~"'~:i~:..a_ 11 / 2-1/ r7--

Transcription

1 Running head: OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF PUBLIC HEAL TH IN HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION THESIS TITLE: A PILOT STUDY OF OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURES AMONG SELECTED CSUSM EMPLOYEES AUTHOR: SIAMAK DOROODI DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: NOVEMBER 29, 2017 THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTB IN HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION Emmanuel Iyiegbuniwe, Ph.D. THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR Christina Holub, Ph.D. THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER Kristine Diekman, M.F.A THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER ~"'~:i~:..a_ 11 / 2-1/ r7-- signature DATE lf {;)_9(l1- DATE 11/dJ1!1r SIGNATURE ~

2 Running head: OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM A PILOT STUDY OF OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURES AMONG SELECTED CSUSM EMPLOYEES Siamak Doroodi California State University San Marcos

3 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 2 Abstract We conducted a pilot study on personal noise exposure assessments for seventeen employees at California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) during August and September of Noise exposures were measured using calibrated dosimeters with data-logging capabilities to document average sound level (LAVG), eight-hour time weighted average sound level (LTWA), peak noise level (LCPK), and the Dose. In addition, all participants completed survey questionnaires inquiring about their use of personal protective equipment (hearing protection), knowledge of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) PPE standards, and attitudes towards requirements for PPE. The results of this pilot study showed that LAVG ranged from 47.5 to 73.9 dba (Dose = %) and the highest LCPK was found to be dba. All the participants were within OSHA s permissible noise exposure standard of 90 dba for an 8-hour period. However, two of the seventeen participants marginally exceeded the OSHA s LCPK level of 140 dba by 0.6 dba.. The results from the survey questionnaire showed that 80% of the participants were satisfied with their PPE, approximately 87% wore their hearing protection when required. and followed all established CSUSM policies for hearing conservation. Overall, the results showed that CSUSM employees included in this study have minimal risks of developing hearing loss from occupational noise exposures. However, it is recommended that employees must continue to adhere to the existing and effective Hearing Conservation Program at CSUSM with a view to maintaining compliance with OSHA s Occupational Noise Exposure Standard (29 CFR ).

4 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents for their endless love, sacrifices, and encouragement throughout my life. I am extremely thankful for their continued support. I would also like to sincerely thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Emmanuel Iyiegbuniwe, for his guidance throughout this MPH degree program as well as my thesis committee members, Dr. Christina Holub and Prof. Kristine Diekman for their support and feedback. It was a privilege to work with Dr. Iyiegbuniwe, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to conduct this pilot study, guided by his expertise. I would also like to thank Dr. Holub for her advice and for providing me with the tools and knowledge that will guide me in my career to become a successful public health scientist.

5 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 4 List of Tables Table 1. Average survey responses for demographic data from pilot study. Table 2. Summary of personal noise exposure results by occupation. Table 3. Survey responses to the selected to the questions below, arranged by job title as a group. Table 4. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group. Table 5. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group. Table 6. Description of participants included in the Noise Pilot Study. Table 7. Results of personal Noise Exposure. Table 8. Summary of personal noise exposure results. Table 9. Results of personal noise exposure by job title. Table 10. One-way ANOVA results for demographic data from survey responses (including Administrative assistants). Table 11. One-way ANOVA results for employee related data from survey responses (including Administrative assistants). Table 12. One-way ANOVA results for PPE knowledge and usage from survey responses (excluding Administrative assistant responses). Table 13. One-way ANOVA results for attitudes towards PPE from survey responses (excluding Administrative assistant responses). Table 14. Selected survey responses regarding employment at CSUSM. Table 15. Participant s responses to survey questions regarding PPE usage. Table 16. Survey Responses regarding description of PPE usage and potential noise sources. Table 17. Survey Responses regarding feelings and attitudes towards PPE. Table 18. Participant s responses to questions regarding demographics.

6 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 5 Table 19. Sampling dates and times for personal noise exposure recordings.

7 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Distribution of the participants who took the survey for the personal noise exposure sampling. Figure 2. Age demographics from survey responses. Figure 3. Race/Ethnicity demographics from survey responses. Figure 4. Education demographics from survey responses. Figure 5. Participant s responses to the survey question, How many hours per shift (out of 8 hours) are you outside? Figure 6. Survey responses to Do you wear PPE (e.g. hearing protection) during your work shift/session when required by OSHA standards? by job title. Figure 7. Survey responses to In the past month how often did you wear hearing protection while working at CSUSM? by job title. Figure 8. Level of extent response to I am satisfied with my required PPE survey response by job title. Figure 9. Level of extent response to Hearing protection is conveniently located at my worksite survey response by occupation. Figure 10. Level of extent response to Wearing PPE causes me discomfort survey response by occupation. Figure 11. Level of extent response to I do not know why I should wear PPE survey response by occupation. Figure 12. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for time weighted average data from individual readings.

8 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 7 Figure 13. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Peak data from individual readings. Figure 14. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Dose data from individual readings. Figure 15. Summary of personal noise exposure results for average noise exposure levels based on job title. Figure 16. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Time-weighted average based on job titles. Figure 17. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for peak recording based on job titles. Figure 18. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure based on job titles.

9 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 8 Table of Contents Abstract... 2 Acknowledgements... 3 List of Tables... 4 List of Figures... 6 Introduction Health Effects of Noise Exposure Noise-induced Hearing Loss Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss Prevention of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Previous Studies on Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Methods Participants Recruitment Data Collection Statistical Analysis Results Participants Survey Responses Personal Noise Exposure Recordings Statistical Analysis Discussion Survey Responses Personal Noise Exposures Statistical Analysis Conclusions References Table 1. Summary of Employees Demographic Data from Self-Reported Responses to the Questionnaires Table 2. Selected Questionnaire Responses based on Occupation and Employment Table 3. Survey responses to selected questions, arranged by job title as a group Table 4. Selected Survey Responses Related to hearing Protection Table 5. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group.. 44 Table 6. Participants Job Descriptions and Samples Collected during the Noise Survey

10 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 9 Table 7. Results of Personal Noise Exposures Table 8. Statistical Summary results of personal noise exposures Table 9. Results of personal noise exposure by job title Table 10. One-way ANOVA results for demographic data from survey responses Table 11. One-way ANOVA results for employee related data from survey responses Table 12. One-way ANOVA results for PPE knowledge and usage from survey responses Table 13. One-way ANOVA results for attitudes towards PPE from survey responses Figure 1. Distribution of the participants who took the survey for the personal noise exposure sampling Figure 2. Age demographics from survey responses Figure 3. Race/Ethnicity demographics from survey responses Figure 4. Education demographics from survey responses Figure 5. Participant s responses to the survey question, How many hours per shift (out of 8 hours) are you outside? Figure 6. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection by job title Figure 7. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection in the past month by job title Figure 8. Percentage of participants who were satisfied with their PPE by job title Figure 9. Percentage of participants who were felt their hearing protection was nearby by job title Figure 10. Percentage of participants who felt their PPE causes them discomfort by job title. 62 Figure 11. Percentage of participants who knew why they should wear PPE by job title Figure 12. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for time weighted average data from individual readings Figure 13. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Peak data from individual readings Figure 14. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Dose data from individual readings Figure 15. Summary of Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles Figure 16. Summary of Time-weighted Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles Figure 17. Summary of Peak Noise Exposures based on Job Titles Figure 18. Summary of Employees Dose Appendix A. Consent Form Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire... 73

11 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 10 Appendix C. Employees Job Descriptions Administrative Assistant Building Service Engineer Carpenter Electrician Facility Worker Grounds Crew (Landscaper) Plumber Appendix D. Individual Participant Survey Responses Table 14. Selected survey responses regarding employment at CSUSM Table 15. Participants responses to survey questions regarding PPE usage Table 16. Survey Responses regarding description of PPE usage and potential noise sources Table 17. Survey Responses regarding feelings and attitudes towards PPE Table 18. Participant s responses to questions regarding demographics Appendix E. Personal Noise Exposure Experiment Details Table 19. Sampling dates and times for personal noise exposure recordings

