One in three US warehousing workers (32.50%) reported hazardous noise exposure in the past 12 months, more than double the 15.79% rate for the US workforce as a whole (Masterson, Morata and Themann, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2025). The same national survey found hearing difficulty in 14.43% of warehousing workers, and an adjusted prevalence ratio of 1.94 against a low-noise reference industry. Yet employer injury logs recorded fewer than 50 hearing loss cases in warehousing and storage in 2024 (BLS SOII 2024), and modern cross-belt sorters are sold with spec-sheet ratings of 60 to 70 dB(A). We aggregated data from NIOSH, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, OSHA, the UK Health and Safety Executive, MHI, sorter manufacturers and peer-reviewed environmental health studies to show where warehouse noise actually comes from and who absorbs it. For the market and adoption side of automation, see our warehouse robotics statistics; for the factory-floor comparison, see manufacturing noise exposure statistics.
TL;DR
- About 33% of warehousing workers had hazardous noise exposure in the past year (NIOSH Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities Statistics 2026).
- About 1.83 million people worked in US warehousing and storage in September 2026 (BLS Industries at a Glance, NAICS 493).
- About 14% of all warehousing workers have hearing difficulty (NIOSH Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities Statistics 2026).
- Fewer than 50 hearing loss cases were recorded in warehousing and storage in 2024, a rate of 0.1 per 10,000 workers (BLS SOII Tables SNR08 and SNR10 2024).
- Couriers and express delivery services, the parcel hub industry, logged 4.4 hearing loss cases per 10,000 workers in 2024 (BLS SOII Table SNR08 2024).
- Cross-belt sorter datasheets list 62 dB(A) (BEUMER LS-4000CB) and 70 dBA or less (FORTNA Cross Belt Sorter).
- A FORTNA sorter accessory, the Smooth Items Remover, is rated at about 95 dB(C) (FORTNA Cross Belt Sorter datasheet 2024).
- Retrofitted bulk-flow conveyors dropped from 80+ dBA to 70-75 dBA in a Dematic project (KION Group 2024).
- An automated postal parcel sorter’s warning signal reached 103 dBA while ambient exposures were 70-80 dBA (NIOSH HETA 92-056-2223, 1992).
- 59% of noise-exposed transportation and warehousing workers do not wear hearing protection (NIOSH surveillance, Green et al. 2021).
- OSHA’s 2026 warehousing emphasis program covers 7 NAICS industry codes but does not list noise among its focus hazards (OSHA CPL 03-00-026, 2026).
1. Who Is Exposed: Noise Prevalence in Warehousing
Warehousing is not usually filed next to mining or manufacturing as a “noisy” industry, but the survey data says it belongs closer to them than to retail. Warehousing workers reported past-year hazardous noise exposure at 32.50%, against 15.79% for all workers: 32.50 / 15.79 = 2.06 times the national rate, according to the 2023 survey analysis in the table below. Transportation, the sister industry that shares the same docks and yards, sits between the two.
The exposure is also layered. Ototoxic chemicals (substances such as some solvents and metals that can damage the inner ear on their own or amplify noise damage) were reported by about one in five warehousing workers. The practical point for safety managers: a sortation building with diesel yard traffic, battery rooms and cleaning chemicals is a combined-exposure site, not just a loud one. The population at stake is large, with about 1.83 million people employed in US warehousing and storage in September 2026 (BLS Industries at a Glance, NAICS 493).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Hazardous noise exposure in the past 12 months, warehousing workers vs all US workers vs transportation workers (2023) | 32.50% vs 15.79% vs 21.57% | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Lifetime history of noise exposure, warehousing workers vs all US workers (2023) | 46.60% vs 28.01% | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Past-year exposure among warehousing workers vs all US workers (2023): ototoxic chemicals; both noise and ototoxic chemicals | 21.74% vs 12.77%; 13.63% (use with caution) vs 7.01% | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Warehousing and storage employment, all employees, September 2026 (preliminary) | 1,831.8 thousand | BLS Industries at a Glance, NAICS 493 |
| Stock clerks and order fillers employed in warehousing and storage (2025) | 457,740 | BLS Industries at a Glance (OES 2025) |
| Industrial truck and tractor operators employed in warehousing and storage (2025) | 286,750 | BLS Industries at a Glance (OES 2025) |
Context note: the warehousing estimates come from 107 surveyed warehousing workers (weighted to 1,124,788 workers), so the confidence intervals are wide. The study itself marks the combined-exposure figure as having a relative standard error of 30% to 50%.
2. Hearing Outcomes: Difficulty, Tinnitus and Impairment
Exposure only matters if it turns into damage, and in warehousing it appears to. Warehousing workers had an adjusted prevalence ratio of 1.94 (95% CI 1.16-3.23) for hearing difficulty, which the study describes as a 94% higher adjusted risk than the reference industry (finance and insurance) after accounting for sex, age, race and ethnicity, education, body mass index and smoking (Masterson et al., JOEM 2025). Transportation workers, by contrast, showed no measurable excess.
The longer-run audiometric data, which comes from workers who actually had hearing tests, tells a more hopeful story for the wider sector. Among noise-exposed tested workers in transportation, warehousing and utilities, hearing loss prevalence fell 6% over three decades, faster than in industry overall (NIOSH Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities Statistics). The catch is that audiometric programs mostly exist where employers already know noise is a problem, which section 3 suggests is rarely the case in warehousing.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Self-reported hearing difficulty, warehousing workers vs transportation workers vs all US workers (2023) | 14.43% vs 10.18% vs 11.28% | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Adjusted prevalence ratio for hearing difficulty vs the finance and insurance industry, warehousing vs transportation (95% CI) | 1.94 (1.16-3.23) vs 1.01 (0.73-1.39) | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Tinnitus (ringing in the ears), transportation and warehousing workers vs all US workers (2007 data) | About 7% vs about 8% | NIOSH Surveillance (Masterson et al. 2016); NIOSH Overall Statistics |
| Any hearing impairment among noise-exposed tested workers, transportation, warehousing and utilities vs all industries (2003-2012) | 7.89% vs 12.94% | CDC MMWR 2016 |
| Healthy years lost to hearing impairment per 1,000 noise-exposed workers (DALYs), transportation, warehousing and utilities vs all industries | 1.54 vs 2.53 | CDC MMWR 2016 |
| Noise-exposed tested workers, transportation, warehousing and utilities vs all industries: change in hearing loss prevalence 1981-2010; change in adjusted hearing loss risk 1986-2010 | Down 6% vs down less than 1%; down 52% vs down 46% | NIOSH Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities Statistics |
Most recent available data for the audiometric rows: CDC MMWR 2016 (2003-2012 data) and NIOSH trend analyses covering 1981-2010. A DALY (disability-adjusted life year) counts years of healthy life lost to a condition. Note that the audiometric rows group warehousing with transportation and utilities, so they cannot isolate warehouse workers the way the 2023 survey rows do.
3. What Gets Recorded: Hearing Loss Cases in Employer Logs
Here the numbers diverge sharply from the survey picture. Warehousing and storage recorded fewer than 50 hearing loss cases in 2024, a rate of 0.1 per 10,000 full-time workers (BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, Tables SNR08 and SNR10, 2024). General warehousing and storage (NAICS 49311) recorded fewer than 15 cases, too few for BLS to publish a rate.
