Journal of Safety Research. Vol. 15, pp. 163-174. 1984 00!22-43751841 $3.00 + .

OO
0 1984 National Safety Council and Pergamon Press Ltd Printed in the USA

Noise Exposure as Related to Productivity,

Disciplinary Actions, Absenteeism, and
Accidents Among Textile Workers

Madbuli H. Noweir

A sample of 2458 workers exposed to average noise levels ranging from 80

to 99 dBA in different operations of three textile mills was studied with re-
spect to their productivity, work rule violations, absenteeism, and accidents.
The three mills were in rural, suburban, and urban locations. Noise exposure
levels were measured in individual departments of the mills, and workers were
interviewed to ascertain socioeconomic background, work history data, and
health status. Workers’ job attitude was rated by their supervisors, and data
about their productivity, disciplinary reports, absenteeism, and accidents were
collected from plant records. Results of the study suggested that workers in
departments with high noise levels (above 90 dBA) had more disciplinary ac-
tions and absenteeism and lesser productivity than those in departments with
low noise exposure (below 90 dBA). Disciplinary actions showed the greatest
difference between the high-noise and low-noise departments followed by pro-
duction incentives, production efficiency, and absenteeism. Noise appeared
to affect the quality of work as reflected by disciplinary actions for material
damage, and this effect was higher in weaving and spinning operations which
involved vigilance tasks. The frequency and severity rates of accidents in high-
noise departments were greater than in low-noise departments. Certain per-
sonal and socioeconomic factors affected high vs. low noise exposure differ-
ences found among workers for the investigated variables. These effects were
most apparent for absenteeism and, to a lesser extent, productivity. Discipli-
nary actions did not appear to be influenced by any such individual factors.
It was concluded that noise abatement in the textile industry could be bene-
ficial to worker productivity and well being and contribute to more economi-
cally effective operation.

Madbuli H. Noweir, DSc, is Head, Occupational Health
Department, High Institute of Public Health. Universitv
of Alexandria, Egypt.
The author wishes to acknowledge the cooperation
of the companies surveyed in allowing their records to
be examined and for the assistance received from the
companies’ personnel during the study. The assistance
of Professor M. Hussein, Head, Department of Biostatis-
tics, and of Dr. L. Nofal. Lecturer of Biostatistics, High
continued
It has been suggested that workplace noise
may induce extra-auditory effects among
workers, which may be manifested in in-
creased accident rates, increased absentee-
ism, and lower productivity (Cohen, 1968a,
1968b, 1973a, 1973b, 1976; Jerison, 1957).
These manifestations may, however, be dif-
ficult to relate causally to noise (Carpenter,
1962); that is, other factors in the work situa-