12 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 11 Introduction Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is "a rapid variation of atmospheric pressure caused by some disturbance of the air" (OSHA, 2013). Sound is produced as pressure emitted from objects that oscillate and vibrate (National Research, 2004). The sound waves will either be transmitted into an object, reflect, and/or diffract around objects including the human eardrum, thus creating vibrations and hearing (National Research Council, 2004). A basic sound wave consists of three components: frequency, amplitude, and temporal variation (National Research Council, 2004). Frequency (pitch) describes the number of times per second the sound vibration pattern oscillates (National Research Council, 2004). Amplitude (loudness) is related to the sound pressure, or the intensity of the sound, so the magnitude of sound can be measured in units of pressure, power, or energy (National Research Council, 2004). Temporal variation (duration) describes the changes of the sound over time, such as duration (National Research Council, 2004). Occupational noise exposure is known to cause hearing loss and to have several other significant public health implications (OSHA, 2013). Hearing allows individuals to be able to recognize and distinguish things surrounding them based upon the sound that they emit (National Research Council, 2004). The process of hearing involves the external, middle, and inner ears as well as the neurons and the brain. (National Research Council, 2004). The human ear is an efficient detector of sound, as it changes the form of energy from the sound wave to a neural-electrical signal (National Research Council, 2004). The brain then interprets the signal and classifies the sound appropriately, (e.g., a person-speaking, ambient noise, environmental noise, etc.). Noise is often measured in decibels (db) and denotes the logarithmic ratio of two sound pressure levels (National Research Council, 2004). The db scale refers to 10 times the log of the

13 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 12 ratio to the base 10 (Friis, 2012). The logarithmic scale used for measuring sound is base 10. Therefore, an increase in 10 db represents a 10-fold increase in sound intensity, because sound is measured on a logarithmic scale (Friis, 2012). For example, an increase of 20 db is 100-fold increase and an increase of 60 db is actually 1,000,000 fold increase of the sound intensity. Generally, humans do not detect all frequencies equally as the human ear does not hear lower frequencies as well as higher frequencies (Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). To account for this deficiency, certain defined references are used to measure the decibel level. The most common reference used is the A-weighting scale, which is the closest to how humans hear, and is often used for environmental and occupational sound measurements (Fletcher & Munson, 1933; Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Values that have been weighted, or corrected for the A-weighting scale, are denoted with the reference letter written after the db abbreviation, in this case, dba (Fletcher & Munson, 1933; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Loudness is subjectively determined by humans, based on both the frequency and pressure of the sound (OSHA, 2013). A healthy individual can detect tones ranging from 20 to 20,000 Hz, which correlates to approximately a range of 130 db (Cutnell & Johnson, 1998; Friis, 2012; National Research Council, 2004). One Hertz (Hz) is equal to a single vibration per second (Friis, R. H. (2012). The maximum sensitivity level ranges from 500-2,000 Hz and the best achievable sensitivity level ranges from 16-20,000 Hz (Friis, 2012). For older adults who have hearing impairments, it has been shown that they cannot perceive sound above 10,000 Hz (Friis, 2012). The minimum threshold of hearing is 0 dba and the pain threshold of hearing is 140 dba, respectively (Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Examples of common sounds and their respective decibel level include: busy office (60 dba), classroom (70 dba), city

14 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 13 traffic (80 dba), rock concert (120 dba), auto racing (130 dba), and firecrackers (140 dba) (Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Examples of common occupational sounds and their respective decibel levels include: transformer (50 dba), boiler room (90 dba), lawn mower (110 dba), heavy machinery (120 dba), and jackhammer (140 dba) (Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Health Effects of Noise Exposure There are several sources of noise in the U.S. including: road, rail traffic, air, transportation, and occupational and industrial activities. Human activities are a main contributor of noise pollution emitted to the surrounding environment (Buxton, et al, 2017). Some examples of human activities that cause noise pollution are loud music, concerts, sporting events and firearms, all of which have amplified and unsafe sound levels (Hammer, et al., 2013). As a result, environmental noise (geophony and/or biophony) is drained out and is essential for nature and human health (Buxton, et al, 2017). Typically, noise pollution is thought of as a metropolitan problem, however, it has spilled into protected land as a result of ongoing development and a lack of a monitoring program for such areas (Buxton, et al., 2017). A well-known example of a metropolitan area that has severe noise pollution is New York City, where noise exposure is the number one factor of lower quality of life (Hammer, et al., 2013, King, 2016). In 2012, the city received over 40,000 noise complaints by its residents, yet the damaging health effects of noise are not taken seriously (Hammer, et al., 2013). Excessive exposures to environmental noise at levels of dba are shown to have considerable effects on an individual's health (King, 2016). These effects include: disruption to sleep cycles, cardiovascular disorders, damage to the cognitive development of children, annoyance, endocrine

15 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 14 effects, diabetes, communication reduction, performance reduction, mental disorders, noiseinduced hearing loss (NIHL) (Frey, 2012; Hammer, et al.; 2013; King, 2016). Noise-induced Hearing Loss Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is defined as any long-term noise exposure at levels greater than 75 dba (E.P.A., 1974) which can damage sensory hair cells and ultimately the cochlea. Hearing loss is a disorder where the individual loses the function of hearing in one or both ears (OSHA, 2013). Hearing loss can happen either gradually over time or abruptly and can become permanent (Frey, 2012). There are four major types of hearing loss: conductive, sensorineural, sociocusis, and presbycusis (Frey, 2012). Conductive hearing loss (CHL) is caused by impairment or obstruction of sound transmission (e.g. excessive wax, ear infection, etc.) and is treatable and reversible (Frey, 2012). Sensorineural is caused by physical damage to the inner ear or nerve from the ear to the brain, usually irreversible (Frey, 2012; Friis, 2012). Sociocusis is caused by exposure to constant loud noises, typically from loud concerts or machinery (Frey, 2012; Friis, 2012). Presbycusis is age related hearing loss and is irreversible (Frey, 2012; Friis, 2012). The major contributors to hearing loss are due to aging (lifetime of exposure) and noise exposure (work and environment related) (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Due to the broad nature of the definition of hearing loss, the U.S. experiences roughly between 7.3% to 23.6% hearing loss (Neitzel, et al., 2017). A major contributor to this is the absence of economic analyses to trace the root of the problem and a lack of urgency for any prevention or treatment due to coding issues (Neitzel, et al., (2017). It is estimated that 28 million Americans have developed hearing loss or are deaf (National Institute of Deafness and Other Communications Disorders, 1996). According to a study by the World Health Organization, an estimated 23.6 million people aged years (working-age) in

16 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 15 the United States have hearing loss (unilateral or bilateral), which represents 13.4% of the working-age population (Lin et al., 2011, Neitzel, et al., 2017). Individuals that have some form of hearing loss are 2.5 times more likely to have no sustainable wages when compared to individuals with acceptable hearing (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Individuals with hearing loss have significantly lower employment rates and reported wages when compared to those with typical hearing (Neitzel, et al., 2017). The study also reported that the economic impact of hearing loss is significant as it affects more than 13% of the working-age population in the United States (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Continued extreme exposure to noise can lead to tinnitus (ringing of the ears) (Hammer, et al., 2013). Individuals who suffer from NIHL in the workplace also face difficulties with overall workplace productivity such as: communication problems, fatigue, burnout, emotional exhaustion and stress (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Overall, exposure to hazardous noise and the development of hearing loss have a major toll on job performance and can affect the ability to find a job as well as lower wages earned up to 100 billion annually in the U.S. (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss Occupational noise exposure causes NIHL that is experienced while an employee is at work and is a potential hazard for employees (Balanay et al., 2016, Moroika, et al., 1995). Occupational hearing loss is the most common chronic work-related illness (Balanay et al., 2016 & Ologe et al., 2006). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a report was generated in 2013 that showed nearly 11% of all nonfatal, work-related diseases were NIHL cases (Balanay, et al., 2016). Work related noise affects the human body in several ways and the most common effect is hearing loss (Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). It is estimated that million American workers are exposed to hazardous workplace noise (an 8-hr work shift equivalent sound

