Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health

Noise is pervasive in everyday life and can cause both auditory and non-auditory health eff ects. Noise-induced hearing loss remains highly prevalent in occupational settings, and is increasingly caused by social noise exposure (eg, through personal music players). Our understanding of molecular mechanisms involved in noise-induced haircell and nerve damage has substantially increased, and preventive and therapeutic drugs will probably become available within 10 years. Evidence of the non-auditory eff ects of environmental noise exposure on public health is growing. Observational and experimental studies have shown that noise exposure leads to annoyance, disturbs sleep and causes daytime sleepiness, aff ects patient outcomes and staff performance in hospitals, increases the occurrence of hypertension and cardiovascular disease, and impairs cognitive performance in schoolchildren. In this Review, we stress the importance of adequate noise prevention and mitigation strategies for public health.

/pdf/auditory-and-non-auditory-eff-ects-of-noise-on-health-1ozea6l4sq.pdf

Auditory and non-auditory eff ects of noise on health

To evaluate the quality of available evidence on the effects of environmental noise exposure on sleep a systematic review was conducted. The databases PSYCINFO, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science and the TNO Repository were searched for non-laboratory studies on the effects of environmental noise on sleep with measured or predicted noise levels and published in or after the year 2000. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Seventy four studies predominately conducted between 2000 and 2015 were included in the review. A meta-analysis of surveys linking road, rail, and aircraft noise exposure to self-reports of sleep disturbance was conducted. The odds ratio for the percent highly sleep disturbed for a 10 dB increase in Lnight was significant for aircraft (1.94; 95% CI 1.61–2.3), road (2.13; 95% CI 1.82–2.48), and rail (3.06; 95% CI 2.38–3.93) noise when the question referred to noise, but non-significant for aircraft (1.17; 95% CI 0.54–2.53), road (1.09; 95% CI 0.94–1.27), and rail (1.27; 95% CI 0.89–1.81) noise when the question did not refer to noise. A pooled analysis of polysomnographic studies on the acute effects of transportation noise on sleep was also conducted and the unadjusted odds ratio for the probability of awakening for a 10 dBA increase in the indoor Lmax was significant for aircraft (1.35; 95% CI 1.22–1.50), road (1.36; 95% CI 1.19–1.55), and rail (1.35; 95% CI 1.21–1.52) noise. Due to a limited number of studies and the use of different outcome measures, a narrative review only was conducted for motility, cardiac and blood pressure outcomes, and for children’s sleep. The effect of wind turbine and hospital noise on sleep was also assessed. Based on the available evidence, transportation noise affects objectively measured sleep physiology and subjectively assessed sleep disturbance in adults. For other outcome measures and noise sources the examined evidence was conflicting or only emerging. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of the evidence was moderate for cortical awakenings and self-reported sleep disturbance (for questions that referred to noise) induced by traffic noise, low for motility measures of traffic noise induced sleep disturbance, and very low for all other noise sources and investigated sleep outcomes.

WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep.

Background: This paper describes a systematic review and meta-analyses on effects of environmental noise on annoyance. The noise sources include aircraft, road, and rail transportation noise as well as wind turbines and noise source combinations. Objectives: Update knowledge about effects of environmental noise on people living in the vicinity of noise sources. Methods: Eligible were published studies (2000-2014) providing comparable acoustical and social survey data including exposure-response functions between standard indicators of noise exposure and standard annoyance responses. The systematic literature search in 20 data bases resulted in 62 studies, of which 57 were used for quantitative meta-analyses. By means of questionnaires sent to the study authors, additional study data were obtained. Risk of bias was assessed by means of study characteristics for individual studies and by funnel plots to assess the risk of publication bias. Main Results: Tentative exposure-response relations for percent highly annoyed residents (%HA) in relation to noise levels for aircraft, road, rail, wind turbine and noise source combinations are presented as well as meta-analyses of correlations between noise levels and annoyance raw scores, and the OR for increase of %HA with increasing noise levels. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE terminology. The evidence of exposure-response relations between noise levels and %HA is moderate (aircraft and railway) or low (road traffic and wind turbines). The evidence of correlations between noise levels and annoyance raw scores is high (aircraft and railway) or moderate (road traffic and wind turbines). The evidence of ORs representing the %HA increase by a certain noise level increase is moderate (aircraft noise), moderate/high (road and railway traffic), and low (wind turbines). Strengths and Limitations: The strength of the evidence is seen in the large total sample size encompassing the included studies (e.g., 18,947 participants in aircraft noise studies). Main limitations are due to the variance in the definition of noise levels and %HA. Interpretation: The increase of %HA in newer studies of aircraft, road and railway noise at comparable Lden levels of earlier studies point to the necessity of adjusting noise limit recommendations. Funding: The review was funded by WHO Europe.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1539/pdf

WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance

The mandate of the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN) is to promote a high level of scientific research concerning all aspects of noise-induced effects on human beings and animals. In this review, ICBEN team chairs and co-chairs summarize relevant findings, publications, developments, and policies related to the biological effects of noise, with a focus on the period 2011-2014 and for the following topics: Noise-induced hearing loss; nonauditory effects of noise; effects of noise on performance and behavior; effects of noise on sleep; community response to noise; and interactions with other agents and contextual factors. Occupational settings and transport have been identified as the most prominent sources of noise that affect health. These reviews demonstrate that noise is a prevalent and often underestimated threat for both auditory and nonauditory health and that strategies for the prevention of noise and its associated negative health consequences are needed to promote public health.

