Noise exposure in school gymnasia and swimming poolsLuigi Maffeia), Gino Iannanceb), Massimiliano Masullob) and Pietro Natalettic)

(Received: 26 August 2008; Revised: 6 January 2009; Accepted: 8 January 2009)

School gymnasia and swimming pools are generally environments affected bypoor acoustic conditions due to absence of sound absorbing materials, noisysport activities, presence of many students at the same time and intensive use ofblowing whistles to enforce the communication.The consequence is that physicaleducation teachers can not only show long term stress but they can also beexposed to noise risk to noise-induced hearing loss. Investigation has shown thatthe problem is quite large as 20–25% of physical education teachers can beaffected by a noise exposure higher than acceptable limits. It is then necessary toanalyze in detail all factors that can influence the noise in these special schoolenvironments in order to develop simple acoustical guidelines useful for schoolofficials for stress management and hearing conservation programs.© 2009 Institute of Noise Control Engineering.

Primary subject classification: 51.1.4; Secondary subject classification: 25

1 INTRODUCTION

School environments are complex systems. Theyhave to absolve different functions such as speech,study, sport, music and recreation with different levelof concentration and involvement for both students andteachers.

Acoustic conditions in these environments are alsocomplex. Classrooms and gymnasia can be exposed tonoise sources external to the buildings such as road andrail road traffic, airports1,2 and external equipments butalso to internal noise sources such as activities inadjacent rooms and corridors or mechanical systems,mostly HVAC systems, or personal computer, printerand portable equipment3. Several national and interna-tional regulation and guidelines4–7 recommend limitingbackground noise to certain values and suggest and/orimpose to stakeholders (architects, builders, publicauthorities) values in terms of sound insulationbetween rooms, of sound insulation of façades, impactnoise, reverberation time and equipment noiseemissions.

But the main concern is the noise generated by thestudents during their day activities. In literature manystudies and surveys have been published on this topic.

Results are quite variable. Shield1 reports on noisesurveys carried out in 16 primary schools with noisemeasurements in 110 occupied classrooms. Resultsshow variation of internal noise with number of pupils,age and activity. Going from classrooms with 18 pupilsto classrooms with 32 pupils, the average ambient levelLAeq can increase by more than 10 dB�A� and LA90

(background noise) by almost 20 dB�A�. Activityinfluence seems also to be important. Going from a“quietest” activity (children sitting at tables doingsilent reading or tests) to the “noisiest” activity(children working in groups, moving around the class-room, with some talking), LAeq increases of 20 dB�A��56.0 to 77.0 dB�A�� and L90 of 22 dB�A��42.0 to 64.0 dBA�. According to this study theaverage LAeq of occupied teaching spaces, which couldbe assumed to be the average exposure of a child or ofa teacher at school, is 72 dB LAeq. The external noiseappears to have little effect on the internal noiseenvironment. Lower values were found recently bySato and Bradley8. They investigated the room acous-tics characteristics and noise environment of 27primary school classrooms during activities and regis-tered that students experience an average noise levelsof 49.1 dB�A� with a teacher speech levels of60.4 dB�A�. In an active classroom the noise generatedby students can increase the noise level in the quiet butoccupied condition by 10 dB. Tiesler and Oberdörster9

found out that the sound pressure level �LAeq,5 min� in aprimary classroom during the day is quite variable butthere were overall increases of 11 dB�A� from the firsthours (average 60 dB�A�) to the last hours (average71 dB�A�) of the school day.

a) Built Environment Control Laboratory Ri.A.S., SecondUniversity of Naple, Via S. Lorenzo, 81031 Aversa (Ce),ITALY; email: luigi.maffei@uninu2.it.

b) Built Environment Control Laboratory Ri.A.S., SecondUniversity of Naple, Via S. Lorenzo, 81031 Aversa (Ce),ITALY

c) Department of Occupational Hygiene, ISPESL, MontePorzio Catone, 00040 Rome ITALY.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009 1

Data on sound pressure level inside classroomsduring school activities depends on background noise,configuration of the room, presence of sound absorbingmaterials, the grade of occupants, age of students butalso, and not less important, social and pedagogicalreasons.

While excessive external and internal noise in class-rooms seems to have a detrimental impact uponacademic performance and attainments of primaryschools students10, Enmarker and Boam11 in a study onnoise annoyance responses conducted on 207 pupils,aged 13–14 years, and 166 teachers concluded thatalthough students rated themselves more irritable tonoise, teachers are more sensitive and perceive moresleeping-problems, tinnitus and tension. It is significanttherefore that a relevant percentage (80%) of teachers9

have cited “noise in schools” as a stress-inducing factorand during school day they show an increase of theirheart rate as classroom noise increase. Indeed consid-ering the noise levels inside a classroom and a signal-to-ratio of 15 dB for good communication12, for mosttime during the day in different schools teachers haveto raise their voice up to 75–80 dB�A� and dysphonicproblems can occur13,14. This generally uncomfortableworking conditions is the main reason that leads moreteachers to request audiometric tests, in spite of the factthat noise levels are under 80 dB�A� and are compa-rable to other non occupational noise exposures associ-ated with routine activities15.

Music teachers can be the exposed more to noise. Infact in a noise exposure survey with dosimeter Behar etal.16 found out that for 78% of the 18 music teachersfrom 15 schools the measured Leq exceeded 85 dB�A�.

Gymnasia and swimming pools are generally builtwith acoustically poor materials (facing concrete andplaster), sport activities can be very noisy (rebounds ofballs, calls, cries, run, etc.) and more classes (students)can perform their sport activities at the same time. Asconsequence of the low speech intelligibility physicaleducation (PE) teachers are forced to use blowingwhistles to communicate with gymnasia and swimmingpools users. Jiang17 reported a case study of a PEteacher with a noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Toinvestigate its cause a noise study was conducted in thegymnasium where the PE teachers worked. The noiselevels were quite variable (between 72 and 119 dB�A�)during lessons but the dosimeter worn by the teacherfor 73 min registered an LAeq of 90.8 dB�A�. Dosim-eters worn by four students for 1 /2 hour periodsshowed values of LAeq between 95 and 106 dB�A�.More recently PJkala and Leśna18 examined the acous-tic environment in 16 school gymnasia. They registeredvariable sound levels for different activities: warm-upwithout balls �50–80 dB�A��, exercises with a couple

of balls �55–90 dB�A��, matches of volleyball, basket-ball, football �77–93 dB�A�� and athletics, games,gymnastics �70–90 dB�A��. The measurements werefollowed by a survey with a questionnaire submitted to85 PE teachers. 78% of them judged the acousticenvironment in the gymnasium as average or moreannoying and 38% reported a larynx disease.

In 2005 the Italian National Institute of Occupa-tional Safety and Prevention (ISPESL), in conjunctionwith the acoustic research group of the Second Univer-sity of Naples, began a new project on noise controland hearing conservation in special school environ-ments, such as school gymnasia and swimming pools,in which noisy activities and low acoustical standardscan generate high noise levels and PE teachers canshow stress and/or different health diseases.

Considering that in Italy there are more than 35.000PE teachers, the aim of the research was: a) to investi-gate on how large the problem of noise exposureamong the PE category could be; b) to analyse thecontribution of all factors that can influence the acous-tic environment; c) to build up simple guidelines toincrease the awareness of the school’s management insolving the problem. The research was conductedthrough large acoustic surveys, simulated tests, inter-views with PE teachers and school managements.Preliminary results of the survey were reported in Ref.19 and 20. In this paper global results of the programare presented and discussed.

2 FIELD SURVEY

The field survey started in year 2005 and wascompleted in year 2007. Seventy five PE teachers of 16primary and/or secondary schools and 2 universitieswere involved.

Architectural characteristics of 15 gymnasia and 3swimming pools were chosen in order to cover allpossible sport building configurations and activitiespresent in schools at different grades (primary, second-ary, university). Volumes of the buildings variedbetween 320 m3 (small gymnasium in a primaryschool) to 26000 m3 (a large university swimmingpool). Although the gymnasia and swimming poolsconstruction ages were not old, only some buildings(about 20% of the total investigated) contained soundabsorbing material on the ceiling and or on the walls.The general absence of sound absorbing material inthis type of building is confirmed in Ref. 18. Table 1presents data on architectural features of the investi-gated gymnasia and swimming pools.

The field survey was conducted following four steps,with results from each step presented in the sectionbelow.