17 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 16 level of 85 dba ) and suggests that a majority of the U.S. population is at risk of noise related (Hammer, et al., 2013). OSHA estimates that 30 million workers in the U.S are exposed to dangerous levels of workplace noise every year (Balanay, et al., 2016). As a result, NIHL is the most widespread work injury seen in the past 25 years (Balanay, et al., 2016). NIOSH has reported that workers compensation due to NIHL has been estimated at $242 million yearly, with approximately 16% of adults globally who experienced hearing loss being attributed to occupational noise exposure (Balanay, et al., 2016). Prevention of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss The methods for prevention of NIHL are described by OSHA, NIOSH, and the EPA (EPA, 2017; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). Studies have shown that occupational hearing loss can be prevented or controlled by elimination, modification of worksite location (engineering control), limiting exposure (administrative control), and use of hearing protection (Friis, 2012). Exposure limits are determined by safety agencies that determine the maximum level of exposure for a given amount of time. There are three agencies involved with reducing potential harmful levels of occupational noise exposure and they include OSHA in the Department of Labor, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2017) regulation under the Clean Air Act of 1972 (EPA, 2017; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). OSHA regulates and publishes acceptable occupational noise exposure standards that companies must adhere to for employees such as the Occupational Noise Exposure Standard (29 CFR ). NIOSH is responsible for investigating and improving

18 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 17 methods for occupational health and safety, and translating such knowledge to current occupational health and safety standards (Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). For occupational related exposure limits, the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational noise has been set at 90 dba for 8 hours as determined by OSHA (Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). The exchange rate for noise relates to the doubling or halving of noise exposure for every 5 db increase or decrease in sound level (i.e. 95 db = 4 hours) (Friis, 2012)). The ACGIH is stricter and only allows 85 db for every 8 hours of work (Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; Milz, et al., 2008; OSHA, 2013). The permissible exposure limit is defined as the regulation for limitation of workplace exposures to hazardous agents (Friis, 2012). Previous Studies on Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss While anyone exposed to loud and extreme sounds can be at risk for NIHL; there are certain occupations that are more at risk than others. Those that work with loud machinery, in factory-like settings are exposed to louder sounds than the average employee. NIHL is the most compensated occupational hazard and is the most prevalent occupational disease (Balanay et al., 2016; Ologe et al., 2006, Milz, et al., 2008). NIHL occurs most commonly among construction workers ranging from 30% in engineers to 50% in manual laborers (Seixas, et al., 2012). A previous study by Seixas, et al., (2012) showed that newly commenced construction apprentices with two years of work experience had elevated levels of exposures for non-occupational and recreational noise activities. Grounds workers are at an elevated risk for noise exposures (Balanay, et al., 2016). There are roughly 870,000 grounds/landscapers working in the U.S. who conduct a variety of work activities including lawn-mowing, trimming, planting and installing structures within facilities.

19 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 18 They heavily rely on power tools to complete their work (Balanay, et al., 2016). Many of the equipment used by grounds workers include push mowers, shredders, chainsaws and leaf blowers without adequate use of PPE have been established as contributing factors to NIHL (Balanay, et al., 2016). To date, a study conducted on noise exposure assessment among grounds crew at a university setting by Balanay, et al., (2016) found that most workers were exposed to hazardous noise levels. ). The authors found that the riding mower was the source for the highest noise to the grounds keepers who exceeded the OSHA noise standards (Balanay, et al., 2016). The authors also described several ways to reduce noise exposures, specifically for grounds keepers, including: (1) reducing operation time of the machine, (2) purchasing new equipment with lower operating noise (engineering control) with the NIOSH buy quiet program, (3) having enclosed cabins on the mower to reduce amount of noise exposed to the operator, (4) regular upkeep of the equipment and tools, and (5) limiting the duration of exposure to loud machinery/equipment (administrative control) and (6) posting proper PPE signage in noisy areas (administrative control) and (7) maintaining a distance of 50 feet from one another when using noisy equipment (administrative control) (Balanay, et al., 2016). It also was suggested that using a loud tool such as a riding mower for an entire 8-hour work shift instead of switching tools increased noise exposure levels (Balanay, et al., 2016). Construction workers are also at an elevated risk for developing hearing loss due to the use of equipment and power tools used in the profession coupled with inadequate engineering controls (Seixas, et al., 2001). Previous studies have been conducted on the noise exposure levels for the construction occupations and carpentry and these ranged from 74 dba to 104 dba (Seixas, et al., 2001). Electricians are also at risk of exposure to hazardous noise even though they do not heavily use loud equipment, and this may result environmental exposure rather than their use of machinery.

20 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 19 (Seixas, et al., 2001). Seixas, et al., (2001) conducted a noise exposure assessment of four trades including: carpenters, laborers, operating engineers and ironworkers over four total construction worksites. The authors concluded that the average exposure level amongst all trades was 82.8 dba, where 40% of all the workers exceeded OSHA s Action Level of 85 dba and 13% exceeded OSHA s PEL of 90 dba for 8-hour TWA (Seixas, et al., 2001). These statistics support the claim that the environment and tools the work is conducted plays an important role in determining the noise exposure levels. It was shown that work performed by laborers, masons, and insulators had the highest noise levels, while plumbers, electricians and carpenters were relatively low compared to other jobs. It was observed that a small percentage, roughly 14% hearing protection devices (HPDs) was worn when noise exposure was lower (Seixas, et al., 2001). The authors also found that younger workers had higher levels of exposures and that heavy equipment such as backhoes exceeded 90 dba while electric power tools had average exposure of 89 dba (Seixas, et al., 2001). A previous study by Milz, et al., (2008) showed that farmers had elevated risks of developing occupational hearing loss compared to other professions, and this increased exponentially with time (Milz, et al., 2008). In that study, Milz, et al. (2008) reported that by age of 30, roughly 25% male farmers developed communication handicaps due to hearing loss, by age 50, the rate increased to 50%. The authors suggested that these increases in hearing loss with aging was as a result of low usage of hearing protection amongst farmers (Milz, et al., 2008). Also, children who worked on the farm operating tractors at an early age were at elevated risks for developing hearing loss (Milz, S. et al., 2008). Many selected occupations where heavy machineries were used have potential threats of exposing employees to hazardous occupational noise. Currently, there are no published studies

21 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 20 that have investigated occupational noise exposures of employees at college or university campuses in California, except a study that was conducted in a public university in North Carolina. The aim of this study was to administer questionnaires and measure personal noise exposures of selected CSUSM employees. The primarily objective of this pilot study was to determine occupational exposure of selected CSUSM s facilities management employees with a view to determining compliance with OSHA noise standards, and ultimately disseminating the results to affected CSUSM employees and administrative assistants. Methods Participants Recruitment This pilot study was conducted at the main campus of California State University San Marcos over a three-week period during the summer of 2017 from August 9 to September 14, Volunteers were recruited through solicitation and discussions with Mr. Floyd Dudley II, Director of Facility Services. To participate in the pilot study, participants were required to meet a single criterion: be an employee at CSUSM. Departments at CSUSM were asked to be involved based on employees with a higher risk of noise exposure. A total of seventeen participants were recruited and these included grounds crew, carpenter, building service engineer (BSE), plumber, electrician, and administrative. Each volunteer that agreed to be included in the pilot study completed a consent form and a participant survey (refer to Appendix A and B). To maintain confidentiality, each participant was assigned a unique identifier that was only known to the researchers. An overview of the job descriptions for each employee who participated in the study is provided in Appendix C. Two administrative assistants were included in the study as controls. Data Collection

