PROCEEDINGS of the23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Pilot Field Study on the Effects of Aircraft Noise on Sleep AroundAtlanta International AirportMathias BASNER1; Michael SMITH1; Sarah ROCHA1; Maryam WITTE1
1

Unit for Experimental Psychiatry, Division of Sleep and Chronobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman
School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USAABSTRACT
Aircraft noise can disrupt sleep and impair recuperation. The most recent US investigation on the effects ofaircraft noise on sleep was conducted more than 20 years ago. Since then, traffic patterns and noise levels
produced by single aircraft have changed substantially. It is therefore important that field studies beconducted in the U.S. to acquire current data on sleep disturbance relative to varying degrees of noise
exposure. To inform the design of a larger national study, a pilot field study was conducted around Atlanta
Airport. The primary goal was to assess feasibility of acquiring acoustical and physiological data with noinvestigator on site and equipment mailed to participants who then applied electrodes and started and stopped
measurements each night on their own. We mailed 4080 recruitment questionnaires to randomly selectedhouseholds exposed to aircraft noise (≥35 dB LAEq,23-07,outdoor). Among the 407 respondents, 34 participatedin the unattended five night in-home study. Indoor sound levels were determined via measurement. Arousal
from sleep was recorded via a device measuring body movement and electrophysiological heart rate. Selfreported sleep was assessed with morning questionnaires. Several ways to improve data quantity and quality
were identified. Overall, the approach was found to be feasible.
Keywords: Aircraft noise; sleep; physiologic field study; postal questionnaire study

1. INTRODUCTION
Aircraft noise can disturb sleep and impair recuperation (1-3). The most recent US investigationon the effects of aircraft noise on sleep was conducted more than 20 years ago. Since then, traffic
patterns and noise levels produced by single aircraft have changed substantially. It is therefore
important that field studies be conducted in the U.S. to acquire current data on sleep disturbance
relative to varying degrees of noise exposure.
As self-assessments of sleep are unreliable, an inexpensive yet sound study methodology is needed
for field studies on the effects of aircraft noise on sleep. For this purpose, the authors developed anautomatic ECG-based algorithm for the detection of changes in heart rate associated with corticalarousals (4). This algorithm was later revised to better reflect EEG-based awakenings, and actigraphybased body movements were included as one of the predicting signals (5). This methodology was firstpiloted in a field study on the effects of aircraft noise on sleep around Philadelphia International
Airport (PHL). In this study, investigators were still on site for equipment setup and collection on thefirst and last day of the study. While feasible, this approach would make a national sleep study arou nd
multiple U.S. airports a logistical challenge and expensive. Earlier work by the authors demonstrated
that ECG electrodes and actigraphs are non-invasive and can be easily applied by study participants
themselves, greatly reducing methodological study cost compared to fully attended studies. In a pilot
study presented in this report, the methodology of using ECG and actigraphy to monitor sleep wasimplemented in a second – this time unattended – pilot field study on the effects of aircraft noise on
sleep around Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL).
The primary objective of this study was to continue improving study methodology, in particular
the quality and quantity of data that could be obtained when recruiting participants by postal
13660

basner@pennmedicine.upenn.edu

questionnaire, shipping them the physiological and noise measurement equipment, and the setup ofthe equipment and recording of data by the participants themselves, unattended. A secondary objectiveof the study was to compare objective and subjective measures of sleep and health between groups
exposed to different levels of nocturnal aircraft noise (not reported here).

2. METHODS
We mailed 4080 questionnaires containing items on sleep, health and noise disturbance toresidences around ATL that were exposed to at least 35 dB L Night (LA Eq,23-07,outdoor ) aircraft noise (seeFigure 1). A number of different mailing strategies were adopted to maximize response rates.

Figure 1: Noise exposure contours and population weighted centroid of census tracts around Atlanta
Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL).

Figure 2: (A) Sound recorder (Zoom H5) and (B) Faros 90 actigraphy and heart rate monitor

3661

From among the questionnaire respondents, 37 participants were initially recruited into the fieldstudy, with 34 participants completing five nights of unattended sleep measurements and 3 recruits
dropping out before the study began (see Figure 2 for a description of the field study set-up).

3. RESULTS
Small prepaid cash incentives and sending follow-up reminder and survey waves were an effective
method of improving response rates. Completed questionnaires were received from 407 respondents,
who were broadly representative of their geographical region. Among these respondents, afteradjustment for sociodemographic factors, calculated outdoor night-time (23:00-07:00) air traffic noise
was significantly associated with self-reports of worse overall sleep quality, with those living in the50<55 dB LNight region reporting significantly worse sleep quality than those in the reference region(35<40 dB LNight ). Residents in the highest 3 levels of air traffic noise (≥45 dB) were significantly
more likely to report that air traffic disturbed their sleep than those in the reference group, and thosein the highest 2 levels (≥50 dB) were significantly more annoyed by air traffic noise than those in thereference group. Calculated outdoor night-time air traffic noise was also associated with trouble
falling asleep within 30 minutes, greater difficulty staying awake during the day, and great er difficulty
concentrating. Residents in areas exposed to higher levels of air traffic noise coped by closing thewindows at night. We did not find a significant effect of nocturnal aircraft noise exposure on any of
the investigated self-reported health outcomes.
Of the 34 participants completing five nights of unattended sleep measurements , data of sufficientquality and quantity to investigate the effects of aircraft noise on sleep were obtained, despite somedata loss in the field study due to technical issues with the equipment and non-compliance among theparticipants. The technical issues were the main cause of data loss however, and non -compliance waslow, with both physiologic and acoustic data collected by the participants in 87.6% of all study nights.

4. DISCUSSION
Concerning the primary objective of the study, evaluation of the feasibility of the study
methodology, we demonstrated both the feasibility of recruiting field study participants by postal
questionnaire in a larger, more nationally representative sample for future studies around multiple
airports, and the feasibility of mailing equipment to participants to obtain unattended physiologic andacoustic measurement data. We also identified ways to maximize response rate to the recruitmentssurvey.
Regarding the secondary objective of the study, investigating noise-induced effects on physiologic
and self-reported sleep, a number of statistically significant outcomes were found, including
associations between aircraft noise and physiologic and recalled awakenings. However, these findings
are from a sample population of limited size, living close to a single airport. The findings ofphysiologic and self-reported effects of aircraft noise on sleep may not be representative of response
among a demographically diverse national study population exposed to different patterns of nocturnal
aircraft noise. A larger-scale study among such a population should be performed in the future, andthe approach used in the present pilot study has been demonstrated to be feasible for this purpose.

5. CONCLUSIONSIn this study, we investigate feasibility of an unattended field study on the physiological effects ofaircraft noise on sleep. Several ways to improve data quantity and quality were identified. Overall,
the approach was found to be feasible.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment andEnergy through ASCENT, the FAA Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment,
project 017 through FAA Award Number 13-C-AJE-UPENN under the supervision of Sean Doyle andNatalia Sizov. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA.

REFERENCES
1. Basner M, McGuire S. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic3662

Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(3).
2. Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A, Brink M, Clark C, Janssen S, et al. Auditory and non-auditory effects ofnoise on health. Lancet. 2014;383(9925):1325-32.
3. Muzet A. Environmental noise, sleep and health. Sleep Med Rev. 2007;11(2):135-42.
4. Basner M, Griefahn B, Müller U, Plath G, Samel A. An ECG-based algorithm for the automatic
identification of autonomic activations associated with cortical arousal. Sleep. 2007;30(10):1349-61.
5. McGuire S, Müller U, Plath G, Basner M, editors. Refinement and validation of an ECG based algorithm
for detecting awakenings. 11th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem; 2014; Nara,
Japan: International Commission of Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN).

3663