Running head: OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS

THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH

IN

HEALTH PROMOTION AND

THESIS TITLE: A PILOT STUDY OF OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURES AMONG SELECTED CSUSM EMPLOYEES

AUTHOR: SIAMAK DOROODI

DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: NOVEMBER 29, 2017

THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTB IN HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION

Emmanuel Iyiegbuniwe, Ph.D. ~"'~:i~:..a_ 11/ 2-1/ r7-- THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR sIGNATURE DATE

Christina Holub, Ph.D. lf {;)_9(l1- THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE

Kristine Diekman, M.F.A 11/dJ1!1r THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER SIGNATURE ~ Running head: OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM

A PILOT STUDY OF OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURES AMONG SELECTED

CSUSM EMPLOYEES

Siamak Doroodi

California State University San Marcos OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 2

Abstract

We conducted a pilot study on personal noise exposure assessments for seventeen

employees at California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) during August and September of

2017. Noise exposures were measured using calibrated dosimeters with data-logging capabilities

to document average sound level (LAVG), eight-hour time weighted average sound level (LTWA),

peak noise level (LCPK), and the Dose. In addition, all participants completed survey questionnaires inquiring about their use of personal protective equipment (hearing protection), knowledge of the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) PPE standards, and attitudes towards requirements for PPE. The results of this pilot study showed that LAVG ranged from 47.5 to 73.9

dBA (Dose = 0.1-9.7%) and the highest LCPK was found to be 140.6 dBA. All the participants were within OSHA’s permissible noise exposure standard of 90 dBA for an 8-hour period.

However, two of the seventeen participants marginally exceeded the OSHA’s LCPK level of 140

dBA by 0.6 dBA.. The results from the survey questionnaire showed that 80% of the participants

were satisfied with their PPE, approximately 87% wore their hearing protection when required.

and followed all established CSUSM policies for hearing conservation. Overall, the results showed

that CSUSM employees included in this study have minimal risks of developing from

occupational noise exposures. However, it is recommended that employees must continue to

adhere to the existing and effective Hearing Conservation Program at CSUSM with a view to

maintaining compliance with OSHA’s Occupational Noise Exposure Standard (29 CFR 1910.95). OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 3

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my parents for their endless love, sacrifices, and encouragement throughout my life. I am extremely thankful for their continued support. I would also like to sincerely thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Emmanuel Iyiegbuniwe, for his guidance throughout this

MPH degree program as well as my thesis committee members, Dr. Christina Holub and Prof.

Kristine Diekman for their support and feedback. It was a privilege to work with Dr. Iyiegbuniwe, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to conduct this pilot study, guided by his expertise. I would also like to thank Dr. Holub for her advice and for providing me with the tools and knowledge that will guide me in my to become a successful public health scientist.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 4

List of Tables

Table 1. Average survey responses for demographic data from pilot study.

Table 2. Summary of personal noise exposure results by occupation.

Table 3. Survey responses to the selected to the questions below, arranged by title as a group.

Table 4. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group.

Table 5. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group.

Table 6. Description of participants included in the Noise Pilot Study.

Table 7. Results of personal Noise Exposure.

Table 8. Summary of personal noise exposure results.

Table 9. Results of personal noise exposure by job title.

Table 10. One-way ANOVA results for demographic data from survey responses (including

Administrative assistants).

Table 11. One-way ANOVA results for employee related data from survey responses (including

Administrative assistants).

Table 12. One-way ANOVA results for PPE knowledge and usage from survey responses

(excluding Administrative assistant responses).

Table 13. One-way ANOVA results for attitudes towards PPE from survey responses (excluding

Administrative assistant responses).

Table 14. Selected survey responses regarding at CSUSM.

Table 15. Participant’s responses to survey questions regarding PPE usage.

Table 16. Survey Responses regarding description of PPE usage and potential noise sources.

Table 17. Survey Responses regarding feelings and attitudes towards PPE.

Table 18. Participant’s responses to questions regarding demographics. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 5

Table 19. Sampling dates and times for personal noise exposure recordings.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 6

List of Figures

Figure 1. Distribution of the participants who took the survey for the personal noise exposure

sampling.

Figure 2. Age demographics from survey responses.

Figure 3. Race/Ethnicity demographics from survey responses.

Figure 4. Education demographics from survey responses.

Figure 5. Participant’s responses to the survey question, “How many hours per shift (out of 8

hours) are you outside?”

Figure 6. Survey responses to “Do you wear PPE (e.g. hearing protection) during your work

shift/session when required by OSHA standards?” by job title.

Figure 7. Survey responses to “In the past month how often did you wear hearing protection

while working at CSUSM?” by job title.

Figure 8. Level of extent response to “I am satisfied with my required PPE” survey response by

job title.

Figure 9. Level of extent response to “Hearing protection is conveniently located at my

worksite” survey response by occupation.

Figure 10. Level of extent response to “Wearing PPE causes me discomfort” survey response by

occupation.

Figure 11. Level of extent response to “I do not know why I should wear PPE” survey response

by occupation.

Figure 12. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for time weighted average data from

individual readings. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 7

Figure 13. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Peak data from individual

readings.

Figure 14. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Dose data from individual

readings.

Figure 15. Summary of personal noise exposure results for average noise exposure levels based

on job title.

Figure 16. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Time-weighted average based on

job titles.

Figure 17. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for peak recording based on job titles.

Figure 18. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure based on job titles.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 8

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 2 Acknowledgements ...... 3 List of Tables ...... 4 List of Figures ...... 6 Introduction ...... 11 Health Effects of Noise Exposure ...... 13 Noise-induced Hearing Loss ...... 14 Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss ...... 15 Prevention of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss ...... 16 Previous Studies on Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss ...... 17 Methods ...... 20 Participants ...... 20 Data Collection ...... 20 Statistical Analysis ...... 22 Results ...... 23 Participants ...... 23 Survey Responses ...... 24 Personal Noise Exposure Recordings ...... 26 Statistical Analysis ...... 29 Discussion ...... 30 Survey Responses ...... 30 Personal Noise Exposures ...... 33 Statistical Analysis ...... 34 Conclusions ...... 35 References ...... 37 Table 1. Summary of Employees Demographic Data from Self-Reported Responses to the Questionnaires...... 40 Table 2. Selected Questionnaire Responses based on Occupation and Employment...... 41 Table 3. Survey responses to selected questions, arranged by job title as a group...... 42 Table 4. Selected Survey Responses Related to hearing Protection...... 43 Table 5. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group. . 44 Table 6. Participants Job Descriptions and Samples Collected during the Noise Survey...... 45 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 9

Table 7. Results of Personal Noise Exposures...... 46 Table 8. Statistical Summary results of personal noise exposures...... 47 Table 9. Results of personal noise exposure by job title...... 48 Table 10. One-way ANOVA results for demographic data from survey responses...... 49 Table 11. One-way ANOVA results for employee related data from survey responses...... 50 Table 12. One-way ANOVA results for PPE knowledge and usage from survey responses. .. 51 Table 13. One-way ANOVA results for attitudes towards PPE from survey responses...... 52 Figure 1. Distribution of the participants who took the survey for the personal noise exposure sampling...... 53 Figure 2. Age demographics from survey responses...... 54 Figure 3. Race/Ethnicity demographics from survey responses...... 55 Figure 4. Education demographics from survey responses...... 56 Figure 5. Participant’s responses to the survey question, “How many hours per shift (out of 8 hours) are you outside?” ...... 57 Figure 6. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection by job title...... 58 Figure 7. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection in the past month by job title...... 59 Figure 8. Percentage of participants who were satisfied with their PPE by job title...... 60 Figure 9. Percentage of participants who were felt their hearing protection was nearby by job title...... 61 Figure 10. Percentage of participants who felt their PPE causes them discomfort by job title. 62 Figure 11. Percentage of participants who knew why they should wear PPE by job title...... 63 Figure 12. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for time weighted average data from individual readings...... 64 Figure 13. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Peak data from individual readings...... 65 Figure 14. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Dose data from individual readings...... 66 Figure 15. Summary of Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles...... 67 Figure 16. Summary of Time-weighted Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles...... 68 Figure 17. Summary of Peak Noise Exposures based on Job Titles...... 69 Figure 18. Summary of Employees Dose...... 70 Appendix A. Consent Form ...... 71 Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire ...... 73 OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 10

Appendix C. Employees Job Descriptions ...... 75 Administrative Assistant...... 75 Building Service Engineer ...... 75 Carpenter ...... 75 Electrician ...... 76 Facility Worker ...... 77 Grounds Crew (Landscaper) ...... 77 Plumber ...... 78 Appendix D. Individual Participant Survey Responses ...... 80 Table 14. Selected survey responses regarding employment at CSUSM...... 81 Table 15. Participants responses to survey questions regarding PPE usage...... 82 Table 16. Survey Responses regarding description of PPE usage and potential noise sources...... 84 Table 17. Survey Responses regarding feelings and attitudes towards PPE...... 86 Table 18. Participant’s responses to questions regarding demographics...... 87 Appendix E. Personal Noise Exposure Experiment Details ...... 88 Table 19. Sampling dates and times for personal noise exposure recordings...... 89

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 11

Introduction

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is "a rapid variation of atmospheric pressure caused by some disturbance of the air" (OSHA, 2013). Sound is produced as pressure emitted from objects that oscillate and vibrate (National Research, 2004). The sound waves will either be transmitted into an object, reflect, and/or diffract around objects including the human eardrum, thus creating vibrations and hearing (National Research Council, 2004). A basic sound wave consists of three components: frequency, amplitude, and temporal variation (National

Research Council, 2004). Frequency (pitch) describes the number of times per second the sound vibration pattern oscillates (National Research Council, 2004). Amplitude (loudness) is related to the , or the intensity of the sound, so the magnitude of sound can be measured in units of pressure, power, or energy (National Research Council, 2004). Temporal variation

(duration) describes the changes of the sound over time, such as duration (National Research

Council, 2004).

Occupational noise exposure is known to cause hearing loss and to have several other significant public health implications (OSHA, 2013). Hearing allows individuals to be able to recognize and distinguish things surrounding them based upon the sound that they emit (National

Research Council, 2004). The process of hearing involves the external, middle, and inner ears as well as the neurons and the brain. (National Research Council, 2004). The human ear is an efficient detector of sound, as it changes the form of energy from the sound wave to a neural-electrical signal (National Research Council, 2004). The brain then interprets the signal and classifies the sound appropriately, (e.g., a person-speaking, ambient noise, environmental noise, etc.).

Noise is often measured in decibels (dB) and denotes the logarithmic ratio of two sound pressure levels (National Research Council, 2004). The dB scale refers to 10 times the log of the OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 12

ratio to the base 10 (Friis, 2012). The logarithmic scale used for measuring sound is base 10.

Therefore, an increase in 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in sound intensity, because sound is measured on a logarithmic scale (Friis, 2012). For example, an increase of 20 dB is 100-fold increase and an increase of 60 dB is actually 1,000,000 fold increase of the sound intensity.

Generally, humans do not detect all frequencies equally as the human ear does not hear lower frequencies as well as higher frequencies (Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, &

Morata, 2016). To account for this deficiency, certain defined references are used to measure the

decibel level. The most common reference used is the A-weighting scale, which is the closest to

how humans hear, and is often used for environmental and occupational sound measurements

(Fletcher & Munson, 1933; Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Values

that have been weighted, or corrected for the A-weighting scale, are denoted with the reference

letter written after the “dB” abbreviation, in this case, dBA (Fletcher & Munson, 1933; Masterson,

Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016).