22 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 21 Questionnaires. Participants were asked to fill out a survey that asked demographic information about the participant, occupation related information (e.g., work history), and attitude towards PPE usage (refer to Appendix B). Questions listed in the survey were designed to detect if any one of the occupations listed were at higher risk for noise pollution, and as a result potential noise-induced hearing loss. Some questions had write in options (e.g. occupation, age, PPE equipment description, etc.), which others were designed to detect how much a participant did something (e.g. How do you feel about PPE equipment?) by answering Never, 0%, Often 1-50%, Sometimes 51-99%, and Always 100%. Other survey questions asked about how participants felt about a topic (e.g. I feel satisfied with my PPE), by answering: No extent, Slight extent, Moderate extent, Great extent, and Extreme extent. Survey responses were tabulated and selected responses Noise Dosimeters. Participants were also asked to wear a noise dosimeter during their normal work shift at CSUSM for at least one recording session. In some cases, some participants were asked to do a second or third recording, which resulted in a greater data set for analysis. At least two dosimeter recordings were done for each occupation in this pilot study. The Admin group was used as the indoor, control group. The specific dates and times for noise dosimeters were arranged by the Director of Facility Services Administrative assistant. The noise dosimeters used were 3M EDGE 4 Dosimeter to their person (Quest Technologies and 3M). The dosimeters were programmed to perform data logging the day of the recording session. All dosimeters were calibrated to the correct standard of 114.0dB (1000Hz) before and after each recording session. At the beginning of each recording session, participants were instructed by the researchers to clip the dosimeter onto a shirt or jacket collar. The Edge 4 noise dosimeter is attached to the shirt collar positioned near the shoulder as close as ear to mimic what the surrounding environmental noise the ear picks up. The participants were also instructed to wear the device during their assigned

23 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 22 shift and to not tamper with the device or obstruct the microphone on the dosimeter. The researcher returned when the recording session was over to stop the data log and remove the device. In most cases, the device could not be worn for the full 8-hour shift due to the different work schedules of the CSUSM employees and the researchers. Data collected was downloaded daily to a computer that had the Data Management Software (DMS) previously loaded onto it. Data was exported as either.pdf or.xcl format. Participants that volunteered for the pilot survey received a five-dollar gift card to Starbucks as compensation for participation. In addition to the data logger recordings from the dosimeter, the sound measurements were also recorded onto physical worksheets. All physical logs and equipment were kept in a locked room when not in use. The four sound measurements that were recorded using the EDGE 4 Dosimeter in this pilot study include dose % (Dose), peak (LCPK), 8-hour time-weighted average (LTWA), and average sound level (LAVG). The start, end, and run time was also recorded and documented. Statistical Analysis Both one-way ANOVA and Pearson/Spearman correlation coefficient statistical analysis was performed on the survey responses using IBM SPSS statistical software (reference) to analyze the data from the survey responses. The one-way ANOVA test was used to determine if there was any statistical difference with a 95% confidence level (p<0.05) for the responses for a given occupation. This test requires a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. The groups were determined by the independent variable, which was the occupation for this pilot study. The Tukey HSD equal variance was also carried out, which calculates the post-hoc comparison that corrects for multiple comparisons. If certain groups did not have enough participants, the Tukey HSD was not performed.

24 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 23 To determine the strength of the linear relationship between two variables, Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients can be calculated for a pair of variables. For those variables that were not on interval or ratio scales, the Spearman rho correlation coefficient was conducted instead. Correlation coefficients will be between -1 and +1, where coefficients close to 0.00 represent a weak relationship. The sign of the correlation represents either positive or negative correlation, respectively. Positive correlation indicates that as one variable increases, so does the other variable of interest. Negative correlations indicate that as one variable increases, the other variable decreases. Typically, correlation coefficients greater than 0.7 and less than -0.7 represent strong relationships. Correlation values between +3 and -3 are considered weak. Correlations are considered strong if the associated p-value (significance value) is less than 0.05 (p<0.05). If the p- value is larger than 0.05, then the relationship is considered to be reliable, and not strong. The Spearman coefficients have the same descriptions described above. Results Participants Participants included in this pilot study were recruited from the Facilities or Administrative departments at California State University San Marcos. Their job titles included: Administrative assistant (Admin), Building Service Engineer (BSE), Carpenter, Electrician (n=4), Facility worker (n=4), Grounds crew, and Plumber. The Administrative assistant participants were used as an indoor control, as their occupation does not specifically require PPE usage for their work activities. Both the administrative assistant personal noise exposures and permissible exposure levels were used to reference against the other participants chosen in addition.

25 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 24 Survey Responses There were 17 participants involved in this pilot study for personal noise exposures (Figure 1). The full responses are listed in detail in Appendix D. The majority of the participants were male (n=15, 88.2%) and the two female participants were both Administrative assistants (11.8%) (refer to Table 1). The average age of the participants was 38.6 years old, and the age range was from 25 to 59 years (refer to Table 1 and Figure 2). Responses varied for the participant s race/ethnicity and the data is as follows: 47.1% Non-Hispanic white (n=8), 35.3% Hispanic/Latino (n=6), 5.9% Non-Hispanic black/african American, 5.9%, 2 or more ethnicities, and 5.9% chose not to list a response (refer to Table 1 and Figure 3). The majority of participants reported that 11.8% at least some high school, 35.3% completed vocational school (n=6), 29.4% some college (n=5), 11.8% had completed college, 11.8% completed college, 5.9% some graduate school, and one participant declined to answer ( n=1) (refer to Table 1 and Figure 4). Participants reported an average amount of years working at CSUSM as 5.1 +/- 5.6 years, and the range was from 1 to 22 years (refer to Table 2). Participant s responses for the average years working at their current occupation at CSUSM was /- 3.4 years, and the range was from 1 to 13 years (refer to Table 2). The average amount of years wearing PPE was / years reported, and the range was from 0-35 years (refer to Table 2). Participants also reported an average amount of hours worked outside as 3.6 +/- 2.4 hours per 8-hour shift with a range of 1-8 hours (refer to Figure 5 and Table 2). Participants were asked about their PPE usage at CSUSM. The Administrative assistants reported no usage for these series of questions, and were therefore left out of the data analysis. Most of the participants (86.7%, n=13) also stated that they used PPE during the entire time at

26 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 25 CSUSM, 6.7% reported they did not, and 6.7% did not answer the question. All of the participants stated that they had knowledge of PPE usage as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies (100%, n=15). The majority of participants reported that they had participated in hearing protection or conservation class/training (93.7%, n=14) reported yes, and one participant reported they did not (6.7%) (refer to Table 3). Participant s answers varied for the question, Do you wear PPE (e.g. hearing protection) during your work shift/session when required by OSHA standards? 53.3% always (n=8), 33.3% (n=5), 13.3% sometimes (refer to Figure 6 and Table 4). The Carpenter and Facility worker group reported 100% PPE usage the entire time at CSUSM (refer to Table 4). Participant s answers also varied for the survey question, In the past month, how often did you wearing hearing protection while working at CSUSM? 20% always (n=3), 20% often (n=3), 53.3% sometimes (n=8), and 6.7% reported never (refer to Figure 7 and Table 4). The BSE, Carpenter, Electrician, and Plumber groups reported less than 50% PPE usage in the last month. The Facility worker and Grounds grew groups both reported greater than 50% usage within the last month (refer to Table 4). Participants were also given a series of questions aimed to describe their feelings and attitudes towards PPE and its use during work given their occupation. The Administrative assistant group selected N/A to all questions in this section of the survey, as they are not required to wear PPE as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies and were subsequently left out of the analysis of these questions. In regards to the statement I am satisfied with my required PPE, 20% reported extreme extent (n=3), 60% great extent (n=9), and 20% reported having a moderate extent (n=3) (refer to Figure 8 and Table 5). The Facility worker and Grounds crew groups were the only groups who reported having extreme extent for their required PPE. In regards to the statement Hearing protection is conveniently located at my worksite, 53.3& reported having extreme

