In one Tamil Nadu power loom unit, 71.6% of weavers (88 of 123) had measurable hearing loss, and not one of them wore hearing protection during working hours (Subramaniam et al., Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery 2024). The mean 8-hour noise exposure in that weaving shed was 97.85 dB(A), well above the 85 dBA recommended exposure limit set by NIOSH. In Ethiopia’s Amhara region, weaving workers carried 6.6 times the adjusted odds of work-related hearing loss compared with processing and finishing staff (Yirdaw et al., BMJ Open 2024), and in an Egyptian spinning and weaving factory 61% of 115 workers showed a high-frequency notch deeper than 25 dB, the dip on a hearing chart that marks noise damage (Taha et al., Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024). We aggregated data from peer-reviewed audiometric studies in India, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Myanmar, Egypt, Brazil, Bangladesh, Jordan, Vietnam, Thailand, China and Indonesia, plus the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, the Global Burden of Disease 2021 analysis, the ILO and NIOSH. For the broader factory picture across metal, wood and food plants, see our manufacturing noise exposure statistics; this roundup stays inside the weaving and spinning mill.
TL;DR
- 71.6% of 123 power loom weavers in Erode, Tamil Nadu had hearing loss, and 0% used hearing protection (Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery 2024).
- Weaving-sector noise ranged from 88.6 to 103 dB in a Brazilian textile plant (Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006).
- Weavers had 6.6 times the adjusted odds of work-related hearing loss vs processing and finishing staff in Amhara, Ethiopia (BMJ Open 2024).
- Chronic exposure at 90 dB(A) or more was tied to a 14-fold higher risk of noise-induced hearing loss in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia (Addis Ababa University thesis 1995).
- 58.1% of Tanzanian textile workers with noise-induced hearing loss had an audiometric notch, 47.7% of them at 4000 Hz (Annals of Global Health 2019).
- 61% of 115 Egyptian spinning and weaving workers had a notch deeper than 25 dB (Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024).
- 88.2% of Ayka Addis textile workers in Ethiopia named lack of availability as the reason they wore no hearing protection (Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2021).
- Median real-world earplug protection in a Chinese textile factory was 10 dB at baseline (International Journal of Audiology 2025).
- Handloom weaving in Thailand measured 61.3 dBA on wooden looms, far below power loom halls (Journal of Medicine and Public Health, Ubon Ratchathani University 2024).
- The textiles and clothing sectors employ over 90 million people, predominantly women (ILO 2025).
- Occupational noise-induced hearing loss caused 7,847,444.59 DALYs worldwide in 2021 (Frontiers in Public Health 2025).
1. How Loud Is the Loom Room? Weaving-Hall Decibel Levels
Weaving is the loudest stage of textile production in most of the mills that publish measurements, because every powered loom adds its own repetitive weft-insertion impact to a shared hall. A 2023 survey of a power loom unit in Erode, Tamil Nadu found a mean 8-hour time-weighted exposure of 97.85 dB(A), with a range of 93.78 to 107.25 dB(A) (Subramaniam et al., Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery 2024).
Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, the gap between 85 and 98 dB(A) is not a 15% difference: NIOSH notes that a sound 10 dB louder is ten times more intense (NIOSH, About Noise and Occupational Hearing Loss). The one clear outlier is handloom work, where the weaver drives the loom by hand and measured levels sit in the low 60s dBA.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Mean 8-hour exposure, power loom weaving section, Erode (Tamil Nadu, India) | 97.85 dB(A), range 93.78 to 107.25 dB(A) | Subramaniam et al., Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024 |
| Mean noise level, weaving section, Dire Dawa textile mill (Ethiopia), 1994 survey | 99.5 ± 3.2 dB(A) | Belachew, Addis Ababa University thesis 1995 |
| Mean noise level, spinning section, same Dire Dawa mill | 89.0 ± 2.5 dB(A) | Belachew, Addis Ababa University thesis 1995 |
| Mean 8-hour exposure, water jet loom section, Thamine mill (Myanmar) | 94.70 dB(A) | Zaw et al., Safety and Health at Work 2020 |
| Mean 8-hour exposure, bed sheet loom section, same Myanmar mill | 84.73 dB(A) | Zaw et al., Safety and Health at Work 2020 |
| Noise range, weaving sector, Brusque textile plant (Brazil) | 88.6 to 103 dB | Caldart et al., Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006 |
| 8-hour average, hand-operated wooden looms, silk weaving (Thailand) | 61.3 ± 9.4 dBA | Musikapong et al., J Med Public Health Ubon Ratchathani Univ 2024 |
| 8-hour average, hand-operated metal looms, same Thai study | 62.4 ± 14.7 dBA | Musikapong et al., J Med Public Health Ubon Ratchathani Univ 2024 |
Context note: the Thai handloom study found no significant difference between wooden and metal hand looms (p = 0.976), and both stayed within the legal limit (Musikapong et al. 2024). The loudness problem belongs to powered weaving, not to weaving as a craft. For a comparison with another heavy-machinery workplace, see our mining noise exposure statistics.
