4.5 Article

Community noise exposure rand stress in children

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 109, Issue 3, Pages 1023-1027

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.1340642

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [1F33 HD08473-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although accumulating evidence over the past two decades points towards noise as an ambient stressor for children, all of the data emanate from studies in high-intensity, noise impact zones around airports or major roads. Extremely little is known about the nonauditory consequences of typical, day-to-day noise exposure among young children. The present study examined multimethodological indices of stress among children living under 50 dB or above 60 dB (A-weighted, day-night average sound levels) in small towns and villages in Austria. The major noise sources were local road and rail traffic. The two samples were comparable in parental education, housing characteristics, family size, marital status, and body mass index, and index of body fat. All of the children were prescreened for normal hearing acuity. Children in the noisier areas had elevated resting systolic blood pressure and 8-h, overnight urinary cortisol. The children from noisier neighborhoods also evidenced elevated heart rate reactivity to a discrete stressor (reading test) in the laboratory and rated themselves higher in perceived stress symptoms on a standardized index. Furthermore girls, but not boys, evidenced diminished motivation in a standardized behavioral protocol. All data except for the overnight urinary neuroendocrine indices were collected in the laboratory. The results;are discussed in the context of prior airport noise and nonauditory health studies. More behavioral and health research is needed on children with typical, day-to-day noise exposure. (C) 2001 Acoustical Society of America.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available