Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

MMaMS 2012

Implementation of auditory and non-auditory effects of noise in the risk assessment process in mechanical engineering
Sinay Juraja, Balikov Michaelab*
b

Sinay Juraj, Technical University of Kosice, Letn 9, Koice 042 00, Slovak Republic Balikov Michaela, Technical university of Kosice, Letn 9, Koice 042 00, Slovak Republic

Abstract It is generally known that long-term and repeated exposure to noise has a negative impact on the sense of hearing. However, less is known about the fact that not only auditory organs are affected by noise. Research has shown that noise has effects on the entire organism, especially central and autonomic nervous system. Peterson et al. (1981) conducted a study using monkeys to explore the effects of longterm exposure to noise on blood pressure and auditory function. The animals blood pressure remained elevated even after noise exposure was terminated, while their auditory sensitivity was not decreased. The paper proposes a methodology of noise assessment, taking into consideration legislative requirements as well as non-auditory effects of noise. The methodology is applicable even in the first phase of product development. 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Branch Ofce of Slovak Metallurgical Society at Faculty Selection and/or under responsibility of the Branch Office of of Koice Slovak Metallurgical Society at Faculty of Metallurgy and of Metallurgy and peer-review Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Koice.
Keywords: noise, risk, non-auditory noise effects

Nomenclature dB EEG decibel - a unit for measuring the intensity of a sound electroencephalography - technique for recording and interpreting the electrical activity of the brain

1. Sound, noise and their effects on humans Sound is: 1. a sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by acoustic waves, 2. an acoustic wave able to cause acoustic sensation, 3. a periodic changes in pressure, mechanical stress, particle speed, etc. in the environment with internal forces [6]. Sound is a mechanical oscillation that propagates through particles of compressible media. Noise is an unpleasant, unfavourable, annoying or harmful sound to human health, caused by everyday human activities [6]. It is every unwanted, disturbing, unpleasant or harmful sound. By the impact of noise effects on living organism, we differentiate (Fig.1) [3]: area of psychic impact (up to 65 dB) does not cause immediate harm to health, area of autonomic functions (65 - 90 dB in the awake state and 45-80 dB during sleep) nervousness, vasoconstriction, accelerated breathing and heartbeat,

* Balikov Michaela. Tel.: +421 55 602 2530; E-mail address: michaela.balazikova@tuke.sk

1877-7058 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Branch Ofce of Slovak Metallurgical Society at Faculty of Metallurgy and Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Koice doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.09.562

622

Sinay Juraj and Balikov Michaela / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

area of damaged hearing (90-120 dB) hair cells are being damaged and deafness may occur, area of critical (fatal) damage (over 120 dB). The first category of non-auditory effects includes effects on the cardiovascular system. In 1977, Knipschild and Oudshoorn indirectly proved the effect by noting an increase in antihypertensive medication consumption in a village near an airport, which correlated with an increase in aircraft traffic. A control village that was not near the airport did not demonstrate an increase in cardiovascular medication consumption during the same period. Cardiovascular effects of noise have been examined most thoroughly of all non-auditory effects [9]. Autonomic effects have also been partially included in research into the effects of noise. For example, Levi (1966) found that urinary adrenaline and noradrenaline levels were higher in subjects who were exposed to short durations of noise and that in some cases the changes bordered on the pathological. However, when exposed to similar noise levels over long periods of time, very little changes occurred in adrenaline and noradrenaline levels. Thus, it appears that habituation may be involved in the autonomic effects of noise. Exposure to noise can lead to gastric changes, as well. For example, Bugliarello et al. (1976) describes a study in which exposure to 80 dB noise levels resulted in a reduction in stomach contraction strength. Additionally, Burns (1979) conducted a study in which subjects who were unable to control their noise environment experienced increased gastrointestinal motility compared to subjects who could shut the noise off by pushing a switch. As gastric changes are related to ulcers, Bugliarello et al. (1976) and Bragdon (1972) [9] both suggest that noise may be related to ulcer development.

NOISE EFFECTS

AUDITORY
directly conveyed by the auditory organ

NON-AUDITORY
conveyed by particular structures of nervous system

OTHER

damage to the auditory organ caused by noise

disorders in the level of central activation

communication disturbance

influences of masking sounds

disorders of motor coordination and sensory-motor functions

masking acoustic warning signals

social interaction disorders

accident occurrence

emotional imbalance

Fig. 1 Noise effects on human

Undesired effects of noise and its threats to human organism can be expressed as C = f (Caud.,Cnon-aud.), where Caud. are specific (auditory) consequences, which affect the function of the acoustic analyzer, Cnon-aud. include systematic (non-auditory) consequences, where the dominant functional changes appear in parts of the central nervous system other than the auditory organ system.

