Noise Quality Variation_02_Vanadeep

Vanadeep & Krishnaiah
Indian J. Environ. & Ecoplan. 18 ( 2 - 3 ) : 192 - 209 ( 2011 ) ISSN:0972-1215
VARIATION OF AMBIENT NOISE QUALITY AT
RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH DIFFERENT LIVING
ENVIRONS IN AND AROUND TIRUPATI
K. Vanadeep and M. Krishnaiah
Department of Physics, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati,Andhra Pradesh - 517502, India.
ABSTRACT
Keywords : Noise Quality, Residential Areas, Monthly Variation, Quarterly variation, Living
Environs, Anthropogenic activities, Tirupati
INTRODUCTION
The word ‘noise’ has its origin in the Latin term ‘nauseas’, meaning ‘sea
sickness’. It can be defined as an unwanted sound, a potential hazard to health and as
a communication dumped into the environment with regard to the adverse effect it may
have on unwilling ears. The sound that pleases the listeners is music and that which
causes pain and annoyance is noise. During some instances, what is perceived as music
for some can be noise for others. Section 2(a) of the Prevention and Control of
Pollution Act, 1981 includes noise in the definition of ‘air pollutant’. Decibel Levels of
common sounds is shown in Table 1.
The present study concentrates on the ambient noise quality of residential areas situated
in different environments in and around Tirupati from January 2009 to December 2010. The
monthly variation of Leq (The equivalent continuous noise level which has the same
energy as the original fluctuating noise for the same given period of time , relatable to
the human hearing) values were estimated at six sites. In some areas, there were
instances where the monthly mean maximum values crossed the threshold noise limit
prescribed for residential areas (55 dB). The Leq values in most of the sites seldom violated
the recommended norms. Overall, there was a maximum violation of about 10% from the
prescribed environmental noise standards. Noise levels were comparatively high during
festive seasons like Sankranti (January), Dusserah (September/October) and Diwali
(October/November). No significant correlation of noise levels with seasonal pattern in
terms of dependence on meteorological parameters was observed. Ambient noise was
chiefly influenced by anthropogenic activities prevalent during that particular period of the
year. Hence quarterly (tri-monthly) variation was also considered to estimate the average
noise levels during different times (seasons) of the year . Peak values were observed
during the second quarter of the year (April-June), which is also the clear-weather period
primarily corresponding to summer, owing to increased magnitude of travel and
transportation, industrial operations, power-generation and other large scale as well as
domestic activities, specific to the given area.
192

Indian J. Environ & Ecoplan.
Most of the research on noise quality has been concentrated on the impact of
noise on the auditory system (Prasher, 2003). In any given urban area, noise pollution is
now being recognized as a major problem for the quality of life (Piccolo et al, 2005).
Several noise surveys have been conducted in many cities across the globe (Peter et al,
2008; Katrin Rehdanz et al, 2008; Tang et al, 2007;
Padma Rao et al, 2004). Effects of noise include
impact on physical and mental health that may
affect sleep, conversation, perception of annoyance,
hearing impairment, instigation of cardiovascular
problems as well as detrimental influence on
human judgment and performance (Ouis, 2001;
Langdon, 1976).
Acoustic environments are evaluated by
our own human hearing, the sound perception
mechanisms of which can be described in terms
of psycho-acoustic parameters, such as loudness,
sharpness, roughness and fluctuation strength (-Ing.
Klaus Genuit, 2002). Many other studies also
established that noise pollution is also a form of
air pollution that is an audible unwanted sound
that poses a threat to a person’s health and well-
being (Goines and Hagler, 2007; Regecova and
Kellerova, 1995). The impacts of noise pollution
on surgeons, personnel and patients in the
operation theatre of a hospital were observed in
1992 (Ray and Levinson, 1992). Moreover, it has been detected that excessive noise
levels damage the hair cells in the inner ear, which are responsible for converting sound
energy to electrical signals transmitted to the brain and this damage is irreversible once
it occurs (NIDCD,2007). Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) occurs in millions of
people and the cost is estimated to be of the order of billions of dollars (Rabinowitz,
2000). The sections of population that are most vulnerable are workers involved in
manufacturing, construction, transportation, agriculture, military, factory and mining because
of their exposure to hazardous noise levels (NIOSH, 1996; Mc Bride, 2004). Recreational
activities such as target shooting, snow mobile or speed boat riding, wood working,
playing in a band, listening to loud music or frequently attending rock concerts are
examples of activities that increase the risk of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL)
(Lusk, 2002). Besides, it was revealed that about 15% of US children between the ages
6-19 years have low and high frequency hearing loss (Niskar, 1998). Besides,
communication may be affected leading to misinterpretation of instructions, further
reducing an employee’s efficiency and accuracy (http://www.geogise.com/environmental-
issues/noise-pollution.php/). In addition, Evans and Johnson (1998) found that maintaining
optimum task performance in noise-infested offices and workplaces commanded ensuing
additional physiological effort and necessitated greater hormonal response as well.
However, the studies involving the relationship of mental illness and noise
pollution remain inconclusive owing to many compounding factors affecting the results
(Berglund and Lindvall, 1995). Road traffic noise has been weakly associated with
mental health symptoms after adjusting for age, sex, income and duration of dwelling
(Halpern, 1995). The populations living in noisy urban areas are at risk for increased
Table 1: Decibel Levels of Common
Sounds
dB (A) Environmental Condition
0 Threshold of hearing
10 Rustle of leaves
20 Broadcasting studio
30 Bedroom at night
40 Library
50 Quiet office
60 Conversational speech (at 1m)
70 Average radio
74 Light traffic noise
90 Subway train
100 Symphony orchestra
110 Rock band
120 Aircraft takeoff
146 Threshold of pain
193