27 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 26 extent (n=8) and 46.7% reported having great extent (n=7) (refer to Figure 9 and Table 5). Only the Electrician, Facility worker, and Grounds crew groups reported having as high as extreme extent for the PPE location at CSUSM (refer to Table 5). In regards to the statement Wearing PPE causes me discomfort, 6.7% reported great extent, 33.3% reported slight extent (n=5), 46.7% reported no extent, and 6.7% did not report a response (refer to Figure 10 and Table 5). The single participant that reported that their PPE caused them discomfort was a Facility worker. The Carpenter and Grounds crew groups both reported having no discomfort in their PPE. In regards to the statement Wearing PPE interferes with my job, 15.4% reported extreme extent, 6.7% reported slight extent, 69.2% reported no extent (n=9), and one participant declined to answer (6.7%,) (refer to Figure 11 and Table 5). In regards to the statement I do not know why I should wear PPE, 13.3% participant reported extreme extent, 60% reported no extent (n=9), 6.7% reported slight extent, and 20% declined to answer (n=3) (refer to Appendix D). In regards to the statement I know how to use my PPE - 60% reported extreme extent (n=9) and 40% great extent (n=6) (refer to Appendix D). Participants with similar occupations reported similar PPE and sources of noise at their given job, as described in (Appendix D). Common items shared in the listed descriptions of PPE using during work were earplugs, earmuffs, and safety glasses (See Appendix D). Overall, the facilities and grounds participants wore the most PPE. In regards to sources of noise, participants reported varied responses as well (see Appendix D). The Electrician participants reported the most sources of noise out of all the participants involved. Participants with similar occupations had similar noise sources (e.g. Electricians reported similar responses). Personal Noise Exposure Recordings

28 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 27 There were 17 participants involved in measuring personal noise exposures in this pilot study. In some cases, participants were asked more than once to participate in the pilot study (refer to Table 6). Details including the dates and times of the personal noise exposure recordings can be found in Appendix E. The occupations included: Administrative assistant, Building Service Engineer (n=3), Carpenter, Electrician (n=8), Facility worker (n=4), Grounds crew, and Plumber (n=4). The personal noise exposure recordings were recorded on 6 days: August 9 (Day 1), August 10 (Day 2), August 11 (Day 3), August 14 (Day 4), August 15 (Day 5), and September 14 (Day 6) in 2017 (refer to Appendix E). Observed activities for the participants varied during their personal noise exposure recordings. Electrician and Grounds crew participants were more exposed to sound relative to the other participants. Electricians used power tools to work in transformers, generators, and mechanical rooms. During one of the personal noise exposure recordings, all four Electrician participants were testing fire alarms in a library, and they reported this is atypical for their normal work shift and they were wearing proper PPE. Grounds crew participants did work with landscaping tools (e.g., weedwacker) one recording session, however, during the other sessions used tools that emitted less noise. Carpenter and Facility worker participants also used power tools during their work shift. Facility worker participants were also observed cleaning classrooms and polishing floors using a machine. Building Safety Engineers were not observed directly, however they reported that they used various power tools as well. Administrative assistants worked in an office setting and were exposed to office equipment such as printers, copiers, indoor conversation and phone calls. One of the Administrative assistants (Administration 02), due to her proximity to the Facilities Department, was also exposed high traffic and also has opportunities to leave the office on a golf cart to monitor facility duties or travel to the main campus. All participants, with

29 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 28 the exception of the Administrative assistants, were observed wearing proper PPE during their personal noise exposure recordings. The recorded personal noise exposures for the average sound level (LAVG), time weighted average (LTWA), highest peak recorded (LCPK), and Dose can be found in Table 7. The Administrative assistant group consistently reported the lowest values for LAVG, LTWA, and Dose personal noise exposures. A summary of these results is provided in Table 8. The highest LAVG value was associated with Electrician 02 (77.0 dba) and the third lowest was associated with Facility 01 (61.7 dba), as the Administrative assistant group was the lowest (refer to Table 7). The average LAVG value was 68.3 (7.3) dba, and it ranged from 47.5 to 77.4 dba (see Table 8 and Figure 12). The highest LTWA value was associated with Electrician 04 (76.2 dba) and the second lowest value was associated with Facility 01 (60.6 dba), as Admin 01 was the lowest (refer to Table 7). The average LTWA was 68.6 (8.3) dba, and it ranged from 42.5 to 76.2 dba (see Table 8 and Figure 13). The highest LCPK value was associated with Electrician 01 and Grounds 01 (140.6 dba) and the lowest value was associated with Electrician 03 (126.5 dba) (refer to Table 7). The average LCPK value was (3.9) dba, and it ranged from to dba (see Table 8). The highest dose detected was associated with Facility 04 (14.7%) and the lowest value was associated with both Electrician 04 and Admin 01 (0.1%) (refer to Table 7). The average dose 6.5 (3.7),% and it ranged from 0.1 to 14.7% (see Table 8 and Figure 14). Overall, participants from the Electrician group had the highest personal noise exposure levels and participant from the Facility group (Facility 04) had the lowest noise exposure levels. When the personal noise exposure levels were then compared between occupation groups instead as individuals, the results were slightly different (refer to Table 9). Aside from the Administrative assistants, who reported the lowest values for all four personal noise exposure

30 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 29 levels, the lowest values were typically the Facility group. The highest average value for LAVG was the Carpenter group (73.3 dba) and the second lowest average value was from the Facility group (62.9 dba) (refer to Figure 15). The highest average value for LTWA was the Carpenter group (72.5 dba) and the second lowest average value was from the Facility group (61.0 dba) (refer to Figure 16). The highest average value for LCPK was the Grounds group (136 dba) and the second and third lowest average values were from both the Facility and Plumber groups (128.8 dba) (refer to Figure 17). The highest average value for Dose was the Carpenter group (8.9%) and the second and third lowest average values were from both the Facility and Plumber groups (3.8%) (refer to Figure 18). Overall, the Carpenter group had the highest group noise exposure levels and the Facility group had the lowest noise exposure levels. Statistical Analysis One-way ANOVA test. One-way ANOVA tests were performed to evaluate if there was any statistical difference between the answers to survey questions given to the participants. There was no significant difference found between occupation grounds for the participant s ages, race/ethnicity, or the highest level of education (refer to Table 9). There was also no significant difference found between occupation groups found for the participant s length of time at CSUSM, length of time at their current occupation at CSUSM, or how many hours spent outside (refer to Table 10). There was no significant difference found between occupation groups found for participants age, gender, race/ethnicity, and highest education reported. A significant difference was found between occupation grounds for two of the survey questions that inquired about the extent they felt regarding their PPE. The statement I am satisfied with my required PPE was found to have a statistical difference between occupations (F (5,9) = 6.840, p=0.007<0.05). The statement Wearing PPE interferes with the ability to do my job was

31 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 30 found to have a statistical difference between occupations (F (5,8) = 5.943, p=0.014<0.05). All other statements inquiring about the extent they felt regarding their PPE, knowledge of PPE, or usage of PPE did not show any significant difference between occupation groups. Pearson s Correlation. A Pearson s correlation coefficients were calculated to assess any potential relationships, positive or negative, between all survey questions. There were some positive correlations that were found after analysis. A strong, positive correlation was found between Hearing protection is conveniently located at my worksite AND I know how to use my PPE (r= 0.873, n=15, p= 0.00 < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between I know how to use my PPE AND What is your occupation? (c=0.748, n=15, p= < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between, How many years have you been wearing hearing protection AND How long in years, have you been working in this occupation at CSUSM? (c= 0.891, n=13, p= < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between, How many years have you been wearing hearing protection AND How long in years have you worked at CSUSM? ) c= 0.750, n=13, p= < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between, Have you attended hearing protection/conservation training AND How long in years, have you been working in this occupation at CSUSM? (c= 0.744, n=15, p= < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between, Q: What is your age in years AND How long in years have you worked at CSUSM? (c=0.699, n=15, p= < 0.05). All other relationships did not show a substantial correlation (c > 0.7, p<0.05). Discussion Survey Responses There were 17 participants included in this pilot study, which were grouped according to their job title. A total of 8 different job occupations were selected, including Administrative

32 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 31 assistant, Building Service Engineer, Carpenter, Facility worker, Grounds crew, and Plumber. This selection of occupations was ideal for the objective of this pilot study, as it investigated a crosssection of CSUSM employees.. The Administrative assistants were expected to have no knowledge of PPE, as they are not required to wear PPE as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies and standards. The other participants were required to wear PPE as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies and standards. Most of the participants were male; the only two reported female participants were Administrative assistants. This is not likely to affect the data, as the Administrative assistants were left out of the one-way ANOVA tests, as they were not required to wear PPE. The majority of participants in the pilot study were, between and years old. Based on the survey responses received, most of the participants in the pilot study ethnicities consisted of Non- Hispanic White and Hispanic/ Latino. This pilot study also indirectly investigated the typical work habits of the participants. It was determined that the grounds crew spent the most hours per shift outside, due to outdoor landscaping. As expected, the Administrative Assistants spent the least amount of time outside (none) during their 8-hour work shift than any other employee during this pilot study, due to the nature of their work. With the exception of facility workers, most employees at CSUSM remained at their original occupation since starting employment at CSUSM. It was also noted that the Building Service Engineer had the highest total average years wearing PPE with an average of 5 hours working outside per shift. It was reported that the majority of the participants, excluding the administrative assistants, wore hearing protection the entire time while working at CUSM. When participants were asked about habits regarding wearing hearing protection during their shift, most participants reported

33 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 32 wearing PPE more than 50% of the time. Answers varied for survey responses regarding wearing PPE within the past month, which could be attributed to taking measurements during the month of August when school was not in session and when more work can be done indoors because classrooms are available are not occupied. The majority of participants wore similar PPE regularly, including earmuffs, earplugs, safety glasses, and gloves (refer to Appendix D). Although the different employees were exposed to different noise sources, they generally were exposed to power tools and air compressors (refer to Appendix D). The majority of all the participants, with the exception for one electrician (who reported No ), had been wearing hearing protection the entire time working at CSUSM. The majority of all the participants attended a hearing conservation class while working at CSUSM, with the exception of a BSE participant. This is surprisingly considering the CSUSM policies posted by the Safety, Risk, and Sustainability Department. The varied reports of PPE usage could be attributed to the PPE being uncomfortable or perhaps the participants felt that the required PPE was not necessary for the certain job duties they conduct, or their job duties did not require PPE usage for that activity. It was shown that most employees were overall satisfied with their required PPE, while some were moderately satisfied. It was also shown that participants felt that PPE is conveniently located at their worksite. It was observed that the Facilities department had three (3) PPE vending machines that dispensed PPE related supplies, including foam earplugs, gloves, respirator masks, batteries, tape, sealants, saw attachments, and zip ties. Employees had access to all accessories in these vending machines free of charge, and could obtain the material needed simply by swiping their employee identification in the panel attached to the vending machine, which is most likely used for inventory purposes. A notable observation was made regarding the personal noise exposures from the Administrative Assistants recordings. It was noted that this group had higher

34 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 33 levels than some of the other participants, even though they reported they spend no time outside. In particular, Admin 01, had higher levels than Admin 02, had higher levels than Admin 02, which could be attributed to working in the Facilities office, which was observed to be a high traffic area compared to the office for Admin 01. Personal Noise Exposures In general, the results of this pilot study confirmed that the personal noise exposure levels of participants did not exceed the OSHA standards of 90 dba 8HR-TWA for any of the participants. However, for two participants (Electrician 01 and Grounds 01), the maximum peak threshold (LCPK) exceeded the 140 dba level by 0.6 dba. Compliance with the monitoring device (dosimeter) was met for the majority of the participants. Only two participants had a physical malfunctioning while recording their personal noise exposure, Carpenter 01 on Day 6 lost the microphone during the recording session, and Plumber 02 on Day 3 had an issue with the start/stop function on the dosimeter, which was resolved by resetting the recording device roughly two hours after initially starting. As a result, the data after the second start for the Plumber 02 data from Day 3 was only included. The Carpenter s device malfunction did not appear to compromise the recording. Carpenter 01 and Facilities 03 participants did not record a maximum peak threshold (LCPK) during their recording. Although it was not possible to observe each of the participants on each day, all of the participants observed wore their required hearing protection during their study. This was expected, as it is CSUSM s Hearing Conservation Policy for employees to always wear their required PPE during their work shift. The highest maximum peak threshold (LCPK) measurements for Electrician 01 and Grounds 01 occurred only, despite the fact they each recorded a second personal noise exposure on a second day. Electrician 01 s activities on Day 1 that could possibly explain the high LCPK measurement

35 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 34 include using a practice board to make wire electrical boxes, and the heavy use of loud power tools such as drills, band saws to cut metal, and an extremely loud roto hammer. Grounds 01 s activities that could possibly explain the high LCPK measurement include landscaping and weedwacking equipment. Therefore, despite the high maximum peak threshold (LCPK) measurements for both participants, exposures are most likely limited to certain activities that most likely are not occurring daily. Statistical Analysis One-way ANOVA tests reveal that there were only significant differences between occupation groups for only two survey responses. The two survey questions were related to how the participants felt about statements regarding their PPE. The survey responses were I know how to use my PPE and Wearing PPE interferes with the ability to do my job were found to be statistically different between occupation groups. All of the Grounds crew, Facility workers, and 3 of the 4 Electricians reported extreme extent towards I know how to use my PPE whereas all of the Building Service Engineers, Plumbers, Carpenter, and 1 of the 4 Electricians reported great extent. Considering that both of the responses were of great extent, it is interpreted as the CSUSM participants felt that they know how to use their PPE sufficiently. All of the participants, with the exception of both the Building Service Engineer participants and one of the Grounds crew, slightly agreed with the statement Wearing PPE interferes with the ability to do my job, whereas the rest disagreed with the statement fully. There were six positive correlations found between survey responses. A strong, positive correlation was found between the amount of time wearing PPE, at current occupation at CSUSM, and employed at CSUSM. This was expected as CSUSM has a Safety, Risk, and Sustainability Department, that has implemented an Injury and Illness Prevent Program (IIPP). CSUSM has also

36 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 35 implemented a Hearing Conservation Program to monitor and control potential excessive noise on both students and employees. Both hearing exams as well as a hearing conservation training is given throughout the year on campus. There was also a strong positive correlation found between participants reporting knowing how to use their required PPE and reporting that their PPE was conveniently located at their worksite. It is likely that this is due to the available PPE resources on CSUSM campus in the Facilities Department. It is possible that due to the Hearing Conservation program, along with the IIPP promote information on how to use PPE as well as where PPE is located on campus. There was also a strong positive correlation found between participants reporting knowing how to use their required PPE and a given occupation. All four (4) Facility worker participants reported that they always (100%) used their PPE when required by OSHA standards. The four (4) Electrician participants answers varied from sometimes (1-50%) to always (100%). Both BSE and Grounds ranged between often (51-99%) and always (100%). The two (2) Plumber participants reported often (51-99%) usage when required by OSHA. These results indicate that perhaps individuals will use their PPE according to their own discretion, rather than according to job title. It is interesting to note however, that all of the Facility worker participants wore their PPE always, which might suggest that they either use loud equipment more frequently than other occupations, or are more diligent about their PPE usage. Conclusions The pilot study was able to monitor both personal noise exposures and the extent of the participants knowledge and attitude towards their use of required PPE. Personal noise exposures were measured and analyzed both as individuals and as occupational groups for 6 days during the end of the summer term at CSUSM. All participants in the pilot study were well below OSHA s

37 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 36 PEL of 90 dba 8hr-TWA. Participants were mostly satisfied with their PPE, used their PPE while working at CSUSM, and in general, had no complaints about their required PPE. This can be attributed to the positive environment that CSUSM Safety, Risk, and Sustainability Department has created by providing and monitoring PPE for their employees. CSUSM employees included in this study have minimal risks of developing hearing loss from occupational noise exposures. It must be noted that CSUSM has an existing and effective Hearing Conservation Program and thus has continuously maintained compliance with OSHA s Occupational Noise Exposure Standards (29 CFR ). Future work would need to assess the personal noise exposure levels during different times during a typical school year. Possibility exists that personal noise exposures during summer activities could be less or greater when compared to other periods and sessions during the school year. Additionally, an increased number of participants, and personal noise exposure monitoring periods would be useful to address other CSUSM employees or occupations that could potentially be at risk of high noise exposures. Furthermore, a study that would focus on expanded measurement of personal noise exposures of more diverse and higher number of employees and students would be needed to provide results that would be more generalizable to all CSUSM employees.