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

2 Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009

2.1 Measurements of the AcousticsCharacteristics of the Buildings

The reverberation time T30 in the central frequen-cies of 1 /3 octave bands was measured according toISO 338221 using the Maximum Length Sequences(MLS) technique. Digitally synthesized binarysequences are generated in the room under test by aloudspeaker. The cross-correlation with the outputsignal gives the impulse response of the room. Thesound source was placed in two different roompositions. For each position, the impulse responseswere recorded in six different points with a micro-phone. The same microphone positions were also usedto measure the background noise levels in terms ofLAeq�15 min�. Further measurements were performed toevaluate the speech transmission index22 at the distanceof approximately 10 m from the PE teacher position.All measurements were performed with empty rooms(Fig. 1).

Figure 2 reports the average values of the reverbera-tion time in the central frequencies of 1 /3 octave bandspectrum for each investigated place. The averagevalues of the reverberation time between 250 and2000 Hz referred to the volume of the buildings arereported in Fig. 3.

Although national and international standards andregulations5–7 recommend or impose average values ofthe reverberation time inside school gymnasia and

swimming pools lower than 2.0 sec, it was found outthat only two small gymnasia fulfilled this requirementand only other four others presented an average rever-beration time between 2.0 and 4.0 sec.

Most of the gymnasia and swimming pools areequipped with a ventilation system and some of themare close to road traffic but the background noise withno activities was always below 45 dB�A�. Measure-ments of the speech transmission index (STI) was notrealistic with no activities, but it is symptomatic thatalthough the background noise levels were low, due tothe high reverberation times, STI values were alwaysbetween 0.3 and 0.6 (poor-fair).

2.2 Meetings and Interviews

Meetings with the school managements and PEteachers were organized in order to receive data on theweekly school time schedules in terms of classrooms

Table 1—Gymnasia and swimming pools of the field survey. Architecturaland acoustics features. C(ceiling), W(side walls).

Id. V �m3� FormType

of material Type of schoolGym 1 2470 rectangular C—W: reflecting secondaryGym 2 9500 rectangular C—W: reflecting secondaryGym 3 10750 trapezoidal C—W: reflecting secondaryGym 4 9200 trapezoidal C—W: reflecting secondaryGym 5 590 rectangular C—W: reflecting primaryGym 6 320 rectangular C—W: reflecting primaryGym 7 356 rectangular C: Absorbing—W: reflecting primaryGym 8 3520 rectangular C—W: reflecting primaryGym 9 7000 horseshoe C: Absorbing—W: reflecting universityGym 10 450 square C: Absorbing—W: reflecting universityGym 11 1675 rectangular C—W: reflecting universityGym 12 7875 rectangular C—W: reflecting universityGym 13 1650 rectangular C—W: reflecting primaryGym 14 6000 rectangular C—W: reflecting secondaryGym 15 3120 rectangular C—W: reflecting secondarySw. P. 1 26000 rectangular C—W: reflecting universitySw. P. 2 3800 rectangular C—W: reflecting primarySw. P. 3 5460 rectangular C—W: Absorbing university

Fig. 1—Examples of gymnasia and swimmingpools investigated during no activities.

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009 3

and students present each hour and day in the gymnasiaand/or swimming pools, name of the associated PEteacher, activities performed, instruments used (e.g.whistles, megaphone), weekly working hours for eachPE teacher. After that personal interviews wereconducted with the 75 PE teachers. Questions werelimited to evaluating the presence of general stressfactors rather than going specifically to noise inducedhealth problems. More than 50% of them consideredstress of the presence of more classes contemporane-

ously (more students), particularly in the last hours ofthe school day, connecting this to the difficulty ofgiving vocal instructions. Some affirmed that to protecttheir voice in these situations they make more use of ablowing whistle, while others tried to activate sportswithout balls. Almost all imputed stress problems to theschool management rather than to their teachingorganization, to students’ behavior or to other environ-

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

11,0

12,0

13,0

14,0

80 100

125

160

200

250

315

400

500

630

800

1000

1250

1600

2000

2500

3150

4000

5000

6300

8000

Frequency (Hz)

ReverberationTime(s)

gym1 gym2 gym3 gym4 gym5 gym6 gym7 gym8 gym9gym10 gym11 gym12 gym13 gym14 gym15 sw p 1 sw p 2 sw p 3

Fig. 2—Average values of the reverberation time in the central frequencies of 1/3 octave band.