2. Hearing Loss Prevalence Among Textile Workers, Country by Country
Published prevalence ranges from about one worker in seven to nearly three in four. The spread, from 14.5% in a Bangladesh mill to 71.6% in a Tamil Nadu power loom unit, says more about the mill than about the country: noise levels, years of service, sample selection and the hearing-loss definition all differ from study to study. The Tamil Nadu and Myanmar studies, for example, both count a worker as affected when the average threshold at 4, 6 and 8 kHz is above 25 dB in each ear, a definition aimed squarely at high-frequency damage.
Two Ethiopian studies used a questionnaire about symptoms such as muffled hearing after a shift instead of a hearing test. Their results are labelled ‘self-reported temporary hearing loss’ below and should not be compared one-to-one with audiometric figures (Angaw et al., Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2021).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Hearing loss by audiometry, power loom weavers, Erode (India), 2023 | 71.6% (88 of 123) | Subramaniam et al., Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss by audiometry, textile plant, Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), 2014 | 58.5% (155 of 265) | Abraham et al., Annals of Global Health 2019 |
| Self-reported temporary hearing loss, Ayka Addis textile factory (Ethiopia), 2019 | 49.0% (190 of 388) | Angaw et al., Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2021 |
| Self-reported temporary hearing loss, Bahir Dar and Kombolcha factories (Ethiopia), 2022 | 38.7% (95% CI 34.14% to 43.6%) | Yirdaw et al., BMJ Open 2024 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss by audiometry, workers with 5+ years of exposure, Brusque (Brazil), 2004 | 28.3% (52 of 184) | Caldart et al., Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006 |
| Hearing loss by audiometry, three weaving sections, Thamine mill (Myanmar), 2018 | 25.7% (58 of 226) | Zaw et al., Safety and Health at Work 2020 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss, two mills in Narayanganj (Bangladesh) | 14.5% of 200 workers | Uddin et al., Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngology 2023 |
| Hearing loss, noise-exposed textile workers vs matched unexposed community members (Jordan) | 30% vs 8% | Shakhatreh et al., Saudi Medical Journal 2000 |
Most recent available data for Brazil and Jordan: studies published in 2006 and 2000 (Shakhatreh et al. 2000). They stay in the table because no newer audiometric textile study from those settings was found. The Bangladesh figure is the lowest in the set, and its authors also linked longer working hours to hearing loss (p<.05) (Uddin et al. 2023).
3. The Weaving Penalty: Risk by Department and Noise Band
Within the same factory gate, the department a worker is assigned to is one of the strongest predictors of hearing damage. In Ethiopia’s Amhara region, 79 of 109 weaving workers (72.5%, calculated from the study’s Table 4) reported work-related hearing loss, against 17 of 114 in processing and finishing (14.9%) (Yirdaw et al., BMJ Open 2024). After adjustment, weaving carried 6.6 times the odds of the reference department.