38 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 37 References Balanay et al. (2016). Assessment of Occupational Noise Exposure among Groundskeepers in North Carolina Public Universities. Environmental Health Insights Buxton, R. T. et al (2017). Noise pollution is pervasive in U.S. protected areas. Science, 356(6337), Cronk, B. (2016.) How to use SPSS (9th ed.). Pyrczak Publishing. Glendale, CA. Cutnell, John D. and Kenneth W. Johnson. (1998). Physics. 4th ed. New York: Wiley. 466 Department of Industrial Relations. (n.d.) Cal/OSHA Regulations. Retrieved on December 3, 2017 from: EPA. (2017). Clean Air Act Title IV - Noise Pollution. Retrieved on August 29, 2017 from: Fletcher, H. and Munson, W. (1933). Loudness, Its Definition, Measurement and Calculation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 5, pp Frey, R. (2012). Hearing Loss and Hearing Disorders in The Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders. Ed. Brigham Narins. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, p Friis, R. H. (2012). Essentials of environmental health. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Hammer, M. S. et al. (2013). Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States: Developing an Effective Public Health Response. Environmental Health Perspectives. 122(2): IBM. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics. Version 24. [Computer software]. King, E. (2016). A combined assessment of air and noise pollution on the High Line, New York City. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 42,

39 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 38 Masterson E.A., Bushnell P.T., Themann C.L., and Morata T.C. (2016). Hearing Impairment Among Noise-Exposed Workers United States, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 65: doi: /mmwr.mm6515a2. Milz, S. et al. (2008). Noise Exposure Assessment of Three Adolescents Living on Farms in Northwestern Ohio. Seminars in Hearing, 29(1), Moroika, et al. (1995). Evaluation of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss by reference to the upper limit of hearing. Int. Arch. Occup Enviorn Health. 67: National Institute of Deafness and Other Communications Disorders. (1996). National Strategic Research Plan: Hearing and Hearing Impairment. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health. National Research Council. (2004). Basics of Sound, the Ear, and Hearing. In Dobie, R.A. & Van Hemel, S., (Eds.), Hearing Loss: Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. Neitzel, R. L. et al. (2017). Economic Impact of Hearing Loss and Reduction of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in the United States. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 60(1), 182. Ologe, F. E. et al. (2006). Occupational Noise Exposure and sensorineurnal hearing loss among steel workers in Nigeria. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 263: OSHA. (2013) OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Directive TED Retrieved on April 21, 2017 from: Quest Technologies and 3M. (2012.) Edge eg4&eg3 Personal Noise Dosimeter User Manual. [Brochure].

40 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 39 Seixas, N. S. et al, (2012). 10-Year prospective study of noise exposure and hearing damage among construction workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 69(9), Seixas, N. S. et al,(2001). Noise Exposure among Construction Electricians. Aihaj, 62(5),

41 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 40 Table 1. Summary of Employees Demographic Data from Self-Reported Responses to the Questionnaires. Survey Question Admin 1 BSE 2 Carpenter Electricia n (n=4) Facility worker (n=4) Grounds Crew Plumber Average Age Total (n=17) What is your gender? What is your highest level of education? Male 0% 100% Female 100% No Response Grad school 100% 100% (n=4) 100% (n=4) 100% 100% 88.2% (n=13) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% College 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% % 0% 25% Vocational 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 11.8% 50% 0% 100% 35.3% (n=6) What is your race/ ethnicity? Some college Some Vocational High school Some high school No Response Non- Hispanic white Non- Hispanic black Hispanic/ Latino 2+ more ethnicities No Response 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0% 33.3% (n=5) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 100% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 11.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9% 0% 0% 75% (n=3) 25% 0% 100% (n=2_ 47.1% (n=8) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9% 0% 25% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 100% Admin 1 = Administrative Assistant; BSE 2 = Building Service Engineer. 100% 0% 35.3% (n=6) 0% 0% 5.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9%

42 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 41 Table 2. Selected Questionnaire Responses based on Occupation and Employment. Job Title Average Time at CSUSM (years) Average Time at occupation at CSUSM (years) Time wearing PPE (years) Amount of time outside per 8- hour shift (hours) Administrative Assistant Building Services Engineer 4.8 +/ / / / / / / /- 0.0 Carpenter Electrician 3.8 +/ / / /- 0.3 Facility worker 6.6 +/ / / /- 3.0 Grounds crew 5.8 +/ / / /- 1.1 Plumber 2.5 +/ / / Total 5.1 +/ / / /- 2.4 The average time at CSUSM was 5.1 years, with the average amount of time at the participants current occupation was 3.3 years. Participants had an average of 12.9 years wearing PPE and worked an average 3.6 hours working outside per shift.

43 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 42 Table 3. Survey responses to selected questions, arranged by job title as a group. Survey Question Have you been wearing hearing protection your entire time working at CSUSM, if applicable? Have you attended hearing protection or conservation training? Answer BSE 1 Yes 100% Carpent er 100% Electrici an (n=4) 75% (n=3) No 0% 0% 25% No Response Yes 50% No 50% No Response Facility worker (n=4) 100% (n=4) Grounds Crew 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 100% (n=4) Plumber 100% Total (n=15) 86.7% (n=13) 0% 0% 0% 6.7% 100% (n=4) 100% 0% 6.7% 100% 93.3% (n=14) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Notes that answers to survey responses are Yes, No, or No Response. 1 = Building Services Engineer

44 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 43 Survey Question Do you wear PPE (e.g. hearing protection) during your work shift/session when required by OSHA standards? In the past month, how often did you wearing hearing protection while working at CSUSM? Table 4. Selected Survey Responses Related to hearing Protection. Answer BSE 1 Always 50% Often 50% Sometime s Carpent er 100% Electrici an (n=4) 25% 0% 25% 0% 0% 50% Facility worker (n=4) 100% (n=4) Grounds Crew 50% 0% 50% Plumber Total (n=15) 0% 53.3% (n=8) 100% 33.3% (n=5) 0% 0% 0% 13.3% Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No Response 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Always 0% 0% 0% 50% Often 0% 0% 0% 50% Sometime s 100% 100% 75% (n=3) Never 0% 0% 25% No Response 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% 20.0% (n=3) 0% 20.0% (n=3) 53.3% (n=8) 0% 0% 0% 6.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Notes that answers to survey responses are Always (100%), Often (51-99%), Sometimes (1-49%), Never (0%), or No Response. 1 = Building Services Engineer

45 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 44 Table 5. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group. Survey Question I am satisfied with my required PPE Hearing protection is conveniently located at my worksite Extent BSE 1 Carpenter Electrician (n=4) Facility worker (n=4) Extreme 0% 0% 0% 50% Great 50% Moderate 50% 100% 75% (n=3) 0% 25% 25% 25% Grounds Crew 50% 50% Plumber Total (n=15) 0% 20% (n=3) 100% 60% (n=9) 0% 0% 20% (n=3) Slight 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Extreme 0% 0% 50% Great 100% 100% 50% 100% (n=4) 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 53.3% (n=8) Moderate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Slight 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 46.7% (n=7) Wearing PPE causes me discomfort I do not know why I should wear PPE N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Extreme 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Great 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 6.7% Moderate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Slight 50% No 0% 100% 0% 33.3% 66.7% 50% 25% 0% 50% 100% 50% N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No Response 50% Extreme 0% 0% 66.7% (n=3) 33.3% (n=5) 46.7% (n=7) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.7% 0% 0% 0% 15.4% Great 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Moderate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Slight 50% No 50% N/A 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 33.3% 75% (n=3) 0% 25% 100% 50% 6.7% 69.2% (n=9) 0% 0% 6.7% Notes that responses to survey questions describe the level of extent felt by the participants to the statements described. 1 = Building Services Engineer

46 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 45 Table 6. Participants Job Descriptions and Samples Collected during the Noise Survey. Job Title (# Employees) Number of Samples Collected Frequency of Sampling (%) Administrative Assistant (2) Building Service Engineer (2) Carpenter (1) Electricians (4) Facility Worker (4) Grounds Crew (2) Plumbers (2) Total (17) Note that the table above describes the number of participants and the frequency of personal noise exposure sampling for each job title.