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

11,0

12,0

100 1000 10000 100000Volume (m3)

ReverberationTime(s)

Fig. 3—Reverberation times (average values between 250 and 2000 Hz) as function of the volume of thebuildings investigated.

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

4 Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009

mental factors. Very few had some knowledge ofacoustic phenomena and parameters such as reverbera-tion time, sound levels and NIHL.

2.3 Sound Level Measurements

Operational conditions were identified for eachgymnasium and swimming pool in terms of activitiesperformed (e.g. artistic gymnastic, volleyball, divesand music.) and occupancy (e.g. one classes or twoclasses) during the week. During each of these schoolactivity hours, sound levels �LAeq,1 h� was measured inproximity to the position occupied by the PE teacherduring the lesson (e.g. Fig. 4). The type of activities,number of students present and use of the whistlewhere registered.

The continuous equivalent A-weighted soundpressure level LAeq,1 h measured during differentlessons was quite variable reaching values between 70�LAeq,min� dB(A) and 87 �LAeq,max� dB(A). LMAXpeak

varied between 85 and 135 dB.

2.4 Calculation of the Weekly Noise Exposure„LEX,week…

The Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council23 fixes the minimum healthand safety requirements regarding the exposure ofworkers to the risks arising from noise. It introducesthree physical parameters used as risk predictors:

a) peak sound pressure �ppeak�: maximum value ofthe ‘C’-frequency weighted instantaneous noisepressure;

b) daily noise exposure level �LEX,8 h� (dB(A) re.20 µPa): time-weighted average of the noiseexposure levels for a nominal eight-hour workingday as defined by international standard ISO1999: 199024, point 3.6. It covers all noisespresent at work, including impulsive noise. If thework is such that the daily exposure consists ofmore periods with different sound levels, LEX,8 h

the combination of periods is ascertained usingthe formula:

LEX,8h = 10 log��i=1M 100,1LAeq,TiTi

T0� �1�

where: M is the number of individual periods in theworking day;

Ti is the duration of period i;LAeq,Ti

is the equivalent continuous A-weightedsound pressure level that represents the sound theperson is exposed to during period i;T0 is 28,800 seconds �8 hours�.c) weekly noise exposure level �LEX,w�:

time-weighted average of the daily noise exposurelevels for a nominal week of five eight-hourworking days as defined by international standardISO 1999:199024, point 3.6 (note 2). LEX,w is usedwhen the exposure of an employee to noise variesmarkedly from day to day.

Table 2 reports the exposure limit values andexposure action values defined in the Directive2003/10/EC23.

On the basis of the time schedule received by theschools’ management and of the sound levels registeredduring the different school activity hours (periods)LAeq,1 h, it was possible to associate to each of the 75PE teachers the relative average sound equivalent levelduring the week activities LAeq,w.

LEW,w was obtained considering for each teacher theeffective number of working hours per week �Tw�which is typically less than 40 �T0�.

LEX,w = LAeq,w + 10 log�Tw

T0� �2�

All data for each teacher are reported in Fig. 5.Although the 75 PE teachers are engaged in activities

Fig. 4—A gymnasium during activities.

Table 2—Exposure limit values and exposure action values defined in theDirective 2003/10/EC23.

LEX,8 h ppeak

Exposure Limit Values: 87 dB�A� 200 Pa (140 dB (C) in relation to 20 µPa)Upper Exposure Action Values: 85 dB�A� 140 Pa (137 dB (C) in relation to 20 µPa)Lower Exposure Action Values: 80 dB�A� 112 Pa (135 dB (C) in relation to 20 µPa)

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009 5

inside gymnasia and swimming pools for less than35 hours/week (average value 20 hours), 80% of themhave a LEX,w higher than 75 dB�A� and for 25% ofthem LEX,w exceeds 80 dB�A�.

3 SIMULATED TESTS

The results of this “field survey” was alarmingconsidering that none of the investigated PE teacherswear individual hear protectors. Investigation of themain factors that influence the noise exposure was thenconsidered.