The same gradient appears in audiometric studies decades apart. In the 1994 Dire Dawa survey, weavers reached roughly double the mill-wide rate, and workers chronically exposed to 90 dB(A) or more had an odds ratio of 14.40 (Belachew, Addis Ababa University 1995). Hearing loss is not spread evenly across a mill; it concentrates where the looms are.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted odds of work-related hearing loss, weaving vs processing and finishing (Amhara, Ethiopia) | AOR 6.6 (95% CI 3.06 to 14.3) | Yirdaw et al., BMJ Open 2024 |
| Adjusted odds, exposure above 90 dBA vs below 85 dBA (same study) | AOR 7.9 (95% CI 2.6 to 23.7) | Yirdaw et al., BMJ Open 2024 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss among weavers vs whole mill, Dire Dawa (Ethiopia) | 71.7% vs 34% | Belachew, Addis Ababa University thesis 1995 |
| Odds of noise-induced hearing loss, chronic exposure at 90 dB(A) or more vs lower exposure (Dire Dawa) | OR 14.40 (95% CI 8.20 to 25.12) | Belachew, Addis Ababa University thesis 1995 |
| Adjusted odds of self-reported temporary hearing loss, spinning vs garment section (Ayka Addis, Ethiopia) | AOR 3.55 (95% CI 1.72 to 7.32) | Angaw et al., Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2021 |
| Equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq) in spinning vs garment section (Ayka Addis) | 108.2 dBA vs 74.4 dBA | Angaw et al., Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2021 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss in weaving vs administration staff (Brusque, Brazil) | 38.8% vs 3.8% | Caldart et al., Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006 |
| Hearing loss among workers in the 95 dB(A) area of a Jordanian textile factory | 73% | Shakhatreh et al., Saudi Medical Journal 2000 |
Outlier note: the Ayka Addis factory is the exception where spinning, not weaving, was the loudest measured department, and knitting (LAeq 109 dBA) was louder still. The lesson is to measure each hall rather than assume weaving is always the top risk.
4. The High-Frequency Signature: Audiometric Notches at 4 and 6 kHz
Noise damage to the inner ear does not dull all pitches equally. It first carves a dip, called an audiometric notch, into the hearing test chart at 3, 4 or 6 kHz, where hearing is clearly worse than at the frequencies on either side. That shape is what makes the notch a useful marker when mill audiograms are screened for noise damage. Among 155 Tanzanian textile workers with noise-induced hearing loss, 58.1% showed a notch, and 4000 Hz was the most common location (47.7%) (Abraham et al., Annals of Global Health 2019).
The Egyptian Giza study used a strict definition (a threshold at 3, 4 or 6 kHz at least 10 dB worse than both 2 kHz and 8 kHz) and still found notches in most workers (Taha et al., Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024). How US employers track this kind of hearing shift is covered in our OSHA standard threshold shift statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Workers with noise-induced hearing loss showing an audiometric notch (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania) | 58.1% (90 of 155) | Abraham et al., Annals of Global Health 2019 |
| Share of those notches located at 4000 Hz / 6000 Hz / 3000 Hz | 47.7% / 42.3% / 10% | Abraham et al., Annals of Global Health 2019 |
| Spinning and weaving workers with a notch deeper than 25 dB (Giza, Egypt) | 61% (70 of 115) | Taha et al., Environ Sci Pollut Res 2024 |
| Spinning and weaving workers with no notch at all (same Egyptian study) | 26% (30 of 115) | Taha et al., Environ Sci Pollut Res 2024 |
| Female weavers with a 4000 Hz notch (Vietnam) | 26 of 69 (37.7%, calculated) | Nguyen et al., Industrial Health 1998 |
| Mean hearing threshold at 4000 Hz, power loom workers vs unexposed controls (Erode, India) | 70 dB vs 31 dB, p = 0.002 | Raju et al., Noise and Health 2025 |
| Mean hearing threshold at 6000 Hz, power loom workers vs unexposed controls (same study) | 66.1 dB vs 32.4 dB, p < 0.001 | Raju et al., Noise and Health 2025 |
| Mean hearing threshold at 2000 Hz, power loom workers vs unexposed controls (same study) | 52.3 dB vs 28.5 dB, p = 0.009 | Raju et al., Noise and Health 2025 |
Context note: in the Erode comparison, the gap between loom workers and controls widens from 23.8 dB at 2000 Hz to 39 dB at 4000 Hz, exactly the high-frequency pattern the notch describes (Raju et al., Noise and Health 2025). The Vietnamese figure (most recent available data: Industrial Health, 1998) is calculated as 26 divided by 69 (Nguyen et al. 1998).
5. Hearing Protection: The Missing Layer
Across the mills studied, hearing protection is less a matter of poor compliance than of complete absence. In the Tamil Nadu, Myanmar, Tanzania and Ayka Addis studies, hearing protection use was reported as zero, and at Ayka Addis 88.2% of workers named lack of availability as the reason. Where a survey did find some use, as in the Amhara region of Ethiopia, it covered roughly one worker in ten.
Where protectors are in use, the attenuation workers actually get is modest. A personal attenuation rating (PAR) is the noise reduction measured in a worker’s own ear, as opposed to the laboratory label on the box (Fu et al., International Journal of Audiology 2025). Fit-testing data from other sectors point the same way, as our hearing protection fit testing statistics show.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Ayka Addis workers citing lack of availability as the reason for no hearing protection | 88.2% (342 of 388) | Angaw et al., Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2021 |
| Amhara textile workers using any hearing protection device (earplugs 9.45%, earmuffs 1.45%) | 10.9% | Yirdaw et al., BMJ Open 2024 |
| Median personal attenuation rating, initial visit vs follow-up about 17 months later (192 workers, China) | 10 dB vs 13 dB | Fu et al., International Journal of Audiology 2025 |
| Median personal attenuation rating, foam earplug users vs pre-molded earplug users | 20 dB vs 12 dB (95% CI 10 to 15 dB) | Fu et al., International Journal of Audiology 2025 |
| Effect of earmuff use on hearing-loss complaints over six days, weaving workers (Surakarta, Indonesia) | No significant change (p > 0.05) | Setyawan et al., Indonesian J Occupational Safety and Health 2024 |
| Effect of earmuff use on subjective stress, same study | Significant increase (p < 0.05) | Setyawan et al., Indonesian J Occupational Safety and Health 2024 |
Context note: the Indonesian quasi-experiment found that earmuffs raised short-term stress scores among weavers (Setyawan et al. 2024), a reminder that comfort affects whether protection is worn at all. The Brazilian authors add that protectors reduce noise by only 10 to 15 dB in practice, which on its own cannot bring a 103 dB loom hall down to 85 dB (103 minus 15 still leaves 88 dB).
6. Age, Years of Service and Shift Length
Noise damage accumulates, so the workers with the longest careers carry the heaviest losses. In the Thamine mill in Myanmar, workers aged 35 or older had 6.90 times the adjusted odds of hearing loss (95% CI 3.45 to 13.82), and more than nine years of service in the mill carried a crude odds ratio of 6.07 (Zaw et al., Safety and Health at Work 2020). Age and service years move together in a mill workforce, which is why studies struggle to separate ageing from cumulative noise dose.
Shift length matters as well. At Ayka Addis, working more than 40 hours a week roughly doubled the adjusted odds of self-reported temporary hearing loss, consistent with a larger daily noise dose (Angaw et al. 2021). In Myanmar, tinnitus (ringing in the ears) was also independently associated with hearing loss.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted odds of hearing loss, age 35 or older vs younger (Myanmar) | AOR 6.90 (95% CI 3.45 to 13.82) | Zaw et al., Safety and Health at Work 2020 |
| Crude odds of hearing loss, more than 9 years of service in the mill (Myanmar) | OR 6.07 (95% CI 2.99 to 12.32) | Zaw et al., Safety and Health at Work 2020 |
| Adjusted odds of hearing loss among workers reporting tinnitus (Myanmar) | AOR 2.88 (95% CI 1.13 to 7.37) | Zaw et al., Safety and Health at Work 2020 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss, age over 49 vs age 22 to 35 (Tanzania) | 77.3% vs 40.4%, p < 0.001 | Abraham et al., Annals of Global Health 2019 |
| Adjusted odds of self-reported temporary hearing loss, more than 40 hours per week vs 40 or fewer (Ayka Addis) | AOR 2.19 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.70) | Angaw et al., Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2021 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss among workers with more than 20 years of exposure (Brusque, Brazil) | 42.9% | Caldart et al., Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006 |
| Mild (grade 1 on the Merluzzi scale) share of noise-induced hearing loss cases (Brusque) | 46.2% | Caldart et al., Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006 |
| Average hearing loss among workers employed 25 years or more (Jordan) | 39 dB(HL) | Shakhatreh et al., Saudi Medical Journal 2000 |
Context note: in Brazil nearly half of the noise-induced cases were still mild (grade 1) when found, and that plant had run ear protectors and audiometry for around 10 years. Detection at an early grade depends on someone running the hearing tests in the first place.
7. Global Scale: Workforce, Exposure and Disease Burden
The mill studies above are small, but the workforce behind them is not. The ILO counts over 90 million people employed in textiles and clothing, predominantly women (ILO, Advancing decent work in supply chains 2025). The WHO/ILO Joint Estimates review included 4 studies from the manufacture of textiles, and its pooled exposure figures for high-exposure occupations were far higher in Africa and South-East Asia than in Europe (Teixeira et al., Environment International 2021).