Sinay Juraj and Balikov Michaela / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

623

2. Causal dependency of acoustic risk Acoustic causality or acoustic causal dependency, Fig.2, is a direct, concrete and essential incurrence of objective consequences of noise; whereas one process (cause) activates another process (effect). Causality is a relationship that exists between objects, events, processes or systems of objective reality, where under certain conditions the acoustic phenomenon, i.e. cause, either necessarily or inherently initiates another phenomenon, i.e. auditory or non-auditory effect. The most important phenomenon of causality is the time spread between the impulse of the action (cause) and the reaction (effect).

DANGER

HAZARD

INITIATION

DAMAGE

LOSS Other

RISK Auditory effects

Non-auditory effects

Raud.
P Caud

Rnon-aud.
P X Cnon-aud

Fig. 2 Causal dependency of acoustic risk

3. Implementation of auditory and non-auditory effects of noise into the risk assessment process Science-based risk assessment can be defined as a systematic process of evaluation and interpretation of factual information about a system. The information serves for the identification of hazard (noise, in this case), effects (of auditory and nonauditory nature) resulting from the given hazard, and it is possible to qualify or quantify the level of risk and subsequently judge its acceptability [4]. Possibilities of determining the integrated value of acceptable risk : acceptability of vibro-acoustic environment can be assessed as tolerability of adverse conditions caused by simultaneous noise and mechanical vibration in the working environment [1]; vibro-acoustic acceptability of the environment can be assessed by the criterion of subjective feeling of disturbance, interference with human activity or efficiency, occupational health and safety or their arbitrary combination [5]; another option is the application of the following equation:

R = PC

R = f ( R1 ,........., Rn ) R = Raud . + Rnon aud

(1) (2) (3) (4)

R = [(P C aud . ) + (P C non aud . )] f f = (t ex. / t 8hrs. ) (min.) ,

where: R acoustic risk, R aud. acoustic risk with auditory effects, R non-aud. acoustic risk with non-auditory effects, P probability of a persons exposure to noise,

C non auditory =

c

624

Sinay Juraj and Balikov Michaela / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

Caud. the consequence of the acoustic load on human auditory organs, Cnon-aud. the consequence of the acoustic load on human: non-auditory effects that are difficult to identify, Ci e.g. cardiovascular, neurological and gastric effects, etc. f exposure load coefficient, t8hrs. 8-hour working day = 480 min., tex. noise exposure time in minutes. Partial risks are defined according to risk matrices as shown in the following tables. Tab.1 presents the Acoustic Risk Matrix with auditory effects and Tab.2 Acoustic Risk Matrix with non-auditory effects, including gastric changes, cardiovascular, neurological and other consequences.
Table 1. Acoustic risk matrix: Auditory risks R aud.

Caud. None (no auditory effects) 10 10 20 20 20 30 Moderate Persisting (short-term tinnitus, inability to communicate) 20 30 30 40 50 60 (long-term)

P ( LAEX,8h ) up to 40 dB 40 50 dB 50 65 dB 65 80 dB 80 85 dB over 85 dB

40 50 60 70 80 90

Table 2. Acoustic risk matrix: Non-auditory risks R non-aud.

Cnon-aud. None (increased blood pressure, EEG changes, gastric changes - none) 10 10 20 20 20 30 Moderate (increased blood pressure, EEG changes, gastric changes - temporary) 20 30 30 40 50 60 Persisting (increased blood pressure, EEG changes, gastric changes permanent) 40 50 60 70 80 90

P ( LAEX,8h ) up to 40 dB 40 50 dB 50 65 dB 65 80 dB 80 85 dB over 85 dB

Normalized level of noise exposure is the level determined from the equivalent level of sound A and the 8-hour working day according to the equation [7]:

L AEX ,dh = L Aeg ,T + 10 log(T / Tn )

where: T is the duration of the equivalent level of sound A during the work shift, Tn is the duration of the work shift 8 hrs.

(5)

Sinay Juraj and Balikov Michaela / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

625

Legislative limit values: Exposure limit values and exposure action values have been set e.g. by the Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) [7]; in order to protect workers health, particularly auditory organs, from the risks arising from noise. The Directive lists the following values: a) exposure limit values LAEX,8h,L = 87 dB a LCPk = 140 dB, b) upper exposure action values LAEX,8h,a = 85 dB a LCPk = 137 dB, c) lower exposure action values LAEX,8h,a = 80 dB a LCPk = 135 dB. Acoustic risk values: The resulting acoustic risk value can range from 0.7 to 180. The impact of such risk is graded with regard to the effects of noise and time exposure. In case of long-term effects, either auditory or non-auditory, and higher (calculated) impact risk value, the risk is unacceptable. 4. Application of the proposed acoustic risk assessment method 4.1. Workplace description The coating centre is located in an open area, where a TELTOMAT 4 asphalt mixing plant is situated, Fig.3 [8].

Fig. 3 a) Asphalt mixing plant, b) control centre c) UNC 200 wheel loader

The main activity of the centre is the production of asphalt coated mixture. The production procedure includes various phases, from stone extraction to storage of the finished material. Fig.4 depicts particular technologies that the plant contains [8]. Legend: I aggregate hopper II feeding belt conveyor III dryer drum IV textile filter V double cyclone system VI filler storage VII pugmill VIII control centre IX mixed asphalt storage silo X exhaust measurement points 1 2 3

Fig. 4 Asphalt mixing plant diagram

The main sources of noise in the area asphalt mixing plant and the nearby stone quarry include: I. technological devices of the asphalt mixing plant TELTOMAT 4: a) conveyor belts noise in the bending area, noise from the electric motors, b) electric motors major causes of noise include: clogged vent holes, damaged bearings, friction. II. UNC 200 wheel loader:

626

Sinay Juraj and Balikov Michaela / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

a) motor, gear insufficient friction, wear, damaged parts of gear (cog wheels, bearings), b) noise caused by the shovel motion inappropriate lubrication, dirt. 4.2. Implementation of the acoustic risk assessment in the asphalt mixing plant The abovementioned sources are in operation throughout the entire work shift and thus expose workers operators to noise during their work tasks related to the production of asphalt coated mixture. Tab. 3. shows noise exposure values from measurements and calculated values of normalized noise exposure in the asphalt mixing plant. The table specifies the exposure time in minutes and the measured level of noise.
Table 3. Measured and calculated values

Measurement point 1. in the control centre 2. checking of the finished asphalt mixture 3. operation and inspection of the aggregate conveyors 4. operation of UNC 200 wheel loader

Exposure time Tj [min] 330 150 180 660

Normalized value of noise exposure LAEX,8h [dB] 71.9 88.9 77.6 84.9

Calculation of the acoustic risk:

R = Raud . + Rnon aud R = [(P C aud . ) + (P C non aud . )] f

two categories P

P ( LAEX,8h ) up to 40 dB 40 50 dB 50 65 dB 65 80 dB 80 85 dB over 85 dB Moderate (short-term tinnitus, inability to communicate)

category Caud. Caud.

None (no auditory effects)

Persisting (long-term)

category Cnon-aud. during the acoustic measurement, the workers blood pressure raised to 135/80 (optimum is 120/60) and heart rate increased to 90 beats per minute (optimum is 70-80 bpm). Moderate None Cnon-aud. (increased blood pressure, EEG changes, gastric changes - none) (increased blood pressure, EEG changes, gastric changes - temporary) (increased blood pressure, EEG changes, gastric changes permanent) Persisting

Calculation of risk for particular areas: R1- acoustic risks in the control centre : R1 = [(P Caud . ) + (P Cnon aud . )] f = [(40) + (40) ] 330/480 = 55 (3)

Sinay Juraj and Balikov Michaela / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

627

R2- acoustic risk at the checking of the finished asphalt mixture R2 = [(P C aud . ) + (P Cnon aud . )]t ex / t 8 hrs = 31.5 R3- acoustic risk at the operation and inspection R3 = [(P Caud . ) + (P C nonaud . )]t ex / t 8 hrs = [(40) + (40) ] 180/480 = 30 R4- acoustic risk at the operation of UNC 200 wheel loader R4 = [(P C aud . ) + (P C nonaud . )]t ex / t 8 hrs = [(50) + (50) ] 660/480 = 137.5 4.3. Evaluation of the acoustic risk
Table 4. Table of the resulting risks and final evaluation

