was very loud and brought negative impacts on the machineries

operators and nearby workers (Carletti, 2013).

2

1.2 Background of Study

Noise in industry is widespread and is one of a common occupational hazard

in various industrial sectors including construction (Suter, 2002). This is because

construction site is a noisy workplace due to the usage of noisy construction

machineries. Among others, old machineries are used widely in construction sector

which could generate loud noise compare to new machineries. This loud noise is

potentially harmful to workers which may cause hearing loss, annoyance and

disturbance to physical and psychosocial well-being, distraction and loss in

productivity, Tinnitus and interference with communication. International Standards

Organization (ISO) determined that the maximum exposure in workplace should

range from 85dBA to 90 dBA for 8 hours/day to prevent the risk of harmful effects.

Previous studies have highlighted the effects of noise towards worker’s safety and

health. In construction industry, there were fewer studies on loud noise generated by

road construction activities compare to other construction projects. Road

construction appeared to generate noisy activities especially during pavement stage.

Therefore, this study is significant to determine the levels of exposure among road

construction workers.

1.3 Problem Statement

Construction machineries mostly generated high noise levels at construction

sites. Sound power levels of these machineries affect the operators directly since

their positions are on the machineries. Nearby workers are also exposed to sound

generated by these machines according to their distance from the machineries.

Prolong exposure to loud noise might affect workers’ safety and health including

hearing impairment which caused higher compensation in the construction industry

3

(Pinto et al, 2011). Therefore, OSHA required noise monitoring among overexposed

workers since the noise from construction activities mostly exceeded. Noise

monitoring performed by Hong (2005), and Suter (2002)showed that most

construction workers worked in the presence of hazardous noise. Noise control on

the machineries was hard to implement due to the construction culture where most

contractors rent or lease the machineries rather than own it. Thus, hearing protector

was provided to protect the workers as required by FMR 1989. However, previous

studies from Endelson et al., (2009) and Lusk et al., (1999) showed that the usage of

hearing protector among construction workers was poor. Therefore, this study

determines the hazard level of noise exposure among road construction workers in

Malaysia.

1.4 Objectives

The objectives of the study are:

• To obtain sound power level of construction machineries from different road

construction stages.

• To obtain noise exposure levels of road construction workers

• To determine the effects of noise exposure on workers

• To evaluate the factors affected noise exposure level and prevalence

symptoms of hearing loss

• To obtain workers’ hearing ability

• To propose suitable NRR values of hearing protector for construction

workers

4

1.5 Research Scope

The scopes of this research are as follows:

1. This research focus only on new construction and reconstruction of road in

Johor Bharu, Malaysia.

2. The data were collected using Sound Level Meter Type 1and Personal Noise

Dosimeter during working hours.

3. machineries and construction workers that undergo noise measurement were

randomly selected from different road construction sites around Johor Bahru.

4. Road construction stage in this research was created according to the

availability of the activities from representing sites.

1.6 Significance of Research

Sound power level generated by construction machineries affected the

exposure level of the operators as well as nearby workers on site. Their noise

exposure levels were believed to be higher compare to other off-site workers.

Prolong exposure to loud noise is capable of worsening human hearing ability.

Malaysia implements Factory and Machinery Noise Exposure Regulation 1989

which set a limit to the noise exposure level at the workplace in order to protect the

workers from developing hearing impairment and other adverse effects. However,

studies from Yoshioko et al (2010) and Spencer (2007)) showed that construction

workers are exposed to hazardous noise level and are prone to suffer from hearing

loss. Therefore, this study was conducted in order to give information on the

exposure level of construction workers on site and the prevalence of hearing loss

5

symptoms among them since workers’ awareness of the risks of noise and other

exposures is low in this industry (Nietzal and Seixas., 2005).

1.7 Brief Methodology

This research was carried out in five phases according to research objectives.

Phase 1 of the study focused on the on-site measurements of construction

machineries sound power level. Follow-up measurement of worker’s noise exposure

was conducted in phase 2. The third phase involved identification of workers with

positive hearing loss symptoms and hearing ability of measured worker was rated.

Statistical analysis was performed in phase 4 to find the factors affected workers’

noise exposure level and prevalence symptoms of hearing loss. Suitable NRR values

of hearing protector for construction workers were proposed in stage 5.

Recommendations were given in this research to improve the existing system in

order to protect workers safety and health.

92

REFERENCES

Ahmed, H. O., Dennis, J. H., Badran, O., Ismail, M., Ballal, S. G., Ashoor,

A., and Jerwood, D. (2001). Occupational Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss of

Workers in Two Plants in Eastern Saudi Arabia Ann. Occup. Hyg.. Vol. 45 (5), 371-

380.

Arndt, V., Rothenbacher, D., Brenner, H., Fraisse, E., Zschenderlein, B.,

Daniel, U., Schuberth, S and Fliedner, T. M. (1996). Older workers in the

construction industry: results of a routine health examination and a five year follow

up. Occupational and Environmental Medicine; 53:686-691

Barrientos M. C., Campbell-Lendrum D, Steenland K. (2004) Occupational

Noise. Environment Burden Disease. Series 9.