Winter 1984Nolume 15INumber 4 163

tion or in the specific group(s) under study Noise Survey
may be responsible for the observed problems. Noise was measured at selected stations in
In the textile industry, noise presents a ma- the different departments of the three plants
jor problem. Weaving operations are notori- using a Precision Sound Level Meter (B & K)
ously noisy, and especially acute problems type 2209 equipped with a l-in. (2.5-cm)
may be found in those mills using antiquated condenser microphone type 4145 set on “slow”
looms (Noweir, El-Dakhakhny, & Valic, dynamic response and coupled with (B & K)
1968). With more modern looms, the noise Octave Band Filter type 1613. The meter was
hazard is greatly reduced. In mills where calibrated daily before use by means of a pis-
noise suppression measures have been put in- tophone calibrator (B & K) type 4220. Noise
to effect, there has been a considerable rise was measured with the meter set on the A
in productivity (Gabureau, 1963), as well as network, as well as at the different octave
in safety performance (Schmidt, Royster, & bands. Noise data were recorded along with
Pearson, 1982). a brief description of the textile machinery in
In Egypt the textile industry has grown each department.
rapidly in the past 50 years with machinery The average value of the A-weighted sound
of different designs from different world-wide pressure level in dB re 20 ~1N/m2 was com-
manufacturers (e.g., U.S.A., Switzerland, puted for each department (Broth, 1973: Glor-
Germany, Holland, Japan, India, Czechoslo- ig et al., 1972). In addition, the sound pres-
vakia, and Poland) being used in different sure levels of the three octave bands 1000,
plants. As a consequence of these varying types 2000, and 4000 Hz were averaged as described
of machinery, different levels of noise are en- in Glorig et al. (1972).
countered in similar textile operations.
The number of workers exposed to noise in Worker Sampie
textile operations in Egypt has been estimated A random sample of 2,458 male workers
to be more than 500,000. This work popula- was selected from the different departments
tion is generally stable, showing only a mod- in the three surveyed plants. The number se-
est rate of turnover. Such a situation encour- lected from each department was proportion-
aged this study which sought to determine if al to its representation on the payroll. These
exposure to different levels of noise in the tex- workers almost never changed their jobs, and
tile industry would have differential effects they used no hearing protection during work.
on productivity, discipline, absenteeism, and The following data were collected for each
accidents among exposed workers. The study worker:
began in 1974 with data being collected over
the period 1975-1976.
1. Socioeconomic, housing, health, and
occupational history data, including infor-
METHOD
mation about absenteeism and work accidents
The study was conducted in three textile obtained in interviews with social workers fa-
plants representing three localities: urban miliar with the study plan;
(plant A), suburban (plant B), and rural (plant 2. Supe~isor/foreman’s opinions of the
C). The sizes of the plants in terms of number workers’ attitude towards their job;
of departments and worker populations are 3. Worker production efficiency, bonuses,
presented in Table 1. disciplinary reports, absenteeism, and acci-
dent data from plant records for 1975; and
Institute of Public Health, in the statistical analysis of 4. Numbers of accidents, days of absentee-
the data is sincerely appreciated. Acknowledgement is ism due to occupational injuries, and hours
also due to Dr. A. Cohen for his critical review of the of work for each department from plant rec-
manuscript and for his valuable comments.
This studv was conducted under a PL-480 Agreement
ords for 1975.
No. 03-002-3 with the National Institute for &cupa-
tional Safety and Health, U.S.A. This paper was pre- Variables
sented in part at the XIX International Congress on Oc-
cupational Health, Dubrovnik, Yugosfavia, September The following variabies were computed for
1978. each worker and/or department:

164 journal of Safety Research

 TABLE 1
DEPARTMENTS, WORK POPULATION, AND AVERAGE NOISE EXPOSURE IN THE STUDIED PLANTS

PLANT A PLANT B PLANT C

-
Noise Noise
Depts. Workers level Depts. Workers Depts. Workers level
DEPARTMENT 04 (4 WA) (D) (4 WW (4 (n) WA)

Opening and cleaning 163 84.5,85.7

Carding 1 50 83.5 287 85.0,87.8 3 81 81.0,85.1,85.6
Combing 1 36 80.6 153 82.7,83.5 3 139 86.4,86.7,89.0
Roving 3 430 87.5,89.0,89.3 697 87.5,88.3,90.7 3 331 88.3,87.9,89.3
Spinning 494 89.8
Spinninga 620 90.1,93.0 1007 93.3,93.5 3 544 91.4,92.0,94.0
Winding 927 84.5,86.7,88.0 1332 87.0,89.5,91.0 3 930 91.2,92.2,92.4
Reeling 96 80.4
Twisting 138 94.6 271 92.0,93.3 3 269 93.5,93.9,94.4
Weaving preparation 956 86.0 622 81.0,81.5
Weaving preparationa 388 94.0
Weaving 1,446 95.4-97.5 2,763 96.6-99.3
Total i9 4,699 26 8,177 18 2,294

‘These departments fisted twice because of noise level variations in plant B.