A recordable hearing loss case under OSHA rules generally requires a baseline hearing test and a measured shift on a later test, so an industry that rarely runs audiometric testing will rarely record one. That is a likely reason the logs and the survey disagree, and it is why parcel hubs stand out: couriers and express delivery services, the industry that runs parcel hubs, logged rates many times higher. Our OSHA standard threshold shift statistics explain how a shift becomes a recordable case. Meanwhile, the same warehouses log plenty of other harm, which is where regulators have been looking.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Recorded hearing loss cases and rate per 10,000 full-time workers, transportation and warehousing sector (2024) | About 600 cases; 1.1 | BLS SOII Tables SNR08 and SNR10 2024 |
| Recorded hearing loss cases and rate, warehousing and storage (2024) | Fewer than 50 cases; 0.1 | BLS SOII Tables SNR08 and SNR10 2024 |
| Recorded hearing loss cases, general warehousing and storage (2024) | Fewer than 15 cases (rate not published) | BLS SOII Table SNR08 2024 |
| Hearing loss rate per 10,000 full-time workers, couriers and express delivery services vs air transportation (2024) | 4.4 vs 5.2 | BLS SOII Table SNR08 2024 |
| All recorded illnesses (every illness type), warehousing and storage (2024) | 2,300 cases; 14.3 per 10,000 full-time workers | BLS Chart: Nonfatal Work Illnesses by Detailed Industry 2024 |
| Total recordable injury and illness cases per 100 full-time workers, warehousing and storage (2024) | 4.8 | BLS Industries at a Glance, NAICS 493 |
| Average recordable case rate per 100 workers, 2020-2024: couriers and express delivery vs general warehousing vs all private industry | 8.6 vs 5.2 vs 2.6 | OSHA CPL 03-00-026 (2026), Table 1 |
Context note: BLS case counts are published in thousands, so 0.6 thousand appears here as about 600 cases. Dashes in the BLS tables mean the estimate did not meet publication guidelines, not that the true number is zero.
4. Sorter and Conveyor Machine Noise: What the Spec Sheets Say
Automation vendors now compete on quietness, and the headline figures are low. The BEUMER LS-4000CB cross-belt sorter (a sorter that moves each parcel on its own small conveyor belt and ejects it sideways at the destination chute) is rated at 62 dB(A) (BEUMER LS-4000CB datasheet). GBI and FORTNA quote similar or lower ceilings.
The caveat is that a datasheet describes one machine in isolation, and none of the sheets reviewed here states a measuring distance. A sortation hall is the sum of induction belts, accumulation conveyors, spirals, chutes, forklifts and alarms, which is why retrofit projects still report starting points above 80 dBA. Vendor-reported retrofit gains of 15 dBA or more are large: on a decibel scale, a 10 dB drop is roughly a tenfold cut in sound energy.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Rated noise level, BEUMER LS-4000CB cross-belt sorter (sorter speed up to 3 m/s) | 62 dB(A) | BEUMER LS-4000CB datasheet |
| Rated noise level, GBI cross-belt sorter (up to 13,250 sorts per hour) | At or below 60 dB | GBI Cross Belt Sorter datasheet 2017 |
| Rated noise level, FORTNA cross-belt sorter, single and double cell (up to 16,600 and 19,600 cases per hour) | 70 dBA or less | FORTNA Cross Belt Sorter datasheet 2024 |
| Rated noise level, FORTNA Smooth Items Remover accessory (C-weighted, which counts low-frequency sound more fully than A-weighting) | About 95 dB(C) | FORTNA Cross Belt Sorter datasheet 2024 |
| Bulk-flow conveyor noise before vs after a friction-reducing belt retrofit at a major retailer | 80+ dBA vs 70-75 dBA | KION Group (Dematic) 2024 |
| Maximum noise reduction claimed for upgraded rollers, slats and belt conveyors | Up to 15 dBA | KION Group (Dematic) 2024 |
| Noise reduction attributed to changing roller shaft materials or coating rollers | As much as 20 to 30 decibels | MHI Warehouse Automation Blog 2024 |
Most recent available data: the GBI datasheet is dated 2017 and the BEUMER sheet was uploaded in 2019. The retrofit figures come from vendors describing their own projects, not independent measurement (KION Group, Tackling the noise, 2024; MHI, Tamping Down Conveyor Noise Levels, 2024).
5. Field Measurements: Conveyors, Sorters and Jam Alarms
Field evaluations of sortation noise are scarce, and the best public ones are old, but they share a pattern: steady-state machine noise near or below the 85 dBA action level, punctuated by alarms far louder than the machines. At a US Postal Service station, an automated Small Parcel and Bundle Sorter produced exposures of 70-80 dBA, yet its warning signal reached 103 dBA (NIOSH HETA 92-056-2223). NIOSH concluded the levels did not exceed hearing criteria, but workers described the unpredictable alarm as a stressor they could not control.
