摘要
目的评价两种不同性质的噪声对工人听力损害的差异方法对35家企业的稳态噪声接触1年以上工人共1421人,非稳态噪声(除脉冲噪声之外)接触1年以上冲压工人共957人进行纯音听力测试,并对35家接触噪声企业进行职业卫生学调查。结果在1421名稳态噪声组检出观察对象131例,患病率为9.2%,职业性噪声聋98人,患病率为6.8%;在957名非稳态噪声组检出观察对象74例,患病率为7.7%,职业性噪声聋60人,患病率为6.3%。两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组高频和语频听力损失的患病率随累积噪声暴露量的增大而增大,呈剂量-反应关系。结论在累积噪声暴露量接触水平一致的情况下,稳态噪声与非稳态噪声(除脉冲噪声之外)对引起的听力损失差异无统计学意义。
Objective To observe the difference of hearing loss in workers exposed to steady or non-steady noise and help control effectively such hazards effectively. Methods The occupational health study was done in 35 noised-exposed enterprises. 1421 workers exposed to steady noise and 957 workers exposed to non-steady noise （except for impulsive noise, engaging in stamping process） received pure tone audiometry, Results Among 1421 steady noise exposed workers, 131 cases （prevalence 9.2%） were suspected and needed to follow up and 98 cases were diagnosed as occupational noise-induced deafness（prevalence 6.8% ）, while 74 cases were suspected （prevalence 7.7% ） and 60 cases were diagnosed as occupational noise-induced deafness （prevalence 6.3% ） among 957 workers exposed to non-steady noise. There was no statistical difference between these two exposed groups （P 〉 0.05）. Furthermore, a dose-response relationship existed between cumulative noise exposure （CNE） and prevalence of hearing loss caused by high frequency and low frequency noise. Conclusion Under the same exposure level of CNE, there was no difference of hearing loss in workers exposed to stead or non-steady noise.
出处
《职业卫生与应急救援》
2010年第2期87-90,共4页
Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue
基金
广东省中山市科技计划项目基金资助(项目编号:20071A054)