 1. PTod~ction efficiency - This is defined The 90 dBA level was selected because (a)
as the percentage reflecting the number of the population studied was reasonably distrib-
products produced by the worker relative to uted relative to noise exposure around this
the number of products that should be pro- level and (b) 90 dBA still serves as a permissi-
duced according to the recommended stand- ble limit for noise exposure deemed safe for
ard for each operation. The recommended hearing.
standards for the different operations were It was hypothesized that workers in the
established by a committee of specialists in high-noise departments would show more
textile industry who considered factors relat- adverse effects (i.e., less efficiency, more ab-
ed to machinery (e.g., design, duration of senteeism, higher accident rate, etc.) in the
use, etc.) that might affect production. different measures examined than those ex-
2. Production incentive - This is defined as posed to low noise levels. The data were ana-
the percentage of payment for extra produc- lyzed using t-tests and chi-square.
tion and/or bonus for improved product qual-
ity relative to the average monthly salary of --_
the workers. RESULTS
-- --
3. ~~~plina y actions- These are defined
by the percentage of work days deducted from Effects of Noise Exposure
the worker’s total workdays, classified as “dis- The average noise levels observed in the
ciplinary action for misconduct,” “discipli- different departments of the three surveyed
nary action for material damage,” “total dis- plants are presented in Table 1. These levels
ciplinary action.” varied from 80.4 to 99.3 dBA. In plant B the
4. Absenteeism-This is defined as the noise levels varied considerably for those de-
percentage of days of absence from the total partments engaged in weaving preparation
annual work days, classified as “authorized and spinning operations, nec~sitating two
absence, *’“unauthorized absence,” “absence separate entries.
due to occupational injuries,” “absence due Table 2 shows the production efficiency and
to illness,” and “total absenteeism.” production incentives for groups of workers
5. Incidence of accidents- This is defined exposed to the high and low noise levels. For
as the percentage of workers with lost-days the total sample, the mean production efficien-
accidents in each department sample. cy for the high-noise group was significantly
6. Accident frequency rate and severity less than for the low-noise group (p< .Ol).
rate - These are defined, respectively, as the For individual plants, only plant B showed a
number of lost-time accidents and number of significant difference in this measure (P < .05).
lost days per million work hours of each de- Similarly, the production incentives measure
partment (U.S. Department of Labor, 1956). was significantly less for the high-noise than
for the low-noise groups in the total sample.
Analysis Evaluations by individual plant showed only
plant A to have a statistically significant dif-
In order to analyze the data relative to
ference between the workers exposed to high
noise exposure, workers exposed to mean dBA
and low noise levels.
noise levels falling within a 3 dBA range and
Table 3 shows different disciplinary ac-
2 dBA for averages of the three octave bands
tions for the high-noise and low-noise groups.
1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz were pooled to-
Mean total disciplinary actions, as well as
gether and considered to have a similar noise
those for material damage and for miscon-
exposure level. The study population was fur-
duct, were significantly higher for the high-
ther divided into two major exposure groups:
noise group than for the low-noise group for
1. High-noise group, which included the total sample and for each plant studied.
workers in departments where noise levels The different reasons for disciplinary ac-
were 90 dBA or above; and tions among the workers in the noise-exposed
2. Low-noise group, which included groups are further analyzed in Table 4. Dis-
workers in departments where noise levels ciplinary actions for unauthorized absence
were below 90 dBA. and damage to machinery andior goods ap-

166 Journal of Safety Research

 TABLE 2
PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION INCENTIVES AMONG
LOW-NOISE AND HIGH-NOISE WORKERS IN THE STUDIED PLANTS

PRODUC7XON PRODUCTION
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES
(% ) (%)
NOISE
LEVEL
PLANT (dBA) ” x SD x SD
A <90 292 81.66 4.32 5.85 1.52
z-90 499 81.42 4.99 4.41” 1.66
B <90 249a 97.26 1.33 b
290 178= 96.94’ 1.91 h

C <90 254 100.67 2.41 4.70 1.20

290 428 100.69 2.41 4.81 0.96
Total <90 795 92.62 8.99 5.30 1.47
Sample (546)’
290 1,105 91.38” 9.87 5.09” 1.50
(927)’
aAp licable to onlv 427 of workers’ sample in plant B. hNo production incentive data for plant B. ‘Totals for
pro Buctlon incentibes, which exclude plant B.
*p< .05. **p< .Ol.

pear to be particularly frequent among the high-noise groups in plants A and C. Plant B
high-noise group compared to the low-noise displayed a significant difference only for to-
group. tal absenteeism.
Table 5 compares absenteeism data for the As shown in Table 6, the incidence and
high-noise and low-noise groups. Mean total frequency rates of accidents among workers
absenteeism, unauthorized absences, and ab- in the high-noise group were higher than
sences due to illness were each significantly among those in the low-noise group in all
greater for the high-noise group than for the three plants and in the total sample. None of
low-noise group for the total sample. In in- these differences was statistically significant,
dividual plant comparisons, unauthorized however. Severity rates did not show a con-
absences were significantly higher for the sistent trend; they were higher in the high-

TABLE 3
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AMONG LOW-NOISE AND
HIGH-NOISE WORKERS IN THE STUDIED PLANTS

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS (%)

Material
NOISE Misconduct Damage Total
LEVEL
(dBA)

<90 292 0.56 1.42 0.02 0.09 0.58 1.41

290 499 0.81’ 1.62 0.74” 1.37 1.55” 2.18
<90 508 0.24 0.37 0.20 0.49 0.44 0.57
290 477 0.34” 0.46 0.73” 1.42 1.07” 1.52
<90 254 0.60 2.17 0.19 0.27 0.79 2.17
290 428 1.86” 5.13 0.25’ 0.28 2.11” 5.10
Total <90 1,054 0.44 1.33 0.15 0.38 0.59 1.37
Sample 290 1,404 0.98” 3.07 0.60” 1.19 1.59” 3.24
‘p < .05. l*p<.o1.

Winter 1984Nolume IUiVumber 4 167

 TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY LEVEL OF NOISE EXPOSURE
AND CAUSES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

MISCONDUCX MATERIALS DAMAGE

Unauthorized Damage
NOISE Absence Carelessness Misbehavior Fault Machinery/Goods Poor Production
LEVEL
PLANT @A) II n % n % n % n % n % n %

A <90 292 108 37.0 2 0.7 24 8.2 9 3.1

290 499 220 44.0 1 0.2 70 14.0 2 0.4 182 36.5
B <90 508 169 33.3 96 18.9 15 3.0 92 18.1 9 1.8
290 477 174 36.5 107 22.4 11 2.3 129 27.0 5 1.0
C <90 254 55 21.7 26 10.2 26 10.2 6 2.4 94 37.0
190 428 175 40.9 74 17.3 42 9.8 17 4.0 177 41.4 29 6.8

Total <90 1,054 332 31.5 124 11.8 65 6.2 9.3 112 10.6
Sample 290 1,404 569 40.5 182 13.0 123 8.8 10.5 364 25.9 29 2.1
2
f
g

K
g
4,
2
G
2
 TABLE 5
ABSENTEEISM AMONG LOW-NOISE AND HIGH-NOISE
WORKERS IN THE STUDIED PLANTS

ABSENTEEISM (%)
Due to

Unauthorized Authorized %:Z Total

LEVEL
PLANT @‘A) n x SD .? SD if SD a? SD x SD
A <go 292 0.89 2.10 0.02 0.28 0.19 0.17 2.11 4.50 3.21 5.28
290 499 1.51’ 3.25 0.03 0.07 0.26 2.12 1.77 3.82 3.50 5.81
B <go 508 1.20 1.69 0.71 1.24 0.40 1.61 1.49 2.65 3.91 4.19
290 477 1.39 2.09 0.85 1.62 0.54 1.98 1.94 3.20 4.65’ 4.46
C <90 254 0.54 1.53 0.90 1.47 0.47 1.87 3.92 5.48 5.80 7.06
290 428 0.89’ 2.02 0.85 1.43 0.62 2.78 4.16 6.04 6.50 8.03

Total <go 1.054 0.95 1.80 0.56 1.18 0.36 1.57 2.25 4.14 4.17 5.40
Sample 290 1,404 1.28’ 2.56 0.55 1.29 0.47 2.41 2.56’ 4.57 4.81’ 6.33
‘PC.01.

noise departments than in the low-noise de- Effects of Socioeconomic and

partments in plant C, but this pattern was
reversed in plants A and B.
The accident frequency and severity rates
in the different departments of the spinning
and weaving operations of plant B, where
different levels of noise were encountered, are
presented separately in Table 7. Both the fre-
quency and severity rates were considerably
greater in the departments where the higher
levels of noise existed.
Occupational Factors
An analysis was conducted to determine
the possible effects of personal, socioeconomic,
and occupational history factors on the ap-
parent differences in production efficiency,
production incentives, disciplinary actions,
absenteeism, and accidents found for high-
noise workers. The data were subdivided ac-
cording to these factors and statistically ex-
amined. The data analysis summary in Table

TABLE 6
ACCIDENTS IN THE LOW-NOISE VS.
HIGH-NOISE DEPARTMENTS

ACCIDENTS

NOISE LEVEL Fyyyy S;;t:iY

PLANT @A) n n 90

A <go 292 13 4.5 39.5 487.0

290 499 34 6.8 52.5 408.9
B c90 508 52 10.2 48.7 281.7
290 477 57 11.9 49.5 277.5
c <90 254 20 7.9 31.8 545.9
290 428 41 9.6 34.7 807.8

Total
Sample ~90
SQO 1,054
1,404 1:; :::

aPer million work hours.