neuroticism, subjective noise sensitivity and noise annoyance, including difficulty in
falling asleep, frequent awakenings throughout the night, difficulties falling back to sleep,
increased fatigue, poorer sleep quality and the need for increased use of sleeping agents
(Jakovljevic et al, 2006). Synergistic effects of exposure to noise and vibration have
been demonstrated on diastolic blood pressure. Sangeeta Singhal et al (2009) have
studied the effects of work place noise on blood pressure and heart rate. It was
discovered that temperature, accompanied by noise, affects morning adrenaline secretion
(Manninen, 1987). Overall, it was found that there was a small non-linear association of
noise with increased anxiety scores (Stansfeld et al, 1996).
Hence, mankind has to accomplish this Herculean manoeuver of restraining this
threat of sound pollution that is plaguing the planet and tormenting the human race by
jeopardising their serene living. Recently. noise and air quality monitoring was carried
out at the famous pilgrim centre, Shirdi in Maharashtra (Kankal and Gaikwad, 2011). In
the contemporary scenario, environmental pollution and its consequent influence over the
life quality of human beings may be considered a hot topic in scientific research
(Olivier Doutres et al, 2010). Of late, especially in Asian countries like Malaysia, noise
pollution is one of the fast-becoming major public health issues. (Ismail et al, 2009).
Residential areas can be considered to be very sensitive and highly vulnerable
in terms of exposure to noise pollution because there would be people suffering from
chronic illnesses, infant and small children, old people, pregnant and lactating women, in
whose case, both the mother and the child are inevitably prone to the dreadful effects
of noise pollution. Thus, unruffled, pollution-free and hygienic living surroundings are the
primary requirement for the progress of people and the nation as there is a direct
relation between human health and economic productivity. Hence, the principle objective
of this study is to shed some light on the noise levels to which people in the
residential areas with different types of surroundings are exposed to. Table 2 shows the
Ambient Air Quality Standards in different categories of areas with respect to Noise.
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards with respect to Noise
Area code Category of Area / Zone
Limits in Leq dB(A)
Day Time* Night Time**
(A) Industrial area 75 70
(B) Commercial area 65 55
(C) Residential area 55 45
(D) Silence/Sensitive Zone 50 40
*Day time shall mean 06:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
**Night time shall mean 10:00 P.M. to 06:00 A.M.
(The Principal Rules were published in the Gazette of India, vide S.O. 123(E), dated 14.2.2000 and
subsequently amended by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules, 2000 vide S.O.
1046(E), dated 22.11.2000 and by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 vide
S.O. 1088(E), dated 11.10.2002, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986)
1944

195
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SAMPLING SITES
Sampling points were selected for the estimation of noise pollution based
on the specific activity of the area in different parts located in and around Tirupati,
such as- Railway Colony, Ram Nagar Quarters, Gandhipuram, Indiramma colony
Rajuvaripally and Pedda Kapu (P.K.) Layout as shown in Fig.1.
.
Fig.1: Map of Tirupati showing the sampling sites- A. Railway Colony, B. Ram Nagar Quarters, C.
Gandhipuram, D. Indiramma Colony, E. Rajuvaripally and F. PK Layout
In the present study, noise level monitoring has been carried out every month
for a period of two years (January 2009-December 2010) to obtain a comprehensive
picture of the monthly as well as the quarterly (tri-monthly) variation of ambient noise
quality at the selected sites.
Ambient noise quality monitoring in the six different residential areas was
executed using the Lutron digital sound level meter, model: SL-4001. It is a small and
light-weight variant and has dimensions of 205 x 80 x 35 mm ( 8.1 x 3.2 x 1.4 inch) with
a total range of 30 dB to 130 dB . The measurement can be carried out in three
different sub-ranges of 30 dB to 80 dB, 50 dB to 100 dB and 80 dB to 130 dB, with 50
dB interval on each step. The resolution of the instrument is 0.1 dB. Fast time weighting
of t = 200 milli seconds (ms) is chosen to simulate the human ear response time
weighting, whereas slow-time weighting of t = 500 ms is used to obtain the average
values of vibrational sound level, which is not applicable here. Hence, the ‘A’ standard
frequency weighting network must be employed because it’s character has been
simulated as ‘human ear listing’ response. For this particular reason, ‘A’ weighing must
be used for all environmental sound level measurements. ‘C’ standard weighting is
widely used when the characteristic is near the ‘FLAT’ response in case of checking
the noise levels emitted from machinery for quality control (QC) check and for
determining the sound pressure level of the tested equipment, which does not suit the
present context of the study.
The frequency range that can be covered with this sound meter is 31.5 Hz –
8,000 Hz. The frequency weighting on this device meets the International Electro

Technical Commission (IEC) 651, type 2 specifications. The input signal is calibrated on
94 dB ( in the frequency range 31.5 Hz to 8 kHz). The accuracy of ‘A’ weighting at
temperature(s) 23±50
C is specified in table 3 as follows:
A ½-inch standard size electret
condenser microphone is used to transduce the
acoustic signals into electric signals. The Bruel
and Kjaer multi-function acoustic calibrator,
model 4226 is used as it enables simulated
free-field calibration of microphones, sound
level meters and other related instruments.
Type 4226 generates accurate and stable sound
pressure with a frequency varying from 31.5
Hz to 16 kHz in octave steps, plus a signal at
12.5 kHz. Using the coupler provided, the test
signal can be applied to either ½-inch or ¼-
inch microphones, or picked up from an electrical output. For ease of use, type 4226 can
also apply a very accurate inverse A-weighting correction.
The instrument can be calibrated externally using a screw driver, provided
along with the meter. It consists of an internal oscillation system that generates a 1 kHz
sine wave. The operating temperature of this sound meter is 00
C to 500
C (320
F to 1220
F) and this functions effectively with optimum reliability as long as the relative
humidity of the ambient air does not exceed 80%.
For many types of noise, it has been found in practice that a simple
measurement of dB(A) using a sound level meter correlates the best with the more
complicated approach of noise level estimation from a frequency analysis. For this
reason, dB(A) measurements are widely used in reporting noise measurements.
The point to be retained in mind is that the unit ‘decibel’ represents a
relative measurement or ratio relative to a reference, power, pressure, intensity or
whatever the quantity under consideration, but not absolute. The origin of the word ‘Bel’
can be traced back to the 1920s when it was coined in honour of Alexander Graham
Bel to describe attenuation in telephone cables.
One Bel is the ratio R, given by:
log10 R = 1. Hence, R = 101
= 10
For convenience of calculation, a smaller ratio, decibel is commonly used.
One decibel is the ratio ‘r’ given by:
log10 r = 0.1
10 log10 r = 1 dB
r = 100.1
= 1.26
Therefore, the decibel represents the ratio of 2 numbers equal to 1.26.
The intensity of sound is measured in decibel (dB). This scale has been
devised to measure the smallest difference in sound, which is detectable by the human
Table 3: Accuracy of ‘A’ weighting
at temperature 23±50
C
Temperature Frequency dB
23±50
C 31.5 Hz ± 3 dB
63 Hz ± 2 dB
125 Hz ± 1.5 dB
250 Hz ± 1.5 dB
500 Hz ± 1.5 dB
1 kHz ± 1.5 dB
2 kHz ± 2 dB
4 kHz ± 3 dB
8 kHz ± 5 dB
196

197
ears. It’s gradations move up based on logarithmic scale. For this reason, each increase
of one decibel represents a large change in the intensity of sound. Later on, there was
discovery of Pascal scale for such measurement, which is related to decibel by relation
35 dB = 960 µPa. Hence, 1 dB = 27µPa (approx.). The weakest sound on Pascal (Pa) scale
is 20µPa, which is almost equal to 0 dB. But, this Pascal scale is not practical and does
not offer a realistic picture.
The intensity of sound is proportional to the amount of sound energy received per
second from the source of sound. The level of intensity is ten times the logarithm of
intensity ratio, which is given as:
IL= 10 log (I/I0),
Where, IL = Intensity level
I = Measured intensity
I0 = Reference intensity
Also, intensity is directly proportional to the square of pressure.
Hence,
IL = (P)2
= 2 x 10 log (P/P0) = 20 log (P/P0) = Sound Pressure Level (SPL)
So, there are some practical difficulties in measuring the intensity. But the
variation in pressure can be easily measured. As intensity exhibits a direct relation with
pressure (Square of pressure), the sound pressure level in decibel is given by:
SPL = 20 log (P/P0) dB
Here, P0 is the reference pressure, which has a value 2 x 10-5
Nm-2
and P is the
measured pressure in Nm-2
. This value of P0 is used extensively as it has been
evaluated to be the nearest whole number that corresponds to the reference intensity.
Equivalent Average Sound Level Leq:
Noise evaluation is often carried out over an extended period, during which the
noise level can vary between wide limits. The equivalent sound level Leq is defined by:
Where T= t2-t1 is the measurement time.
Leq is the constant sound level which would give the listener the same “noise
dose” (of sound energy) as the actual sound over the measurement time. Frequently the
time-varying sound pressure p(t) is filtered in accordance with the A-weighting curve.
The equivalent sound level is then described as LAeq. Recommended Background Noise Levels
are shown in Table 4.
Magnetic tape recorder is
used to record actual noise for
storage and evaluation. At high
speed, it gives a real picture of
sound frequency.
Table 4: Recommended Background Noise Levels LAeq
Domestic bedroom LAeq < 35 dB (22:00-06:00 hrs.)
Domestic living room LAeq < 40 dB (06:00-22:00 hrs.)
Other domestic rooms LAeq < 50 dB (06:00-22:00 hrs.)
Small private office LAeq = 40 – 45 dB
Open plan office LAeq= 45 – 50 dB

The arithmetic mean of ‘n’ sound levels (say, L1 , L2 , L3,…,Ln) given by:
LMean = { L1+L2+L3+…..+Ln}/n
Further, the energy average, also called ‘effective’ or ‘rms’ of these ‘n’ sound levels is
given by the relation:
Leq = 10 log10 {1/n [ 10L1/10
+ 10L2/10
+ 10L3/10
+…..+ 10Ln/10
]}
A continuous record of Sound Level Meter (SLM) against time is used for
storage. The noise average meter is fed directly or from magnetic tape recording to give
Leq. Leq is the equivalent continuous sound pressure level with certain limitations, capable
of causing the same effect. Finally, noise analyser data is fed directly to the sound level
meter. The sound signal is converted into electrical signal by a high quality microphone.
Then, the signal is amplified to display the noise level reading on decibel (dB) scale.
For this, the microphone has to possess omni-directional sensitivity (sensitive in all
directions).
When we attempt to describe ambient noise levels over longer time spans than
just a few minutes using a hand held sound level meter, we need some distinct noise
units. One of the commonly used terms is the day night level. There are two different
approaches to arrive at a single digit result that is calculated for a complete 24 - hour
period. Usually, this comprises the results taken at short intervals such as 5 minutes or
1 hour and then averaged over the whole 24 hours. This is an average of the
equivalent continuous noise
levels, or Leqs, so, the meter was set to collect hourly ‘A’ weighted Leq values every
hour for 24 hours. For this reason, this is also known as 24-hour Leq.
As per the convention, normally, the night- time is defined as the period
between 22:00 and 06:00 hours (10 PM to 6 AM). Another approach is by adding 10 dB
to the night time readings before the ultimate calculation is made. This is done in order
to compensate for lower tolerance of people to noise at night times when they are
asleep. It is noteworthy that the addition of this 10 dB to the “night-time” hourly
values gives an overall day night level (LDN) value that is higher than the cumulative
Leq for the same 24- hour interval. However, one has to bear in mind the element that
unless the night - time hourly values are closer to the day - time levels, the effect of
adding 10 dB to the observations during the night would be insignificant. In the present
study, since there are considerable variations between the nocturnal and diurnal values of
noise levels, the latter approach of adding 10 dB is discarded and the former method of
calculating the day- night Leq value from the 24-hour cumulative averages has been
adopted and the mean of all these daily values gives the monthly value and
subsequently the quarterly (tri-monthly) value of day- night Leq.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The monthly ambient noise quality levels observed in the six areas during the
period of study are represented in Tables 5-10.From these, the monthly mean variation
of Leq day, Leq night and Leq day-night (24-hour Leq), their ranges during the 2 years of
study period and the extent of adherence of noise levels to environmental standards can
be determined.
1988

199
Table 5: Railway Colony: Monthly Variation of Ambient Noise Quality Levels for 2009-10
Year Month LeqNight(dB) LeqDay and Night (dB) LeqDay(dB)
2009 Jan 36.2 47.3 51.9
Feb 36.9 46.2 50.4
Mar 36.9 49.3 51.6
Apr 34.1 48.1 53.6
May 34.3 49.8 53.2
Jun 34.5 48.9 53.1
Jul 33.3 48.3 52.9
Aug 36.2 48.6 52.6
Sep 35.3 48.6 51.9
Oct 36.8 49.9 52.9
Nov 45.3 47.6 51.5
Dec 35.1 48.3 52.6
2010 Jan 39.1 49.6 54.1
Feb 36.3 48.1 51.6
Mar 36.2 49 52.9
Apr 36.6 49.9 54.9
May 33.1 50 54.6
Jun 35.6 50.1 51.2
Jul 36.2 47.6 52.9
Aug 34.6 48.9 52.6
Sep 36.2 50.1 54.6
Oct 36.9 47.3 53.4
Nov 37.6 48.6 53.6
Dec 42.1 50.6 52.6
Table 6: Gandhipuram: Monthly Variation of Ambient Noise Quality Levels for 2009-10
2009 Jan 33.5 46.9 50.1
Feb 34.1 48.8 50.9
Mar 33.4 48.9 52.2
Apr 35.4 49.8 52.5
May 34.4 48.2 52.3
Jun 34.1 48.2 51.7
Jul 35.2 49.3 50.8
Aug 35.1 48.8 51.3
Sep 33.4 49.9 51.8
Oct 35.9 50.2 52.6
Nov 33.4 48.9 50.2
Dec 34.6 47.9 51.7
2010 Jan 34.4 47.9 51.8
Feb 33.5 48 50.7
Mar 33.7 47.1 51.2
Apr 34.6 49.6 53.6
May 34.9 45.2 53.5
Jun 33.9 49.8 53.7
Jul 34 48.1 52.4
Aug 33.9 48.5 51.5
Sep 33.6 49.7 52.4
Oct 33.9 47.6 51.6
Nov 33.9 49.3 52.7
Dec 32.6 50.4 52.4

Table 7: Indiramma Colony: Monthly Variation of Ambient Noise Quality Levels for 2009-10
2009 Jan 35.2 48.6 52.3
Feb 33.7 47.3 52.1
Mar 33.2 50.4 52.1
Apr 33.2 48.4 52.1
May 35.9 49.1 52.9
Jun 33.7 48.3 51.2
Jul 34.4 47.9 49.1
Aug 33.8 47.3 50.2
Sep 33.4 47.9 51.9
Oct 33.6 48.8 52.7
Nov 35.6 47.9 50.9
Dec 33.2 48.1 50.9
2010 Jan 33.9 47.2 52.7
Feb 33.4 48 51.9
Mar 34.9 49.6 53.8
Apr 35.6 48.3 53.7
May 36.7 48 53.4
Jun 34.2 48.6 52.6
Jul 33.9 47.3 51.6
Aug 33.6 46.9 51.6
Sep 33.9 45.6 52.5
Oct 34.9 46.8 53.2
Nov 31 49.6 54.5
Dec 36.2 48.9 51.9
Table 8: Ram Nagar Quarters: Monthly Variation of Ambient Noise Quality Levels for 2009-10
2009 Jan 34.5 49.9 56.1
Feb 37.2 48.3 53.4
Mar 39.6 48.3 53.8
Apr 34.6 49 54.9
May 36.6 50.1 56.9
Jun 35.1 50.9 56.2
Jul 36.2 46.4 56.2
Aug 35.1 49.9 52.9
Sep 34.2 51.1 54.2
Oct 36.7 49.5 57.7
Nov 35.6 48.1 54.9
Dec 34.4 50.8 55.9
2010 Jan 36.4 49.4 56.4
Feb 35.9 46.7 55.6
Mar 37.3 51.2 55.4
Apr 36.8 52.9 56.7
May 35.1 51.6 56.8
Jun 36.1 52.6 56.9
Jul 35.1 50.6 57.3
Aug 37.3 50.1 56.8
Sep 35.9 50.2 56.7
Oct 34.9 50.7 57.2
Nov 36.2 49.3 57.9
Dec 34.1 49.3 53.1
200

201
Table 9: Rajuvaripally- Monthly Variation of Ambient Noise Quality Levels for 2009-10
2009 Jan 35.3 46.2 49.9
Feb 34.5 46.2 50.1
Mar 33.1 46.8 51.3
Apr 38.4 51.1 56.2
May 35.1 48.8 56.3
Jun 34.4 50.6 50.9
Jul 36.1 48.7 51.2
Aug 34.6 46.8 50.6
Sep 34.3 48.3 52.1
Oct 32.4 48.1 53.8
Nov 33.9 49.2 51
Dec 33.6 49.8 52.1
2010 Jan 33.6 47.1 51.6
Feb 32.6 46.7 50.6
Mar 33.5 49.6 52.5
Apr 33.6 48.6 53.6
May 34.1 48.6 53.9
Jun 34.6 49.2 51.6
Jul 33.5 48.9 51.3
Aug 36.2 43.3 51.9
Sep 33.3 48.9 53.4
Oct 35.2 48.9 50.6
Nov 34.7 48.9 54.1
Dec 33.9 50.6 51.3
Table 10: PK Layout: Monthly Variation of Ambient Noise Quality Levels for years
2009-10
2009 Jan 35.4 49.8 56.3
Feb 35.1 49.2 54.2
Mar 35.2 51 56.6
Apr 36.1 49.2 56.6
May 34.4 48.9 56.4
Jun 34.6 48.9 56.9
Jul 35.4 48.9 54.1
Aug 34.4 48.9 55.4
Sep 34.6 49.1 60.1
Oct 37.6 47.2 57.9
Nov 36.8 48.7 55.6
Dec 35.1 51.5 55.1
2010 Jan 35.2 50.6 56.8
Feb 34.5 46.9 55.9
Mar 34.4 48.1 56.8
Apr 34.9 51.6 56.3
May 34.1 50.3 56.8
Jun 35.9 48.9 56.6
Jul 34.9 50.4 55.4
Aug 34.4 48.3 53.8
Sep 32.6 48.9 56.4
Oct 34.1 50.2 60.4
Nov 34.3 48.1 58.1
Dec 33.4 50.7 53.8

Besides the summer months, occasional increase in sound levels has been
observed during festive seasons in the months of January (Makar Sankranti), September
2009 and October 2010 (Dusserah and Annual Brahmotsavams of Lord Venkateswara),
October 2009 and November 2010 (Diwali). Scores of people throng the Seven Hills of
Tirumala on pilgrimage during the annual summer vacation (April-June) , consequently
resulting in a hike in vehicular traffic and subsequent greater noise emissions. Similar
sort of situation is witnessed during Sankranti vacation period in the month of January.
The time of Dusserah also marks the commencement of the annual Brahmotsavams, the
largest festivity of Lord Venkateswara. Millions of devotees transit to Tirumala via
Tirupati, making it the most buzzing and the busiest span of time in Tirupati. A large
number of vehicles of all varieties are engaged in travel and transportation activities,
generating relatively higher sound levels.
Diwali is another occasion where the noise levels in residential areas are on
the rise as these are the principal pockets where the celebrations are concentrated.
Though the burning of fire crackers lasts only for a few days, it’s impact, though not
immense, can be felt on the average ambient continuous sound levels (Leq) of the
area(s) during that particular month.
The day time Leq values recorded in Railway colony (not nearer to railway
station) are within the recommended norm (<55 dB). They seldom tend to approach the
threshold limit except during episodes of construction activities, drilling bore wells (54.9
dB in April 2010, 54.6 dB in May 2010) and during Diwali time (54.6 dB in September
2010). The night time Leq values did not seem to cross the 45 dB mark, which is the
prescribed norm for nocturnal Leq in residential areas (Table 5 ).
The situation in Gandhipuram is also more or less similar. Relatively higher
day time Leq values are recorded at the time of heavy traffic during the period April-
June, on the not-so-busy by-pass road situated at a distance of about 100 meters from
the residential area (Table 6 ). The factor in favour of the residents is that the area
possesses considerable foliage that might result in the reduction of noise pollution to
some extent.
Despite its location in the vicinity of an industrial estate, the observed noise
levels in Indiramma colony do not reflect this constraint as the residential area is not
situated in that much proximity to the Industrial estate, where the sounds originating
from those industrial establishments can predominantly cast their impact on the readings
of the sound level meter. The chief contributor of noise in this area is vehicular traffic
on the Renigunta by-pass road that runs almost adjacent to the housing complexes.
Indiramma colony is evidently affected more by the air pollutants emanating from the
industries than by the sound pollution from them. The maximum values (Leq day) were
recorded in November 2010 during Diwali festive time. (Table 7).
Ramnagar, with its location just next to an important traffic junction, is
significantly influenced by the air and noise pollution originating from the vehicles
bound atop Tirumala. Therefore, higher day time Leq noise levels are prevalent during
Sankranti festival in both the years during the month of January, during the second
quarter of the year (April-June), mostly comprising of the summer months and during
Dusserah and Diwali. Besides, due to unrelenting pilgrimage to Tirumala throughout the
year, sound levels exceeding the threshold limit of 55 dB were consistently recorded
202

203
during the remaining months as well (Table 8 ). Moreover, the location of one of the
largest general hospitals of the Rayalaseema region (includes the districts of Chittoor,
Kurnool, Kadapa , Anantapur and Nellore districts of Andhra Pradesh), Sri Venkateswara
Ram Narayan Ruia (S.V.R.R) hospital within a distance of about hundred feet from the
junction, still aggravates the problem. The noise limit specified for a ‘silence zone’ (An
area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutions, courts,
religious places, etc.) is 50 dB. Therefore, continuous exposure of patients, their attendants,
doctors, nurses and other related personnel, is likely to pose a serious problem in the
due course. However, it can be seen that the night time Leq and the day-night Leq values
adhered to the limits.
Being a typical rural area, Rajuvaripally presents a much lesser probability of
being influenced by the kind of commotion, that is characteristic of typical urban areas.
Higher Leq values during the day were observed in the summer months of April and
May owing to the resumption of the activities of the quarry, situated in the vicinity of
the village, due to the favourable weather conditions prevalent in summer. Occasional
increase in noise levels during the Diwali time was also observed . The use of
agricultural motors for irrigation purposes also contributes it’s share to the noise levels.
The nights are quite quiet and calm (Table 9).
Pedda Kapu (P.K).Layout is probably the busiest and the most polluted
residential area of Tirupati, given the fact that its location falls within a striking
distance from the central bus station and the entire surrounding region is a bustling
commercial zone, swarming with people and vehicles. Day time Leq noise level values
greater than 55 dB were recorded almost consistently throughout the period of study,
reaching up to a maximum of 60.4 dB. On the contrary, nights were calm and peaceful
when majority of the activity (both commercial and transport) subsides. Hence, the Leq
night and the day-night Leq values reflected this phenomenon. (Table 10)
On the consummate, it can be observed that the night-time Leq values in the
above residential areas did not exceed the recommended limit of 45 dB (A). None of the
day-night Leq values also crossed the 55 dB (A) benchmark. These statistics point to the
fact that the nights in Tirupati are considerably calm and peaceful as the noise levels
dwindle significantly. On the other hand, in many instances, the day-time Leq values
forayed past the 55 dB standard, though not to a large extent. The extent of violation
vacillated from about 0.2% to almost 10%. This might give us an impression that the
overall ground situation in terms of noise pollution is not alarming. However, it is worth
mentioning that these are monthly mean values and essentially there may be discrete
episodes of ambient noise reaching even up to 70-75 dB (A) in certain areas, a prolonged
exposure to which may result in several ailments in the long run. Fig.2 depicts the
monthly ambient noise levels for the six areas during the period of study.
Generally, when we take quarterly variation into consideration, the highest
values were observed during the summer months i.e., during the second quarter (April-
June) of the year.

Fig 2: Graphical representation of Ambient Noise Level Monthly Variation For Six Areas of
Study During 2009-2010.
This phenomenon of increase in ambient noise levels has nothing substantially
perceivable to do directly with the meteorological conditions prevalent during that
particular period of the year. The conducive calm, stable and favourable weather
conditions during summer promote the incidence of a wide variety of human activities
like industrial operations, travel and transport, power generation, other domestic chores,
etc. ,that account for emanation of comparatively greater noise during this period in
most of the cases. A glance at the results suggests that the intensity and duration of
noise bear a direct relation to the prevailing local factors, specific to the given area and
thus, are entirely influenced by the anthropogenic activities. Fig 3 portrays the quarterly
variation of ambient noise levels in the six sampling sites during the period of study.
204

205
Fig 3: Graphical Representation of Quarterly Variance of Ambient Noise Levels During the
Period of Study
Whatever be discussed above, it can be concluded that Tirupati, though not a
metropolitan city, is traversing in leaps and bounds on its course to accomplish and
realise this status very soon, in the near future. The city has been expanding its horizons
to newer avenues with the outskirts being altered drastically during the past few years.
Given this scenario, obviously, there is every likelihood that the pollution levels; be it of
air, water, sound or any other related ramifications, would most probably raise with an
almost equal momentum. Being a celebrated pilgrimage, educational, commercial and an
emerging industrial as well as economic hub with colossal floating population, the noise
levels, in particular, are bound to escalate accordingly, with the number of vehicles,
industries, etc. expected to shoot up tremendously.
In the present study, six residential locations with different living environs,
are chosen at random to offer a palpable picture of ambient noise quality at residential
areas in and around Tirupati. The noise levels were solely based on the quality and
quantity of anthropogenic activity characteristic of that particular area and hold no
straight forward relation to the prevailing meteorological conditions like Temperature,
Pressure, Rainfall, Relative humidity, Wind velocity, etc. during that period of the year.
Hence, the second quarter (April-June) of the year, corresponding to the summer season,
exhibited relatively greater noise levels most of the time (there might be some
exceptions), owing to the increased amount of activity on account of favourable weather
conditions.

Railway colony is free from noise as well as air pollution mostly credited to
its location away from the main road and it’s traffic. Isolated events of high noise were
observed due to the domestic activities like construction, drilling of bore wells for
drinking water, etc. Gandhipuram was also left scar-free from the dreadful effects of
sound pollution. Considerable greenery in its surroundings might have been the saviour
here. The very fact that Gandhipuram is situated at the rear of an educational area (Sri
Padmavati Mahila Visva Vidyalayam) that can be categorised under a silence zone,
enhances the significance of this entitlement.
Indiramma colony witnessed the noise levels almost touch the 55 dB mark,
but they seldom encroached beyond that. As indicated earlier in the previous section, this
particular area seems to be bothered more by the air pollutants derived from the
industrial estate than by the intensity of noise levels emitted from the same. The
optimal detachment of the residential area from the industrial estate has come to the
rescue of the inhabitants of Indiramma colony as regards to noise pollution. Ramnagar
area is perhaps one of the more affected regions of Tirupati when it comes to both
noise as well as air pollution. Its location near a crucial traffic junction is the root of
the problem. What makes it worse is the presence of one of the most famous and
popular general hospitals in the Rayalaseema region, Sri Venkateswara Ram Narayan
Ruia (S.V.R.R) hospital within a distance of hundred feet, which exacerbates the state of
affairs. Unmistakably, this does not augur well for the well-being of its inmates, their
attendants and other personnel in the long run.
Since Rajuvaripally is nestled in an area cushioned with hillocks, trees and
agricultural fields that redeem the whole area of the nuisances of noise adulteration, the
undesired auditory effects resulting from the quarry operations and other extraneous
sounds are deemed to be minimised. Periodical surge in acoustic intensities can be
observed during summer months when the quarry operations and other domestic
activities such as running irrigation motors, etc. in the incumbent region are at their
peak. In P.K.Layout, the strength of the aural intensities was consistently above the 55
dB (A) mark throughout the year , although not to a very large extent. Noise pollution
poses an impending threat here along with air pollution, predominantly due to the
imposing existence of the central bus terminal almost adjacent to the area. Since this is
also a key traffic and commercial junction, occupationally exposed people on-site like
traffic policemen, vendors and others who make their living through various means, are
physically and to some extent, might be even mentally affected gradually in the course
of time, perhaps many times more than the inhabitants of the contiguous residential
areas.
However, the results suggest that as of now, the situation in Tirupati on
grounds of noise pollution is not so alarming and if appropriate measures are initiated,
any hostile impacts of sound contamination can be effectively averted. Concerted and
coordinated effort on the part of the public and the government authorities is the
immediate need of the hour. The following remedial measures can be implemented in
the coming days, as a part of the master plan to ward off any looming maladies and
subsequent untoward consequences of noise pollution. They are:
206

207
1. Since urban dwellers are the principal target for sound pollution, adequate care
and constraint must be exercised to ensure that sensitive places like residential
areas, offices, educational institutions, hospitals, places of worship (temples, etc) are
properly planned and constructed at an ample distance from the sources of
intense sound levels such as main roads buzzing with vehicular traffic, industries
and others.
2. Multifarious home appliances like mixer grinders, washing machines, vacuum
cleaners, television sets, music and home-theatre systems used with high volumes,
etc. generate a cumulative noise of about 87 dB. This is far higher than the
maximum limit prescribed for the residential areas, i.e., 55 dB. Hence, sensible
utilization of house hold commodities is a prerequisite to curtail environmental
noise pollution.
3. Loud speakers should not be allowed for any purpose, whatsoever, near the areas
designated to be ‘silence zone’ by the competent authority. In addition, their use
must be restricted to certain time in the evening and their indiscriminate usage
during night times should be abandoned as it induces sleep disturbances, leading
to several health complications.
4. Automobiles and factory machines should be subjected to timely lubrication and
regular servicing. This would optimise their quality and performance, thereby
reducing the intensity of sound produced. Also, unnecessary and excessive
honking of horns should be avoided, particularly in ‘silence zones’.
5. Installation of sound proof doors and windows and opting for walls containing
sound control material can be the best options for people settled in crowded
urban pockets. Planting trees and dense shrubs around sound generating points,
residential areas and other fore stated vulnerable regions inhibit the free
propagation of sound waves and promotes a relaxed and a peaceful living.
6. Sound detectors ought to be mounted wherever possible so that sound
frequencies can be monitored and analysed on a regular basis. Of late, a more
sophisticated technology known as ‘White Noise Machine’ has emerged in the
forefront. This device, when placed between the source of the noise and the
receptor, converts that unbearable noise into melodious, mellowing and
mellifluous sounds like that of a waterfall, fan, soft music, etc.
7. In the absence of all the above control measures, perhaps the best precautionary
initiation that could be employed by an individual is the use of ear plugs or
ear muffs when they happen to confront with loud and shrill noises. This is
inevitable especially in case of children, where, even the school managements
need to act judiciously to curb the exposure of their students to the unwanted
surrounding noise. Periodical examination of children by an ENT specialist,
accompanied by a formal audiology test, could be highly efficacious.
Apt and apposite awareness must be wide spread among people, pertaining to
the modes and methods of combating this imminent menace of noise pollution and for
that matter, pollution, as a whole, that’s been browbeating the advances in science and
technology from time to time. Hence, the clarion call of the hour is an all-out resolute
and determined endeavour of mankind to shield this ‘Achilles Heel’, namely pollution, in
this enduring epic battle to safeguard Mother Earth from the perilous clutches of
environmental extermination and transform our planet into a ‘paradise of flourishing
life’.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to extend their sincere thanks to Vison Labs, Hyderabad for the supply
of the experimental equipment and for their help in carrying out observations during the entire
period of study. We express our profound heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Hari Priya Chinthapally for
her invaluable support and cooperation in statistically analysing the ambient noise level data
and formatting the whole article.
REFERENCES
Berglund. B, Lindvall. T 1995. “Community Noise”. Center for Sensory Research, Stockholm: pp. 1-233.
Evans G.W., Johnson.D, 1998 “Human response to open office noise”. In: Carter.N, Job.R.F.S, (Eds) Proceedings
of the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, vol. 1., Sydney: Noise Effects ’98
, PTY Ltd; pp.255–258.
Goines, L, Hagler.L, March 2007. “Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague”. Southern Medical Journal; 100(3):
pp.287-293.
Halpern. D, 1995 ”Mental Health and the Built Environment. More than Bricks and Mortar?” Taylor &
Francis Ltd, London.
http://www.geogise.com/environmental-issues/noise-pollusion.php/
-Ing. Klaus Genuit, 2002 “Sound Quality Aspects for Environmental Noise” Internoise-2002- The 2002
International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Dearborn, MI, USA. August
19-21, 2002.
Ismail. A.R., Nor. M.J.M., Mansor. M.R.A., Tahir. M.F.M., Zulkifli. R, 2009. “Environmental Noise Assessment
and Modeling in Malaysia:AComparative Monitoring Study” European Journal of Scientific Research,
30 (2), pp.236-244.
Jakovljevic, B, Belojevic, G, Pavnovic, K, Stojanov, V. Feb 2006. “Road Traffic Noise and Sleep Disturbance
in an Urban Population: Cross Sectional Study”. Croatian Medical Journal; 47(1): pp.125-135.
Kankal. S.B. and Gaikwad. R.W., 2011. “Studies on noise and air quality monitoring at Shirdi(Maharashtra),
India” Advances in Applied Science Research, 2(1): pp. 63-75.
Katrin Rehdanz, David Maddison, 2008. “Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany”
Ecological Economics 64, pp. 787-797.
Langdon FJ, 1976. “Noise nuisance caused by road traffic in residential areas: Part I and II”. J Sound Vib, 47,
pp. 243–82.
Lusk. S, 2002 “Preventing Noise-Induced Hearing Loss”. Nurs Clin N Am (Nursing Clinics of North America),
37: pp.257-262.
McBride. D, 2004 . “Noise-induced Hearing Loss and Hearing Conservation in Mining”. OccupationalMedicine;
54: pp.290-296.
Nanda Kumar N.V., Sreedhar Babu P., Rajasekhar M., Nagarjuna A. 2008 Air Pollution Levels In tirupati And
Its Relation To Meteorological Factors. The Ecoscan 2(2), pp.241-253.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1996, “Preventing Occupational Hearing
Loss”: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Washington DC.
NIDCD Fact Sheet: Updated April 2007. “Noise-Induced Hearing Loss”, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, National Institute of Health, National Institute of Deafness and other
Communication Disorders, NIH Publication No. 97-4233.www.nidcd.nih.gov.
Niskar. A , 1998 . “Prevalence of Hearing Loss Among children 6 to 19 Years of Age”. JAMA (The journal of
the American Medical Association), 279: pp.1071-1075.
Olivier Doutres , Yacoubou Salissou, Noureddine Atalla, Raymond Panneton, 2010 “Evaluation of the
acoustic and non-acoustic properties of sound absorbing materials using a three-microphone
impedance tube” Applied Acoustics , 71 ,pp.506–509.
Ouis D, 2001. “Annoyance from road traffic noise: a review.” J Environ Psychol, 21, pp. 101–20.
Padma S. Rao, Gavane. A.G., Ankam. S.S, Ansari. M.F, Pandit. V.I, Nema. P, 2004. “Performance evaluation
of a green belt in a petroleum refinery: a case study” Ecological Engineering 23, pp.77-84.
Peter G. Kovalchik, Rudy J. Matetic, Adam K. Smith, Susan B. Bealko, 2008. “Application of Prevention
through Design for Hearing Loss in the Mining Industry” Journal of Safety Research 39, pp. 251-254.
Piccolo. A, Plutino. D, Cannistraro. G, 2005, “Evaluation and analysis of the environmental noise of Messina,
Italy” Applied Acoustics 66, pp. 447–465.
Prasher. D, 2003. “ Estimation of hearing damage from noise exposure”, World Health Organisation and
European Centre for Environment and Health Report on the Technical meeting of exposure–response
relationships of noise on health, Bonn, Germany, 17–19 September, 2002.
208

209
Rabinowitz, P. May 2000 “Noise-Induced Hearing Loss”. American Family Physician; 61: pp.2749-56, pp.2759-60.
Ray, C, Levinson. R, 1992. “ Noise Pollution in the Operating Room: A Hazard to Surgeons,Personnel and
Patients”. Journal of Spinal Disorders ; 5(4): pp.485-488.
Regecova, V, Kellerova.E, 1995 . “Effects of urban noise pollution on blood pressure and heart rate in preschool
children”. Journal of Hypertension; 13: pp.405-412.
Sangeeta Singhal, Berendra Yadav, Hashmi. S.F., Md. Muzammil, 2009 “Effects of workplace noise on blood
pressure and heart rate”, Biomedical Research; 20 (2): pp.122-126.
Stansfeld. SA, Gallacher J, Babisch W, Shipley M. 1996 “Road traffic noise and psychiatric disorder: Prospective
findings from the Caerphilly Study”. British Medical Journal; 313: pp.266–267.
Tang. U.W, Wang. Z.S., 2007. “Influences of urban forms on traffic-induced noise and air pollution: Results
from a modelling system.” Environmental Modelling & Software, 22, pp.1750-1764.

Noise Quality Variation_02_Vanadeep

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to Noise Quality Variation_02_Vanadeep

Similar to Noise Quality Variation_02_Vanadeep (20)

Noise Quality Variation_02_Vanadeep