Personal Noise Exposure Assessment and Noise Level Prediction Through Worst-Case Scenarios for Korean Firefighters

Firefighters experience high noise levels from various sources, such as sirens, alarms, pumps, and emergency vehicles. Unlike industrial workers who experience continuous noise exposure, firefighters are subject to intermittent high-intensity noise, increasing their risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Despite global concerns regarding firefighters’ auditory health, research on Korean firefighters remains limited. This study aimed to assess personal noise exposure among Korean firefighters across three primary job roles—fire suppression, rescue, and emergency medical services (EMS)—and to predict worst-case noise exposure scenarios. This study included 115 firefighters from three fire stations (one urban, two suburban). We measured personal noise exposure using dosimeters attached near the ear following the Korean Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) criteria. Measurements included threshold levels of 80 dBA, exchange rates of 5 dB (MOEL) and 3 dB (ISO), and a peak noise criterion of 140 dBC. We categorized firefighters’ activities into routine tasks (shift handovers, equipment checks, training) and emergency responses (fire suppression, rescues, EMS calls). We performed statistical analyses to compare noise levels across job roles, vehicle types, and specific tasks. The worst-case exposure scenarios were estimated using 10th percentile recorded noise levels. The average 8 h time-weighted noise exposure levels varied significantly by job role. Rescue personnel exhibited the highest mean noise exposure (MOEL: 71.4 dBA, ISO: 81.2 dBA; p < 0.05), whereas fire suppression (MOEL: 66.5 dBA, ISO: 74.2 dBA) and EMS personnel (MOEL: 68.6 dBA, ISO: 73.0 dBA) showed no significant difference. Peak noise levels exceeding 140 dBC were most frequently observed in rescue operations (33.3%), followed by fire suppression (30.2%) and EMS (27.2%). Among vehicles, noise exposure was the highest for rescue truck occupants. Additionally, EMS personnel inside ambulances had significantly higher noise levels than drivers (p < 0.05). Certain tasks, including shift handovers, equipment checks, and firefighter training, recorded noise levels exceeding 100 dBA. Worst-case scenario predictions indicated that some work conditions could lead to 8 h average exposures surpassing MOEL (91.4 dBA) and ISO (98.7 dBA) limits. In this study, Korean firefighters exhibited relatively low average noise levels. However, when analyzing specific tasks, exposure was sufficiently high enough to cause hearing loss. Despite NIHL risks, firefighters rarely used hearing protection, particularly during routine tasks. This emphasizes the urgent need for hearing conservation programs, including mandatory hearing protection during high-noise activities, noise exposure education, and the adoption of communication-friendly protective devices. Future research should explore long-term auditory health outcomes and assess the effectiveness of noise control measures.