论文部分内容阅读
目的：探索能否用等效连续Ａ声级（ＬＡｅｑ）来评价不同类型的噪声。方法：以豚鼠为对象，用ＬＡｅｑ相同的脉冲噪声、稳态噪声或以上两者的复合噪声连续暴露５ｄ，每天７ｈ，观察分析听力损失和恢复过程以及耳蜗毛细胞损伤程度的差别。结果：各组动物听力损失的程度不相等，即脉冲噪声比复合噪声所致的损伤稍重，复合噪声又比稳态噪声造成的损伤稍重。毛细胞缺失情况各组差别不大，但也有脉冲噪声比复合噪声重，复合噪声比稳态噪声重的趋势。表明能量相同但性质不同的声暴露，引起的听觉损伤程度不一定相等。结论：用ＬＡｅｑ来评价声学参数不同的噪声时应持慎重态度。
Objective: To explore whether equivalent types of continuous noise level (LAeq) can be used to evaluate different types of noise. Methods: The guinea pigs were exposed to the same pulse noise, steady-state noise or a combination of the above two noise for 5 days and 7 hours a day, respectively. The differences of hearing loss, recovery and cochlear hair cell injury were observed and analyzed. Results: The levels of hearing loss in each group of animals were not equal, impulsive noise was slightly heavier than composite noise, and composite noise was slightly heavier than steady-state noise. Hair loss was not significantly different among groups, but there was also a tendency that impulse noise was heavier than compound noise and composite noise was heavier than steady-state noise. It is shown that acoustic exposures of the same energy but of different nature may not equal the degree of hearing impairment. Conclusion: LAeq should be used with caution when evaluating different acoustic parameters.