Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Evaluation of noise pollution related to human perception in a university

campus in Brazil
Thaísa Barboza de Souza a,⇑, Klaus Chaves Alberto a, Sabrina Andrade Barbosa a,b
a
Built Environment Post Graduation Program, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
b
Department of Architecture and Urbanism, Industrial Design College, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Noise pollution has been identified as an urban environmental problem in developing universities cam-
Received 15 March 2019 puses. Excessive noise in areas with educational activities can lead to low performance of lecturers, stu-
Received in revised form 18 August 2019 dents and staff. Therefore, this paper aims to identify the influence of sound pressure on the user
Accepted 1 September 2019
perception and behaviour in a sector of a university campus in Brazil. This research was developed from
Available online 18 September 2019
on-site sound measurements in 32 outdoor and 11 indoor spots in the Federal University of Juiz de Fora.
In addition, questionnaires were applied to 140 volunteers including lecturers, students and staff. Data
Keywords:
captured by these measurements were compared to the national regulations NBR 10.151 and NBR
Noise pollution
Sound perception
10.152 as well as to the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. Finally, measurement
Sound measurement results were confronted with the users’ answers. Results indicated that 87% and 53% of the outdoor mea-
University campus surements exceeded the limits determined by NBR 10.151 and WHO, respectively, mainly due to vehicle
Noise mapping traffic and people’s conversation. Regarding the internal spots, all measurements surpassed the recom-
mended limits, reaching a peak of 77% above the threshold value. However, the sound disturbance is
not always clearly perceived as only 55% of volunteers reported being bothered by noise and among
them, only half try to solve it while studying or working. This study contributes with a comparison
between quantitative and qualitative results warranting attention to the dealing of noise pollution at
university campuses.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is common knowledge that noise pollution has been affecting
the world population progressively, mainly in large cities. Accord-
ing to recent publication by the World Health Organization (WHO)
[1] at least 100 million people are affected by road noise in the
European Union and at least 1,6 million years of healthy life are
lost every year. Many researches have indicated high levels of
sound pollution in different urban areas, as presented by Yang
and Kang [2] and Szeremeta e Zannin [3], which identified exces-
sive noise at urban parks in Occidental Europe and Brazil, respec-
tively. The study by Magalhães et al. [4] also found high levels of
sound pressure around the main roads of Londrina city in Brazil.
According to Murgel [5], the aggravation of noise pollution has
been intensified since the Industrial Revolution in XVIII and XIX
centuries, due to the increasing use of machinery. The publication
by WHO [6] about means to control noise at regional and local
levels, indicates that this problem expanded by several other
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: thaisab.souza@hotmail.com (T.B. de Souza), klaus.alberto@
ufjf.edu.br (K.C. Alberto).
factors: increase of road, rail and air traffic, as well as urbanization
and economic growth. The document also states that in-
development countries are more exposed to noise in comparison
to developed ones, which can be explained by a poor urban design
and a disorderly construction of buildings.
According to Schafer [7] although a sporadic exposure to 100 dB
(A) does not affect human health dramatically, experiencing these
same decibels throughout the day may induce a permanent hear-
ing threshold shift. Exposure to high levels of sound pressure can
generate psychological health problems such as anxiety, depres-
sion, stress and fatigue [8], as well as cardiac, auditory or cognitive
problems, affecting from foetuses to the elderly [1]. Generally, ver-
bal communication, teaching and learning, mental activities and
sleep are often the most affected [9]. Among the youngsters, the
ability to read and understand can be delayed by up to one month
when exposed to undesirable sounds [1]. However, people are not
always aware of the impacts that noise can cause, especially those
exposed to lower noise levels during long-term [1].
In Brazil, there are two national regulations about acoustics in
the built environment. They are the NBR 10.151/2019 [8] (Acous-
tics — Measurement and evaluation of sound pressure levels in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.107023
0003-682X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023
inhabited environments — Application for general use), which
establishes conditions to local noise evaluation specifying mea-
surement methods and the NBR 10.152/2017 [9] (Acoustics -
Indoor sound pressure levels in buildings), which establishes levels
of noise to acoustic comfort in different indoor spaces. In addition
to national and municipal standards, international normative
[10–13] are also often used for soundscapes analysis.
