1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Interlaboratory Comparison of American National Standards Institute S12.6-1997 Methods A and B
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.3095803
/content/asa/journal/jasa/125/5/10.1121/1.3095803
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/125/5/10.1121/1.3095803

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

The -weighted attenuation estimated from the REAT for each method, protector, and laboratory. In each set of paired results, Method A attenuations are displayed on the left and Method B on the right. Each box plot gives the median, 25th and 75th percentiles; the error bars indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles; individual point represent the attenuations observed on individual trials for subjects outside the 10th and 90th percentiles.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The within-subject, between-subject, and between-laboratory standard deviations for the -weighted attenuations of each protector using Methods A and B.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The power estimates for the number of subjects necessary to achieve a resolution for the -weighted attenuations of each protector Methods A and B.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Subject recruitment and retention by laboratory. Participating laboratories were AFRL, , HLI, LARI, NIOSH, and USAARL

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Mean hearing threshold levels and standard deviations (dB HL) for right and left ears.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Means and standard deviations of ear canal size (diameters), bitragion width, and head height.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Means and standard deviations of headband clamping force measured in Newtons. ( is the number of hearing protectors.)

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Method-A mean attenuations and standard deviations in dB at each test frequency, by laboratory and protector.

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

Method-B mean attenuations and standard deviations in dB at each test frequency, by laboratory and protector.

Generic image for table
TABLE VII.

-weighted attenuations in dB for Methods A and B, attenuation differences , standard error, student’s test, probability associated with , and lower and upper 95% confidence interval boundaries, across all laboratories and by individual laboratory for each protector.

Generic image for table
TABLE VIII.

Within-subject standard deviations in dB for Methods A and B for each protector.

Generic image for table
TABLE IX.

Between-subject standard deviations in dB for Methods A and B for each protector.

Generic image for table
TABLE X.

Between-laboratory standard deviations in dB for Methods A and B for each protector.

Generic image for table
TABLE XI.

Calculated numbers of subjects necessary to achieve resolution in the -weighted attenuation from between-subject and between-laboratory variances, for Methods A and B. (Results are shown with one decimal place for illustrative purposes.)

Generic image for table
TABLE XII.

Comparison of advantages and disadvantages between Methods A and B.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/125/5/10.1121/1.3095803
2009-05-01
2014-04-18
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Interlaboratory Comparison of American National Standards Institute S12.6-1997 Methods A and B
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/125/5/10.1121/1.3095803
10.1121/1.3095803
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM