Ear Protection

Synonyms / Other Terms Used

Ear Protection Required, Wear Ear Protection, Hearing Protection, Hearing Protection Required, Protection Earmuffs, Wear Ear Muffs, Acoustic Earmuffs, Ear Defenders

Category

Safety Symbols, Mandatory Action, Hazard Signs, Warning, Hazard Warnings

Message / Function

For notice in general and to signify that ear protection must be worn

	Source	Description
	IDVS 1974	Frontal view of earmuffs
B)	Collins 82	Frontal view of earmuffs
	Picto'grafic SS	Frontal view of earmuffs
	Erco	Frontal view of earmuffs with thin headband and some details
	Wilson	Frontal view of earmuffs with several details
	mim studio	Frontal view of earmuffs with several details, exclamation mark inbetween
D)	FIP 1980	Human head (contour only) in front view, wearing ear protection
	ISO 7010	Human head (contour only) in front view, wearing ear protection
	CSAO 1984	Human head (contour only) in front view, wearing ear protection
	SSC 1984	Human head (contour only) in front view, wearing ear protection
	Signs of Safety	Human head (contour only) in front view, wearing ear protection
	Picto	Frontal view of human head in outline, wearing ear protection
1)	NBN 1983	Frontal view of human head in outline, wearing ear protection
C)	DS 1981	Frontal view of human head in outline, wearing ear protection
	SSI	Frontal view of human head in outline, earmuffs indicated
	Dreyfuss	Frontal view of human head in outline, earmuffs indicated
	SaSo	Frontal view of human head in outline, earmuffs indicated
	WCB	Frontal view of human head with earmuffs, noise indicated by pattern of arcs
A)	Collins 82	Oblique view of hands near human head wearing earmuffs
	Compliance Signs	Oblique view of human head with earmuffs
	MySafety Labels	Oblique view of human head with earmuffs
2)	Olgyay	Side view of human head with earmuffs
	LSS 1984	Side view of human head with earmuffs
	Seton	Side view of human head with earmuffs
	T & B 1984	Side view of human head with earmuffs
	iStock kolae	Side view of human head in outline, wearing ear protection
	NM	Side view of human head in outline, wearing ear protection
	PS	Profile of human face with ear protection
	USDC	Five parallel arcs, ear
	romzicon	Emblem in front of human ear, partially overlapping
	Hobuff	Emblem in front of human ear, partially overlapping
	TFSP	Human ear with plug
	Collins	Human ear
	Unknown	Frontal view of standing human figure with hands on ear protection
	Focal	Clipped frontal view of human head and hands with fingers in ears, all in outline
	Collins	Clipped frontal view of human head and hands with fingers in ears, all in outline

Note: Some of the examples shown above were mirrored horizontally to contrast differences.

Discussion

The wealth of pictograms available to warn from noise and to signify that ear protection must be worn is remarkable, and most are based on displaying a human head with earmuffs. Further variants often are based on displaying just a frontal view of earmuffs, and in a few pictograms designers also tried to indicate noise somehow.

Even though we found several studies in our database, data from research does not cover all image contents presented above:

In research limited to safety signs mainly among blue collar industrial workers and regarding graphical symbols marked A) to C) (Collins et al., 1982), all variant seemed to be well enough understood among the industrial workers, with about 80 % correct, but none of the pictograms examined did work as well among naive respondents. The most frequent wrong response in the Comprehension Test for this group of participants was Headphone, especially for variant B) with 31.5 %. The wrong answer Tunnel for B) also might indicate that this design was simplified too much. When examined on basis of a multiple choice test for comprehensibility (Collins, 1983), pictogram D) reached 96.2 % and B) 96.1 % correct answers, but two of the distractors (Alarm location and Quiet, broadcast on air) were rather unreasonable. This again could be an example for distorted results arising from insufficient quality of distractors in multiple choice based testing.

Data regarding comprehensibility of safety signs available from Ng (2011) is based on a multiple choice format with only four possible choices. Under such conditions - even if the symbol used is far from perfect - results with correct responses close to 100 % are to be expected when distractors used are not flawless or reasonable enough, as already mentioned above. The pictogram almost identical to the variant marked with 1) and labeled NBN 1983, displaying the frontal view of a human head in outline, with ear protection, reached a score of 94.72 % correct in that study. But also in a Comprehension Test according to ISO 9186 this pictogram proved to be comprehensible: among 53 randomly selected non-colorblind employees of an industrial company in Iran 100 % of the responses regarding this variant could be classified as correct (Zamanian et al., 2013).

Likewise data for the pictogram variant marked with 2) and labeled Olgyay, showing a side view of a human head with earmuffs, reveals excellent comprehensibility with 98 % correct answers (Olgyay, 1996).

Recommendations

Due to the fact that data from research does not cover the whole range of image contents available, we recommend some additional testing using the Comprehensibility Estimation procedure for eliminating poor variants and identifying the best of the set available, followed by a Comprehension Test. These studies should deliver useful data for recommending the best pictogram. Detailed information about the most frequent responses given in each of the response categories of the Comprehension Test should be provided to correctly judge comprehensibility and improve designs. Also information concerning knowledge about safety measures should be collected at the end of the test, as the degree of familiarity with the referent examined may have significant impact on the validity of the data collected.

Until then we can recommend using a pictogram like registered safety sign M003 from ISO 7010, as shown below, to communicate the intended message.

Tests of pictograms of referent Ear Protection

Collins, B.L. (1983): Use of Hazard Pictorials/Symbols in the Mineral Industry. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 83-2732, September 1983.

Collins, B.L., Lerner, N.D. & Pierman, B.C. (1982): Symbols for Industrial Safety. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 82-2485, April 1982.

Ng, A., Lo, H. & Chan, A. (2011): Measuring the Usability of Safety Signs: A Use of System Usability Scale (SUS). Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science. 2.

Olgyay, N. (1996): Safety Symbols Art: The Testing Protocol, Materials & Results. Foci Studio, Washington, DC.

Zamanian, Z., Afshin, A., Davoudiantalab, A.H. & Hashemi, H. (2013): Comprehension of workplace safety signs: A case study in Shiraz industrial park. Journal of Occupational Health and Epidemiology. 2. 37-43.