Although there is still a lack of research on local noise in areas
with educational activities, excessive sound pressure can lead to
low performance [6] of lecturers, students and staff. The negative
effects of urban sound may affect people’s psychological and men-
tal health [6], causing irritation, inefficiency in work and studies
and even depression [14]. Therefore, this paper aims to identify
the influence of the sound pressure on the user perception and
behaviour in a university campus in Brazil. The object of this study,
the campus of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), has
been going through an expansion with increasing on vehicles and
pedestrian’s circulation since its construction in the ‘70 s. This
study describes the local soundscape obtained from on-site mea-
surements and reveals how noise is perceived by users through
the application of questionnaires.
2. Literature review
Despite the few studies in sound mapping at the Brazilian edu-
cational institutions, two which might be highlighted are the
research by Magioli and Torres [15], which has evaluated the
acoustic conditions of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
(UFRJ) campus and the study by Zannin et al. [16], which explored
noise pollution at the campus of the Polytechnic Centre of Federal
University of Paraná (UFPR). The two studies compared the level of
noise measured in educational environments with the limits rec-
ommended by WHO [6], which is 55 dB(A). Magioli e Torres [15]
also considered the limits stipulated by NBR 10.151 [8] and NBR
10.152 [9] and considered the range of 35 to 60 dB(A) as suitable
values for accomplishing acoustic comfort. Both studies indicated
high level of noise at the campuses. At the UFRJ, all spots measured
exceeded the maximum recommended and at the UFPR, >89% of
measurements has surpassed the limits. Both studies pointed out
that the main noise agent were the vehicles travelling in the
high-flow paths located near to the universities’ buildings. How-
ever, while the study by Magioli and Torres [15] indicated mitiga-
tion measures to lessen sound pressures, the work by Zannin et al.
[16] compared the measured results with opinions given by volun-
teer students through the application of questionnaires.
Other studies involving noise measurements in educational
environments were carried out at the city of Kerala, India [17]
and at a university in Cukurova, Turkey [18]. As a range of accept-
able levels of noise, the studies adopted local regulations, which
are 45 and 35 dB(A), respectively. As well as in the Brazilian studies
[15,16], the analyses from India and Turkey also pointed out that
their studied areas did not accomplish with the limits required
for an adequate acoustic environment. While John et al. [17] com-
pared local noise measurements to opinions of students and lectur-
ers, Çolakkadıoğlu et al. [18] compared the levels of noise pollution
at different spots of the university campus to a previous noise
mapping from 2010. They identified higher noise levels on the
actual measurement, mainly in buildings located close to the roads.
In a study focused on the internal environment, Tang and Yeung
[19] indicate a relationship between the speech transmission
indices in classrooms to reverberation times, more than to func-
tions and operating conditions of those rooms. This shows that
the noise condition is a function of different aspects and may not
be related only to the sound transmission from the external envi-
ronment but also to the internal room design.
Recent researches have used on-site sound measurements and
logarithmic calculations based on the type of source and environ-
mental conditions to identify the sound spreading between source
and receptor [17,20]. Local sound mapping has been used as a tool
to simulate and evaluate the level of exposure of the population to
noise [14] and to detect regions in need of plans of action
[15,16,21]. In addition to quantitative measurements, qualitative
analyses investigate how the population perceives noise in a given
environment, through the application of questionnaires and inter-
views [22]. Regarding the measurement methodologies, the study
by Nagem [23] developed guidelines to elaborate an acoustic
map, focusing on the number and distribution of spots and the
suitable schedule to collect them. According to the author, all mea-
suring points should form a mesh that can be random or regular,
according to the local characteristics and to the research empha-
sizes. In the case of differences higher than 5 dB(A) between two
adjacent nodes from a triangular mesh, an intermediate point
should be added [11]. The measurement schedule should be
chosen according to each objective, varying in time bands such
as morning, afternoon and night [23]. Some recommendations
about the duration of each measurement determine that 1 min
[2,22], 3 min, [17] or even 30 min [24] are necessary for a correct
evaluation of the area. Zannin et al. [16] tested those three mea-
surement times and although a statistical analysis to corroborate
the results was not carried out, they indicated that the variation
of the sound levels was insignificant.
Although a number of studies have identified high levels of
sound pressure at the external environments of universities
campuses, the majority compares those measured values with
guidelines without taking into account the user perception and
behaviour. The existing studies are still lacking in relating external
and internal acoustic conditions to people reports on noise
annoyance, perception, behaviour and expectative. This study also
innovates when provides adequate validation on the number/time
of measurements necessary for acoustic analysis.