Loudness is subjectively determined by humans, based on both the frequency and pressure

of the sound (OSHA, 2013). A healthy individual can detect tones ranging from 20 to 20,000 Hz,

which correlates to approximately a range of 130 dB (Cutnell & Johnson, 1998; Friis, 2012;

National Research Council, 2004). One Hertz (Hz) is equal to a single vibration per second (Friis,

R. H. (2012). The maximum sensitivity level ranges from 500-2,000 Hz and the best achievable sensitivity level ranges from 16-20,000 Hz (Friis, 2012). For older adults who have hearing impairments, it has been shown that they cannot perceive sound above 10,000 Hz (Friis, 2012).

The minimum threshold of hearing is 0 dBA and the pain threshold of hearing is 140 dBA, respectively (Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Examples of common sounds and their respective decibel level include: busy office (60 dBA), classroom (70 dBA), city OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 13

traffic (80 dBA), rock concert (120 dBA), auto racing (130 dBA), and firecrackers (140 dBA)

(Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016). Examples of common

occupational sounds and their respective decibel levels include: transformer (50 dBA), boiler room

(90 dBA), lawn mower (110 dBA), heavy machinery (120 dBA), and jackhammer (140 dBA)

(Friis, 2012; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016).

Health Effects of Noise Exposure

There are several sources of noise in the U.S. including: road, rail traffic, air, transportation,

and occupational and industrial activities. Human activities are a main contributor of noise

emitted to the surrounding environment (Buxton, et al, 2017). Some examples of human

activities that cause are loud music, concerts, sporting events and firearms, all of which have amplified and unsafe sound levels (Hammer, et al., 2013). As a result, environmental noise (geophony and/or biophony) is drained out and is essential for nature and human health

(Buxton, et al, 2017). Typically, noise pollution is thought of as a metropolitan problem, however, it has spilled into protected land as a result of ongoing development and a lack of a monitoring program for such areas (Buxton, et al., 2017).

A well-known example of a metropolitan area that has severe noise pollution is New York

City, where noise exposure is the number one factor of lower quality of life (Hammer, et al., 2013,

King, 2016). In 2012, the city received over 40,000 noise complaints by its residents, yet the damaging health effects of noise are not taken seriously (Hammer, et al., 2013). Excessive exposures to environmental noise at levels of 65-70 dBA are shown to have considerable effects on an individual's health (King, 2016). These effects include: disruption to sleep cycles, cardiovascular disorders, damage to the cognitive development of children, annoyance, endocrine OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 14

effects, diabetes, communication reduction, performance reduction, mental disorders, noise-

induced hearing loss (NIHL) (Frey, 2012; Hammer, et al.; 2013; King, 2016).

Noise-induced Hearing Loss

Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is defined as any long-term noise exposure at levels greater than 75 dBA (E.P.A., 1974) which can damage sensory hair cells and ultimately the cochlea. Hearing loss is a disorder where the individual loses the function of hearing in one or both ears (OSHA, 2013). Hearing loss can happen either gradually over time or abruptly and can become permanent (Frey, 2012). There are four major types of hearing loss: conductive, sensorineural, sociocusis, and presbycusis (Frey, 2012). Conductive hearing loss (CHL) is caused by impairment or obstruction of sound transmission (e.g. excessive wax, ear infection, etc.) and is treatable and reversible (Frey, 2012). Sensorineural is caused by physical damage to the inner ear or nerve from the ear to the brain, usually irreversible (Frey, 2012; Friis, 2012). Sociocusis is

caused by exposure to constant loud , typically from loud concerts or machinery (Frey, 2012;

Friis, 2012). Presbycusis is age related hearing loss and is irreversible (Frey, 2012; Friis, 2012).

The major contributors to hearing loss are due to aging (lifetime of exposure) and noise exposure

(work and environment related) (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Due to the broad nature of the definition of

hearing loss, the U.S. experiences roughly between 7.3% to 23.6% hearing loss (Neitzel, et al.,

2017). A major contributor to this is the absence of economic analyses to trace the root of the

problem and a lack of urgency for any prevention or treatment due to coding issues (Neitzel, et al.,

(2017).

It is estimated that 28 million Americans have developed hearing loss or are deaf (National

Institute of Deafness and Other Communications Disorders, 1996). According to a study by the

World Health Organization, an estimated 23.6 million people aged 18–64 years (working-age) in OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 15

the United States have hearing loss (unilateral or bilateral), which represents 13.4% of the working-age population (Lin et al., 2011, Neitzel, et al., 2017). Individuals that have some form

of hearing loss are 2.5 times more likely to have no sustainable when compared to

individuals with acceptable hearing (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Individuals with hearing loss have

significantly lower employment rates and reported wages when compared to those with typical

hearing (Neitzel, et al., 2017). The study also reported that the economic impact of hearing loss is

significant as it affects more than 13% of the working-age population in the United States (Neitzel,

et al., 2017).

Continued extreme exposure to noise can lead to tinnitus (ringing of the ears) (Hammer, et

al., 2013). Individuals who suffer from NIHL in the workplace also face difficulties with overall

workplace productivity such as: communication problems, fatigue, burnout, emotional exhaustion

and stress (Neitzel, et al., 2017). Overall, exposure to hazardous noise and the development of

hearing loss have a major toll on job performance and can affect the ability to find a job as well as

lower wages earned up to 100 billion annually in the U.S. (Neitzel, et al., 2017).

Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss

Occupational noise exposure causes NIHL that is experienced while an employee is at work

and is a potential hazard for employees (Balanay et al., 2016, Moroika, et al., 1995). Occupational

hearing loss is the most common chronic work-related illness (Balanay et al., 2016 & Ologe et al.,

2006). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a report was generated in 2013 that showed

nearly 11% of all nonfatal, work-related diseases were NIHL cases (Balanay, et al., 2016). Work

related noise affects the human body in several ways and the most common effect is hearing loss

(Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). It is estimated that 22-30 million

American workers are exposed to hazardous workplace noise (an 8-hr work shift equivalent sound OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 16

level of ≥85 dBA ) and suggests that a majority of the U.S. population is at risk of noise related

(Hammer, et al., 2013).

OSHA estimates that 30 million workers in the U.S are exposed to dangerous levels of workplace noise every year (Balanay, et al., 2016). As a result, NIHL is the most widespread work injury seen in the past 25 years (Balanay, et al., 2016). NIOSH has reported that workers’

compensation due to NIHL has been estimated at $242 million yearly, with approximately 16% of

adults globally who experienced hearing loss being attributed to occupational noise exposure

(Balanay, et al., 2016).

Prevention of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

The methods for prevention of NIHL are described by OSHA, NIOSH, and the EPA (EPA,

2017; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). Studies have shown that

occupational hearing loss can be prevented or controlled by elimination, modification of worksite

location (engineering control), limiting exposure (administrative control), and use of hearing

protection (Friis, 2012). Exposure limits are determined by safety agencies that determine the

maximum level of exposure for a given amount of time. There are three agencies involved with

reducing potential harmful levels of occupational noise exposure and they include OSHA in the

Department of Labor, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,

2017) regulation under the Clean Air Act of 1972 (EPA, 2017; Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, &

Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). OSHA regulates and publishes acceptable occupational noise

exposure standards that companies must adhere to for employees such as the Occupational Noise

Exposure Standard (29 CFR 1910.95). NIOSH is responsible for investigating and improving OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 17

methods for occupational health and safety, and translating such knowledge to current

occupational health and safety standards (Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016).

For occupational related exposure limits, the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for

occupational noise has been set at 90 dBA for 8 hours as determined by OSHA (Friis, 2012;

Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; OSHA, 2013). The exchange rate for noise relates to the doubling or halving of noise exposure for every 5 dB increase or decrease in sound level (i.e. 95 dB = 4 hours) (Friis, 2012)). The ACGIH is stricter and only allows 85 dB for every

8 hours of work (Masterson, Bushnell, Themann, & Morata, 2016; Milz, et al., 2008; OSHA,

2013). The permissible exposure limit is defined as the regulation for limitation of workplace

exposures to hazardous agents (Friis, 2012).

Previous Studies on Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

While anyone exposed to loud and extreme sounds can be at risk for NIHL; there are certain

occupations that are more at risk than others. Those that work with loud machinery, in factory-like

settings are exposed to louder sounds than the average employee. NIHL is the most compensated

and is the most prevalent (Balanay et al., 2016; Ologe et

al., 2006, Milz, et al., 2008). NIHL occurs most commonly among workers ranging

from 30% in engineers to 50% in manual (Seixas, et al., 2012). A previous study by

Seixas, et al., (2012) showed that newly commenced construction apprentices with two years of

work experience had elevated levels of exposures for non-occupational and recreational noise

activities.

Grounds workers are at an elevated risk for noise exposures (Balanay, et al., 2016). There

are roughly 870,000 grounds/landscapers working in the U.S. who conduct a variety of work

activities including lawn-mowing, trimming, planting and installing structures within facilities. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 18

They heavily rely on power tools to complete their work (Balanay, et al., 2016). Many of the

equipment used by grounds workers include push mowers, shredders, chainsaws and leaf blowers

without adequate use of PPE have been established as contributing factors to NIHL (Balanay, et

al., 2016). To date, a study conducted on noise exposure assessment among grounds crew at a

university setting by Balanay, et al., (2016) found that most workers were exposed to hazardous

noise levels. ). The authors found that the riding mower was the source for the highest noise to the

grounds keepers who exceeded the OSHA noise standards (Balanay, et al., 2016).

The authors also described several ways to reduce noise exposures, specifically for grounds

keepers, including: (1) reducing operation time of the machine, (2) purchasing new equipment

with lower operating noise (engineering control) with the NIOSH “” program, (3) having

enclosed cabins on the mower to reduce amount of noise exposed to the operator, (4) regular

upkeep of the equipment and tools, and (5) limiting the duration of exposure to loud

machinery/equipment (administrative control) and (6) posting proper PPE signage in noisy areas

(administrative control) and (7) maintaining a distance of 50 feet from one another when using

noisy equipment (administrative control) (Balanay, et al., 2016). It also was suggested that using

a loud tool such as a riding mower for an entire 8-hour work shift instead of switching tools

increased noise exposure levels (Balanay, et al., 2016).

Construction workers are also at an elevated risk for developing hearing loss due to the use

of equipment and power tools used in the coupled with inadequate engineering controls

(Seixas, et al., 2001). Previous studies have been conducted on the noise exposure levels for the construction occupations and carpentry and these ranged from 74 dBA to 104 dBA (Seixas, et al.,

2001). Electricians are also at risk of exposure to hazardous noise even though they do not heavily use loud equipment, and this may result environmental exposure rather than their use of machinery. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 19

(Seixas, et al., 2001). Seixas, et al., (2001) conducted a noise exposure assessment of four trades

including: carpenters, laborers, operating engineers and ironworkers over four total construction

worksites. The authors concluded that the average exposure level amongst all trades was 82.8 dBA,

where 40% of all the workers exceeded OSHA’s Action Level of 85 dBA and 13% exceeded

OSHA’s PEL of 90 dBA for 8-hour TWA (Seixas, et al., 2001). These statistics support the claim that the environment and tools the work is conducted plays an important role in determining the

noise exposure levels. It was shown that work performed by laborers, masons, and insulators had

the highest noise levels, while plumbers, electricians and carpenters were relatively low compared

to other . It was observed that a small percentage, roughly 14% hearing protection devices

(HPDs) was worn when noise exposure was lower (Seixas, et al., 2001). The authors also found

that younger workers had higher levels of exposures and that heavy equipment such as backhoes

exceeded 90 dBA while electric power tools had average exposure of 89 dBA (Seixas, et al.,

2001).

