Objective To determine the current prevalence of exposure to workplace noise and ototoxic chemicals, including co-exposures.
Method A cross-sectional telephone survey of nearly 5000 Australian workers was conducted using the web-based application, OccIDEAS. Participants were asked about workplace tasks they performed and predefined algorithms automatically assessed worker’s likelihood of exposure to 10 known ototoxic chemicals as well as estimated their full shift noise exposure level (LAeq,8h) of their most recent working day. Results were extrapolated to represent the Australian working population using a raked weighting technique.
Results In the Australian workforce, 19.5% of men and 2.8% of women exceeded the recommended full shift noise limit of 85 dBA during their last working day. Men were more likely to be exposed to noise if they were younger, had trade qualifications and did not live in a major city. Men were more likely exposed to workplace ototoxic chemicals (57.3%) than women (25.3%). Over 80% of workers who exceeded the full shift noise limit were also exposed to at least one ototoxic chemical in their workplace.
Conclusion The results demonstrate that exposures to hazardous noise and ototoxic chemicals are widespread in Australian workplaces and co-exposure is common. Occupational exposure occurs predominantly for men and could explain some of the discrepancies in hearing loss prevalence between genders.
- occupational exposure
- noise, occupational
- survey and questionnaires
- carbon monoxide
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This work was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (grant no. 1059562). LF was supported by a fellowship from the NHMRC.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Curtin Human Research Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.