3. Material and methods
In order to characterize the noise pollution of the area studied,
two methodological approaches were used: quantitative and qual-
itative. The first deals with measurements of sound pressures at
indoor and outdoor spaces, while the subjective approach is based
on a questionnaire applied to students, lecturers and members of
staff.
3.1. Study area
Located in the city of Juiz de Fora – MG (Fig. 1 – map took from
IBGE [25]), UFJF, which is at 4 km from the city centre, was con-
structed in 1969 and has a land of just over 100 ha. The study
was carried out in the area of the Faculties of Engineering, Arts
and Design and Architecture and Urbanism, which occupies
approximately 137,000 m2, just over 10% of the total. As showed
in Fig. 2, whose map was taken from Google Earth [26], the area
is located in the western region of the campus. Characterized by
a rough topography, the region is used to undergraduate and post-
graduate classes, as well as to house the University Restaurant
(UR), which serves the entire institution. The area has 19 buildings
distributed in sheds, old and new buildings, arranged near a one-
way road. The buildings comprise of longitudinal constructions of
low height with a maximum of 3 floors mostly made of ceramic
brick masonry and windows of aluminium or metal frames and
thin glass and the area has a vegetative mass divided into low,
medium and high density.
 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023
Fig. 1. Location of study object in the city of Juiz de Fora.
Fig. 2. Study area.
3.2. In loco measurements
Sound pressure level measurements on the outside and inside
the buildings were made in accordance with the Brazilian
regulations NBR 10.151/2019 [8] e NBR 10.152/2017 [9].
Recommendations on the device calibration and on selection of
adequate time for measurements, which should be taken
when there is no adverse nature interference such as wind and
rain, were considered. The device used was a Portable Digital
Thermo-Anemometer Mod. TAD-800 – INSTRUTHERM and a
Portable Digital Sonometer Mod. DEC-5030 1/1 and 1/3 Octave
3
Band Time Analyzer, correctly calibrated and configured for
measurements of sound pressure level equivalent in ‘‘A” and ‘‘Fast”
mode, with 95% probability of accuracy according to the technical
report of the apparatus.
For the outdoor measurements, the equipment was fixed at
1.2 m distant from the floor and at least 2 m from any reflecting
surfaces. Nowoswiat et al. [27] have demonstrated the importance
of selecting the noise measurement points, as the distribution of
sound levels may be affected by any factors such as buildings
heights and acoustic shadows promoted by them. The authors sug-
gest that computational simulation increases the accuracy of the
sound receptors. However, as the regulations do not establish a
minimum distance between points of measurement, in this study
the distribution of the outdoor stations occurred through a triangu-
lar mesh of approximately 50 m distance between the nodes,
resulting in 32 stations (Fig. 3 – map took from Google Earth [26]).
The regulations do not specify a minimum time to take the
sound measurements, it only specifies that this decision should
be taken in order to characterize the local noise. Therefore, a pre-
vious test was carried out to determine a minimum time necessary
for reliable measurements and thus, optimize time and equipment.
Three groups of tests were performed and measurements of 1 min
interval for 3-min, 15-min and 60-min were taken at randomly
selected points on the campus. According to the Brazilian standard
NBR 10.151 [8], if there is an atypical sound (car horns, for exam-
ple) at the time of measuring, it must be excluded. In those cases,
the record of the pressure sound was taken immediately after the
intrusive sound had disappeared.
Fig. 4 presents the spread of the results showing the
mean ± standard deviation and median values of sound pressure
measurements considering 3-min, 15-min and 60-min periods.
In order to compare 3-, 15- and 60-min measurements at each
location, statistical tests were performed. For this, datasets (15-
min and 60-min measurements) were first tested for normality
using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and in all cases, data followed
normal distribution. However, this test could not be applied to the
3-min measurements because of limited data (n = 3). Therefore,
comparisons were performed using both parametric and non-
parametric tests. For parametric tests, the one-way ANOVA was
used to compare three groups (3-, 15- and 60-min), whereas two-
tailed t-test was used to compare two groups (3- and 15-min).
For non-parametric data, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to com-
pare three groups (3-, 15- and 60-min), whereas the Mann-Whitney
test was used to compare two groups (3- and 15-min). All statistical
tests were performed using a significance level of 5% (a = 0.05).
Using parametric tests (one-way ANOVA and t-test), no significant
differences were observed between any groups of measurements in
4 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023

Fig. 3. Outdoor points of measurement.

Fig. 4. Mean (r) ± standard deviation and median () values of sound pressure measurements considering 3-min (n = 3), 15-min (n = 15) and 60-min (n = 60) periods.

all points monitored (p-value > 0.05). Considering non-parametric Point K (Mann-Whitney test; p-value = 0.038). Therefore, results
tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney), again no significant show that the 3-min measurements are adequate to indicate the
differences were observed between any groups of measurements sound pressure at different locations; thus, the results considered
in all points monitored (p-value > 0.05); the only exception was the average value of the 3 measurements.
 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023
Therefore, 3 records were made with 1-minute interval per
station in the periods of 07:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m./11:30 a.m. to
01:30 p.m./4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This
definition took into account the daily flow of vehicles through the
area, which is composed of light and heavy vehicles, motorcycles
and bicycles. On the measurement’ days, the temperature was
mild, around 24 °C and the wind speed around 2 m/s, with no
audible interference from nature. The city of Juiz de Fora has mild
climate conditions with annual average temperature of 18.6 °C and
wind speed of 2.9 m/s.
Even though the area selected in this study presents 19 build-
ings, the indoor measurements were taken in 11 of them, as shown
in Fig. 5 [26], including classrooms (a, b), library study rooms (c)
and staff offices (d) (Fig. 6). The occupancy in the rooms varies con-
siderably according to their use. In the classrooms, for example, the
average of people present was 15, while in the offices this number
dropped to 3 members of staff. Although the hours of operation of
those rooms are from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the measurements
were taken where there was presence of people in the 3 measured
periods. Additionally, their selection considered rooms near the
locations were the highest sound pressure values were recorded
on the external measurements.
Measurement time used was the same from the outdoor, 3
records every 1 min per station. Simultaneously, the room
Fig. 5. Indoor measurement points.
5
conditions, such as the type of window frame and material, the sit-
uation of windows and doors (open or closed) and the user beha-
viour were observed. At the moment of the measurement, the
device was positioned at a distance of at least 1 m from walls, ceil-
ings, furniture and window frames, as indicated by NBR 10.152 [9].
3.3. Survey application
Questionnaires about the sound perception were applied to
users occupying the 11 indoor stations. The questionnaires were
applied under normal conditions of use of the environment, with
no exposure to noises other than those already generated in day-
to-day life. Therefore, all the volunteers were under the same
acoustic conditions. Atypical sources were recorded in the visit
protocol as a guarantee that those sources did not affect the
results.
The questions were elaborated from similar researches to this
study [3,16] and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Univer-
sity (Certificate of Presentation of Ethical Appreciation number
98457018.4.0000.5147). The questionnaire contains 9 objective
questions and the volunteers were free to mark as many options
as they wanted, as well as being able to express their opinion with
another answer that might not be explicit among the alternatives.
The questions indicated below include aspects about users’ sound
6 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023
(a) Classroom type 1
(c) Study room
Fig. 6. Photos of some of the indoor environments evaluated.
perception, behaviour and expectative. The first 3 questions aimed
to identify the regularity of the volunteer exposure to noises.
1. Day by day, are you exposed to some kind of loud sound?
2. How often do you use this place?
3. What time do you usually use this place?
4. What kind of sound are you listening from outside, right now?
5. Do you always hear this sound in this place?
6. Does this sound in this place prevent you from listening well to
your colleague/lecturer?
7. What is the discomfort level caused by this sound?
8. What do you do to try to mitigate it?
9. In terms of noise, would you like this place to be unchanged,
quieter, or much quieter?
Additionally, in order to verify if the rooms speech transmission
were also influenced by the rooms conditions and not only by
external noises, reverberation times of 4 exemplar rooms (pre-
sented in Fig. 6) were calculated using Sabinés formula.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. In loco measurements
Results of measurements were compared to the recommenda-
tions by WHO [6], which sets the maximum LAeq (Equivalent con-
tinuous sound pressure level A-weighted) – which measures of the
energy contained within the sound at the point of the receiver –, as
35 dB(A) for indoor school environments and 55 dB(A) for outdoor
school environments. In addition, Brazilian regulations NBR 10.151
[8] and NBR 10.152 [9], which determine levels of noise pollution
in external and internal environments according to the time and
(b) Classroom type 2
(d) Staff room
urban area zone, were also used as a reference. NBR 10.151 [8]
determines the LAeq equal to 50 dB(A) for daytime period and
45 dB(A) for night time period in outdoor environments, while
the standard NBR 10.152 [9] and WHO [6] define LAeq equals to
35 dB(A) for indoor environments.
