ACOUSTICS
Data analysis According to NBR 10152:2017, the reference values of sound pressure levels for the evaluation of healthcare environments depend on their purpose of use. In the case of this analysis in an unoccupied ward environment the value of Leq (medium level) would be 40 dB, and LAS (maximum level) would be 45 dB. Table 1 shows the measurements in two
points – P1, bed and P2, window – performed for this work, with the schedules, Leq of five minutes, with wind protection coupling, ‘slow’ mode, and decibel weighting curve (dBA). Measurement 1, from point P1 located at the bed, indicates a Leq of 62.8 dB. In the evaluation period – with the refectory in full operation - noise stemming from conversations, movement of people and manipulation of kitchen artifacts were clearly perceived during the observation. Measurement 2, from point P2 located in the window, indicates the value of Leq at 73 dB and with a maximum of 84.8 dB. However, during the acoustic evaluation, it was noticed the noise coming from an ambulance in manoeuvring operation, which, for safety reasons, adopts an intermittent bell whose intensity can be observed in Figure 5. When comparing the Leq of
measurement 2 (73.0 dB) with that of measurement 3 (63.8 dB), it is perceived that even without the ambulance event the levels remain high as a ‘background noise’ caused by the use of the refectory. For measurement 4, it was noticed the noise caused by the ringing of a cell phone and how this event alters the relative tranquillity soon after the end of the cafeteria activities, suggesting that the background noise (Leq: 58.7 dB), from this moment on, includes those present in the ward itself. Measurement 5 was observed without any extraordinary events. However, the noise level remained high, with a Leq of 59.8 dB.
Conclusion Despite the tipping of the building, the state of conservation and the maintenance of windows and doors, noise is at the limit of reasonable. No construction materials that could attenuate air noise were observed and it was not possible to observe the presence of elements to reduce impact or vibration noise, except for the expansion joints between the various HUGG blocks. The noise coming from the cars is
perceived in the main entrance, e.g. vehicles on Mariz e Barros Street, and in the wards because of the accesses of cars and ambulances in manoeuvre. According to the calculation of the evaluation forms, we can see that the ward, as well as other environments commonly used by HUGG do not meet the acoustic comfort requirements of a hospital, both by
58
Noise caused by the ambulance bell
Time (seconds) Figure 5. Positioning of the sonometer (P1 and P2).
maintaining and adding architectural elements that were not part of the original project. The noise measurements in the ward
provided the researchers with quantifying, even by the simplified method, the noise levels and their relationship with the sources of acoustic discomfort such as conversations in the cafeteria at lunchtime, and the movement of vehicles in the manoeuvring yard and access routes of ambulances. This study did not address qualitative aspects of acoustics, such as the distribution of frequencies and reverberation time in the ward object of this study and external noise sources, due to the limitations of access and the impossibility of closing the windows in respect of the condition of long-stay users hospitalised, since the other beds were occupied. The methodological procedures
indicate results that are higher than those recommended by the ABNT NBR 10152:2017 standard: Acoustics – Sound pressure levels in internal environments to buildings, both in the eventual aspect, when the noise caused by the ambulance when parking occurred, as well as in the averages, because of human activity in the cafeteria of the annex building. It must be recognised, however, that
such strategies are partially effective, and the real cause of the problem is the annex building that did not respect the concepts of sustainability and heritage in the buildings introducing new architectural elements that, since its conception, promote discomfort to users, corroborated by the requirement of demolition of the annex of the cafeteria, by the Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico Brasileiro (IPHAN).
Bibliography l Associação Brasileira De Normas Técnicas, AABNT NBR 10152:2017: Acústica – Níveis de pressão sonora em ambientes internos a edificações. Rio de Janeiro, 2017.
l Bitencourt F. Conforto Acústico em Ambientes de Saúde: Música, Paisagismo e Materiais de Revestimento como Soluções Humanizadoras, Revista IPH 2014; 10: 27–60.
l Brasil Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Conforto Ambiental em estabelecimentos de Saúde. Brasília, Ministério da Saúde, 2014, [
https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br].
l Cabrera IN, Lee MHM. Reducing noise pollution in the hospital setting by establishing a department of sound: a survey of recent research on the effects of noise and music in health care. Prev Med 2000; 30 (4): 339–45. doi:10.1006/pmed.2000.0638 [
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 10731463].
l Carvalho B deA. Acústica aplicada à arquitetura. São Paulo: Editora Freitas Bastos, 1967.
l Hamilton DK, Watkins DH. Evidence-based design for multiple building types. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
l HUGG, Hospital site, 2006, [
http://www.funrio.org.br/hugg]..
l Muniz LMN, Stroppa MA. Desconfortos dos pacientes internados na UTI quanto a poluição sonora. RAHIS, Revista de Administração Hospitalar e inovação em Saúde, Belo Horizonte, 2009.
l Pimentel-Souza FA. Poluição sonora ataca traiçoeiramente o corpo, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas – UFMG. Belo Horizonte. 1992, [
http://labs.icb.ufmg.br/lpf/2-14.html].
l Pimentel-Souza F, Carvalho JC, Siqueira AL. Noise and the quality of sleep in two hospitals in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res 1996; 29 (4): 515-20. Sociedade Brasileira de Biofísica, 1996. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil [
http://labs.icb.ufmg.br/lpf/2-18.html].
IFHE
l Rheingantz PA et al. Observando a qualidade do lugar: procedimentos para a avaliação pós-ocupação. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ. FAU. PROARQ, 2009.
l Ulrich R. Effects of healthcare acoustics on medical outcomes. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123: 3094. 10.1121/1.2932937.2008, [
http://www.capch.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/10/Roger-Ulrich-WCDH2000.pdf].
IFHE DIGEST 2022
NPS dB(A)
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