 TABLE 7
ACCIDENT FREQUBNCY AND SEVERITY
RATES IN SELECTED OPERATIONS OF
PLANT B RELATED TO LEVELS OF
NOISE IN THE DEPARTMENTS
NOISE
LEVEL FXEQUENCY SES’ERITY
OPERATION DEPT. RATE RATE
@BA)
Spinning 1, 2 92.0-95.0 35.1 190.8
3 89.8 21.9 i27.8
Weaving
preparationb 1, 3 81.0-81.5 66.7 404.6
2 94.0 89.4 510.8
aThe type of spinning machinery was similar and ex-
isted in mostly equal numbers in the three de artments.
The difference in noise levels was attribut eB to differ-
ences in construction; the ceilings of departments 1 and
2 were corrugated steel sheets and steel truss while th;;
of department 3 was reinforced concrete. bathe t
machinery was similar in the three de
ever, the numbers of pim winding mat
machinery in weaving pre aration) and their driving
motors in department 2 (1B and 48) were greater than
in each of de artments 1 and 3 (13 and 38), as well as
the number of machmes per floor area. This migbt have
contributed to the difference in noise levels there.
8 identifies only those factors that yielded sta-
tistically significant differences between the
two noise groups. These results demonstrated
that:
1. For most of the subgroup classifications,
production efficiency and production incen-
tives among the low-noise group were sig-
nificantly higher than among the high-noise
group.
2. Disciplinary actions among the high-
noise group were significantly higher than
among the low-noise group in almost all sub-
groups. For those subgroups showing no sig-
nificant differences, the sample sizes were
relatively small.
3. Absenteeism was significantly higher
among the high-noise group than amongthe
low-noise group in relatively few subgroup
classifications,
4. Incidence of accidents among the high-
noise vs. low-noise workers exhibited no sys-
tematic difference as a function of the differ-
ent subgroup clarifications.
Previous studies (Cohen, 1973b) have sug-
gested that adverse effects such as those re-
ported may be related to age and duration of
noise exposure. Therefore, the data were strat-
170
ified by these two factors and examined, re-
sulting in the following observations:
I. The high-noise group showed higher
mean production efficiency than the low-
noise group among younger workers with
relatively short durations of noise exposure
(workers in age groups < 25 years and 25-34
years with exposure durations of 5-Q years
and lo-14 years). The pattern was reversed
for the older/more experienced workers (age
groups 35-44 years, 45-54 years, and 55 +
years with exposure durations of 15-19 years,
XI-24 years, and 25 f years).
2. The high-noise group showed lower
mean production incentives and higher mean
disciplinary actions than the low-noise group
for almost all age/duration of exposure com-
binations.
3. The high-noise group showed higher
mean percentages of absenteeism than the
low-noise group for most of the age/duration
of exposure combinations.
4. No specific pattern was observed in com-
paring the incidence of accidents among the
high-noise vs. low-noise groups for the vari-
ous combinations of age and duration of ex-
posure.
DISCUSSION
Effects of Noise Exposure
Production efficiency. The data demonstrate
that the production efficiency of the total
sample was significantly affected by noise ex-
posure (92.62% for the high-noise group vs.
91.38% for the low-noise group, Table 2).
The difference between the two noise expo-
sure groups (1.24 % ), however, was relative-
ly small. In a previous study among weavers
(cited in Cohen, 1968bf, it was found that re-
ducing noise exposure levels through the use
of ear plugs caused a production gain of only
1%.
considering each plant individually, a sig-
nificant difference between the high-noise
and low-noise groups was detected only in
plant B. The highest noise exposure in the
study was observed in plant B (96.6 - 97.7
dBA in the weaving depa~men~), and 33.8 %
of the worker sample was drawn from this
plant. Plants A and C displayed lower noise
Journal of Safety Research
 TABLE 0
SUMMARY OF THE STATISTICAL COMPARISONS FOR SELECTED FACTORS POSSIBLY AFFECTING
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NOISE EXPOSURE AND THE STUDIED VARIABLES