The outdoor noise measurements indicated that 28 of the 32
measured points exceeded the limits determined by NBR 10.151
[8] while 17 of them exceeded the limits determined by WHO
[6] for the daytime period, with a peak of 12 dB(A) above the indi-
cated. Figs. 7–9 show the sound pressure measured on the 3 peri-
ods in each spot and Fig. 10 presents a map with the range of
pressure sounds measured at the external environment. In the per-
iod from 07:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m., the measurements stayed in a
range between 44 and 70 dB(A), with the spot close to the Univer-
sity Restaurant (UR) (external point 28) exceeding 26 dB(A) the
recommended. This can be explained by the obvious increasing
pedestrians’ flow and conversation, but also by the relative con-
finement of this area, which may difficult the sound spread. In
the periods from 11:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to
6:30 p.m., the noise levels were between 47 and 71 dB(A) and 46
and 70 dB(A), respectively, being its highest level also close to
the UR, showing a relative sound homogeneity of the area over
the day.
It is also possible to notice that some regions follow similar con-
ditions over the day. For example, points 6, 7 and 8 present a rel-
ative low incidence of sound pressures. Although the area is
close to the road and may capture sounds from vehicles, it is also
placed in an open area close to a green zone, which may facilitate
the sound scattering. It is also interesting to note that points 30, 31
and 32 present an increase of sound levels at the end of the day,
possibly due to their proximity to the bus stop. Throughout the
studied area there is always a spot affected by the high noise level
in one of the periods evaluated, which may cause disturbance to
 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023 7

Fig. 7. Sound pressure level from 07:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m. measured at the external environment.

Fig. 8. Sound pressure level from 11:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m. measured at the external environment.

the university community. The values stipulated by the national
regulations [9,8] or the WHO [6] contrasts with the current campus
reality, which generates a larger flow of people and vehicles, affect-
ing educational environments.
Figs. 11 to 13 show the range of sound levels measured at the
internal points on the three periods considered. All 11 points
resulted in a LAeq higher than 35 dB(A), which indicates a defi-
ciency of the campus in providing adequate acoustic conditions.
During the period from 07:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m., values varied
between 45 and 53 dB(A) with the highest sound pressure mea-
sured in a classroom in a relatively new building (internal point
3). As this room is not located close to the external points with
the highest recorded sound levels, the high sound pressure can
be explained by its proximity to the road, where there is an
increase of the vehicle circulation during this period of the day.
Additionally, it can be also due to classroom design, which com-
prises of windows placed in the entire façade, as can be seen in
Fig. 6(a).
From 11:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m., when pedestrians and vehicles
flow increase substantially at this sector of the university, sound
levels ranged from 51 to 62 dB(A) with the highest values located
at the internal points 8 and 9. From 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., sound
levels varied between 51 and 57 dB(A), being the peak located in
the classroom next to a pedestrian crossing (internal point 5).
Those rooms are positioned where more people are circulating,
and the results show the problem of acoustic transmission from
external to internal environments.
4.2. Survey application
The questionnaire was applied to 140 volunteers who were in
the rooms attending classes or working. Among them, 128 stu-
dents aged between 18 and 29 and 12 lecturers or staff are
between 24 and 61 years of age. All of them had their identity pre-
served. Table 1 shows the distribution of participants.
The respondents were grouped according to their age and expo-
sure to loud sounds, in order to provide a clear and structured
understanding of their sound perception and expectative. Among
the volunteers age 18–29, only 8% reported frequent contact with
loud sounds in their daily lives (group A), while 92% have contact
8 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023

Fig. 9. Sound pressure level from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. measured at the external environment.

Fig. 11. Range of pressure sounds measured in the internal environments from
Fig. 10. Range of pressure sounds measured at the external environment.
07:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m.

with loud sounds only sometimes or never during their routines
(group B). Amongst the mature respondents (30–69 years old),
100% said never or only sometimes having contact with loud
sounds (group C). When asked about how often they frequent the
university environments, 57% of the 140 volunteers stated that they
are present in the campus at least five times a week in classrooms,
libraries or offices, especially in the morning and afternoon periods.