Evaluating all of the data from the field survey it wasfound out that a weekly noise exposure LEX,w higherthan 80 dB�A� occurs when at least 3 of the followingconditions are present: (a) number of pupils �30(presence of more than one class); (b) time exposure�25 hours per week; (c) rebounds of balls duringactivities; (d) intensive use of blowing whistles; (e)reverberation time �5 s. The age of the students seemsto have less influence.

To verify these assumptions it was decided toconduct controlled tests with the simulation of thedifferent types of exposition situations for the PEteachers. For the tests the gymnasium n.14 of Table 1(Fig. 6) was used. The gymnasium, with a volume of6000 m3, has side walls and ceiling covered with

plaster; the average reverberation time between 250and 2000 Hz is 5.1 sec.

Five possible activities, and combination of theseactivities were performed by students and PE teachersduring lessons: 1) speech/yell, S; 2) gymnastic, G; 3)hand clapping, HC; 4) blowing whistles, W; 5) gameswith rebounding balls, R. During the simulation tests itwas difficult to control the intensity of the differentactivities, therefore a qualitative scale was used inTable 3 to estimate their intensity as observed byexperimenters. One with on one class (number studentsless than 30) and one with more than one class (numberof students greater than 30) were included. Thestudents’ age for this school was between 14 and

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75

teacher Nb.

hoursofexposure

40,0

45,0

50,0

55,0

60,0

65,0

70,0

75,0

80,0

85,0

90,0

LAeq,w

hours of exposure per weekLEX.,wLAeq,w

Fig. 5—Average sound equivalent level during the week LAeq,w and weekly noise exposure LEX,w of the75 PE teachers.

Fig. 6—Gymnasium used for the simulated tests.

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

6 Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009

18 years. The only fixed parameter was the reverbera-tion time of the gymnasium.

Each simulation test lasted 2 hours (typical lessontime). PE teachers and students were asked to followthe experimenters’ instructions. A sound level meterwas positioned in proximity of the PE teacher,normally located in centre of the gymnasium, and at1,70 m above the floor. At the same time the audiosignal was recorded as.wav file �44100 Hz-16 bit� witha 2-channel recording device and a binaural micro-phone set. The audio recording permitted subsequentlistening to analyze the events and their intensity.

Globally 14 combinations of gymnasium occupancyand activities, at different intensity levels, wereanalyzed. Tables 4 and 5 report a summary of data, theequivalent sound levels LAeq during the lesson time foreach combination and the evaluation of the weeklynoise exposure level LEX,w for two different PE teacherworking conditions: 25 h per week and 30 h per week.The comparison between the evaluated LEX,w for eachcombination and the lower Threshold Limit Value(TLV) �80 dB�A�� as defined by the European Direc-tive 2003/10/CE23 are reported in Figs. 7 and 8.

Some measurements were repeated where the PEteachers were asked to wear a dosimeter. With whistleblowing, the LAeq is 5–7 dB�A� higher than the values

Table 3—Qualitative intensity levels of each simu-lated activity.

LEGENDA

Low intensity Medium intensity High intensity

Use of whistle

Rebounds of balls

Speech\Yell

Hand Clapping

Table 4—Simulation tests with less than 30 students in the gymnasium.

Simulationnumber 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reverberationtime, RT > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s

Number ofstudents, N

< 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30

Lesson time,T 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h

Activity 1:speech/yell, S NO

Activity 2:gymnastic, G NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

Activity 3:teacher handclapping, HC

NO NO NO NO NO

Activity 4:use ofwhistle, W

NO NO NO NO NO

Activity 5:games withrebounds ofballs, R

NO NO NO NO NO

LA,eq, 73,6 78.9 73,1 75,7 81.2 81.5 83.8

LEXw 25 h 71.6 76.8 71.1 73.7 79.2 79.5 81.8

LEXw 30 h 72.4 77.6 71.9 74.4 80.0 80.3 82.6

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009 7

given in Figs. 7 and 8; thus there is a potential that thevalues in Figs. 7 and 8 underestimate the exposure.

Simulated tests confirmed that in a gymnasium withhigh reverberation time, if other two factors occursimultaneously such as the presence of more than one

class, rebounds of balls, intensive use of the whistleand time exposure �25 hours per week, the probabilitythat the lower Threshold Limit Value is exceeded isquite high.