Baggage screening at airports, which also relies on long conveyor lines, shows how the choice of yardstick changes the verdict. Squeaking conveyors and jam alarms that kept sounding until someone cleared the bag pushed 21% of dosimeter samples over the NIOSH limit, while almost none breached OSHA’s (NIOSH HETA 2005-0091-2957). A dosimeter is a small meter clipped near the worker’s ear that logs sound over the whole shift; “dose” is the share of the allowed daily exposure used up, so 100% means the limit was reached.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Worker noise exposure near an automated small parcel and bundle sorter, postal station | 70-80 dBA | NIOSH HETA 92-056-2223 (1992) |
| Peak level of the same sorter’s warning signal | Up to 103 dBA | NIOSH HETA 92-056-2223 (1992) |
| Conveyor lines feeding the shipping area of a drug distribution center (operating during the survey) | 9 lines (5 in full operation); levels approached but never exceeded 85 dB(A) 8-hour TWA | NIOSH HETA 91-194-2153 (1991) |
| Full-shift dosimeter samples on airport baggage screeners exceeding the NIOSH limit | 21% of 56 samples | NIOSH HETA 2005-0091-2957 (2005) |
| Baggage screener samples exceeding the OSHA action level vs the OSHA permissible limit | 2 of 56 vs 0 of 56 | NIOSH HETA 2005-0091-2957 (2005) |
| Median daily noise dose, measured against the NIOSH limit vs against the OSHA limit (range under NIOSH) | 60% vs 3.3% (NIOSH range 15% to 1,187%) | NIOSH HETA 2005-0091-2957 (2005) |
| Average conveyance equipment noise at a national distribution center with over 1,500 employees on 12-hour shifts | 83-88 dBA | Sound Seal / IAC Acoustics case study |
| Noise reduction from an acoustic enclosure installed at the same distribution center | 12 dBA | Sound Seal / IAC Acoustics case study |
Most recent available data: NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations from 1991, 1992 and 2005, plus an undated vendor case study (Sound Seal distribution center case study). TWA (time-weighted average) is the average level over an 8-hour shift. No NIOSH evaluation of a modern robotic e-commerce sortation center was found in public records for this roundup.
6. Limits, Hearing Protection and Enforcement
The rulebook explains part of the gap between sections 1 and 3. OSHA’s limit is 90 dBA over 8 hours with a 5 dBA exchange rate, while NIOSH recommends 85 dBA with a 3 dBA exchange rate (OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure). The exchange rate is how many decibels it takes to halve the allowed exposure time; under the NIOSH method, 88 dBA is allowed for half as long as 85 dBA, while OSHA allows 95 dBA for half as long as 90 dBA. A conveyor hall averaging 83-88 dBA (section 5) therefore sits right around the OSHA action level and, at the upper end, above the NIOSH limit.
Protection is thin where it would matter. Most noise-exposed transportation and warehousing workers do not wear hearing protectors, and when they do, fit matters as much as the label rating; see our hearing protection fit testing statistics. Enforcement attention is also elsewhere: OSHA’s revised warehousing emphasis program lists heat and ergonomics as its health hazards, not noise (OSHA CPL 03-00-026, 2026).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| OSHA permissible exposure limit (8-hour time-weighted average) and exchange rate | 90 dBA; 5 dBA | OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure |
| OSHA level that triggers a mandatory hearing conservation program (8-hour TWA) | 85 dBA | OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure |
| NIOSH recommended exposure limit and exchange rate | 85 dBA for 8 hours; 3 dBA | OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure |
| UK lower action value vs upper action value vs exposure limit value (daily or weekly average) | 80 dB(A) vs 85 dB(A) vs 87 dB(A) | HSE, Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 |
| Noise-exposed workers not wearing hearing protection: transportation and warehousing vs all industries (2007 and 2014 data) | 59% vs 53% | NIOSH Surveillance (Green, Masterson and Themann 2021) |
| Industry codes (NAICS) covered by OSHA’s 2026 warehousing emphasis program, effective July 31, 2026 | 7 (postal processing centers, couriers, local delivery, 4 warehousing types) | OSHA CPL 03-00-026 (2026) |
| Total penalty in OSHA’s settlement with logistics firm Exel over noise exposure and recordkeeping citations | $143,000 | OSHA / OSHRC Settlement, Exel Inc. (2012) |
Context note: the Exel settlement states that its noise obligations were “not intended to apply to any facilities used solely for warehousing purposes” unless the company had reason to believe workers there could reach covered noise levels (OSHA settlement agreement, Exel Inc., 2012). Most recent available data for hearing protector use: 2007 and 2014 survey years.
