Citation

Price GR, Kim HN, Lim DJ, Dunn D. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1989; 85(3): 1245-1254.

Affiliation

U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1989, American Institute of Physics)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

2708667

Abstract

Current methods of rating the hazard of weapons impulses for the ear have recently been challenged by electrophysiological data from experiments with animal ears which indicate that the hazard from low-frequency impulses is much lower than the hazard from higher frequency impulses (Dancer et al., 1981; Price, 1986b). To supplement these data, histological data are reported here for 51 cats that were exposed on one occasion to either rifle or howitzer impulses at peak pressures from 145 to 155 dB or 153 to 166 dB, respectively. Histological procedures (scanning electron and light microscopy) were carried out over 2 months after the exposure and after electrophysiological measures had been made. For both types of impulse the losses tended to be in the middle of the cochlea in focused lesions, even though the spectral peaks of the acoustic stimuli had been at about 80 Hz (howitzer) and 1000 Hz (rifle). Outer hair cells were more susceptible than the inner hair cells and interindividual differences in effects were large. Furthermore, the two impulse sources were equally hazardous when the peak pressure of the rifle impulse was lower than the peak pressure of the howitzer impulse by about 9 dB. In terms of A-weighted energy, the exposures were equally hazardous when the rifle exposure contained about 35 times less energy than the howitzer exposure. The histological data are thus consistent with the electrophysiological data, which indicate that present standards for impulse noise exposure may overrate the hazard of low-frequency impulses relative to impulses in the midrange.

Language: en