A previous study by Milz, et al., (2008) showed that farmers had elevated risks of developing occupational hearing loss compared to other , and this increased exponentially with time (Milz, et al., 2008). In that study, Milz, et al. (2008) reported that by age of 30, roughly 25% male farmers developed communication handicaps due to hearing loss, by age

50, the rate increased to 50%. The authors suggested that these increases in hearing loss with aging was as a result of low usage of hearing protection amongst farmers (Milz, et al., 2008). Also, children who worked on the farm operating tractors at an early age were at elevated risks for developing hearing loss (Milz, S. et al., 2008).

Many selected occupations where heavy machineries were used have potential threats of exposing employees to hazardous occupational noise. Currently, there are no published studies OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 20

that have investigated occupational noise exposures of employees at college or university

campuses in California, except a study that was conducted in a public university in North Carolina.

The aim of this study was to administer questionnaires and measure personal noise exposures of selected CSUSM employees. The primarily objective of this pilot study was to determine occupational exposure of selected CSUSM’s facilities management employees with a view to determining compliance with OSHA noise standards, and ultimately disseminating the results to affected CSUSM employees and administrative assistants.

Methods

Participants Recruitment

This pilot study was conducted at the main campus of California State University San

Marcos over a three-week period during the summer of 2017 from August 9 to September 14,

2017. Volunteers were recruited through solicitation and discussions with Mr. Floyd Dudley II,

Director of Facility Services. To participate in the pilot study, participants were required to meet a single criterion: be an employee at CSUSM. Departments at CSUSM were asked to be involved based on employees with a higher risk of noise exposure. A total of seventeen participants were recruited and these included grounds crew, carpenter, building service engineer (BSE), plumber, electrician, and administrative. Each volunteer that agreed to be included in the pilot study completed a consent form and a participant survey (refer to Appendix A and B). To maintain confidentiality, each participant was assigned a unique identifier that was only known to the researchers. An overview of the job descriptions for each employee who participated in the study is provided in Appendix C. Two administrative assistants were included in the study as controls.

Data Collection

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 21

Questionnaires. Participants were asked to fill out a survey that asked demographic information about the participant, occupation related information (e.g., work history), and attitude towards PPE usage (refer to Appendix B). Questions listed in the survey were designed to detect if any one of the occupations listed were at higher risk for noise pollution, and as a result potential noise-induced hearing loss. Some questions had write in options (e.g. occupation, age, PPE equipment description, etc.), which others were designed to detect how much a participant did something (e.g. How do you feel about PPE equipment?) by answering Never, 0%, Often 1-50%,

Sometimes 51-99%, and Always 100%. Other survey questions asked about how participants felt about a topic (e.g. I feel satisfied with my PPE), by answering: No extent, Slight extent, Moderate extent, Great extent, and Extreme extent. Survey responses were tabulated and selected responses

Noise Dosimeters. Participants were also asked to wear a noise dosimeter during their normal work shift at CSUSM for at least one recording session. In some cases, some participants were asked to do a second or third recording, which resulted in a greater data set for analysis. At least two dosimeter recordings were done for each occupation in this pilot study. The Admin group was used as the indoor, control group. The specific dates and times for noise dosimeters were arranged by the Director of Facility Services Administrative assistant. The noise dosimeters used were 3M EDGE 4 Dosimeter to their person (Quest Technologies and 3M). The dosimeters were programmed to perform data logging the day of the recording session. All dosimeters were calibrated to the correct standard of 114.0dB (1000Hz) before and after each recording session.

At the beginning of each recording session, participants were instructed by the researchers to clip the dosimeter onto a shirt or jacket collar. The Edge 4 noise dosimeter is attached to the shirt collar positioned near the shoulder as close as ear to mimic what the surrounding environmental noise the ear picks up. The participants were also instructed to wear the device during their assigned OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 22

shift and to not tamper with the device or obstruct the microphone on the dosimeter. The researcher

returned when the recording session was over to stop the data log and remove the device. In most

cases, the device could not be worn for the full 8-hour shift due to the different work schedules of

the CSUSM employees and the researchers. Data collected was downloaded daily to a computer

that had the Data Management Software (DMS) previously loaded onto it. Data was exported as

either .pdf or .xcl format. Participants that volunteered for the pilot survey received a five-dollar

gift card to Starbucks as compensation for participation.

In addition to the data logger recordings from the dosimeter, the sound measurements were also recorded onto physical worksheets. All physical logs and equipment were kept in a locked room when not in use. The four sound measurements that were recorded using the EDGE 4

Dosimeter in this pilot study include dose % (Dose), peak (LCPK), 8-hour time-weighted average

(LTWA), and average sound level (LAVG). The start, end, and run time was also recorded and

documented.

Statistical Analysis

Both one-way ANOVA and Pearson/Spearman correlation coefficient statistical analysis

was performed on the survey responses using IBM SPSS statistical software (reference) to analyze

the data from the survey responses. The one-way ANOVA test was used to determine if there was

any statistical difference with a 95% confidence level (p<0.05) for the responses for a given

occupation. This test requires a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. The

groups were determined by the independent variable, which was the occupation for this pilot study.

The Tukey HSD equal variance was also carried out, which calculates the post-hoc comparison that corrects for multiple comparisons. If certain groups did not have enough participants, the

Tukey HSD was not performed. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 23

To determine the strength of the linear relationship between two variables, Pearson or

Spearman correlation coefficients can be calculated for a pair of variables. For those variables that were not on interval or ratio scales, the Spearman rho correlation coefficient was conducted instead. Correlation coefficients will be between -1 and +1, where coefficients close to 0.00 represent a weak relationship. The sign of the correlation represents either positive or negative correlation, respectively. Positive correlation indicates that as one variable increases, so does the other variable of interest. Negative correlations indicate that as one variable increases, the other variable decreases. Typically, correlation coefficients greater than 0.7 and less than -0.7 represent strong relationships. Correlation values between +3 and -3 are considered weak. Correlations are considered strong if the associated p-value (significance value) is less than 0.05 (p<0.05). If the p- value is larger than 0.05, then the relationship is considered to be reliable, and not strong. The

Spearman coefficients have the same descriptions described above.

Results

Participants

Participants included in this pilot study were recruited from the Facilities or Administrative departments at California State University San Marcos. Their job titles included: Administrative assistant (Admin) (n=2), Building Service Engineer (BSE) (n=2), Carpenter (n=1), Electrician

(n=4), Facility worker (n=4), Grounds crew (n=2), and Plumber (n=2). The Administrative assistant participants were used as an indoor control, as their occupation does not specifically require PPE usage for their work activities. Both the administrative assistant personal noise exposures and permissible exposure levels were used to reference against the other participants chosen in addition. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 24

Survey Responses

There were 17 participants involved in this pilot study for personal noise exposures

(Figure 1). The full responses are listed in detail in Appendix D. The majority of the participants

were male (n=15, 88.2%) and the two female participants were both Administrative assistants

(11.8%) (refer to Table 1). The average age of the participants was 38.6 years old, and the age

range was from 25 to 59 years (refer to Table 1 and Figure 2). Responses varied for the

participant’s race/ethnicity and the data is as follows: 47.1% Non-Hispanic white (n=8), 35.3%

Hispanic/Latino (n=6), 5.9% Non-Hispanic black/African American (n=1), 5.9%, 2 or more ethnicities (n=1), and 5.9% chose not to list a response (n=1) (refer to Table 1 and Figure 3). The majority of participants reported that 11.8% at least some high school (n=2), 35.3% completed (n=6), 29.4% some college (n=5), 11.8% had completed college (n=2), 11.8% completed college (n=2), 5.9% some (n=1), and one participant declined to answer

( n=1) (refer to Table 1 and Figure 4).

Participants reported an average amount of years working at CSUSM as 5.1 +/- 5.6 years, and the range was from 1 to 22 years (refer to Table 2). Participant’s responses for the average years working at their current occupation at CSUSM was 3.26 +/- 3.4 years, and the range was from 1 to 13 years (refer to Table 2). The average amount of years wearing PPE was 12.9 +/- 10.7 years reported, and the range was from 0-35 years (refer to Table 2). Participants also reported an average amount of hours worked outside as 3.6 +/- 2.4 hours per 8-hour shift with a range of 1-8 hours

(refer to Figure 5 and Table 2).

Participants were asked about their PPE usage at CSUSM. The Administrative assistants reported no usage for these series of questions, and were therefore left out of the data analysis.

Most of the participants (86.7%, n=13) also stated that they used PPE during the entire time at OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 25

CSUSM, 6.7% reported they did not (n=1), and 6.7% did not answer the question (n=1). All of the participants stated that they had knowledge of PPE usage as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies (100%, n=15). The majority of participants reported that they had participated in hearing protection or conservation class/ (93.7%, n=14) reported “yes,” and one participant reported they did not (6.7%) (refer to Table 3). Participant’s answers varied for the question, “Do you wear PPE (e.g. hearing protection) during your work shift/session when required by OSHA standards?” – 53.3% always (n=8), 33.3% (n=5), 13.3% sometimes (n=2) (refer to Figure 6 and

Table 4). The Carpenter and Facility worker group reported 100% PPE usage the entire time at

CSUSM (refer to Table 4). Participant’s answers also varied for the survey question, “In the past month, how often did you wearing hearing protection while working at CSUSM?” – 20% always

(n=3), 20% often (n=3), 53.3% sometimes (n=8), and 6.7% reported never (n=1) (refer to Figure

7 and Table 4). The BSE, Carpenter, Electrician, and Plumber groups reported less than 50% PPE usage in the last month. The Facility worker and Grounds grew groups both reported greater than

50% usage within the last month (refer to Table 4).

Participants were also given a series of questions aimed to describe their feelings and attitudes towards PPE and its use during work given their occupation. The Administrative assistant group selected “N/A” to all questions in this section of the survey, as they are not required to wear

PPE as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies and were subsequently left out of the analysis of these questions. In regards to the statement “I am satisfied with my required PPE,” – 20% reported extreme extent (n=3), 60% great extent (n=9), and 20% reported having a moderate extent

(n=3) (refer to Figure 8 and Table 5). The Facility worker and Grounds crew groups were the only groups who reported having extreme extent for their required PPE. In regards to the statement

“Hearing protection is conveniently located at my worksite,” – 53.3& reported having extreme OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 26 extent (n=8) and 46.7% reported having great extent (n=7) (refer to Figure 9 and Table 5). Only the Electrician, Facility worker, and Grounds crew groups reported having as high as extreme extent for the PPE location at CSUSM (refer to Table 5). In regards to the statement “Wearing

PPE causes me discomfort,” – 6.7% reported great extent (n=1), 33.3% reported slight extent

(n=5), 46.7% reported no extent, and 6.7% did not report a response (n=1) (refer to Figure 10 and

Table 5). The single participant that reported that their PPE caused them discomfort was a Facility worker. The Carpenter and Grounds crew groups both reported having no discomfort in their PPE.

In regards to the statement “Wearing PPE interferes with my job,” – 15.4% reported extreme extent

(n=2), 6.7% reported slight extent (n=1), 69.2% reported no extent (n=9), and one participant declined to answer (6.7%,) (refer to Figure 11 and Table 5). In regards to the statement “I do not know why I should wear PPE,” 13.3% participant reported extreme extent (n=2), 60% reported no extent (n=9), 6.7% reported slight extent, and 20% declined to answer (n=3) (refer to Appendix

D). In regards to the statement “I know how to use my PPE” - 60% reported extreme extent (n=9) and 40% great extent (n=6) (refer to Appendix D).

Participants with similar occupations reported similar PPE and sources of noise at their given job, as described in (Appendix D). Common items shared in the listed descriptions of PPE using during work were , , and safety glasses (See Appendix D). Overall, the facilities and grounds participants wore the most PPE. In regards to sources of noise, participants reported varied responses as well (see Appendix D). The Electrician participants reported the most sources of noise out of all the participants involved. Participants with similar occupations had similar noise sources (e.g. Electricians reported similar responses).

Personal Noise Exposure Recordings

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 27

There were 17 participants involved in measuring personal noise exposures in this pilot study. In some cases, participants were asked more than once to participate in the pilot study (refer to Table 6). Details including the dates and times of the personal noise exposure recordings can be found in Appendix E. The occupations included: Administrative assistant (n=2), Building Service

Engineer (n=3), Carpenter (n=2), Electrician (n=8), Facility worker (n=4), Grounds crew (n=2), and Plumber (n=4). The personal noise exposure recordings were recorded on 6 days: August 9

(Day 1), August 10 (Day 2), August 11 (Day 3), August 14 (Day 4), August 15 (Day 5), and

September 14 (Day 6) in 2017 (refer to Appendix E).

Observed activities for the participants varied during their personal noise exposure recordings. Electrician and Grounds crew participants were more exposed to sound relative to the other participants. Electricians used power tools to work in transformers, generators, and mechanical rooms. During one of the personal noise exposure recordings, all four Electrician participants were testing fire alarms in a library, and they reported this is atypical for their normal work shift and they were wearing proper PPE. Grounds crew participants did work with landscaping tools (e.g., weedwacker) one recording session, however, during the other sessions used tools that emitted less noise. Carpenter and Facility worker participants also used power tools during their work shift. Facility worker participants were also observed cleaning classrooms and polishing floors using a machine. Building Safety Engineers were not observed directly, however they reported that they used various power tools as well. Administrative assistants worked in an office setting and were exposed to office equipment such as printers, copiers, indoor conversation and phone calls. One of the Administrative assistants (Administration 02), due to her proximity to the Facilities Department, was also exposed high traffic and also has opportunities to leave the office on a golf cart to monitor facility duties or travel to the main campus. All participants, with OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 28

the exception of the Administrative assistants, were observed wearing proper PPE during their

personal noise exposure recordings.

The recorded personal noise exposures for the average sound level (LAVG), time weighted average (LTWA), highest peak recorded (LCPK), and Dose can be found in Table 7. The

Administrative assistant group consistently reported the lowest values for LAVG, LTWA, and Dose

personal noise exposures. A summary of these results is provided in Table 8. The highest LAVG

value was associated with Electrician 02 (77.0 dBA) and the third lowest was associated with

Facility 01 (61.7 dBA), as the Administrative assistant group was the lowest (refer to Table 7).

The average LAVG value was 68.3 (7.3) dBA, and it ranged from 47.5 to 77.4 dBA (see Table 8 and Figure 12). The highest LTWA value was associated with Electrician 04 (76.2 dBA) and the

second lowest value was associated with Facility 01 (60.6 dBA), as Admin 01 was the lowest (refer

to Table 7). The average LTWA was 68.6 (8.3) dBA, and it ranged from 42.5 to 76.2 dBA (see Table

8 and Figure 13). The highest LCPK value was associated with Electrician 01 and Grounds 01

(140.6 dBA) and the lowest value was associated with Electrician 03 (126.5 dBA) (refer to Table

7). The average LCPK value was 131.3 (3.9) dBA, and it ranged from 126.5 to 140.6 dBA (see

Table 8). The highest dose detected was associated with Facility 04 (14.7%) and the lowest value

was associated with both Electrician 04 and Admin 01 (0.1%) (refer to Table 7). The average dose

6.5 (3.7),% and it ranged from 0.1 to 14.7% (see Table 8 and Figure 14). Overall, participants from

the Electrician group had the highest personal noise exposure levels and participant from the

Facility group (Facility 04) had the lowest noise exposure levels.

When the personal noise exposure levels were then compared between occupation groups

instead as individuals, the results were slightly different (refer to Table 9). Aside from the

Administrative assistants, who reported the lowest values for all four personal noise exposure OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 29

levels, the lowest values were typically the Facility group. The highest average value for LAVG was the Carpenter group (73.3 dBA) and the second lowest average value was from the Facility group

(62.9 dBA) (refer to Figure 15). The highest average value for LTWA was the Carpenter group (72.5 dBA) and the second lowest average value was from the Facility group (61.0 dBA) (refer to Figure

16). The highest average value for LCPK was the Grounds group (136 dBA) and the second and third lowest average values were from both the Facility and Plumber groups (128.8 dBA) (refer to

Figure 17). The highest average value for Dose was the Carpenter group (8.9%) and the second and third lowest average values were from both the Facility and Plumber groups (3.8%) (refer to

Figure 18). Overall, the Carpenter group had the highest group noise exposure levels and the

Facility group had the lowest noise exposure levels.

Statistical Analysis

One-way ANOVA test. One-way ANOVA tests were performed to evaluate if there was any statistical difference between the answers to survey questions given to the participants. There was no significant difference found between occupation grounds for the participant’s ages, race/ethnicity, or the highest level of education (refer to Table 9). There was also no significant difference found between occupation groups found for the participant’s length of time at CSUSM, length of time at their current occupation at CSUSM, or how many hours spent outside (refer to

Table 10). There was no significant difference found between occupation groups found for participants age, gender, race/ethnicity, and highest education reported.

A significant difference was found between occupation grounds for two of the survey questions that inquired about the extent they felt regarding their PPE. The statement “I am satisfied with my required PPE” was found to have a statistical difference between occupations (F (5,9) =

6.840, p=0.007<0.05). The statement “Wearing PPE interferes with the ability to do my job” was OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 30

found to have a statistical difference between occupations (F (5,8) = 5.943, p=0.014<0.05). All

other statements inquiring about the extent they felt regarding their PPE, knowledge of PPE, or

usage of PPE did not show any significant difference between occupation groups.

Pearson’s Correlation. A Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to assess any potential relationships, positive or negative, between all survey questions. There were some positive correlations that were found after analysis. A strong, positive correlation was found between “Hearing protection is conveniently located at my worksite” AND “I know how to use my PPE” (r= 0.873, n=15, p= 0.00 < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between “ I know how to use my PPE” AND “What is your occupation? “ (c=0.748, n=15, p= 0.001 < 0.05).

A strong, positive correlation was found between, “How many years have you been wearing hearing protection” AND “How long in years, have you been working in this occupation at

CSUSM?” (c= 0.891, n=13, p= 0.000 < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between,

“How many years have you been wearing hearing protection” AND “How long in years have you worked at CSUSM?”) c= 0.750, n=13, p= 0.003 < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between, “Have you attended hearing protection/conservation training” AND “How long in years, have you been working in this occupation at CSUSM?” (c= 0.744, n=15, p= 0.001 < 0.05). A strong, positive correlation was found between, “Q: What is your age in years AND How long in years have you worked at CSUSM?” (c=0.699, n=15, p= 0.004 < 0.05). All other relationships did not show a substantial correlation (c > 0.7, p<0.05).

Discussion

Survey Responses

There were 17 participants included in this pilot study, which were grouped according to their job title. A total of 8 different job occupations were selected, including Administrative OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 31

assistant, Building Service Engineer, Carpenter, Facility worker, Grounds crew, and Plumber. This

selection of occupations was ideal for the objective of this pilot study, as it investigated a cross- section of CSUSM employees. . The Administrative assistants were expected to have no knowledge of PPE, as they are not required to wear PPE as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies and standards. The other participants were required to wear PPE as determined by OSHA and CSUSM policies and standards.

Most of the participants were male; the only two reported female participants were

Administrative assistants. This is not likely to affect the data, as the Administrative assistants were left out of the one-way ANOVA tests, as they were not required to wear PPE. The majority of participants in the pilot study were, between 31-40 and 56-60 years old. Based on the survey responses received, most of the participants in the pilot study ethnicities consisted of Non-

Hispanic White and Hispanic/ Latino.

This pilot study also indirectly investigated the typical work habits of the participants. It was determined that the grounds crew spent the most hours per shift outside, due to outdoor landscaping. As expected, the Administrative Assistants spent the least amount of time outside

(none) during their 8-hour work shift than any other employee during this pilot study, due to the nature of their work. With the exception of facility workers, most employees at CSUSM remained at their original occupation since starting employment at CSUSM. It was also noted that the

Building Service Engineer had the highest total average years wearing PPE with an average of 5 hours working outside per shift.

It was reported that the majority of the participants, excluding the administrative assistants, wore hearing protection the entire time while working at CUSM. When participants were asked about habits regarding wearing hearing protection during their shift, most participants reported OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 32 wearing PPE more than 50% of the time. Answers varied for survey responses regarding wearing

PPE within the past month, which could be attributed to taking measurements during the month of

August when school was not in session and when more work can be done indoors because classrooms are available are not occupied. The majority of participants wore similar PPE regularly, including earmuffs, earplugs, safety glasses, and gloves (refer to Appendix D). Although the different employees were exposed to different noise sources, they generally were exposed to power tools and air compressors (refer to Appendix D). The majority of all the participants, with the exception for one electrician (who reported “No”), had been wearing hearing protection the entire time working at CSUSM. The majority of all the participants attended a hearing conservation class while working at CSUSM, with the exception of a BSE participant. This is surprisingly considering the CSUSM policies posted by the Safety, Risk, and Sustainability Department. The varied reports of PPE usage could be attributed to the PPE being uncomfortable or perhaps the participants felt that the required PPE was not necessary for the certain job duties they conduct, or their job duties did not require PPE usage for that activity.

It was shown that most employees were overall satisfied with their required PPE, while some were moderately satisfied. It was also shown that participants felt that PPE is conveniently located at their worksite. It was observed that the Facilities department had three (3) PPE vending machines that dispensed PPE related supplies, including foam earplugs, gloves, respirator masks, batteries, tape, sealants, saw attachments, and zip ties. Employees had access to all accessories in these vending machines free of charge, and could obtain the material needed simply by swiping their employee identification in the panel attached to the vending machine, which is most likely used for inventory purposes. A notable observation was made regarding the personal noise exposures from the Administrative Assistants recordings. It was noted that this group had higher OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 33

levels than some of the other participants, even though they reported they spend no time outside.

In particular, Admin 01, had higher levels than Admin 02, had higher levels than Admin 02, which

could be attributed to working in the Facilities office, which was observed to be a high traffic area

compared to the office for Admin 01.