47 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 46 Day Sampled Table 7. Results of Personal Noise Exposures. Job Title ID L AVG 1 L TWA 2 L CPK 3 Dose 4 (%) (dba) (dba) (dba) 1 Electrician Electrician Electrician Electrician Grounds Carpenter N/A Facilities Facilities Facilities N/A Facilities Admin BSE Plumber Plumber Admin Electrician Electrician Electrician Electrician BSE BSE Grounds Plumber Plumber Carpenter Grounds Grounds Note that The permissible exposure limit for LAVG and LTWA is 90 dba (AL=85 dba), 140 dba for LCPK and 100% for Dose as determined by OSHA standards. 1. LAVG represents the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average. 2. LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange 3. LCPK, represents the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session. 4. Dose is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 90dB over 8 hours. 5.PEL = Permissible Exposure Limit 6. AL = Action Level 7. Grounds crew 8. Facility worker Administrative assistant 8. Building Service Engineer N/A= missing data, not applicable

48 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 47 Table 8. Statistical Summary results of personal noise exposures. Sound measurement L AVG 1 (dba) L TWA 2 (dba) L CPK 3 (dba) Dose 4 (%) Mean Standard Deviation of mean Range = LAVG, the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average. 2 = LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange 3 = LCPK, the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session. 4=Dose, is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 90dB over 8 hours.

49 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 48 Personal noise exposure L AVG 1 (dba) L TWA 2 (dba) L CPK 3 (dba) Dose 4 (%) Table 9. Results of personal noise exposure by job title. Admin 5 BSE 6 Carpenter Electrician Facility worker Grounds crew Mean Std. Dev Range Plumber Mean Std. Dev Range Mean Std. Dev Range Mean Std. Dev Range = LAVG, the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average. 2 = LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange 3 = LCPK, the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session. 4=Dose, is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 90dB over 8 hours. 5 = Administrative Assistant 6 = Building Services Engineer

50 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 49 Table 10. One-way ANOVA results for demographic data from survey responses. (including Administrative assistants)

51 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 50 Table 11. One-way ANOVA results for employee related data from survey responses. (including Administrative assistants)

52 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 51 Table 12. One-way ANOVA results for PPE knowledge and usage from survey responses. (excluding Administrative assistant responses)

53 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 52 Table 13. One-way ANOVA results for attitudes towards PPE from survey responses. (excluding Administrative assistant responses)

54 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 53 Figure 1. Distribution of the participants who took the survey for the personal noise exposure sampling. 5 Number of Participants Job Title The majority of the participants were Electricians (n=4) and Facility workers (n=4), followed by two representatives of the remaining groups (Grounds crew, Plumbers, Administrative Assistants, and Building Service Engineers and one Carpenter.

55 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 54 Figure 2. Age demographics from survey responses Number of Participants Age Range (years) The distribution of the age of the participants involved in this study ranged from The majority of participants fell in age ranges from (n=5), (n=5), or (n=4) age ranges (in years).

56 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 55 Figure 3. Race/Ethnicity demographics from survey responses Number of Participants Hispanic/Latino Non-hispanic white Non-hispanic black No Response 2+more Race/Ethnicity The responses of participants for their race/ethnicity varied. The majority of participants were either non-hispanic white (n=8) or Hispanic/Latino (n=6).

57 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 56 Figure 4. Education demographics from survey responses. 7 Number of Participants Some Graduate Work 2 Completed College 5 Some College 6 Completed Vocational school Highest Education Level Reported 2 < High School No Response 1 The education background for the participants involved in this study ranged from some high school to some graduate work with the majority either having some college (n=5) or had finished vocational school (n=6).

58 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 57 Figure 5. Participant s responses to the survey question, How many hours per shift (out of 8 hours) are you outside? 8 Time worked outside per shift (hrs) Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility worker 6.8 Grounds crew 2 Plumber Job Title Note the following, Admin = Administrative assistant and BSE = Building Services Engineer.

59 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 58 Figure 6. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection by job title % 33.30% 53.30% Always Often Sometimes Never No Response

60 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 59 Figure 7. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection in the past month by job title. 6.70% 53.30% 20.00% 20.00% Always Often Sometimes Never No Response

61 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 60 Figure 8. Percentage of participants who were satisfied with their PPE by job title. 20% 20% Extreme 60% Great Moderate Slight No N/A No Response

62 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 61 Figure 9. Percentage of participants who were felt their hearing protection was nearby by job title % 53.30% Extreme Great Moderate Slight No N/A No Response

63 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 62 Figure 10. Percentage of participants who felt their PPE causes them discomfort by job title % 6.70% 6.70% 33.30% Extreme Great Moderate Slight No N/A No Response

64 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 63 Figure 11. Percentage of participants who knew why they should wear PPE by job title % 7.00% 15.40% 7.70% Extreme Great Moderate Slight No N/A No Response

65 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 64 Figure 12. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for time weighted average data from individual readings LTWA (dba) Admin 01 Admin 02 BSE 01 BSE 01 BSE 02 Carpenter 01 Carpenter 01 Elect 01 Elect 01 Elect 02 Elect 02 Elect 03 Elect 03 Elect 04 Elect 04 Facility 01 Facility 02 Facility 03 Facility 04 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 02 Plumber 01 Plumber 01 Plumber 02 Plumber 02 Participant ID The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dba 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dba 8HR-TWA).The red dashed line represents the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dba). Note that Admin = Administrative assistant, BSE = Building Service Engineer, Elect = Electrician, Facility = Facility worker, and Grounds = Grounds crew.

66 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 65 Figure 13. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Peak data from individual readings LCPK (dba) Admin 01 Admin 02 BSE 01 BSE 01 BSE 02 Carpenter 01 Carpenter 01 Elect 01 Elect 01 Elect 02 Elect 02 Elect 03 Elect 03 Elect 04 Elect 04 Facility 01 Facility 02 Facility 03 Facility 04 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 02 Plumber 01 Plumber 01 Plumber 02 Plumber 02 Participant ID The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dba 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dba 8HR-TWA). The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dba). Note that Admin = Administrative assistant, BSE = Building Service Engineer, Elect = Electrician, Facility = Facility worker, and Grounds = Grounds crew.

67 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 66 Figure 14. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Dose data from individual readings. Dose (%) Admin 01 Admin 02 BSE 01 BSE 01 BSE 02 Carpenter 01 Carpenter 01 Elect 01 Elect 01 Elect 02 Elect 02 Elect 03 Elect 03 Elect 04 Elect 04 Facility 01 Facility 02 Facility 03 Facility 04 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 02 Plumber 01 Plumber 01 Plumber 02 Plumber 02 Participant ID A measure of 50% dose is equivalent of 85 dba action level and the permissible exposure level is 100% (90 dba 8HR-TWA). Note that Admin = Administrative assistant, BSE = Building Service Engineer, Elect = Electrician, Facility = Facility worker, and Grounds = Grounds crew.

68 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 67 Figure 15. Summary of Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles Mean LAVG (dba) Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility worker Grounds crew Plumber Job Title Group The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dba 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dba 8HR-TWA). The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dba). Note, that LAVG, the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average. * = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer

69 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 68 Figure 16. Summary of Time-weighted Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles Mean LTWA (dba) Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility worker Grounds crew Plumber Job Title Group The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dba 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dba 8HR-TWA).The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dba). Note that LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange * = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer

70 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 69 Figure 17. Summary of Peak Noise Exposures based on Job Titles Mean LCPK (dba) Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility worker Grounds crew Plumber Job Title Group The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dba 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dba 8HR-TWA).The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dba). Note, that LCPK, the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session. * = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer

71 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 70 Figure 18. Summary of Employees Dose Mean Dose (%) Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility worker Grounds crew 3.8 Plumber Job Title Group Dose, is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 8HR-TWA over 8 hours. * = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer

72 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 71 Appendix A. Consent Form

73 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 72

74 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 73 Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire.