4.1 Article

Noise Exposures and Hearing Protector Use at Small Logging Operations

Journal

SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 1-9

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11842-020-09459-0

Keywords

Hearing loss; Occupational noise; Tree harvesting; Forest safety

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Training Project Grant [TOH008630]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that noise exposure exceeding recommended levels was common in small-scale logging operations, but the usage rate of hearing protectors was low, especially in cable operations. None of the logging operations had implemented occupational hearing conservation programs.
The study objective was to characterize noise exposures and hearing protector usage at small-scale logging operations. Noise dosimeters were used to measure exposures of 31 loggers at two cable operations and five mechanized operations in the United States. Activity cards were employed to evaluate hearing protector usage. Ninety-two percent of cable operation loggers were overexposed to noise according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended criteria, but only 46% of cable loggers wore hearing protection. Six percent of mechanized operation loggers were overexposed to noise over the 8-h shifts observed, but this number increased to 33% when working 12-h shifts, which was a common practice among the participant companies. Only 6% of mechanized loggers wore hearing protection. Mean noise exposures and the proportion of hearing protection usage were both significantly greater at cable operations than at mechanized operations. None of the logging operations had hearing conservation programs in place. Despite the use of mechanized logging equipment and methods, the potential for noise-induced hearing loss remains a concern for workers employed at small-scale operations in the logging industry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available