Personal Noise Exposures

In general, the results of this pilot study confirmed that the personal noise exposure levels

of participants did not exceed the OSHA standards of 90 dBA 8HR-TWA for any of the participants. However, for two participants (Electrician 01 and Grounds 01), the maximum peak threshold (LCPK) exceeded the 140 dBA level by 0.6 dBA. Compliance with the monitoring device

(dosimeter) was met for the majority of the participants. Only two participants had a physical

malfunctioning while recording their personal noise exposure, Carpenter 01 on Day 6 lost the

microphone during the recording session, and Plumber 02 on Day 3 had an issue with the start/stop

function on the dosimeter, which was resolved by resetting the recording device roughly two hours

after initially starting. As a result, the data after the second start for the Plumber 02 data from Day

3 was only included. The Carpenter’s device malfunction did not appear to compromise the recording. Carpenter 01 and Facilities 03 participants did not record a maximum peak threshold

(LCPK) during their recording. Although it was not possible to observe each of the participants on

each day, all of the participants observed wore their required hearing protection during their study.

This was expected, as it is CSUSM’s Hearing Conservation Policy for employees to always wear

their required PPE during their work shift.

The highest maximum peak threshold (LCPK) measurements for Electrician 01 and Grounds

01 occurred only, despite the fact they each recorded a second personal noise exposure on a second

day. Electrician 01’s activities on Day 1 that could possibly explain the high LCPK measurement OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 34 include using a practice board to make wire electrical boxes, and the heavy use of loud power tools such as drills, band saws to cut metal, and an extremely loud roto hammer. Grounds 01’s activities that could possibly explain the high LCPK measurement include landscaping and weedwacking equipment. Therefore, despite the high maximum peak threshold (LCPK) measurements for both participants, exposures are most likely limited to certain activities that most likely are not occurring daily.

Statistical Analysis

One-way ANOVA tests reveal that there were only significant differences between occupation groups for only two survey responses. The two survey questions were related to how the participants felt about statements regarding their PPE. The survey responses were “I know how to use my PPE” and “Wearing PPE interferes with the ability to do my job” were found to be statistically different between occupation groups. All of the Grounds crew, Facility workers, and

3 of the 4 Electricians reported extreme extent towards “I know how to use my PPE” whereas all of the Building Service Engineers, Plumbers, Carpenter, and 1 of the 4 Electricians reported great extent. Considering that both of the responses were of great extent, it is interpreted as the CSUSM participants felt that they know how to use their PPE sufficiently. All of the participants, with the exception of both the Building Service Engineer participants and one of the Grounds crew, slightly agreed with the statement “Wearing PPE interferes with the ability to do my job,” whereas the rest disagreed with the statement fully.

There were six positive correlations found between survey responses. A strong, positive correlation was found between the amount of time wearing PPE, at current occupation at CSUSM, and employed at CSUSM. This was expected as CSUSM has a Safety, Risk, and Sustainability

Department, that has implemented an Injury and Illness Prevent Program (IIPP). CSUSM has also OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 35

implemented a Hearing Conservation Program to monitor and control potential excessive noise on

both students and employees. Both hearing exams as well as a hearing conservation training is

given throughout the year on campus.

There was also a strong positive correlation found between participants reporting knowing

how to use their required PPE and reporting that their PPE was conveniently located at their

worksite. It is likely that this is due to the available PPE resources on CSUSM campus in the

Facilities Department. It is possible that due to the Hearing Conservation program, along with the

IIPP promote information on how to use PPE as well as where PPE is located on campus. There

was also a strong positive correlation found between participants reporting knowing how to use

their required PPE and a given occupation. All four (4) Facility worker participants reported that

they always (100%) used their PPE when required by OSHA standards. The four (4) Electrician

participants answers varied from sometimes (1-50%) to always (100%). Both BSE and Grounds ranged between often (51-99%) and always (100%). The two (2) Plumber participants reported often (51-99%) usage when required by OSHA. These results indicate that perhaps individuals will use their PPE according to their own discretion, rather than according to job title. It is interesting to note however, that all of the Facility worker participants wore their PPE always, which might suggest that they either use loud equipment more frequently than other occupations, or are more diligent about their PPE usage.

Conclusions

The pilot study was able to monitor both personal noise exposures and the extent of the participants’ knowledge and attitude towards their use of required PPE. Personal noise exposures were measured and analyzed both as individuals and as occupational groups for 6 days during the end of the summer term at CSUSM. All participants in the pilot study were well below OSHA’s OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 36

PEL of 90 dBA 8hr-TWA. Participants were mostly satisfied with their PPE, used their PPE while

working at CSUSM, and in general, had no complaints about their required PPE. This can be

attributed to the positive environment that CSUSM Safety, Risk, and Sustainability Department

has created by providing and monitoring PPE for their employees. CSUSM employees included

in this study have minimal risks of developing hearing loss from occupational noise exposures. It

must be noted that CSUSM has an existing and effective Hearing Conservation Program and thus

has continuously maintained compliance with OSHA’s Occupational Noise Exposure Standards

(29 CFR 1910.95). Future work would need to assess the personal noise exposure levels during different times during a typical school year. Possibility exists that personal noise exposures during summer activities could be less or greater when compared to other periods and sessions during the

school year. Additionally, an increased number of participants, and personal noise exposure monitoring periods would be useful to address other CSUSM employees or occupations that could potentially be at risk of high noise exposures. Furthermore, a study that would focus on expanded measurement of personal noise exposures of more diverse and higher number of employees and students would be needed to provide results that would be more generalizable to all CSUSM employees.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 37

References

Balanay et al. (2016). Assessment of Occupational Noise Exposure among Groundskeepers in

North Carolina Public Universities. Environmental Health Insights. 10 83–92

Buxton, R. T. et al (2017). Noise pollution is pervasive in U.S. protected areas. Science, 356(6337),

531-533.

Cronk, B. (2016.) How to use SPSS (9th ed.). Pyrczak Publishing. Glendale, CA.

Cutnell, John D. and Kenneth W. Johnson. (1998). Physics. 4th ed. New York: Wiley. 466

Department of Industrial Relations. (n.d.) Cal/OSHA Regulations. Retrieved on December 3,

2017 from: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5097.html

EPA. (2017). “Clean Air Act Title IV - Noise Pollution.” Retrieved on August 29, 2017 from:

“https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-title-iv-noise-pollution”

Fletcher, H. and Munson, W. (1933). “Loudness, Its Definition, Measurement and Calculation. J.

Acoust. Soc. Am., 5, pp. 82-108.

Frey, R. (2012). Hearing Loss and Hearing Disorders in The Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological

Disorders. Ed. Brigham Narins. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2012. p524-530.

Friis, R. H. (2012). Essentials of environmental health. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Hammer, M. S. et al. (2013). Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States: Developing an

Effective Public Health Response. Environmental Health Perspectives. 122(2):115-119.

IBM. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics. Version 24. [Computer software].

King, E. (2016). A combined assessment of air and noise pollution on the High Line, New York

City. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 42, 91-103. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 38

Masterson E.A., Bushnell P.T., Themann C.L., and Morata T.C. (2016). Hearing Impairment

Among Noise-Exposed Workers — United States, 2003–2012. MMWR Morb Mortal

Wkly Rep. 65:389–394. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6515a2.

Milz, S. et al. (2008). Noise Exposure Assessment of Three Adolescents Living on Farms in

Northwestern Ohio. Seminars in Hearing, 29(1), 042-048.

Moroika, et al. (1995). of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss by reference to the upper limit

of hearing. Int. Arch. Occup Enviorn Health. 67:301-304.

National Institute of Deafness and Other Communications Disorders. (1996). National Strategic

Research Plan: Hearing and Hearing Impairment. Bethesda, MD: National Institute

of Health.

National Research Council. (2004). Basics of Sound, the Ear, and Hearing. In Dobie, R.A. & Van

Hemel, S., (Eds.), Hearing Loss: Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press.

Neitzel, R. L. et al. (2017). Economic Impact of Hearing Loss and Reduction of Noise-Induced

Hearing Loss in the United States. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research,

60(1), 182.

Ologe, F. E. et al. (2006). Occupational Noise Exposure and sensorineurnal hearing loss among

steel workers in Nigeria. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 263: 618-621.

OSHA. (2013) OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Directive TED 01-00-015. Retrieved on April

21, 2017 from: https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#effectsofexcessive.

Quest Technologies and 3M. (2012.) Edge eg4&eg3 Personal Noise Dosimeter User Manual.

[Brochure]. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 39

Seixas, N. S. et al, (2012). 10-Year prospective study of noise exposure and hearing damage among

construction workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 69(9), 643-650.

Seixas, N. S. et al,(2001). Noise Exposure among Construction Electricians. Aihaj, 62(5), 615-

621.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 40

Table 1. Summary of Employees Demographic Data from Self-Reported Responses to the

Questionnaires.

Survey Question Admin1 BSE2 Carpenter Electricia Facility Grounds Plumber Total (n=2) (n=2) (n=1) n worker Crew (n=2) (n=17) (n=4) (n=4) (n=2) Average Age 28.5 46.5 36 40.5 46.5 38 35 38.57

What is Male 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88.2% your (n=2) (n=1) (n=4) (n=4) (n=2) (n=2) (n=13) gender? Female 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11.8% (n=2) (n=1)

No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Response What is Grad 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% % your school (n=1) (n=2) highest College 0% 50% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 11.8% level of (n=1) (n=1) (n=2) education? Vocational 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100% 35.3% (n=2) (n=2) (n=2) (n=6)

Some 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0% 33.3% college (n=1) (n=1) (n=2) (n=1) (n=5) Some 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Vocational High 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% school Some high 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 50% 0% 11.8% school (n=1) (n=1) (n=2) No 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9% Response (n=1) (n=1)

What is Non- 100% 0% 0% 75% 25% 0% 100% 47.1% your race/ Hispanic (n=2) (n=3) (n=1) (n=2_ (n=8) ethnicity? white Non- 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9% Hispanic (n=1) (n=1) black Hispanic/ 0% 50% 0% 25% 50% 100% 0% 35.3% Latino (n=1) (n=1) (n=2) (n=2) (n=6) 2+ more 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 5.9% ethnicities (n=1) (n=1) No 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9% Response (n=1) (n=1) Admin1 = Administrative Assistant; BSE2 = Building Service Engineer. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 41

Table 2. Selected Questionnaire Responses based on Occupation and Employment.

Job Title Average Time at Average Time at Time wearing Amount of time CSUSM (years) occupation at PPE outside per 8- CSUSM (years) (years) hour shift (hours) Administrative 4.8 +/-2.5 3.0 +/-1.4 0 +/- 0.0 0 +/- 0.0 Assistant Building Services 7.5 +/- 7.8 7.5 +/- 7.8 19.5 +/- 21.9 5.0 +/- 0.0 Engineer Carpenter 6.0 6.0 15.0 1.0 Electrician 3.8 +/- 4.11 3.5 +/- 4.3 18.5 +/- 11.1 3.6 +/- 0.3 Facility worker 6.6 +/- 10.3 1.3 +/-0.5 3.0 +/- 2.8 4.3 +/- 3.0 Grounds crew 5.8 +/- 6.0 2.3 +/- 0.4 8.0 +/- 2.8 6.8 +/- 1.1 Plumber 2.5 +/- 0.7 2.5 +/- 0.7 15.0 +/- 0.0 2.0

Total 5.1 +/- 5.6 3.3 +/- 3.4 12.9 +/- 10.7 3.6 +/- 2.4

The average time at CSUSM was 5.1 years, with the average amount of time at the participants current occupation was 3.3 years. Participants had an average of 12.9 years wearing PPE and worked an average 3.6 hours working outside per shift. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 42

Table 3. Survey responses to selected questions, arranged by job title as a group.