Bell, D and Waclawski, E. (2008). Audiometry for Noise Exposed Workers

NHS OHS Guidance, November.

Carletti, E. (2013). A Perception-Based Method for the Noise Control of

Construction Machines, Archieves of Acoustics, Vol. 38. (2) pp. 253–258.

Ming, C. C., Tang, S. K. and Wong, H. (2009). A Statistical Model for Detecting

Jumps and Decaying Pulses In The Presence of a Background Noise. Applied

Acoustics.70, 498-506.

Chang, T., Jain, R., Wang, C., Chan, C. (2003). Effects of Occupational

Noise Exposure on Blood Pressure. Journal Occup Environ Med; 45:1289–1296

Ciorba, A., Benatti, A., Bianchini, C., Aimoni, C., Volpato, S., R.Bovo.,

Martini, A. (2011). High frequency hearing loss in the elderly: effect of age and

noise exposure in an Italian group. Journal of Laryngology & Otology 125, 776–780.

D. Zheng, D., Cai, X., Song, H. and Chen, T. (1996). Study on Personal

Noise Exposure in China. Applied Acotutics. Vol. 48, No. I, pp. 57

93

Davies, H. W., Teschke, K., Kennedy, S. M., Hodgson, M. R., Hertzman, C.,

and Demers, P. A. (2005). Occupational Exposure to Noise and Mortality From

Acute Myocardial Infarction. Journal of Epidemiology; Vol 16: 25–32)

Eaton, S. (2000). Constuction Noise. Workers Compensation Board of BC,

Engineering Section. Report. Ref. No:0135-20. Project No 7-11-99284.

Edelson, J., Neitzal, R., Meischke, H., Danielle, W., Shepperd, L., Stover, B.,

and Seixas, N. (2009). Predictors of Hearing Protection Use in Construction

Workers. Ann. Occup. Hyg.Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 605–615

Fausti, S. A., Wilmington, D. J., Helt, P. V., Helt, W. J., Martin, D. K.

(2005). Hearing health and care: The need for improved hearing loss prevention and

hearing conservation practices, Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development,

Volume 42(4), 45–62

Fernández, M. D., Quintana, S., Chavarría, N., Ballesteros, J. A. (2008).

Noise exposure of workers of the construction sector. Applied Acoustics 70, 753-760.

Fernandez, M. D., Recuero, M., Blas, J. M. (2010). Definition of a labelling

code for the noise emitted by machines. Applied Acoustics. 69; 141–146

for Remediation; A Review and Analysis. AIHA Journal, 63, 768-789.

Gannoruwa, A., Ruwanpura, J. Y. (2007). Construction Noise Prediction and

Barrier Optimization Using Special Purpose Simulation. Proceedings of the 2007

Winter Simulation Conference.Canada.

Gopinath, B., Thiagalingam, A., Teber, E., Mitchell, P. (2011). Exposure to

workplace noise and the risk of cardiovascular disease events and mortality among

older adults. Preventive Medicine 53. 390–394.

Hamoda, M. F. (2008). Modeling of Construction Noise for Environmental

Impact Assessment. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 13. No.

1.

Hansen, C. H. (2001). Fundamentals of Acoustics. World Health

Organization, Geneva.

Haron, Z., Abidin, M. Z., Han, L. M., Yahya, K., Jahya, Z., Said, K. M.,

Saim, A. A. (2014). Noise Exposure Among Machine Operators on Construction

Sites in South Johor, MalaysiaAdvanced Materials Research Vols. 838-841, 2507-

2512.

94

Hattis, D. (1998). Occupational Noise Sources and Exposures in Construction

Industries. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 1417-1441

Health and Safety Executive. (2013). Noise Exposure Monitoring in

Malaysia.

Hong, O. S. (2005). Hearing loss among operating engineers in American

construction industry. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78: 565–574

Kujawa, S. G. and Liberman, M. C. (2006). Acceleration of Age-Related

Hearing Loss by Early NoiseExposure: Evidence of a Misspent Youth.

Neuroscience, 26(7):2, pp 115–2123.

Kurmis, A. P. and Apps, S. A. (2007). Occupationally-Acquired Noise-

Induced Hearing Loss: A Senseless Workplace Hazard.International Journal of

Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 20(2):127 – 136

Legris, M., Poulin, P. (1998). Noise Exposure Profile Among Heavy

Equipment Operators, Associated Laborers, and Crane Operators. American

Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 59:774–778

Lercher, P., Hortnagl, J., Kofler, W. W. (1993). Work noise annoyance and

blood pressure: combined effects with stressful working conditions. Int Arch Occup

Environ Health. Vol 65, pp 23-28

Lusk, S. L., Hong, O. S., Ronis, D. L., and Eakin, B. L., Kerr, M. J., Early,

M. R. (1999). Effectiveness of an Intervention to Increase Construction Workers’

Use of Hearing Protection. Human Factors. Vol. 41, No. 3, September 1999, pp.

487–494

Miyakita, T. and Ueda, A. (1997). Estimates of Workers with Noise –Induced

Hearing Loss and Population at Risk. Journal of Sound and Vibration. 205 (4) , 441-

449

Morata, T. C., Fiorini, A. C., Fischer, F. M., Colacioppo, S., Wallingford, K.

