Auditory Hazard Assessment Algorithm for Humans: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:10, 7 January 2020

Revision as of 16:48, 9 January 2020

Line 22:

== Controversy ==

The AHAAH was the subject of controversy in regards to its use as the universal metric for acoustic hazards.<ref name=":8" /> In 2003, a [[NATO]] research study on impulse noise found that the AHAAH produced unsatisfactory results for several exposure conditions, and the concluding report contained conflicting opinions from several experts.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=|first=|date=April 2003|title=Reconsideration of the Effects of Impulse Noise|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.6990&rep=rep1&type=pdf|format=PDF|journal=NATO|volume=|pages=|isbn=92-837-1105-X|id=TR-017|via=}}</ref> A 2010 review by the [[American Institute of Biological Sciences|American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)]] also concluded that while the AHAAH model was a step in the right direction in terms of incorporating factors such as the middle ear muscle contractions in its analysis, it was not yet fully developed and validated. According to the AIBS, there were concerns as to whether the AHAAH model was capable of modeling the acoustic hazard of a complex military environment with continuous noise from various different machinery and weapons being produced simultaneously.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=American Institute of Biological Sciences|first=|date=November 9, 2010|title=Peer Review of Injury Prevention and Reduction Research Task Area Injury Models|url=https://arlinside.arl.army.mil/www/pages/343/AHAAH_AIBS_revew_Public_Release_11Aug14.pdf|journal=Army Research Laboratory|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref> In 2012, a review by the [[National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health|National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)]] argued that the MEM contractions that were used by the AHAAH to justify increasing the recommended maximum noise levels were not present in enough people to be applied as a valid form of analysis. The report also noted that the AHAAH did not adequately take into account the effects of secondary exposure, such as adjacent shooters and range safety personnel.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Murphy|first=William|last2=Khan|first2=Amir|last3=Shaw|first3=Peter|date=December 3, 2009|title=An Analysis of the Blast Overpressure Study Data Comparing Three Exposure Criteria|url=https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/309-05h.pdf|format=PDF|journal=U.S. Department of Health and Human Services|volume=|pages=|id=EPHB 209-05h|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Murphy|first=William|last2=Kardous|first2=Chucri|date=January 10, 2012|title=A Case for Using A-WeightWeighted Equivalent Energy as a Damage Risk Criterion|url=https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/350-11a.pdf|journal=CDC Workplace Safety and Health|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref> As of 2015, the AHAAH model has not been adopted by the NATO community.<ref name=":3" />

== References ==