Table 5—Simulation tests with more than 30 students in the gymnasium.

Simulationnumber 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Reverberationtime, RT > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s > 5 s

Numbers ofstudents, N > 30 > 30 > 30 > 30 > 30 > 30 > 30

Lesson time,T 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h 2 h

Activity 1:speech/yell, S NO NO NO

Activity 2:gymnastic, G NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

Activity 3:teacher handclapping, HC

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Activity 4: useof whistles, W NO NO NO NO NO

Activity 5:games withrebounds ofballs, R

NO NO NO NO NO

LA,eq 78,6 81.3 81.3 86,0 85,6 83.5 85,1

LEXw 25 h 76.6 79.3 79.3 84.0 83.6 81.5 83.0

LEXw 30 h 77.4 80.1 80.1 84.8 84.4 82.3 83.8

70,0

71,0

72,0

73,0

74,0

75,0

76,0

77,0

78,0

79,0

80,0

81,0

82,0

83,0

84,0

85,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Simulation tes t number

LEX,wdB(A)

LEX,w (25 hours per week)

LEX,w (30 hours per week)

LTLV

Fig. 7—LEX,w and lower Threshold Limit Value for each simulated test with �30 students

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

8 Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009

4 QUESTONNARIE SURVEY ANDGUIDELINES

School managements are identified as “employer”according to the European Directive 2003/10/CE23.They should provide adequate training to reduce noiseexposure and should determine appropriate workschedules with adequate rest periods. They should also

identify the reasons why overexposures has occurredwith the consultation and participation of workers.

The school management were only slightly aware ofthe PE teachers’ noise risk. For this reason an electronicquestionnaire (Fig. 9) was prepared to be sent to allschool managements. Questions are prepared to receiveinformation on architectural features of the school

75,0

76,0

77,0

78,0

79,0

80,0

81,0

82,0

83,0

84,0

85,0

8 9 10 11 12 13 14Simulation tes t number

LEX,wdB(A)

LEX,w (25 hours per week)

LEX,w (30 hours per week)

LTLV

Fig. 8—LEX,w and lower Threshold Limit Value for each simulated test with �30 students.

School:

lenght large heightDimensions of the gymnasium (in meters)

Main Materials plaster/concrete wood gypson board windowperforated metalsheet with wool

on backAcoustic tiles

internal surface of walls is mainly made of (insert X):internal face of ceiling is mainly made of (insert X):

Time schedule

Number of students that occupy gymnasium during PE lessons <10 <20 <30 >30

Percentage of time respect to the week time

Activity in gymnasium Volley Basketball Gymnastic Dancing OtherPercentage of time of this activity respect to the week time

PE teachersNumber of hours per week of activity in gymnasium 10 h 15 h 20 h 25 h 30 h

Do PE teachers use blowing whistles? Yes Noinsert X

How many times in one hour

Fig. 9—Electronic survey sent to school management.

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009 9

gymnasium or swimming pools, on activitiesperformed and on PE teachers’ time exposure. To eachanswer a score is automatically attributed whichincreases with the degree of negative influence on theexpected LEX,w.

According to the answers and final score, thequestionnaire ends with warnings and guidelines (e.g.reduce number of pupils, forbid blowing whistles, etc.).The questionnaire is a valid support for school manage-ments in planning activities and for the early stageassessment.

This electronic questionnaire was sent to 200 schoolmanagements receiving a 70% feedback. Answerssuggest that 20–25% of the PE teachers can suffer aweekly noise exposure level higher than 80 dB�A�.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The noise exposure of PE teachers in school gymna-sia and swimming pools is a problem that has beengenerally underestimated. A percentage of 20–25% PEteachers could achieve a weekly noise exposure higherthan 80 dB�A�. The survey, followed by simulatedtests, identified the specific influence on the globalnoise exposure of the different activities performed inthe gymnasia and swimming pools, of the school timeschedule management and of the architectural acous-tics characteristics.

An electronic questionnaire, with connected guide-lines, is presented. It can be used by school manage-ments for early stage noise exposure assessment andfor mitigation action plan.

6 REFERENCES

1. B. Shield and J. E. Dockrell, “External and internal noise sur-veys of London primary schools”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 115(2),730–738, (2004).