Measurement point 1. control centre 2. checking of the finished asphalt mixture 3. operation and inspection of the aggregate conveyor 4. operation of UNC 200 wheel loader

Acoustic risk 55 31.5 30 137.5

Risk based on exceeding the legislative limits 71.9 88.9 77.6 84.9

Measurements and their comparisons with legislative regulations, see Tab. 4., show that normalized noise exposure values were exceeded in two cases: in checking of the finished asphalt mixture and in the wheel loader operation. Performing the risk assessment with the proposed method that considers also non-auditory effects, increased risk occurred in two cases: in the wheel loader operation and in the control centre, where there is a discrepancy with the legislative assessment. The difference was caused by the fact that the method took into consideration the exposition load coefficient, as well as non-auditory effects which pose a risk to human health in the long term.

CONVEYOR BELTS

Fig.5 Noise map a graphic representation of the sound level distribution in the asphalt mixing plant

CONTROL CENTRE

UNC

MIXTURE PRODUCTION

Noise map legend: from 90 86 dB 69 65 dB 85 80 dB 64 60 dB 79 75 dB less than 60 dB 74 70 dB

628

Sinay Juraj and Balikov Michaela / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 621 628

The noise map, Fig.5., is based on the measured values and risk assessment. Simple graphical representation of the noise values identifies the areas of the plant with the highest level of the negative phenomenon at the workplace noise, and appropriate measures can be taken accordingly. Noise minimization tools: research and development, legislative and normative documents o emission standards, o immission standards, economic measures, infrastructure measures, operation procedures, room acoustics simulation using 3D programs. 5. Conclusion There is hardly any doubt that noise and vibration are negative phenomena of civilization. Many people, however, believe that noise produced by an individual, who also makes decisions about its origination and transmission, is not serious enough to be reduced or eliminated. This could be caused by the fact that consequences are not immediately obvious. Nevertheless, such view is subjective and dangerous to humans. Legislation framework is still the only measure that helps to change this attitude by establishing the acceptable levels of noise. This leads to a more accurate evaluation of the effects of noise on human health, wellbeing and efficiency. However, the presented methodology points out that even if noise does not exceed the legally acceptable values, it can still have a negative impact on humans and their health. The negative effects may occur also in case of lower values or shorter exposure to noise.

Acknowledgements This research has been supported by the grant of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, titled Research Centre of technical, environmental and human risks for continual development of productions and items in mechanical engineering ITMS 26220120060.

References
[1] Dudarski, G., Kamierczak, P., 2008. Ocena zmian sprawnoci psychofizycznej u osb naraonych na haas w warunkach testw laboratoryjnych /w Modelowanie i inynieria produkcji w ekorozwoju; red. S. Szymura .- Opole : Oficyna Wydaw. Politechniki Opolskiej, (Studia i monografie/ Politechnika Opolska ; z. 236) - s. 20--30 .- ISBN: 978-83-60691-42-7 [2] Bernek, L. L., 1988. Noise and Vibration Control, pp 164-169, Book ISBN 0-9622072-0-9 published by the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Washington [3] Haje, D., 1997. Lrmarm konstruieren XVII. Entwicklung eines Informationssystems zur Konstruktion lrmarmer Produkte, Wirtschaftsverlag NV, Book, Verlag fr Neue Wiss., (pp. 11-30), ISBN 3-89429-892-8. [4] Sinay, J., Paaiov, H., Glatz, J., 2009. Bezpenos a rizik technickch systmov, SjF TU v Koiciach, p.10., ISBN 978-80-553-0180-8 [5] olc, M., 2011. Hluk z pracovnho prostredia ako jeden z vznamnch faktorov ovplyvujcich kvalitu ivota loveka . In: Prevence raz, otrav a nsil. Vol. 7, no. 1 (2011), p. 85-91. - ISSN 1801-0261 Spsob prstupu: http://www.zsf.jcu.cz/journals/prevence-urazu-otrav-a-nasili... [6] iaran, S., 2001. Ochrana loveka pred kmitanm a hlukom, STU Bratislava 236, p. 54, ISBN 80-265-2001 [7] Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) [8] Internal documentation of the Asphalt mixing plant [9] http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&langpair=en%7Csk&u=http://www.macalester.edu/academics/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/audition/site/ noiseeffectsnonauditory.html