NUMBER
OF PRODUCIION PRODUCTION DISCIPLINARY ACCIDENT
WORKERS EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES ACXIONS ABSENTEEISM INCIDENCE

FACTORS c9cJ 290 <go 290 <go 299 c99 299 <go 290 <99 r9cl
Age
<25 128 274 I* .I

25-34 326 638 I. .*

35-44 362 259 l* I* **

45-54 207 193 ** l * .*

55+ 31 40 I

Marital Status
Single 147 315 ** .*
Married 899 1079 l
l .*

Widowed or divorced 8 10 .

Educational Levela
Low 1034 1335 l * .* l *

Intermediate 20 69 *
Familv Sizeb
Small 141 276 l l *

Middle 527 714 .I **

Large 386 414 ** l *

Average Monthly
Income/Capita in L.E.C
<2 111 151 l * **
2-2.9 359 349 * l
*.
3-3.9 281 320 ** l * *
4-4.9 147 202 ‘I **

5+ 156 382 l * *
Housing Conditiond
Suitable 554 843 * l l * l

Unsuitable 500 561 * l * l

Length of Workweek
>48 hours 59 416 ‘I* ** .*
548 hours 995 988 ** l . **
Duration of Noise
Exposure (years)
<5 151 215 .* l .

5-9 54 188 l l .

10-14 345 472 a.

15-19 196 166 l

*I l

20-24 65 55 * **

25 + 243 308 l * .* l *

Score of Workers’
Social Satisfactione
702 736 ** .* .*
166 187 .*
96 194 l .

40 91 l *

18 88 (continued)

Winter 1984Nolume 15INumber 4

171
 TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF THE STATISTICAL COMPARISONS FOR SELECTED FACTORS POSSIBLY AFFECTING
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NOISE EXPOSURE AND THE STUDIED VARIABLES

NUMBER
OF PRODUCTION PRODUCTION DISCIPLINARY ACCIDENT
WORKERS EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES ACTIONS ABSENTEEISM INCIDENCE

FACTORS <go 290 <90 290 <go 290 <90 z90 <90 290 <90 290

Score of Workers’
Social Satisfactione (con.)
l
5 17 43
6-10 15 85
Score of Workers’
Satisfaction in work’
< 16 37 78
16-19 63 129
20-23 87 223 *
24-27 206 342 I.

l
28-31 264 258 * *I

l *
32-36 397 374 t.

Health Status Scores

<2 49 85
2-3 99 110
l l *
4-s 103 177
**
6-7 104 186 I.

l
8-9 135 213 I.

l * l
10-12 564 633 ** **

Work Attitude Scorch

<15 38 107
15-19 69 133 1 *

l
20-24 142 203 **

25-29 157 220 I.

.I **
30-34 288 252
* *
35-40 360 489 l

aLow = less than middle education; Intermediate = middle and hi h school education. bSmall = 1-3; Middle = 4-7:
Large = 8 + . ‘L. E. are E ptian pounds. 1 L. E. = 1.2 U.S. do1 Bars. dSuitable = having at least two of the three
following characteristics: a)
?y private, (b) density <3 persons/room, (c) no inconveniences. %ore of participation
in religious, social, and cultural activities, outdoor and in oor sports, and involvement in hobbies; five interview
questions; the higher the score the better the satisfaction. !iScore of workers’ opinions on work regarding training,
interest, and status of responsibility, time scheduled for job, stability in job, wages, promotions, supervisors, fellow
workers, work relation, human relations, work environment; 18 interview questions: the higher the score the better
the satisfaction. aScore of workers’ health complaints, visits to outpatient clinics, hospitalization, sick leaves, and
transfer to other jobs due to illness; 11 interview questions; the higher the score the better the health condition.
hScore of workers’ status of responsibility, self dependence, self control, respect for supervisors, fellow workers, and
regulations, cooperation with others, acceptance of criticism, expressing opinions, loyalty to the foundation, care
of production and uality of products, safety, avoiding absence, satisfaction in work, ability to learn and put extra
effort in work; eva ? uated by supervisors/foremen in 20 questions: the higher the score the better the workers’ at-
titude towards his work.
*Significantly higher (p < .05). **Significantly higher (p < .Ol).