M., Krieg, E. F., Dunn, D. E., Gozzoli, L., Padrao, M. A., Cesar, C. L. (1997).

Toluene-induced hearing loss among rotogravure printing workers. Scand J Work

Environ Health 23(4):289-298.

Morata, T. C., Themann, C. L., Randolph, R. L., Verbsky, B. L., Byrne, D.

C., Reeves, E. R. (2005). Working in Noise with a Hearing Loss: Perceptions from

95

Workers, Supervisors, and Hearing Conservation Program Managers.Ear and

Hearing. Vol 26, 529-545.

Muchenje, L. S. (2008). Determination Of Backup Alarm Masked Threshold

In Construction Noise. Master of Science

Muller, J., and Janssen, T. (2008). Impact of occupational noise on pure-tone

threshold and distortion product otoacoustic emissions after one workday. Hearing

Research 246; 9–22

Nachtigall, P. E., Pawloski, J. L. and Au, W. W. L. (2003).Temporary

threshold shifts and recovery following noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenosed

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoustical Society of America.Vol. 113, No. 6

Neitzel, R., and Seixas, N. (2005). The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection

Among Construction Workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

2: 227–238

Neitzel, R., Seixas, N. S., Camp, J., Yost,. M. (1999). An Assessment of

Occupational Noise Exposures in Four Construction Trades. American Industrial

Hygiene Association Journal. Vol 60, pp 807–817

Nelson, D. I., Nelson, R. Y., Concha-Barrientos, M., Fingerhut, P. H. M.

(2005). The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. American

Journal of Industrial Medicine. Copyright owner: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Palmer, K. T., Griffin, M. J., Syddall, H. E., Davis, A., Pannett, B., Coggon,

D. (2002). Occupational Exposure toNoise and The Attributable Burden of Hearing

Difficulties in Great Britain.Occup Environ Med. 59 pp 634–639.

Peterson, J. S., Kovalchik, P. G. and Matetic, R. J. (2002). Research engineer,

noise control team leader and hearing loss prevention branch chief, National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Pinto, A., Nunes, I. L., Ribeiro, R. A. (2011). Occupational risk assessment in

construction industry – Overview and reflection. Safety Science 49, 616–624.

Whitaker, C. K.. R., Seixas, N. S., Sheppard, L., Neitzel, R. (2004). Accuracy

of task recall for epidemiological exposure assessment to construction noise. Occup

Environ Med 61:135–142.

Rehman, M. Z., Nawi, N. M., Ghazali, M. I. (2011). Noise Induced Hearing

Loss (NIHL) Prediction in Humans Using Modified Back Propagation Neural

96

Network. Proceeding of The International Conference on Advance Science

Engineering and Information Technology. 14-15 January 2011. Putrajaya, Malaysia.

Rybalko, N. and Syka, J. (2005). Effect of noise exposure on gap detection in

rats. Hearing Research, Vol 20, pp 63–72

Safework SA (2008). Noise in The Workplace. What you should know

Government of South Australia.

Seixas, N. S., Goldman, B., Sheppard, L., Neitzel, R., Norton, S., Kujawa, S.

G. (2005). Prospective Noise Induced Changes to Hearing Among Construction

Industry Apprentices.Occup Environ Med Vol 62:309–317

Seixas, N. S., Ren, K., Neitzel, R., Camp, J., Yost, M. (2001). Noise

Exposure amongConstruction Electricians. AIHAJ 62:615–621.

Shone, G., Altschuler, R. A., Miller, J. M. and Nuttall, A. L. (1999). The

effect of noise exposure on the aging ear. Hearing Research, 56 (1991) 173-178

Spencer, E. (2007). Heavy Construction Equipment Noise Study Using

Dosimetry and Time-Motion Studies. Noise Control Engineering Journa.l Vol 55,

No 4 pp 408-416

Suter, A. H. (2002). Construction Noise: Exposure, Effects, and the Potential

Suter, A. H. (2012). Engineering Controls for Occupational Noise Exposure;

The Best Way to Save Hearing.Sound/Vibration. 45th Anniversary Issues.Toppila,

E., Pyykko, I., Paakkonen, R. (2009). Evaluation of the Increased Accident Risk

From Workplace Noise. International Journal of Occupational Safety and

Ergonomics (JOSE). Vol. 15 (2), pp 155–162

Van Dijk, F. J. H. (1990). Epidemiological Research On Non-Auditory

Effects Of Occupational Noise Exposure. Environment International, Vol. 16, pp.

405-409.

Van Kempen, E. E. M. M., Kruize, H., Hendriek C., Boshuizen, Ameling, C.

B., Staatsen , B. A. M. and de Hollander, A. E. M. (2002). The Association between

Noise Exposure and Blood Pressure and Ischemic Heart Disease: A Meta-analysis.

Environ Health Perspect 110:307–317.

Yoshioka, M., Uchida, Y., Sugiura, S., Ando, F., Shimokata, H., Nomura, H.,

Nakashima, T. (2010). The impact of arterial sclerosis on hearing with and without