Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-6
Assessment of noise exposure from power looms used in a laboratory for student demonstration and practical at a textile engineering college in Maharashtra,India
Objective: Study is conducted at Textile Engineering College in textile engineering department laboratory, Ichalkaranji Maharashtra, India, to assess the noise exposure levels among the students and laboratory technicians. The objective of the study is to evaluate noise levels produced by power loom machine, whether these noise levels obey with standard occupational noise level limits. The noise monitoring in laboratory enhances the safety awareness among students, lab technicians and faculty. Background: Power looms are used in clothing production. Due to their working processes and various mechanisms, they generate vibration and noise. One of the critical threats associated with textile industries is the emission of noise from power loom operations. Noise is a crucial parameter in the textile industry and colleges, Methods: The measurement of noise levels was conducted at vicinity locations of the power loom. The assessment of noise levels is utilized a ¼″ Electret-measurement microphone and FFT analyzer. Results: Noise levels were measured at the vicinity of the power loom, and calculations were performed to determine the personal daily dose exposure, permissible noise exposure time and the percentage of dose. Additionally, the location with the highest contribution of noise was identified. Conclusion: A daily personal noise dose of 90.5 dB was recorded, and the permissible noise exposure time is 5.3 hours for 92.85 dB, 4.6 hours for 93.88 dB and ∞ for 82.41. The percentage of dose is 79.16%. The areas with the maximum contribution of noise were identified as the front and left locations of the power loom but not harmful for students and technicians during laboratory hours.
ZawAKMyatAMThandarM, et al.Assessment of noise exposure and hearing loss among workers in textile mill (thamine), Myanmar: a cross-sectional study. Saf Health Work2020; 11(2): 199–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.04.002.
2.
ChoosongTKaimookWTantisarasartR, et al.Noise exposure assessment in a dental school. Saf Health Work2011; 2(4): 348–354. DOI: 10.5491/SHAW.2011.2.4.348.
3.
XieHKangJ. Environmental noise impact on school students’ academic achievements. Noise Vib Worldw2012; 43(6): 2–7. DOI: 10.1260/0957-4565.43.6.2.
4.
WinKNBalallaNBPLwinMZ, et al.Noise-induced hearing loss in the police force. Saf Health Work2015; 6(2): 134–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2015.01.002.
5.
ThepaksornPSiriwongWNeitzelRL, et al.Relationship between noise-related risk perception, knowledge, and the use of hearing protection devices among para rubber wood sawmill workers. Saf Health Work2018; 9(1): 25–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2017.06.002.
6.
LaiAJHuangCY. Effect of occupational exposure to noise on the health of factory workers. Procedia Manuf2019; 39(2019): 942–946. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.395.
7.
BurellaGMoroL. A comparative study of the methods to assess occupational noise exposures of fish harvesters. Saf Health Work2021; 12(2): 230–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.10.005.
8.
WeierMH. The association between occupational exposure to hand–arm vibration and hearing loss: a systematic literature review. Saf Health Work2020; 11(3): 249–261. DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.04.003.
9.
Bagheri HosseinabadiMKhanjaniNMünzelT, et al.Chronic occupational noise exposure: effects on DNA damage, blood pressure, and serum biochemistry. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen2019; 841: 17–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2019.04.006.
10.
BolajiBOOlanipekunMUAdekunleAA, et al.An analysis of noise and its environmental burden on the example of Nigerian manufacturing companies. J Clean Prod2018; 172: 1800–1806. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.007.
11.
SandrockSGriefahnBKaczmarekT, et al.Experimental studies on annoyance caused by noises from trams and buses. J Sound Vib2008; 313(3–5): 908–919. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2007.12.003.
12.
LiuYGoudreauSOiamoT, et al.Comparison of land use regression and random forests models on estimating noise levels in five Canadian cities. Environ Pollut2020; 256: 113367. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113367.
13.
SinayJBalážikováMDulebováM, et al.Measurement of low-frequency noise during CNC machining and its assessment. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed2018; 119: 190–195. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2018.02.004.
14.
CaoHKangTChenX. Noise analysis and sources identification in machine tool spindles. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol2019; 25: 26–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2019.04.001.
15.
KaliakatsosDMirabelliGPizzutiT. Noise risk assessment in the workplace: the case of a waste selection plant. Noise Vib Worldw2015; 46(5): 8–17. DOI: 10.1260/0957-4565.46.5.8.
16.
RylanderR. Physiological aspects of noise-induced stress and annoyance. J Sound Vib2004; 277(3): 471–478. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2004.03.008.
17.
NohHM. Noise-source identification of a high-speed train by noise source level analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng - Part F J Rail Rapid Transit2017; 231(6): 717–728. DOI: 10.1177/0954409716640310.
18.
TripathyDPRaoDS. Noise measurement in a mechanized opencast bauxite mine: a case study. Noise Vib Worldw2015; 46(11): 9–19. DOI: 10.1260/0957-4565.46.11.9.
19.
EnginICOzkanECetinS. Determination of risky areas at the marble workshops in terms of noise. Acoust Aust2019; 47(1): 79–90. DOI: 10.1007/s40857-018-0146-7.