levels. In plant C, however, weaving opera- ject to noise from traffic and other activities.
tions, typically the most noisy in textile work, Consequently, they could more readily adapt
did not exist at the time of the study. In plant to the noise inside the plant than the workers
A, the absence of a significant difference be- in plant B who came from a quieter subur-
tween the two noise-exposed groups might be ban area. It has been suggested that residents
attributed to the fact that the workers lived of suburban areas, having little conditioning
in an urban community where they were sub- to intrusive sound levels, may respond more

172 journal of Safety Research

vigorously when impacted than those living group than the low-noise group for the total
in noisier urban areas. sample (Table 5). The same observation was
generally noticed in plant B where absentee-
Production incentives. Production incentives ism was greater in many of the departments
were also affected by noise exposure. The with high noise levels. Absence due to illness
mean production incentives for the high-noise was the major contributor to absenteeism in
group (5.09 % ) were significantly lower than all plants and occurred significantly more of-
those for the low-noise group (5.30 %) in the ten among the high-noise than the low-noise
total sample (Table 2). Plant C showed no groups. Unauthorized absence contributed to
significant difference on this measure quite total absence to a lesser extent than did ab-
possibly because of its relatively lower levels sence due to illness; nevertheless, it also was
of noise exposure (maximum 94.4 dBA). significantly higher among the high-noise
than the low-noise groups.
Disciplinary actions. Workers’ discipline was Cohen found in one study (1973) that the
the most affected measure among the high vs. typical number of discrete absences per worker
low noise exposure comparisons (Table 3). In in noisy jobs (95 dBA or above) was almost
all three plants, disciplinary action for mis- six times greater than for those in quieter ones
conduct (especially absenteeism) showed ma- (80 dBA or below). In the present study, al-
jor differential effects in all departments with though the rate of absenteeism of the high-
the exception of the weaving department noise group was significantly greater than
where disciplinary action for material dam- that of the low-noise group the difference was
age displayed larger differences. Both types smaller (15.4%). Absenteeism was also higher
of disciplinary action (misconduct and mate- among the high-noise group for most of the
rial damage) were significantly higher for the age/duration of noise exposure combinations.
high-noise than the low-noise group in the to- The difference between the two groups was
tal sample as well as in the three individual greatest for younger workers with shorter
plants. Further, this occurred for all ageldu- duration of exposure. This is in agreement
ration of noise exposure combinations, as re- with other previous reports (Cohen, 1968a,
vealed from a statistical comparison (Z test) 1976) showing illness absences to be greatest
of matched pairs according to level of noise for younger workers, especially those with
exposure ( < 90 dBA vs. > 90 dBA). the least service in noisy jobs.
The effect of noise on the prevalence of dis-
ciplinary actions for misconduct could reflect Accidents. Data presented in the literature
noise-induced irritability and negative emo- support the hypothesis that occupational in-
tional status among workers (Cohen, 1968a). juries are more frequent in noisy jobs and can
On the other hand, the higher prevalence of be reduced by noise exposure control (Cohen,
disciplinary actions for material damage 1976; Schmidt et al., 1982). In the present
among weavers in this sample may be ex- study, the incidence of accidents was relative-
plained by the fact that the weaving opera- ly higher among high-noise workers for the
tion is a vigilance task in which workers must total sample as well as for each of the three
be constantly alert for stoppage due to thread plants. This difference, however, was not sta-
breakage, as well as other machine problems tistically significant (Table 6). It should be
that may produce faults. Many researchers noted that the incidence of accidents was
(Jerison & Wing, 1957) have reported that consistently highest in the carding operation
noise may adversely affect vigilance perform- in all three plants, which is a lower noise level
ance, and Cohen (1968b) found that reduc- operation. This higher accident rate might
tion of noise could reverse the problem. In have masked the effect of noise on accidents
laboratory research the most consistent evi- in the high-noise vs. low-noise groups.
dence of performance loss due to noise has been Similarly, the accident frequency and se-
found in vigilance tasks (Carpenter, 1962). verity rates were also relatively higher in de-
partments with high-noise levels than in those
Absenteeism. Total absenteeism was signifi- with low-noise levels, except for the severity
cantly higher (p < .Ol) among the high-noise rates in plants A and B. This may be due to