7. Beyond the Fence Line: Community Noise Around Warehouses
Ambient noise from a distribution center does not stop at the dock doors; much of it travels on trucks. In the South Bronx, researchers measured street noise before a large delivery warehouse opened and then tracked traffic afterward. Four of eight monitoring sites already exceeded the 70 dBA EPA guideline before the warehouse opened, and late-evening truck traffic rose 31.7% (95% CI 23.4, 40.6) at one site afterward (Shearston et al., IJERPH 2020). The modeled noise increase, however, was small, because the neighborhood was already loud.
Planning studies reach a similar conclusion from the other direction. A 2026 noise dispersion model for a planned Lithuanian logistics warehouse found that a nearby highway dominated the soundscape and that homes beyond 291 meters stayed within limits even in the worst case (Juodkiene and Rekus, Civil and Environmental Engineering 2026). The pattern for communities: siting next to existing highways and loud corridors adds little measurable noise, while siting next to quiet residential streets is where trucks change the picture.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Equivalent sound level (Leq, the energy-average level over the measuring period) at 8 South Bronx sites before the warehouse opened | 63.7 to 75.0 dBA | Shearston et al., IJERPH 2020 |
| Monitoring sites above the EPA 70 dBA guideline before opening | 4 of 8 | Shearston et al., IJERPH 2020 |
| Change in truck traffic 9 PM to midnight after opening, site 3 vs site 4 (95% CI) | +31.7% (23.4, 40.6) vs +27.7% (12.9, 44.5) | Shearston et al., IJERPH 2020 |
| Predicted mean noise increase from the post-opening traffic change | 0.06 dBA (SD 0.09) | Shearston et al., IJERPH 2020 |
| Modeled noise increase per 100 additional trucks per hour at the most traffic-sensitive site | 25.1 dBA | Shearston et al., IJERPH 2020 |
| Vehicle traffic assumed for a planned Lithuanian logistics warehouse (per day) | Up to 100 heavy and 100 light vehicles | Juodkiene and Rekus, Civil and Environmental Engineering 2026 |
| Distance beyond which homes stayed within noise limits in the worst-case model | 291 meters | Juodkiene and Rekus, Civil and Environmental Engineering 2026 |
| Noise from the adjacent A1 highway, depending on time of day | About 60.8 to 68.9 dB(A) | Juodkiene and Rekus, Civil and Environmental Engineering 2026 |
Most recent available data for the South Bronx measurements: 2017-2019 monitoring, published 2020. The authors note they did not adjust p-values across their 32 traffic models.
Summary: Warehouse Robotic Sorter Ambient Noise Exposure by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Warehousing workers vs all US workers (2023): past-year hazardous noise exposure; lifetime history of noise exposure | 32.50% vs 15.79%; 46.60% vs 28.01% | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Warehousing workers with hearing difficulty | About 14% | NIOSH Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities Statistics 2026 |
| Adjusted prevalence ratio for hearing difficulty, warehousing (95% CI) | 1.94 (1.16-3.23) | Masterson et al., JOEM 2025 |
| Warehousing and storage employment, September 2026 (preliminary) | 1,831.8 thousand | BLS Industries at a Glance, NAICS 493 |
| Recorded hearing loss cases in warehousing and storage (2024) | Fewer than 50; rate 0.1 per 10,000 | BLS SOII Tables SNR08 and SNR10 2024 |
| Recorded hearing loss rate, couriers and express delivery services (2024) | 4.4 per 10,000 | BLS SOII Table SNR08 2024 |
| Any hearing impairment, noise-exposed tested transportation, warehousing and utilities workers (2003-2012) | 7.89% | CDC MMWR 2016 |
| Rated noise level, BEUMER LS-4000CB cross-belt sorter | 62 dB(A) | BEUMER LS-4000CB datasheet |
| Rated noise level, FORTNA cross-belt sorter | 70 dBA or less | FORTNA Cross Belt Sorter datasheet 2024 |
| Bulk-flow conveyor noise before vs after retrofit | 80+ dBA vs 70-75 dBA | KION Group (Dematic) 2024 |
| Noise reduction from changing roller materials or coatings | As much as 20 to 30 decibels | MHI Warehouse Automation Blog 2024 |
| Automated parcel sorter warning signal | Up to 103 dBA | NIOSH HETA 92-056-2223 (1992) |
| Airport baggage screener dosimeter samples over the NIOSH limit | 21% of 56 | NIOSH HETA 2005-0091-2957 (2005) |
| Distribution center conveyance noise on 12-hour shifts | 83-88 dBA | Sound Seal / IAC Acoustics case study |
| Noise-exposed transportation and warehousing workers without hearing protection | 59% | NIOSH Surveillance (Green et al. 2021) |
| OSHA limit vs NIOSH recommended limit (8 hours) | 90 dBA vs 85 dBA | OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure |
| Late-evening truck traffic increase after a South Bronx warehouse opened | +31.7% | Shearston et al., IJERPH 2020 |
Methodology and Sources
- Masterson, Morata and Themann, Prevalence of Ototoxic Chemical Exposure, Noise Exposure and Hearing Difficulty Among Workers in the United States, 2023, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2025
- NIOSH Noise and Hearing Loss Surveillance: Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities (TWU) Statistics
- NIOSH Noise and Hearing Loss Surveillance: Overall Statistics, All U.S. Industries
- CDC MMWR, Hearing Impairment Among Noise-Exposed Workers, United States, 2003-2012 (2016)
- BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, historical summary tables SNR08 and SNR10, 2024
- BLS Chart: Number and rate of nonfatal work illnesses in detailed private industries, 2024
- BLS Industries at a Glance: Warehousing and Storage, NAICS 493
- OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure
- OSHA Directive CPL 03-00-026, National Emphasis Program on Warehousing and Distribution Center Operations (2026)
- OSHA settlement agreement, Secretary of Labor v. Exel Inc., OSHRC Docket 12-0683 (2012)
- HSE, Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005
- NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation HETA 92-056-2223, U.S. Postal Service, Lansing, Michigan (1992)
- NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation HETA 91-194-2153, McKesson Drug Company, Fairfield, Ohio (1991)
- NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation HETA 2005-0091-2957, TSA Baggage Screeners at Four International Airports (2005)
- BEUMER LS-4000CB Cross Belt Sorter datasheet
- GBI Cross Belt Sorter datasheet 2017
- FORTNA Cross Belt Sorter datasheet 2024
- KION Group, Tackling the noise: Innovative solutions for peace and quiet (2024)
- MHI, Tamping Down Conveyor Noise Levels (2024)
- Sound Seal, Distribution Center Case Study
- Shearston et al., Opening a Large Delivery Service Warehouse in the South Bronx: Impacts on Traffic, Air Pollution, and Noise, IJERPH 2020
- Juodkiene and Rekus, Noise Dispersion Modelling in the Planned Logistics Warehouse and Residential Area, Civil and Environmental Engineering 2026
- Data watch: the 2023 warehousing survey estimates rest on 107 respondents, and the combined noise and ototoxic chemical figure is flagged by the authors as statistically unstable. Survey prevalence (self-reported exposure and hearing difficulty) and BLS recordable cases measure different things and should not be divided into one another. The NIOSH TWU page describes the 8% figure from the 2016 MMWR study as hearing impairment in both ears, while the MMWR table reports 7.89% as any hearing impairment for the same sector; we quote the MMWR wording. Sorter noise ratings are manufacturer figures without stated measuring distances and are not comparable to worker dosimetry. No public NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation of a modern robotic e-commerce sortation center was found; the field data in section 5 dates from 1991 to 2005. BLS SOII data for 2025 is expected in late 2026 and will update section 3.
Last updated: October 18, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes its 2025 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses illness tables (SNR08 and SNR10).