Although a large part of the studied area presented sound pres-
sure levels above the indicated by the national standards [8,9] and
the international guidelines [6], a considerable percentage of
respondents (group A: 36%; group B: 49%; group C: 33%) said not
being disturbed by the noise. This can be explained by the daily
exposure to that sound, making it common to their hearing. Among
the youngest, 39% of those disturbed by the local sound reported
 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023
Fig. 12. Range of pressure sounds measured in the internal environments from
11:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m.
difficulties of concentration, while in group C, the greatest com-
plaint was irritation (33%).
Table 2 shows the type of sound most listened by the respon-
dents, according to each of the three groups. Regardless of people
age or the frequency in contact with loud sounds, the three great-
est complaints of all groups were talking between people, traffic
noise and nature sounds. However, while among the youngest,
the talking between people and traffic noises annoy the most, in
the group of mature people (group C) the main complaints are
on talking and nature sounds. This is possibly due to the proximity
of the classrooms (environments often used by group A) to the
road and corridors, while the offices (environments often used by
group C) usually have openings towards open green spaces. It is
interesting to notice that in all groups, about 15% of people
reported being annoyed by noise from civil construction, even
though it is not a constant sound in all places of application. The
homogeneity of the type of noise generated by this campus area
may explain the similarities in responses regardless of people’s
position in the area.
When asked if the noise level prevented them from listening
well to their colleagues or lectures, 91% of respondents of group
A said they were unable to listen to each other sometimes or many
times in that room. This number is lower among people from
groups B and C, which reaches 60% and 67%. This can be related
to the usual high sound exposure by group A, which may have their
hearing affected. This also demonstrates the low acoustic quality of
the rooms analysed, as only 27% of people said having speech clar-
ity all the time. This can be also related to the lack of adequate
acoustic treatment in the rooms, as the reverberation time consid-
erably exceeded the optimal time, as shown in Table 3. Surfaces
9
Fig. 13. Range of pressure sounds measured in the internal environments from
4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
coefficients used in the calculations considered the parameters
defined by the Brazilian standard NBR 12.179 [28] and reference
[29], which present materials commonly used in the country.
Although a high number of volunteers in the three groups
affirmed being somehow bothered with the sound conditions in
the rooms (group A: 72%, group B: 53%, group C: 55%), a large por-
tion of them (54%, 55% and 44% on groups A, B and C, respectively)
claimed doing nothing to try to mitigate it. Some of the solutions
given by the volunteers are to close the doors or windows and
ask for silence. Around 27% of people from group A said to move
to another place in the room because of its acoustic conditions,
which can be related to a hearing damage on this group, since this
number drops to 6% and 0% on groups B and C. This demonstrates
that people usually avoid making any effort to improve their
acoustic conditions, although most respondents (group A: 100%,
group B: 63%; group C: 78%) would like that their environments
were quieter.
The highest recorded sound pressure on the internal environ-
ment was on point 9 (identified in Fig. 5); a classroom located
5 m away from the restaurant, where it reached a peak of 62 dB
during the lunchtime. In this environment, 90% of the users said
to be bothered by the sound conditions coming from the outside
and 70% affirmed having difficulties in listening to a colleague or
the lecturer, while 90% of volunteers would like this place to be
quieter. This demonstrates the importance of an adequate layout
of a university campus, as classrooms should be placed away from
locals with people’s concentration. It is also interesting to mention
that in this room, the windows cover an entire facade and
remained open during the evaluation, which also has a great effect
on the sound transmission towards the interior.
10 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023
Table 1
Distribution of participants according to their age.
Category Age distribution
18–29
Student 128
Lecturer or staff office 3 6
Total of volunteers 131
Table 2
Voting results regarding the type of sound listened during the questionnaire application.
Nature
GROUP A|18–29 y/o 8% – Frequent contact 27%
GROUP B|18–29 y/o 92% – Sometimes/Never 27%
GROUP C|30–69 y/o 100% – Sometimes/Never 33%
Table 3
Ideal and calculated reverberation times of four rooms.
Ideal reverberation Calculated reverberation
time (s) time (s)
Classroom type 1 0,7 2,0
Classroom type 2 0,7 1,4
Study room 0,6 0,7
Staff room 0,6 1,9
On the other hand, even though point 4 was the spot with the
lowest sound pressure measured indoors, where it was recorded
as low as 46 dB(A) during the morning, 100% of respondents would
prefer that the room were quieter or much quieter. This classroom
is characterized by openings to both the inner courtyard (approx-
imately 3 m of distance) and the road (15 m distance). In this room,
most of the users (90%) are from group B and 47% pointed out that
usually hear people talking in this place and the same percentage
(47%) affirmed that the room sound conditions prevent them from
listening well to a colleague or a lecturer.
Regarding the differences according to the time of the day, it
was noticed that at the external point 26, in an inner courtyard
of access exclusive to pedestrians, the sound pressure level in the
afternoon exceeded 19 dB when compared to the measurement
in the morning. This mainly affects classrooms at points 3, 4 and
5, localized about 3 m away from the external point. This high con-
trast in sound conditions follows the complaints as 60% and 90% of
people reported being disturbed by noise in the morning and in the
afternoon, respectively. However, the highest percentage of both-
ered users attempting to mitigate the problem is pointed out in
the early evening period, where 81% choose to close the window/-
door. This this number drops to 40% in the morning, which may be
explained by a lower tolerance to noise in the evening, when peo-
ple are more tired.
5. Conclusions
This paper aims to identify the influence of the sound pressure
on the user perception and behaviour in a sector of a university
campus in Brazil. The study, developed in the Federal University
of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), was conducted through on-site sound mea-
surements, questionnaire application and noise mapping elabora-
tion. Comparing values from this study with those recommended
by national and international regulations, it is noted that the noise
at the campus is not suitable for an educational area, once 87% of
the points measured at the external environment exceeded the
recommended by the Brazilian regulation NBR 10.151 [8] and
53% surpassed the less restricted limits by WHO [6]. In the indoor
Total
30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69
0 0 0 0 128 (91%)
1 1 1 12 (9%)
6 1 1 1 140
Talking Traffic Other None
54% 54% 18% (civil construction) 9%
63% 40% 16% (civil construction and machines) 5%
67% 22% 11% (civil construction) 11%
environments, the number of points with the sound pressure level
above the recommended by NBR 10.152 [9] and WHO [6] was
100%, which may cause physical and psychological issues to the
academic community.
Even with the high sound pressure levels recorded in the area,
the questionnaire results do not reflect the real dimension of this
issue, since the noise disturbance is not always clearly perceived,
especially among people that have contact with high sound levels
during their routines. The results show that almost half of the vol-
unteers are not disturbed by the existing sound, making noise pol-
lution unnoticed by the population. Therefore, many of the users
do not take procedures to improve the environment sound
conditions.
Some of the shortcomings of the research are the lack of a sound
map created from a suitable software and the preclusion of mea-
surements or application of questionnaires at some of the studied
rooms. In addition, the study accuracy would also be improved if
intermediate nodes were recorded, especially in sensitive areas.
There is still a need for further research covering a large area of
the campus with the use of simulation software for the creation
of a more detailed noise mapping that would allow for testing of
architectural and urban alternatives for noise reduction. Promoting
adequate acoustic conditions depends on a conjunct action
between the campus planning and the rooms’ design. Thus, it is
important to consider the position of buildings, paths, roads, urban
equipment as well as rooms openings and finishes.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Agora and ECOS research groups of the Faculty
of Architecture and Urbanism of the Federal University of Juiz de
Fora for contributing to the research development. They also thank
the volunteers who responded to the questionnaire.
References
[1] World Health Organization – WHO. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the
European Region; 2018. p. 160.
[2] Yang W, Kang J. Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces. Appl
Acoust 2005;66(2):211–29.
[3] Szeremeta B, Zannin PHT. Analysis and evaluation of soundscapes in public
parks through interviews and measurement of noise. Sci Total Environ
2009;407(24):6143–9.
[4] Magalhães, L.M.A. Mauá, L. B. C. Giglio, T. G. F. Análise do ruído de tráfego
urbano e sua relação com os espaços lindeiros. no. 1; 2017. p. 116–25
[5] Murgel E. Fundamentos de Acústica Ambiental. São Paulo, Brazil: Senac; 2007.
[6] World Health Organization - WHO, ‘‘Guidelines for Community Noise.” 1999.
[7] Razdan A. ‘‘The Father of Acoustic Ecology A conversation with R. Murray
Schafer; 2005. [Online]. Available: https://www.utne.com/arts/r-murray-
schafer-father-of-acoustic-ecology.
