Evaluating the impact of occupational noise exposure on workplace fatal and nonfatal injuries in the U.S. (2006–2020)

Objectives

This study assessed the relationship between occupational noise exposure and the incidence of workplace fatal injury (FI) and nonfatal injury (NFI) in the United States from 2006 to 2020. It also examined whether distinct occupational and industrial clusters based on noise exposure characteristics demonstrated varying risks for FI and NFI.

Methods

An ecological study design was utilized, employing data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for FI and NFI and demographic data, the U.S. Census Bureau for occupation/industry classification code lists, and the U.S./Canada Occupational Noise Job Exposure Matrix for noise measurements. We examined four noise metrics as predictors of FI and NFI rates: mean Time-Weighted Average (TWA), maximum TWA, standard deviation of TWA, and percentage of work shifts exceeding 85 or 90 dBA for 619 occupation-years and 591 industry-years. K-means clustering was used to identify clusters of noise exposure characteristics. Mixed-effects negative binomial regression examined the relationship between the noise characteristics and FI/NFI rates separately for occupation and industry.

Results

Among occupations, we found significant associations between increased FI rates and higher mean TWA (IRR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01–1.12) and maximum TWA (IRR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07–1.14), as well as TWA exceedance (IRR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.07). Increased rates of NFI were found to be significantly associated with maximum TWA (IRR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04–1.09) and TWA exceedance (IRR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01–1.05). In addition, occupations with both higher exposure variability (IRR with FI rate: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.23–1.80; IRR with NFI rate: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.14–1.73) and higher level of sustained exposure (IRR with FI rate: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12–1.44; IRR with NFI rate: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.05–1.39) were associated with higher rates of FI and NFI compared to occupations with low noise exposure. Among industries, significant associations between increased NFI rates and higher mean TWA (IRR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02–1.08) and maximum TWA (IRR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04–1.08) were observed. Unlike the occupation-specific analysis, industries with higher exposure variability and higher sustained exposures did not display significantly higher FI/NFI rates compared to industries with low exposure.

Conclusions

The results suggest that occupational noise exposure may be an independent risk factor for workplace FIs/NFIs, particularly for workplaces with highly variable noise exposures. The study highlights the importance of comprehensive occupational noise assessments.