Home Email this page Print this page Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size
Noise & Health  
 Next article
 Previous article
Table of Contents

Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Citation Manager
Access Statistics
Reader Comments
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2018  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 94  |  Page : 112--119

The study of attenuation levels and the comfort of earplugs

1 Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
2 Hospital Universitario (HU), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
3 Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo (UNIFESP), Sao Paulo; Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo (PUC-SP), Sao Paulo, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Alessandra G Samelli
Rua Cipotânea, 51, Cidade Universitária, 05360-160 São Paulo, SP
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/nah.NAH_50_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: This study aimed to analyze and compare four different types of earplugs, divided into premolded plugs and foam plug models, in relation to the level of attenuation, comfort, and the size of the external acoustic meatus (EAM) in an attempt to identify how these variables influence the choice of specific hearing protection devices (HPDs). Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was performed in a sample of 49 participants, oriented toward the ideal placement of four HPDs, two premolded and two foam plugs (3M™). The procedures included otoscopy, EAM diameter measurement using an otometer, EAM volume measurement via an acoustic impedance test, and the obtainment of the bilateral personal attenuation rating (PAR) for each HPD using the E-A-Rfit™ Validation System (3M™). The Bipolar Comfort Rating Scale (BCRS) instrument was applied twice for each individual: once after the evaluations with the premolded HPDs and again after the evaluations with the foam plug HPDs. Then, each participant was asked which was his/her favorite protector. Results: The volume of the EAM was not directly related to the diameter of the EAM. The attenuation did not interfere with the HPD preference, and the PAR of the foam plug was significantly higher regardless of the preferred HPD. Regarding the BCRS, the variables “Placement,” “Complexity,” and “Occlusion Effect” had higher scores for premolded HPDs and had a direct relationship with the type of preferred HPD. Conclusion: Attention to the use of HPDs should be personalized, taking into account the needs of each individual, considering not only the attenuation, but also the user’s reported well-being.


Print this article     Email this article