Survey Answer BSE1 Carpent Electrici Facility Grounds Plumber Total Question (n=2) er an worker Crew (n=2) (n=15) (n=1) (n=4) (n=4) (n=2) Have you Yes 100% 100% 75% 100% 50% 100% 86.7% been wearing (n=2) (n=1) (n=3) (n=4) (n=1) (n=2) (n=13) hearing No 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 6.7% protection (n=1) (n=1) your entire time working No 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 6.7% at CSUSM, if Response (n=1) (n=1) applicable? Have you Yes 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93.3% attended (n=1) (n=1) (n=4) (n=4) (n=2) (n=2) (n=14) hearing No 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.7% protection or (n=1) (n=1) conservation training? No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Response

Notes that answers to survey responses are “Yes,” “No”, or “No Response”. 1 = Building Services Engineer

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 43

Table 4. Selected Survey Responses Related to hearing Protection.

Survey Answer BSE1 Carpent Electrici Facility Grounds Plumber Total Question (n=2) er an worker Crew (n=2) (n=15) (n=1) (n=4) (n=4) (n=2) Do you wear Always 50% 100% 25% 100% 50% 0% 53.3% PPE (e.g. (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) (n=4) (n=1) (n=8) hearing Often 50% 0% 25% 0% 50% 100% 33.3% protection) (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) (n=2) (n=5) during your work Sometime 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 13.3% shift/session s (n=2) (n=2) when Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% required by OSHA No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% standards? Response In the past Always 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 20.0% month, how (n=2) (n=1) (n=3) often did you Often 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 20.0% wearing (n=2) (n=1) (n=3) hearing protection Sometime 100% 100% 75% 0% 0% 100% 53.3% while working s (n=2) (n=1) (n=3) (n=2) (n=8) at CSUSM? Never 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 6.7% (n=1) (n=1) No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Response

Notes that answers to survey responses are “Always (100%),” “Often (51-99%)”, “Sometimes (1-49%)”, “Never (0%)”, or “No Response”. 1 = Building Services Engineer

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 44

Table 5. Survey responses to the selected questions below, arranged by job title as a group.

Survey Extent BSE1 (n=2) Carpenter Electrician Facility Grounds Plumber Total Question (n=1) (n=4) worker Crew (n=2) (n=15) (n=4) (n=2) “I am satisfied Extreme 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 20% with my (n=2) (n=1) (n=3) required PPE” Great 50% 100% 75% 25% 50% 100% 60% (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) (n=1) (n=1) (n=2) (n=9) Moderate 50% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 20% (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) Slight 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% “Hearing Extreme 0% 0% 50% 100% 100% 0% 53.3% protection is (n=2) (n=4) (n=2) (n=8) conveniently Great 100% 100% 50% 0% 0% 100% 46.7% located at my (n=2) (n=1) (n=2) (n=2) (n=7) worksite“ Moderate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Slight 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% “Wearing PPE Extreme 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% causes me Great 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 6.7% discomfort” (n=1) (n=1) Moderate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Slight 50% 0% 33.3% 50% 0% 50% 33.3% (n=1) (n=1) (n=2) (n=1) (n=5) No 0% 100% 66.7% 25% 100% 50% 46.7% (n=1) (n=2) (n=1) (n=2) (n=1) (n=7) N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.7% Response (n=1) (n=1) “I do not know Extreme 0% 0% 66.7% 0% 0% 0% 15.4% why I should (n=3) (n=2) wear PPE” Great 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Moderate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Slight 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 6.7% (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) No 50% 0% 33.3% 75% 100% 50% 69.2% (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) (n=2) (n=1) (n=9) N/A 0% 100% 0% 25% 0% 0% 6.7% (n=1) (n=1) (n=1)

Notes that responses to survey questions describe the level of extent felt by the participants to the statements described. 1 = Building Services Engineer OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 45

Table 6. Participants Job Descriptions and Samples Collected during the Noise Survey.

Job Title (# Employees) Number of Samples Frequency of Sampling Collected (%) Administrative Assistant (2) 2 7.4 Building Service Engineer (2) 3 11.8 Carpenter (1) 2 7.4 Electricians (4) 8 29.7 Facility Worker (4) 4 14.8 Grounds Crew (2) 4 14.8 Plumbers (2) 4 14.8

Total (17) 27 100.0

Note that the table above describes the number of participants and the frequency of personal noise exposure sampling for each job title.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 46

Table 7. Results of Personal Noise Exposures.

1 2 3 4 Day Job Title ID LAVG LTWA LCPK Dose Sampled (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (%) 1 Electrician 01 73.9 73.2 140.6 9.7 1 Electrician 02 69.8 69.1 131.9 5.5 1 Electrician 03 72.7 71.6 133.9 7.8 1 Electrician 04 71.1 70.0 129.2 6.3 1 Grounds7 01 72.7 71.7 133.7 8.0 2 Carpenter 01 73.9 73.2 N/A 9.7 2 Facilities8 01 61.7 60.6 132.2 1.7 2 Facilities8 02 69.8 69.1 127.2 5.5 2 Facilities8 03 72.7 71.7 N/A 8.0 2 Facilities8 04 71.1 70.0 127.1 6.3 3 Admin9 01 47.5 42.5 127.2 0.1 3 BSE10 01 69.9 68.6 130.3 5.1 3 Plumber 01 70.3 69.3 127.5 5.7 3 Plumber 02 70.8 67.8 128.3 4.6 4 Admin9 02 62.1 60.7 128.2 1.7 4 Electrician 01 70.2 69.0 130.8 5.4 4 Electrician 02 77.0 75.8 131.0 13.9 4 Electrician 03 66.4 65.2 126.5 3.2 4 Electrician 04 77.4 76.2 135.7 14.7 5 BSE10 01 73.7 72.2 130.4 8.5 5 BSE10 02 72.0 71.2 126.8 7.4 5 Grounds7 01 72.3 70.4 135.8 6.6 5 Plumber 01 64.6 63.4 129.1 2.5 5 Plumber 02 64.4 63.2 130.3 2.4 6 Carpenter 01 72.7 71.7 133.7 8.0 6 Grounds7 01 73.9 73.2 140.6 9.7 6 Grounds7 02 72.7 71.6 133.9 7.8

Note that The permissible exposure limit for LAVG and LTWA is 90 dBA (AL=85 dBA), 140 dBA for LCPK and 100% for Dose as determined by OSHA standards.

1. LAVG represents the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average. 2. LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange 3. LCPK, represents the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session. 4. Dose is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 90dB over 8 hours. 5 .PEL = Permissible Exposure Limit 6. AL = Action Level 7. Grounds crew 8. Facility worker Administrative assistant 8. Building Service Engineer N/A= missing data, not applicable

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 47

Table 8. Statistical Summary results of personal noise exposures.

1 2 3 4 Sound measurement LAVG LTWA LCPK Dose (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (%) Mean 69.8 68.6 131.3 6.5 Standard 6.1 6.6 4.0 3.4 Deviation of mean Range 47.5 - 77.4 42.5 - 76.2 126.5 – 140.6 0.1 – 14.7

1 = LAVG, the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average. 2 = LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange 3 = LCPK, the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session. 4=Dose, is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 90dB over 8 hours. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 48

Table 9. Results of personal noise exposure by job title.

Personal noise Admin5 BSE6 Carpenter Electrician Facility Grounds Plumber exposure worker crew 1 LAVG Mean 53.5 71.9 73.3 72.3 62.9 72.9 67.5 (dBA) Std. Dev 8.3 1.9 0.8 3.7 11.3 0.7 3.5 Range 47.5- 69.9 – 72.7 – 66.4 – 47.5 – 72.3 – 64.4 – 59.2 73.7 73.9 77.4 72.5 73.9 70.8 2 LTWA Mean 51.9 70.7 72.5 71.3 61.0 71.7 65.9 (dBA) Std. Dev 13.2 1.9 1.1 3.7 13.2 1.2 3.1 Range 42.5 – 68.6 – 71.1 – 65.2 – 76.2 42.5 – 70.4 – 62.3 – 61.2 72.2 73.2 71.7 73.2 69.3 3 LCPK Mean 127.7 129.2 133.7 132.5 128.8 136.0 128.8 (dBA) Std. Dev 0.7 2.1 0.0 4.3 2.9 3.2 1.2 Range 127.2 – 126.8 – 133.7 – 126.5 – 127.1 – 133.7 – 127.5 – 128.2 130.4 133.7 140.6 132.2 140.6 130.3 Dose4 Mean 1.0 7.0 8.9 8.3 5.4 8.0 3.8 (%) Std. Dev 1.2 1.7 1.2 4.2 2.7 1.3 1.6 Range 0.1 – 1.8 5.1 – 8.5 8.0 – 9.7 3.2 – 14.7 1.7 – 8.0 6.6 – 9.7 2.4 – 5.7

1 = LAVG, the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average. 2 = LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange 3 = LCPK, the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session. 4=Dose, is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 90dB over 8 hours. 5 = Administrative Assistant 6 = Building Services Engineer

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 49

Table 10. One-way ANOVA results for demographic data from survey responses.

(including Administrative assistants)

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 50

Table 11. One-way ANOVA results for employee related data from survey responses.

(including Administrative assistants)

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 51

Table 12. One-way ANOVA results for PPE knowledge and usage from survey responses.

(excluding Administrative assistant responses)

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 52

Table 13. One-way ANOVA results for attitudes towards PPE from survey responses.

(excluding Administrative assistant responses)

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 53

Figure 1. Distribution of the participants who took the survey for the personal noise

exposure sampling.

5

4 4 4 3

2 2 2 2 2 1

Number of Number Participants 1 0

Job Title

The majority of the participants were Electricians (n=4) and Facility workers (n=4), followed by two representatives of the remaining groups (Grounds crew, Plumbers, Administrative Assistants, and Building Service Engineers and one Carpenter.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 54

Figure 2. Age demographics from survey responses.

6

5 5 5

4 4

3

2

Number of Number Participants 2

1 1 0 0 0 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 Age Range (years)

The distribution of the age of the participants involved in this study ranged from 25-60. The majority of participants fell in age ranges from 31-25 (n=5), 36-40 (n=5), or 55-60 (n=4) age ranges (in years).

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 55

Figure 3. Race/Ethnicity demographics from survey responses.

9

8 8 7

6 6 5

4

3 Number of Number Participants 2

1 1 1 1 0 Hispanic/Latino Non-hispanic Non-hispanic No Response 2+more white black Race/Ethnicity

The responses of participants for their race/ethnicity varied. The majority of participants were either non-Hispanic white (n=8) or Hispanic/Latino (n=6).

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 56

Figure 4. Education demographics from survey responses.

7

6 6 5 5 4

3

2 Number of Number Participants 2 2 1 1 1 0 Some Completed Some College Completed < High School No Response Graduate College Vocational Work school Highest Education Level Reported

The education background for the participants involved in this study ranged from some high school to some graduate work with the majority either having some college (n=5) or had finished vocational school (n=6).

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 57

Figure 5. Participant’s responses to the survey question, “How many hours per shift (out of

8 hours) are you outside?”