The disease burden is growing in absolute terms. The GBD 2021 analysis puts occupational noise-induced hearing loss at nearly 7.85 million DALYs (disability-adjusted life years, a measure of healthy life lost), with China and India the two largest national burdens (Gong et al., Frontiers in Public Health 2025). A noise profile study from China adds a textile-specific twist: textile workers had higher average noise levels than wooden furniture workers but lower kurtosis, meaning a steadier, less impulsive roar (Zhou et al., Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases 2021).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| People employed in textiles and clothing worldwide | Over 90 million, predominantly women | ILO, Advancing decent work in supply chains 2025 |
| Pooled share of workers in high-exposure occupations exposed to 85 dBA or more, Africa / South-East Asia / Europe | 0.74 / 0.62 / 0.26 | Teixeira et al., Environment International 2021 (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates) |
| Pooled share of workers in general national surveys exposed to 85 dBA or more | 0.17 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.19) | Teixeira et al., Environment International 2021 (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates) |
| DALYs from occupational noise-induced hearing loss worldwide, 2021 | 7,847,444.59 (95% UI 5,313,648.10 to 10,980,789.34) | Gong et al., Frontiers in Public Health 2025 (GBD 2021) |
| Change in occupational noise-induced hearing loss DALYs, 1990 to 2021 | +104.46% | Gong et al., Frontiers in Public Health 2025 (GBD 2021) |
| Age-standardized DALY rate, India, 2021 | 96.37 per 100,000 | Gong et al., Frontiers in Public Health 2025 (GBD 2021) |
| Workers with 8-hour noise exposure of 85 dB(A) or more, wooden furniture and textile workers combined (China) | 84.1% (549 of 653) | Zhou et al., Chinese J Ind Hyg Occup Dis 2021 |
| People worldwide who need rehabilitation for disabling hearing loss | 430 million | WHO Deafness and hearing loss fact sheet 2026 |
Context note: the WHO fact sheet puts the annual global cost of unaddressed hearing loss at almost US$1 trillion and lists occupational hearing conservation programmes among the effective prevention strategies (WHO, Deafness and hearing loss, March 2026). The GBD projection reaches 9,778,997.44 DALYs by 2040.
Summary: Textile Mill Loom Noise and Hearing Loss by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Hearing loss among power loom weavers, Erode (India) | 71.6% (88 of 123) | Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024 |
| Mean 8-hour exposure in that weaving section | 97.85 dB(A) | Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss, textile plant, Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) | 58.5% | Annals of Global Health 2019 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss, Narayanganj mills (Bangladesh) | 14.5% | Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngology 2023 |
| Adjusted odds, weaving vs processing and finishing (Ethiopia) | AOR 6.6 (95% CI 3.06 to 14.3) | BMJ Open 2024 |
| Odds of hearing loss at 90 dB(A) or more (Dire Dawa) | OR 14.40 | Addis Ababa University thesis 1995 |
| Noise-induced hearing loss, weaving vs administration (Brazil) | 38.8% vs 3.8% | Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006 |
| Spinning and weaving workers with a notch deeper than 25 dB (Egypt) | 61% | Environ Sci Pollut Res 2024 |
| Female weavers with a 4000 Hz notch (Vietnam) | 26 of 69 | Industrial Health 1998 |
| Mean 4000 Hz threshold, loom workers vs controls (India) | 70 dB vs 31 dB | Noise and Health 2025 |
| Median earplug protection at baseline, textile factory (China) | 10 dB | International Journal of Audiology 2025 |
| Median earplug protection, foam vs pre-molded earplug users (China) | 20 dB vs 12 dB | International Journal of Audiology 2025 |
| Handloom noise, wooden looms (Thailand) | 61.3 ± 9.4 dBA | J Med Public Health Ubon Ratchathani Univ 2024 |
| Textiles and clothing employment worldwide | Over 90 million | ILO 2025 |
| Pooled share of high-exposure workers at 85 dBA or more, Africa | 0.74 | Environment International 2021 (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates) |
| Occupational noise-induced hearing loss DALYs, 2021 | 7,847,444.59 | Frontiers in Public Health 2025 (GBD 2021) |
| People needing rehabilitation for disabling hearing loss worldwide | 430 million | WHO fact sheet 2026 |
Methodology and Sources
We searched PubMed Central, Europe PMC, journal sites and agency pages for audiometric and noise-measurement studies of weaving, spinning and knitting workers, then read each study’s full text or abstract directly. Figures quoted only in secondary articles were dropped. Self-reported outcomes are labelled as such. Sources:
- Subramaniam S et al., Investigation of Noise Induced Hearing Loss Among Power Loom Industry Workers in Tamil Nadu, India. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery 2024