2. L. Maffei, R. Dragonetti, P. Lembo and R. Romano, “Assess-ment of large-scale action plans to reduce external backgroundnoise in school buildings”, Build. Acoust., 11(4), 259–269,(2004).

3. R. D. Hellweg, E. K. Dunens and T. Baird, “Classroom acous-tics: personal computer, printer and portable equipment”, Proc.First European Forum on Efficient Solutions for Managing Oc-cupational Noise Risks, 755–762, (2007).

4. Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organization,(1999).

5. ANSI S12.60:2002 “American National Standard AcousticalPerformance Criteria, Design requirements, and Guidelines forSchools”, Acoustical Society of America, Melville, New York11747.

6. Acoustic Design of Schools, Department of Education and

Skills, Building Bulletin 93, London, (2003).7. Z. Karabiber and M. Vallet, “Classroom acoustics policies—An

overview”, Proc. 5th European Conference on Noise ControlEuronoise 2003, paper 048, (2003).

8. H. Sato and J. Bradley, “Evaluation of acoustical conditions forspeech communication in working elementary school class-rooms”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 123(4), 2064–2077, (2008).

9. G. Tiesler and M. Oberdörster, “Noise—a stressor? Acoustic er-gonomics of schools”, Proc. 19th International Congress onAcoustics, (2007).

10. B. Shield and J. E. Dockrell, “The effects of environmental andclassroom acoustics noise on the academic attainments of pri-mary school children”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 123(1), 133–144,(2008).

11. I. Enmarker and E. Boman, “Noise annoyance responses ofmiddle school pupils and teachers”, J. Environ. Psychol., 24,527–536, (2004).

12. T. Houtgast, “The effect of ambient noise on speech intelligibil-ity in classrooms”, Appl. Acoust., 14, 15–25, (1981).

13. A. Russel, J. Oates and K. M. Greenwood, “Prevalence of voiseproblems in teachers”, J. Voice, 12(4), 467–479, (1998).

14. V. I. Jonsdottir, “Teachers’vocal symptoms related to their opin-ion regarding room acoustics”, Proc. 6th European Conferenceon Noise Control Euronoise 2006, (2006).

15. R. Neitzel, N. Seixas, J. Olson, W. Daniell and B. Goldman,“Nonoccupational noise: exposures associated with routine ac-tivities”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 115(1), 237–245, (2004).

16. A. Behar, E. MacDonald, J. Lee, J. Cui, H. Kunov and W. Wong,“Noise exposure of music teachers”, J. Occup. Environ. Hyg.,1(4), 243–247, (2004).

17. T. Jiang, “Can noise levels at school gymnasia cause hearingloss: a case study of a physical education teacher”, Proc.NOISE-CON 97, 427–432, (1997).

18. P. PJkala and P. Leśna, “Reverberation noise exposure in polishschool gyms”, Proc. 52nd Open Seminar on Acoustics joint withPolish-Scandinavian Structured Conference on Acoustics,(2005).

19. G. Iannace, P. Lembo, L. Maffei and P. Nataletti, “Acousticalconditions and noise exposure inside school gymnasia andswimming pools”, Proc. 6th European Conference on NoiseControl Euronoise 2006, (2006).

20. L. Maffei, G. Iannace, M. Masullo and P. Nataletti, “Trainersand physical education teachers noise exposure in gymansia andswimming pools”, Proc. First European Forum on Efficient So-lutions for Managing Occupational Noise Risks, 763–768,(2007).

21. Acoustics—Measurement of the reverberation time of roomswith reference to other acoustical parameters—InternationalStandard ISO 3382: 1997, International Organization for Stan-dardization, Geneva, Switzerland, (1997).

22. Ergonomics—Assessment of speech communication—International Standard ISO 9921: 2003, International Organiza-tion for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, (2003).

23. Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil on Minimum health and safety requirements regardingthe exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents(noise), Official Journal of the European Union, (2003).

24. Acoustics—Determination of occupational noise exposure andestimation of noise-induced hearing impairment—InternationalStandard ISO 1999: 1990, International Organization for Stan-dardization, Geneva, Switzerland, (1990).

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449

450

451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510

10 Noise Control Eng. J. 57 (6), Nov-Dec 2009