8

7 6.8 6

5 5 4 4.3 3 3.6

2 2 1

Time worked outside per shift (hrs) shift per outside worked Time 0 1 0 Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility Grounds Plumber worker crew Job Title

Note the following, Admin = Administrative assistant and BSE = Building Services Engineer.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 58

Figure 6. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection by job title.

13.30%

Always Often Sometimes 53.30% 33.30% Never No Response

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 59

Figure 7. Percentage of participants who wear hearing protection in the past month by job

title.

6.70% 20.00% Always Often Sometimes 20.00% Never 53.30% No Response

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 60

Figure 8. Percentage of participants who were satisfied with their PPE by job title.

20% 20% Extreme Great Moderate Slight No N/A No Response 60%

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 61

Figure 9. Percentage of participants who were felt their hearing protection was nearby by

job title.

Extreme Great Moderate 46.70% Slight 53.30% No N/A No Response

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 62

Figure 10. Percentage of participants who felt their PPE causes them discomfort by job

title.

6.70% 6.70% Extreme Great Moderate 33.30% Slight No 46.70% N/A No Response

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 63

Figure 11. Percentage of participants who knew why they should wear PPE by job title.

7.00% 15.40% Extreme Great 7.70% Moderate Slight No N/A 69.20% No Response

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 64

Figure 12. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for time weighted average data

from individual readings.

140.00

120.00

100.00

80.00

LTWA (dBA) LTWA 60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00 BSE 01 BSE 01 BSE 02 Elect 01 Elect 01 Elect 02 Elect 02 Elect 03 Elect 03 Elect 04 Elect 04 Admin01 Admin02 Facility 01 Facility 02 Facility 03 Facility 04 Plumber 01 Plumber 01 Plumber 02 Plumber 02 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 02 Carpenter 01 Carpenter 01 Participant ID

The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dBA 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dBA 8HR-TWA).The red dashed line represents the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dBA). Note that Admin = Administrative assistant, BSE = Building Service Engineer, Elect = Electrician, Facility = Facility worker, and Grounds = Grounds crew.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 65

Figure 13. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Peak data from individual

readings.

140

120

100

80 LCPK (dBA) LCPK 60

40

20

0 BSE 01 BSE 01 BSE 02 Elect 01 Elect 01 Elect 02 Elect 02 Elect 03 Elect 03 Elect 04 Elect 04 Admin01 Admin02 Facility 01 Facility 02 Facility 03 Facility 04 Plumber 01 Plumber 01 Plumber 02 Plumber 02 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 02 Carpenter 01 Carpenter 01 Participant ID

The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dBA 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dBA 8HR-TWA). The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dBA). Note that Admin = Administrative assistant, BSE = Building Service Engineer, Elect = Electrician, Facility = Facility worker, and Grounds = Grounds crew.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 66

Figure 14. Statistical summary of personal noise exposure for Dose data from individual

readings.

50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00

Dose(%) 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 BSE 01 BSE 01 BSE 02 Elect 01 Elect 01 Elect 02 Elect 02 Elect 03 Elect 03 Elect 04 Elect 04 Admin01 Admin02 Facility 01 Facility 02 Facility 03 Facility 04 Plumber 01 Plumber 01 Plumber 02 Plumber 02 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 01 Grounds 02 Carpenter 01 Carpenter 01 Participant ID

A measure of 50% dose is equivalent of 85 dBA action level and the permissible exposure level is 100% (90 dBA 8HR-TWA). Note that Admin = Administrative assistant, BSE = Building Service Engineer, Elect = Electrician, Facility = Facility worker, and Grounds = Grounds crew.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 67

Figure 15. Summary of Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles.

140.0

120.0

100.0

80.0

71.9 73.3 72.3 72.9 68.8 60.0 67.5 Mean LAVG (dBA) LAVG Mean 53.4 40.0

20.0

0.0 Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility Grounds Plumber worker crew Job Title Group

The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dBA 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dBA 8HR-TWA). The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dBA). Note, that LAVG, the average sound level that is based on the programmed exchange rate in the dosimeter. All sound measurements both above or below captured during a recording session are used in calculating the average.

* = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 68

Figure 16. Summary of Time-weighted Average Noise Exposures based on Job Titles.

140.0

120.0

100.0

80.0

70.7 72.5 71.3 71.7 60.0 67.9 65.9 Mean LTWA (dBA) LTWA Mean 51.9 40.0

20.0

0.0 Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility Grounds Plumber worker crew Job Title Group

The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dBA 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dBA 8HR-TWA).The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dBA). Note that LTWA, represents the time weighted average collected for usually an 8-hour period or a typical work shift. Generally, its evaluated using an A- scale and a 5dB exchange

* = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 69

Figure 17. Summary of Peak Noise Exposures based on Job Titles.

140.0 136.0 133.7 132.5 120.0 127.7 129.2 128.8 128.8

100.0

80.0

60.0 Mean LCPK (dBA) LCPK Mean

40.0

20.0

0.0 Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility Grounds Plumber worker crew Job Title Group

The green dashed lines represents the permissible exposure level according to ACGIH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH (85 dBA 8HR-TWA). The blue dashed line represents the permissible exposure level according to OSHA standards (90 dBA 8HR-TWA).The red dashed line represent the pain threshold for the human ear where exposure is not permitted according to OSHA standards (140 dBA). Note, that LCPK, the peak level is the highest sound pressure level captured during a recording session.

* = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 70

Figure 18. Summary of Employees Dose.

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0 Mean DoseMean (%)

15.0

8.9 8.3 10.0 7.0 8.0 5.4 5.0 3.8 1.0 0.0 Admin BSE Carpenter Electrician Facility Grounds crew Plumber worker Job Title Group

Dose, is associated to the criterion level. A reading of 100% represents the highest permissible noise exposure level of 8HR-TWA over 8 hours.

* = Administrative Assistant ** = Building Services Engineer

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 71

Appendix A. Consent Form

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 72

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 73

Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 74

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 75

Appendix C. Employees Job Descriptions

Administrative Assistant

Performs general clerical duties to include but not limited to: photocopying, faxing, mail

distribution and filing. Coordinates and maintains records for staff office space, phones,

company credit cards and office keys. Creates and modifies various documents using common

PC software.

Building Service Engineer

Under general supervision, incumbents operate, maintain, repair and inspect heating,

ventilating, air conditioning, refrigeration and water systems and equipment; test, adjust, and

calibrate boiler and air conditioning machinery and mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, and/or

microprocessor control instruments; test and chemically treat boiler, condenser, and cooling tower

water and water from other systems; maintain, inspect, diagnose and make emergency repairs to

steam, natural gas, water, refrigerant, and air systems; regularly use features of building

automation systems to diagnose and troubleshoot problems in the HVAC systems while optimizing

energy usage; monitor building automation systems data and adjust system accordingly; respond to service requests to adjust air flow, temperature and humidity balances for individual rooms, building areas or buildings; maintain logs of maintenance and repairs using manual and computerized record keeping systems; and may instruct and lead semiskilled or unskilled

assistants. Incumbents also repair and replace bearings, shafts, seals, rings and electrical wiring

and install central system parts, gauges, valves and pipes which requires the application of journey

level skills in one or more of the applicable trades.

Carpenter

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 76

Work from blueprints, specifications, drawings and instructions to build, remodel, maintain

and repair various types of facilities, buildings, offices, classrooms, restrooms, sheds, scaffolds,

forms, frames, fences and other structures. Install, build and repair internal and external structures.

Install and repair drywall, ceiling and floor tiles, and roofs. Fabricate and install cabinets, counters,

shelves, benches, partitions, floors, and doors and window frames. Hang doors and install

windows. Assist in making concrete molds and structures. Install and repair modular furniture.

Inspect completed work for conformance with specifications, requirements and compliance with

applicable building and safety codes and regulations. Participates in the maintenance and

operations of a carpentry shop. Cleans, maintains and services tools and equipment used in the

performance of duties. Tracks and reports time and materials for assigned work. Maintain records

and retrieve data related to work performed using

manual and/or computerized record-keeping systems. Estimates cost, time and materials for

carpentry projects or work efforts as assigned.

Electrician

Performs various types of preventive maintenance including: starting/stopping equipment,

general cleaning, removing/installing serviceable parts, cleaning conductors/wire connections,

identifying problems and needed repairs. Completes necessary repairs to electrical wiring, plugs,

switches, breaker boxes, controls, lighting and electrical related items, as requested, by work

orders. Operates hand and power tools for installing, removing, and cleaning parts and hardware.

Inspects electrical-related equipment, systems and areas to identify problems and needed repairs.

Tests and troubleshoots parts, equipment and systems using testing tools for diagnosis. Records work details in log sheets and keeps time record to assists in completion of documentation. Uses computer for communicating, researching parts and specifications, coordinating, documenting OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 77 work details, and recording time log. Disables and clearly identifies (lock out and tag out) unsafe equipment, and immediately notify appropriate personnel. Reports problems and needed repairs to to be documented and scheduled. Operates radio or cellular phone for communication of urgent needs, critical information and status updates.

Operates utility cart, pick-up truck, welding equipment, scissor lift, forklift, as certified, to access, repair, and transport personnel, equipment and waste materials. Unlocks and secures facility areas to access equipment, items to be repaired and/or maintained. Consults and works with other trade workers, as needed, for completion of repairs and remodels. Responds promptly to, and assists with urgent needs in order to prevent injury, damage or further incident. Attends and participates in departmental meetings, and functions. Maintains clean work areas, tools, equipment and associated structures.

Facility Worker

This position will be under the general supervision of the Assistant Director of Operations.

Incumbent will perform a wide range of complex semiskilled facilities and systems maintenance, repair and renovation work, a variety of general and preventive maintenance and repair work that does not require journey level skills. Incumbent independently performs a variety of semiskilled facilities and systems maintenance functions or may work under the direction of journey level crafts worker on complex assignments.

Grounds Crew (Landscaper)

Primary responsibility to maintain campus irrigation infrastructure, including: Inspects, services, repairs and maintains a preventive maintenance program for irrigation mainlines, lateral lines, irrigation heads, valves, automatic irrigation control devices and other related equipment.

Provides minor repairs on irrigation controls. Provides help and direction to other grounds workers OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 78

as they repair and maintain irrigation systems within their work area. Clears blockages from valves and pipes. Performs manual and mechanical trenching, replace mainline valves and remote control valves; plan irrigation system; select types of irrigation equipment, estimate cost, and install or modify irrigation system; review landscaped areas and coordinator the installation of new sprinkler systems and the modification of existing irrigation systems, taking into consideration the vegetation, soil conditions and evaporation and water retention factors; may perform emergency repair work on irrigation systems. Interprets landscape and irrigation designs and makes changes on prints when necessary; prepare or revise sketches or plans to show location of pipes, valves, irrigation heads, and water pressure. Maintains records and reports for irrigation equipment, supply requisitions, inventory and costs. Serves occasionally as lead person overseeing the work of staff engaged in routine irrigation maintenance activities, work closely with contractors installing irrigation systems around new structures to assure proper irrigation capabilities of the system; may from time to time provide lead work direction to students. Performs occasionally Grounds Worker duties and drives automotive equipment when necessary.

Plumber

Plumbing Repairs, Installations and Modifications. Maintain, repair or replace both commercial and residential plumbing fixtures and equipment at the campus and at university owned properties. Examples include, but are not limited to, faucets, drinking fountains, shower valves, toilets, urinals, flushometers, garbage disposals, circulation pumps, pressure regulators, back flow preventers and fan coil units, water boilers, on-demand water heaters and related plumbing piping and mechanical. Free blockages in drainage systems ranging from 3/4" to 4".

Assist contracted commercial vendors with the identification of sewer systems and storm drains for periodic augering on a semiannual basis. Replace nonrebuildable tubing and valves, OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 79 damaged/deteriorated waste piping and broken supply lines for chilled water, hot water, and domestic water. Install new gas service to buildings and extend existing service as needed for the installation of new or relocated equipment. Perform connections for appliances, forced air units, water heaters and commercial kitchen appliances. Install, maintain and repair copper, cast iron, plastic, steel, transite and clay supply, waste and distribution systems. Work in concert with the

Trades group on large projects and respond as needed to perform plumbing and related tasks as the timing of projects dictate. May be required to instruct and supervise students assigned to assist in the performance of plumbing related duties.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 80

Appendix D. Individual Participant Survey Responses

Tables below show the participants responses to individual survey questions. They are grouped by survey question content.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 81

Table 14. Selected survey responses regarding employment at CSUSM. Participant ID How long, in How long, in How many Have you attended hearing years, have years, have hours per protection/conservation you been you worked shift (out of training? working in at CSUSM? 8 hours) are this you outside? occupation at CSUSM? Admin1 01 3.5 6.5 0 No Admin1 02 3 3 0 Yes BSE2 01 13 13 4-6 No BSE2 02 2 2 4-6 Yes Carpenter 01 6 6 1 Yes Elect3 01 2 2 3-4 Yes Elect3 02 9.5 9.5 3-4 Yes Elect3 03 <1 <1 4 Yes Elect3 04 <1 <1 3-4 Yes Facility4 01 2 2 4-6 Yes Facility4 02 1 1 1 Yes Facility4 03 1.5 1.5 8 Yes Facility4 04 22 1 3 Yes Grounds5 01 1.5 1.5 7.5 Yes Grounds5 02 10 2.5 6 Yes Plumber 01 2 2 -- Yes Plumber 02 3 3 2 Yes

“—“ participant did not answer survey question

1 = Administrative Assistant 2 = Building Services Engineer 3= Electrician 4=Facility worker 5=Grounds crew

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 82

Table 15. Participants responses to survey questions regarding PPE usage. Participant How many Have you Do you wear In the past Do you have ID years have been wearing PPE (e.g. month, how knowledge of you been hearing hearing often did you the wearing protection protection) wear hearing requirements hearing your entire during your protection for personal protection? time working work while working protective at CSUSM, if shift/session at CSUSM? equipment applicable? when (PPE) for required by your OSHA occupation? standards? Admin1 01 N/A No Never Never No (0%) (0%) Admin1 02 0 No response N/A N/A Yes

BSE2 01 35 Yes Often Sometimes Yes (51-99%) (1-50%) BSE2 02 4 Yes Always Sometimes Yes (100%) (1-50%) Carpenter 01 15 Yes Always Sometimes Yes (100%) (1-50%) Elect3 01 15 Yes Often Sometimes Yes (51-99%) (1-50%) Elect3 02 35 Yes Sometimes Sometimes Yes (1-50%) (1-50%) Elect3 03 12 No Always Sometimes Yes (100%) (1-50%) Elect3 04 12 Yes Sometimes Never Yes (1-50%) (0%) Facility4 01 5 Yes Always Often Yes (100%) (51-99%) Facility4 02 1 Yes Always Always, Yes (100%) (100%) Facility4 03 “When Yes Always Always, Yes required” (100%) (100%) Facility4 04 “?” Yes Always Often Yes (100%) (51-99%) Grounds5 01 6 Yes Always, Always, Yes (100%) (100%) OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 83

Participant How many Have you Do you wear In the past Do you have ID years have been wearing PPE (e.g. month, how knowledge of you been hearing hearing often did you the wearing protection protection) wear hearing requirements hearing your entire during your protection for personal protection? time working work while working protective at CSUSM, if shift/session at CSUSM? equipment applicable? when (PPE) for required by your OSHA occupation? standards? Grounds5 02 10 N/A blank Often Often Yes (51-99%) (51-99%) Plumber 01 15 Yes Often Sometimes Yes (51-99%) (1-50%) Plumber 02 15 Yes Often 51- Sometimes Yes (51-99%) (1-50%)

1 = Administrative Assistant 2 = Building Services Engineer 3= Electrician 4=Facility worker 5=Grounds crew

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 84

Table 16. Survey Responses regarding description of PPE usage and potential noise sources. Participant Please list all of the PPE Do you work around the following sources of noise ID you wear for your on CSUSM campus (check all that apply) occupation Admin1 01 N/A N/A Admin1 02 N/A N/A BSE2 01 Earmuffs Power tools, air handlers, air compressor, pumps BSE2 02 Safety glasses, hard hat, Machine shop activities, power tools, air compressor, gloves ear plugs other: (chiller & broilers) Carpenter 01 Ear plugs, safety glasses, Machine shop activities, air blowers, table/ chain/other face shield saws, power tools, air compressors Elect3 01 Earplugs & Earmuffs Power tools, air compressor, saws Elect3 02 Earplugs & Earmuffs Power tools, air compressor, saws Elect3 03 Safety glasses, ear plugs, Lawn mover/weedwacker, machine shop activities, air hard hat, safety gloves, blowers, Table/chain/other saws, power tools air work boots compressors Elect3 04 Ear plugs Lawn mowers/weedwackers, table/chain/others saws, machine activities, power tools, air blowers, air compressor, electrical equipment (e.g. transformers) Facility4 01 Ear, eye, face, breathing, Power tools gloves Facility4 02 Hearing protection, Air blowers, power tools safety helmet, goggles, face shield, gloves, gauntlets Facility4 03 Earmuffs, safety glasses, Lawn mower/weedwacker, air blowers, power washer and safety boots Facility4 04 Gloves, hearing Machine shop activities, Air blowers, table/chain/other protection, hard hat saws, power tools Grounds5 01 Ear plugs, safety glasses, Lawn mowers/weedwacker, Air blowers, Other: hedge gloves, safety vest, steel trimmer, jack hammer boots, long sturdy work pants Grounds5 02 Gloves, ear plugs, Lawn mower/weedwacker, air blowers, table/chain saw, glasses, face shields, power tools, heavy equipment, forklift, sledgehammer hard hat, shin guards, steel toe boots Plumber 01 Safety glasses, gloves, Machine shop activities, table/chain/other saws, power ear plugs tools, air compressor OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 85

Participant Please list all of the PPE Do you work around the following sources of noise ID you wear for your on CSUSM campus (check all that apply) occupation Plumber 02 Eye, head, gloves, ear Machine shop activities, table/chain/other saws, power plugs/ muffs tools, air compressor

1 = Administrative Assistant 2 = Building Services Engineer 3= Electrician 4=Facility worker 5=Grounds crew

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 86

Table 17. Survey Responses regarding feelings and attitudes towards PPE. Participant ID I am satisfied Hearing Wearing PPE I know how to Wearing PPE I do not know with my protection is causes me use PPE interferes why I should required PPE conveniently discomfort with my wear PPE located at my ability to do worksite my job Admin1 01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Admin1 02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BSE2 01 Moderate Great Slight Great extent Slight extent Slight extent extent Extent Extent BSE2 02 Great extent Great Extent -- Great extent Slight extent No extent Carpenter 01 Great extent Great Extent No Extent Great extent No extent N/A Elect3 01 Great extent Extreme No extent Extreme extent No extent Extreme extent Extent Elect3 02 Great extent Extreme No Extent Extreme extent No extent Extreme extent Extent Elect3 03 Great extent Great extent Slight extent Great extent No extent No extent Elect3 04 Moderate Great extent N/A Extreme extent N/A N/A extent Facility4 01 Extreme extent Extreme Great extent Extreme extent No extent No extent Extent Facility4 02 Extreme extent Extreme Slight extent Extreme extent No extent No extent Extent Facility4 03 Great extent Extreme N/A Extreme extent No extent No extent Extent Facility4 04 Moderate Extreme Slight Extent Extreme extent No extent N/A extent Extent Grounds5 01 Extreme extent Extreme No Extent Extreme extent No extent No extent Extent Grounds5 02 Great Extent Extreme No extent Extreme extent Slight Extent No extent Extent Plumber 01 Great extent Great extent No extent Great extent No extent No extent Plumber 02 Great extent Great extent Slight extent Great extent No extent No extent

“—“ participant did not answer survey question

1 = Administrative Assistant 2 = Building Services Engineer 3= Electrician 4=Facility worker 5=Grounds crew

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 87

Table 18. Participant’s responses to questions regarding demographics. Participant Please What is Please select the Please select the Highest ID select your age Race/Ethnicity that fits Level of Education you have your (years) best completed gender Admin1 01 Female 26 Non-Hispanic white Some Graduate work Admin1 02 Female 31 Non-Hispanic white -- BSE2 01 Male 55 Hispanic/Latino Some College BSE2 02 Male 38 Non-Hispanic black Completed College Carpenter 01 Male 36 -- Some College Elect3 01 Male 36 Non-Hispanic white Completed College Elect3 02 Male 59 Non-Hispanic white Some High School Elect3 03 Male 33 Hispanic/Latino Completed Vocational school Elect3 04 Male 34 Non-Hispanic white Completed Vocational school Facility4 01 Male 38 Non-Hispanic white Some College Facility4 02 Male 57 Hispanic Latino Some College Facility4 03 Male 34 2+ ethnicities Completed Vocational school Facility4 04 Male 57 Hispanic/Latino Completed Vocational school Grounds5 01 Male 25 Hispanic/Latino Some College Grounds5 02 Male 51 Hispanic/Latino < High School Plumber 01 Male 33 Non-Hispanic white Completed Vocational School Plumber 02 Male 37 Non-Hispanic white Completed Vocational School

“—“ Participant did not answer survey question

1 = Administrative Assistant 2 = Building Services Engineer 3= Electrician 4=Facility worker 5=Grounds crew

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 88

Appendix E. Personal Noise Exposure Experiment Details

The table below gives specifics as to the dates and times for the individual participants personal noise exposure.

OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE PILOT STUDY AT CSUSM 89

Table 19. Sampling dates and times for personal noise exposure recordings. Employee ID Job Title Day Sampling Time Sampled (hr:min)

Admin1 01 Administration 3 03:58 Admin1 02 Administration 4 06:34 BSE2 01 Building Services Engineer 3 06:40 5 06:29 BSE2 02 Building Services Engineer 5 06:22 Carpenter 01 Carpenter 2 07:14 6 06:56 Elect3 01 Electrician 1 06:56 4 06:50 Elect3 02 Electrician 1 05:04 4 06:46 Elect3 03 Electrician 1 06:53 4 06:47 Elect3 04 Electrician 1 05:01 4 06:40 Facility4 01 Facilities 2 06:55 Facility4 02 Facilities 2 07:13 Facility4 03 Facilities 2 07:00 Facility4 04 Facilities 2 06:56 Grounds5 01 Grounds Crew 1 05:28 5 06:09 6 06:59 Grounds5 02 Grounds Crew 6 06:04 Plumber 01 Plumber 3 06:59 5 06:44 Plumber 02 Plumber 3 05:126 5 06:46

1 = Administrative Assistant 2 = Building Services Engineer 3= Electrician 4=Facility worker 5=Grounds crew 6= Dosimeter had to be reset at 9:48am after initially starting the experiment at 8:03am.