- Raju NK et al., Assessment of Cognitive Performance and Hearing Impairment of Indian Power Loom Employees. Noise and Health 2025
- Yirdaw AT et al., Work-related temporary hearing loss among textile industry workers in Amhara region, Ethiopia. BMJ Open 2024
- Angaw Y et al., Temporary Hearing Loss Among Ayka Addis Textile Factory Workers. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2021
- Belachew A, Occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss among Dire Dawa Textile Workers. Addis Ababa University thesis 1995; published as Belachew A and Berhane Y, Ethiopian Journal of Health Development 1999
- Abraham Z et al., Prevalence of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss among Textile Industry Workers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Annals of Global Health 2019
- Zaw AK et al., Assessment of Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss Among Workers in Textile Mill (Thamine), Myanmar. Safety and Health at Work 2020
- Taha MM et al., Noise exposure, hOGG1 and GPx-1 polymorphisms and HO-1 among textile workers (Egypt). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024
- Caldart AU et al., The Prevalence of Noise Induced Hearing Loss Among Textile Industry Workers (Brazil). Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia 2006
- Uddin AKMS et al., Prevalence of Noise Induced Hearing Loss among the Textile Workers (Bangladesh). Bangladesh Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2023
- Shakhatreh FM et al., Hearing loss in a textile factory (Jordan). Saudi Medical Journal 2000
- Nguyen AL et al., Noise Levels and Hearing Ability of Female Workers in a Textile Factory in Vietnam. Industrial Health 1998
- Musikapong P et al., Hearing loss among weavers in Pak Thong Chai, Nakhon Ratchasima (Thailand). Journal of Medicine and Public Health, Ubon Ratchathani University 2024
- Fu S et al., Personal attenuation rating with types of earplugs in a textile factory in China. International Journal of Audiology 2025
- Zhou LF et al., Noise exposure characteristics in wooden furniture manufacturing and textile industry (China). Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases 2021
- Setyawan H et al., The Effect of Using Earmuffs on Hearing Loss Complaints and Subjective Stress among Weaving Workers in Surakarta, Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health 2024
- Teixeira LR et al., The prevalence of occupational exposure to noise (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). Environment International 2021
- Gong X et al., Global burden and trends of occupational noise-induced hearing loss (1990 to 2021) and projection to 2040. Frontiers in Public Health 2025
- ILO, Advancing decent work in supply chains: decent work challenges and opportunities in the textiles and clothing sector 2025 and the ILO code of practice on safety and health in textiles, clothing, leather and footwear (adopted 2021)
- WHO, Deafness and hearing loss fact sheet, March 2026
- NIOSH, About Noise and Occupational Hearing Loss
- Data watch: textile studies are small, single-site and cross-sectional, and they use different hearing-loss definitions, so prevalence figures should not be ranked against each other. The Tamil Nadu paper reports 88.5% of workers at 95 dB(A) or more in its abstract but 120 of 123 (97.6%) in its results; we quote neither and use the mean exposure instead. The Dire Dawa weaver rate appears as 71.7% in the 1995 thesis and 71.1% in the 1999 journal article. The two Ethiopian 2021 and 2024 studies measured self-reported symptoms, not audiometry, and the Amhara paper’s discussion reports department figures as shares of all cases, so the 72.5% and 14.9% within-department rates here are our own division of its Table 4 counts. The Noise and Health 2025 study compares 40 workers with 15 university staff, and its reported power loom noise level (about 122 dBA) differs between sections of the paper, so we quote only its audiometric thresholds. The Thai handloom study (12 weavers with more than 20 years of experience) reports hearing loss at 500 to 6,000 Hz in the better ear for 66.8% of workers, a figure we leave out of the tables because age is not separated from exposure. The Chinese earplug and noise profile figures come from the published abstracts, and the Indonesian earmuff results from Universitas Airlangga’s summary of the paper. The Chinese noise profile study reports the 84.1% figure for furniture and textile workers combined. Brazil (2006), Jordan (2000), Vietnam (1998) and Dire Dawa (1995) are the most recent available data for those settings. A new GBD round and further South Asian mill studies are expected to update the burden and prevalence figures.
Last updated: October 18, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the next Global Burden of Disease (GBD) occupational risk estimates are published.