Summary
Based on audiometric tests in the range of 10 to 20 kHz, of 106 ultrasound operators, as well as on measurements of high-frequency noise, the problem of safety limits for high-frequency noise exposure was investigated. Analyzing the relation between noise levels of 1/3 octave bands at center frequencies of 10, 12.5 and 16 kHz and the accumulated noise dose on the one hand, and changes of hearing at 10 to 12, 11 to 13 and 14 to 16 kHz respectively, on the other hand, a harmless level up to 80 dB and a harmless noise dose up to 1 unit for people not older than 40 years have been found. For older people this level and this noise dose can be dangerous.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Acton WI (1968) A criterion for the prediction of auditory and subjective effects due to airborne noise from ultrasonic sources. Ann Occup Hyg 11:227–234
Acton WI (1976) Exposure criteria for industrial ultrasound. Ultrasonics 14:42
Campbell RC (1971) Statistische Methoden für Biologie und Medizin. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart
GOST 12.1.001-75 Ultrazwuk Obszczijc triebowanija bezopasnosti (Soviet Union Standard)
Grzesik J, Pluta E (1980) Noise and airborne ultrasound exposure in the industrial environment. Proc Third Int Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Freyburg, West Germany, September 25-29 1978. ASHA Reports 10. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Rockville, Maryland, pp 657–661
Grzesik J, Pluta E (1983) High frequency hearing risk of operators of industrial ultrasonic devices. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 53:77–88
Parrack HO (1972) Occupational exposure to noise. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Health Services and Mental Health Administration NIOSH
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grzesik, J., Pluta, E. High-frequency-noise-induced hearing loss: a field study on the role of intensity level and accumulated noise dose. Int. Arch Occup Environ Heath 57, 127–136 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381380
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381380