ICBEN review of research on the biological effects of noise 2011-2014.

Numerous relationships between noise exposure and transportation noise-induced annoyance have been inferred by curve-fitting methods. The present paper develops a different approach. It derives a systematic relationship by applying an a priori, first-principles model to the findings of forty three studies of the annoyance of aviation noise. The rate of change of annoyance with day-night average sound level (DNL) due to aircraft noise exposure was found to closely resemble the rate of change of loudness with sound level. The agreement of model predictions with the findings of recent curve-fitting exercises (cf. Miedma and Vos, 1998) is noteworthy, considering that other analyses have relied on different analytic methods and disparate data sets. Even though annoyance prevalence rates within individual communities consistently grow in proportion to duration-adjusted loudness, variability in annoyance prevalence rates across communities remains great. The present analyses demonstrate that 1) community-specific differences in annoyance prevalence rates can be plausibly attributed to the joint effect of acoustic and non-DNL related factors and (2) a simple model can account for the aggregate influences of non-DNL related factors on annoyance prevalence rates in different communities in terms of a single parameter expressed in DNL units—a “community tolerance level.”

A first-principles model for estimating the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise exposure.

Assessment of aircraft noise-induced sleep disturbance is problematic for several reasons. Current assessment methods are based on sparse evidence and limited understandings; predictions of awakening prevalence rates based on indoor absolute sound exposure levels (SELs) fail to account for appreciable amounts of variance in dosage-response relationships and are not freely generalizable from airport to airport; and predicted awakening rates do not differ significantly from zero over a wide range of SELs. Even in conjunction with additional predictors, such as time of night and assumed individual differences in “sensitivity to awakening,” nominally SEL-based predictions of awakening rates remain of limited utility and are easily misapplied and misinterpreted. Probabilities of awakening are more closely related to SELs scaled in units of standard deviates of local distributions of aircraft SELs, than to absolute sound levels. Self-selection of residential populations for tolerance of nighttime noise and habituation to airport noise environments offer more parsimonious and useful explanations for differences in awakening rates at disparate airports than assumed individual differences in sensitivity to awakening.

Aircraft noise-induced awakenings are more reasonably predicted from relative than from absolute sound exposure levels.

Fidell et al. [(2011), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(2), 791-806] have shown (1) that the rate of growth of annoyance with noise exposure reported in attitudinal surveys of the annoyance of aircraft noise closely resembles the exponential rate of change of loudness with sound level, and (2) that the proportion of a community highly annoyed and the variability in annoyance prevalence rates in communities are well accounted for by a simple model with a single free parameter: a community tolerance level (abbreviated CTL, and represented symbolically in mathematical expressions as Lct), expressed in units of DNL. The current study applies the same modeling approach to predicting the prevalence of annoyance of road traffic and rail noise. The prevalence of noise-induced annoyance of all forms of transportation noise is well accounted for by a simple, loudness-like exponential function with community-specific offsets. The model fits all of the road traffic findings well, but the prevalence of annoyance due to rail no...

Role of community tolerance level (CTL) in predicting the prevalence of the annoyance of road and rail noise.

Noise dose as a sole independent variable accounts only for less than half of the variance in community response data. Non-acoustic factors, such as attitude to the noise source identified by Job [(1988). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83(3), 991-1001] and others, reduce the unexplained variance. This paper suggests that non-acoustic factors reflect the context in which the sonic environment is perceived; hence, these factors constitute the judgments of a soundscape. Fidell et al. [(2011). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(2), 791-806] show that a "community tolerance level" (CTL) is a one-number, community-specific, independent variable that represents the aggregate influence on annoyance judgments of all non-acoustic influences. Taken together these findings suggest that: (i) CTL is a one-number quantification of a soundscape, and (ii) a soundscape can be quantified by a single, numeric variable. It follows, if one can predict or calculate the single numeric quantification of a soundscape, that number will be the CTL. These results can only be true for a soundscape judged on the basis of annoyance. Virtually no data exist for which the respondents even had the possibility to rate the sonic environment positively, i.e., pleasing, so the application of CTL to soundscapes judged positively is not clear.

Vincent Mestre

Papers

A first-principles model for estimating the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise exposure.

Aircraft noise-induced awakenings are more reasonably predicted from relative than from absolute sound exposure levels.

Role of community tolerance level (CTL) in predicting the prevalence of the annoyance of road and rail noise.

Respondents' answers to community attitudinal surveys represent impressions of soundscapes and not merely reactions to the physical noise.

Assessing Community Annoyance of Helicopter Noise