Winter 1984Nolume 15hVumber 4 173

the fact that the severity rates in most of the CONCLUSIONS
operations with low-noise levels (carding and
combing in plant A and opening and clean- The results of this study present suggestive
ing, carding, combing, and weaving prepa- evidence of an association between excessive
ration in plant B) were among the highest in exposure to workplace noise and problems in
these two plants. This is supported by previ- productivity, discipline, absenteeism, and
ous reports (CIS, 1968), indicating that more safety. They further suggest that controlling
severe accidents primarily involve machin- noise exposure in the textile industry may
ery, of which carding and willowing ma- have benefits in ameliorating these problems
chines constitute a major part. and consequently, could be an economically
The effects of noise on accident frequency sound investment.
and severity rates were demonstrated in plant
B where the noise levels varied in different REFERENCES
departments performing the same operation
(Table 7). These rates were considerably higher Broche, J. T. (1973). Acoustic noise mea.surements (2nd
ed.) Naerum: Bruel and Kjaer.
in the weaving preparation and spinning de- Carpenter, A. (1962). Effects of noise on performance
partments where the noise levels were higher and productivity. In Control of noise, Symposium No.
than in similar departments with lower noise 12. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
levels, indicating a positive correlation be- CIS. (1968). Occupational accidents in raw textile and
rag processing. In Schewizerische unfallversicherug-
tween noise level and accident frequency and
sanstalt, Lucerne Switzerland, 1967.
severity. Cohen, A. (1968a). Noise effects on health, productiv-
ity and well being. Transactions of New York Acad-
emy of Science, Series II, 30, 910-18.
Cohen, A. (1968b). Noise and psychological state (Tech-
Effects of Socioeconomic and nical report RR-g). Washington, DC: Department of
Occupational Factors Health, Education, and Welfare.
Cohen, A. (1973a, August). Extra-auditory effects of oc-
Subdividing the high-noise and low-noise
cupational noise. Part II Effects on work performance.
groups by demographic, job service, and health National Safety News, pp. 68-76.
status factors revealed few differential effects Cohen, A. (1973b). Industrial noise and medical absence
on the variables under study (Table 8). Such and accident records on exposed workers. Proceedings
differences were mostly evident in the pro- of the International Congress on No&z as a Public He&h
Problem, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, May 13-18.
duction efficiency and absenteeism measures. Cohen, A. (1976). The influence of a company hearing
With regard to production efficiency, it ap- conservation program on extra-auditory problems in
pears that younger workers with fewer years workers. Journal of Safety Research, 8, 146-162.
of service and working longer hours per week Cabreau, M. (1963). Noise suppression in the textile in-
dustry. Prevention et Securite du Travail, 58, 47.
in high level noise outproduced their low-
Glorig, A., et al. (1972). Occupational exposure to noise.
noise counterparts. Variations in the nature A criteriafor recommended standards. Washington,
of the work being performed under low and DC: National Institute for Occupational Safety and
high noise conditions may explain this result. Health.
The fact that noise exposure may have stimu- Jerison, H. J., & Wing, S. (1957). Effects of noise and
fatigue on a complex vigilance task (WADC Technical
lating/arousal properties for younger persons report TR-57-14). Ohio: Wright Patterson AFB.
might also underly these observations. Noweir. M. H., El-Dakhakhny, A. A., & Valic, F.
With regard to absenteeism, workers with (1968). Exposure to noise in the textile industry of the
a shorter work week (< 48 hrsiweek) in the U.A.R. American Industrial Hygiene Association Jour-
nal, 29, 541-546.
low-noise group had more absences. This sug-
Schmidt, J. W., Royster, L. H., & Pearson, R. C. (1982,
gests that factors other than noise may be con- May). Impact of hearing conservation program on oc-
tributing to this problem. cupational injuries. Sound and Vibration, pp. 16-20.

174 Journal of Safety Research