4.5 Article

Exposure modifiers of the relationships of transportation noise with high blood pressure and noise annoyance

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 132, 期 6, 页码 3788-3808

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.4764881

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission (Directorate General Research)
  2. Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, Key Action 4: Environment and Health [QLRT-2001-02501]
  3. MRC [G0801056] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0801056] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the cross-sectional hypertension and exposure to noise near airports study the relationship between road traffic noise, aircraft noise and hypertension and annoyance was investigated. The data collection comprised a variety of potentially exposure modifying factors, including type of housing, location of rooms, window opening habits, use of noise-reducing remedies, shielding due to obstacles, lengths of exposure. In the present paper the quantitative role of these factors on the relationship between road and aircraft noise exposure and outcomes was analyzed. Multiple logistic and linear regression models were calculated including these co-factors and related interaction terms with noise indicators, as well as stratified analyses. Type of housing, length of residence, location of rooms and the use of noise reducing remedies modified the relationship between noise and hypertension. However, the effects were not always in the direction of a stronger association in higher exposed subjects. Regarding annoyance, type of housing, location of rooms, noise barriers, window opening habits, noise insulation, the use of noise reducing remedies, hours spent at home during daytime were significant effect modifiers. The use of noise-reducing remedies turned out to be indicators of perceived noise disturbance rather than modifiers reducing the annoyance. (C) 2012 Acoustical Society of America. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4764881]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据