 T.B. de Souza et al. / Applied Acoustics 157 (2020) 107023
[8] Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT, NBR 10151 Acoustics —
Measurement and evaluation of sound pressure levels in inhabited
environments — Application for general use. Rio de Janeiro; 2019
[9] Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT, NBR 10.152 – Acoustics —
Sound pressure levels of indoor environments. Rio de Janeiro; 2017.
[10] International Organization for Standardization, ‘‘ISO 1996-1. Acoustics –
Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise - Part 1:
Basic quantities and assessment procedures; 2016.
[11] International Organization for Standardization, ‘‘ISO 1996-2. Acoustics –
Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 2:
Determination of sound pressure levels; 1987.
[12] International Organization for Standardization, ‘‘ISO 9613-1. Acoustics -
Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 1: Calculation of
sound by the atmosphere; 2004.
[13] International Organization for Standardization, ‘‘ISO 9613-2. Acoustics -
Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General method
of calculation; 2012.
[14] World Health Organization – WHO, ‘‘Burden of disease from environmental
noise quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe; 2011.
[15] Magioli FB, Torres JCB. Influência das transformações urbanas no conforto
acústico: estudo-piloto da cidade universitária da UFRJ. Revista Brasileira
Gestão Urbana 2018;10(2):400–13.
[16] Zannin P.H.T., Engel M.S. Fiedler P. E. K. Bunn F. Characterization of
environmental noise based on noise measurements, noise mapping and
interviews: a case study at a university campus in Brazil. Cities: vol. 31; 2013.
p. 317–327.
[17] John J, Thampuran AL, Premlet B. Objective and subjective evaluation of
acoustic comfort in classrooms: a comparative investigation of vernacular and
modern school classroom in Kerala. Appl Acoust 2016;104:33–41.
[18] Çolakkadıoğlu D, Yücel M, Kahveci B, Aydınol Ö. Determination of noise
pollution on university campuses: a case study at Çukurova University campus
in Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 2018;190(4).
11
[19] Tang SK, Yeung MH. Reverberation times and speech transmission indices in
classrooms. J Sound Vib 2006;294:596–607.
[20] Thattai D, Sudarsan JS, Sathyanathan R, Ramasamy V. Analysis of noise
pollution level in a University campus in South India. IOP Conf Ser Earth
Environ Sci 2017;80(1).
[21] Aletta F, Kang J. Soundscape approach integrating noise mapping techniques: a
case study in Brighton, UK. Noise Mapp 2015;2(1):1–12.
[22] Zhang X, Ba M, Kang J, Meng Q. Effect of soundscape dimensions on acoustic
comfort in urban open public spaces. Appl Acoust 2018;133:73–81.
[23] Nagem MP. Mapeamento e análise do ruído ambiental: diretrizes e
metodologia M.S. Thesis. Campinas-SP, Brazil: Graduate of the Faculty of
Civil Engineering, University of Campinas; 2004.
[24] Calleja A, Díaz-Balteiro L, Iglesias-Merchan C, Soliño M. Acoustic and economic
valuation of soundscape: an application to the ‘Retiro’ Urban Forest Park.
Urban For Urban Greening 2017;27:272–8.
[25] Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics – IBGE. ‘‘IBGE | mapas | escolares
| mapas mudos para colorir,” 2018. [Online]. Available: mapas.ibge.gov.br/
escolares/mapas-mudos.html.
[26] Google Earth, ‘‘Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF),” 2019.
[Online]. Available: earth.google.com/web/search/Universidade+Federal+de
+Juiz+de+Fora+-+Rua+José+Lourenço+Kelmer+-+São+Pedro,+Juiz+de+Fora+-
+MG/@-21.7751955,-43.3696185,859.29086438a,973.31367769d,35y,0h,0t,0r/
data=CigiJgokCdUVEWuevjJAEdYVEWuevjLAGTpHZi.
[27] Nowoswiat A, Slusarek J, Zuchowski R, Pudelko B. The impact of noise in the
environment on the acoustic assessment of green houses. J Acoust Vibrat
2018;23(3):392–401.
[28] Brazilian Association of Technical Standards – ABNT, NBR 12.179 – Acoustic
treatment in closed rooms – Procedure. Rio de Janeiro, 1992.
[29] Carvalho RP. Acústica Arquitetônica. Brasília, Brazil: Thesaurus; 2010.