A Comparative Study of Noise Pollution Levels in Some Selected Areas in Ilorin

Metropolis, Nigeria

Oyedepo S.Olayinka1
Saadu A.Abdullahi (Ph.D)2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kwara State Polytechnic, Ilorin, Kwara State.

Correspondence: Oyedepo S Olayinka E-mail: oyedeposo@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
The noise pollution is a major problem for the quality of life in urban areas. This study
was conducted to compare the noise pollution levels at busy roads/ road junctions,
passengers loading parks, commercial, industrial and residential areas in Ilorin
metropolis. A total number of 47- locations were selected within the metropolis.
Statistical analysis shows significant difference (P<0.05) in noise pollution levels
between industrial areas and low density residential areas, industrial areas and high
density areas, industrial areas and passengers loading parks, industrial areas and
commercial areas, busy roads/ road junctions and low density areas, passengers loading
parks and commercial areas and commercial areas and low density areas. There is no
significant difference (P>0.05) in noise pollution levels between industrial areas and busy
roads/ road junctions, busy roads/ road junctions and high density areas, busy roads/ road
junctions and passengers loading parks, busy roads/ road junctions and commercial areas,
passengers loading parks and high density areas, passengers loading parks and
commercial areas and commercial areas and high density areas. The results show that
Industrial areas have the highest noise pollution levels (110.2 dB(A)) followed by busy
roads/ Road junctions (91.5 dB(A)), Passengers loading parks (87.8 dB(A)) and
Commercial areas (84.4 dB(A)). The noise pollution levels in Ilorin metropolis exceeded
the recommended level by WHO at 34 of 47 measuring points. It can be concluded that
the city is environmentally noise polluted and road traffic and industrial machineries are
the major sources of it. Noting the noise emission standards, technical control measures,
planning and promoting the citizens awareness about the high noise risk may help to
relieve the noise problem in the metropolis.

Key words: Noise pollution, environmental noise, industrial noise, Ilorin, health hazard

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Noise, a by-product of urbanization and industrialization, is increasingly recognized as an
environmental nuisance that affects human health and well being (Mansouri et al, 2006).
City noise levels can be investigated in three different ways as traffic and transportation;
industrial activities; Sport, marketing and entertainment facilities (Sukuru et al, 2006).In
comparison to other pollutants, the control of environmental noise has been hampered by
insufficient knowledge of its effects on human and lack of defined criteria. Noise
pollution is a significant environmental problem in many rapidly urbanizing areas. This
problem is properly not recognized despite the fact that it is steadily growing in
developing countries. It is well established now that noise is a potential hazard to health,
communication and enjoyment of social life. It is becoming an unjustifiable interference
imposition upon human comfort, health and quality of life (Ahmad, 1998).
Noise as a physical pollutant is not easily recognized. This is because the sensitivity of
human ear gets automatically adjusted to the ambient level of sound and so slow
increases in the ambient level go unnoticed. Therefore, noise continues to do the damage
silently. Pollution, in general, is a by-product of some essential function or activity.
Therefore it is almost impossible to completely eliminate the pollutant, but it can be
controlled or reduced. Most of the pollutants can be tolerated only up to a certain level,
the level being dependent on the type of the pollutant. When the level of pollution
continues to increase, it becomes necessary to know the amount by which the permissible
limit has been exceeded so that their increase can be checked by the introduction of
suitable regulations. To know the level of pollution the pollutant has to be measured. In
the case of noise pollution, measurement is all the more essential because of the
incapability of our auditory system to recognized slow changes (Sampath et al, 2004).
In Nigeria, the problem of noise pollution is wide spread. Several studies report that noise
level in metropolitan cities exceeds specified standard limits. A study by Ugwuanyi et al
(2004) conducted in Makurdi, Nigeria found that the noise pollution level in the city was
about 3 dB(A) to 10 dB(A) above the recommended upper limit of 82 dB(A). Onuu and
Menkiti (1993) also found that the peak noise level ranges between 86-106 dB(A) in Aba
and Uyo, Nigeria. This noise level is higher than the recommended level of 60 dB(A) for
commercial and residential areas. Ighoroje et al (2004) investigated the level of noise
pollution in selected industrial locations in Benin City, Nigera. The average ambient
noise level in Sawmills, Electro-acoustic market and food processing industrial areas was
determined to be above 90 dB(A). This noise level is well above the healthy noise level
of 60 dB(A).
The noise pollution is not a unique problem for developing countries like Nigeria only.
Many researches have revealed that, more than 130 million people in Europe suffer from
exposure to noise levels above 65 dB(A) ( CEC, 2000). Bond (1996) reports that 16% of
people in Europe are expose to 40 dB(A) or more of traffic noise in their bed rooms at
night compare it with WHO’s average estimates of 30 to 35 dB(A) for undisrupted sleep.
WHO has proposed the time base guideline for LAeq for 16h daytime and 8h night-time.
The environmental noise level of 70 dB(A) LAeq, 24h was recommended by WHO for
industrial, commercial, shopping and traffic areas, indoors and outdoors areas to prevent
impairments (Birgitta et al, 1999).

2
Depending on the duration, volume of noise and distance from noise source, the effects of
noise on human health and comfort are divided into four groups: physical effects, such as
hearing and ear burning; physiological effects, such as increased blood pressure ,
irregularity of heart rhythms and ulcers; psychological effects, such as disorders,
irritability, annoyance and stress; and finally performance effects, such as reduction of
productivity and lack of understanding what is heard (Yilmas and Ozer, 2005; Saadu,
1988; Tekalam, 1991; Narender and Davar, 2004; Okah-Avae,1996).
It is sad to know from the investigations by Saadu et al (1998), Onuu and Menkiti (1993),
Ugwuanyi et al (2004) , unpublished works of Saadu (1988) and Agbendeh (2000) that
Nigerians are noisy people. In Nigeria, there is no legal frame work upon which noise
pollution can be abated. Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) in Nigeria
only provided daily noise exposure limits for workers in industry (i.e 90 dB(A) for 8h
exposure).In short, the Nigerian Government and her citizenry appear not to be conscious
of the present and future impacts of noise induced health hazards in their environment.
Unless and until measures are taken to control the level of noise, the ongoing
urbanization and industrialization may complicate the problem so much that it becomes
incurable.
Ilorin is one of the biggest cities in the Middle belt zone of Nigeria. The most important
factors raising the noise pollution in the city in the last two decades are the increased
number of cars, the increased population and industrialization. The population has
increased from 423,340 in 1980 to 902,131 in 2006 (NPC, 2006). The city has been
subjected to persistent in road traffic and commercial activities due to overall increase in
prosperity, fast development and expansion of economy.
Very few studies have been carried out to investigate and assess noise pollution in Ilorin
metropolis. Saadu (1988), carried out research on community and occupational noise
survey and analysis in the city of Ilorin. Many recent survey changes in demography and
urban boundary in the city have taken place and consequently, further investigation of
this phenomenon is needed. Oyedepo and Saadu (2008) studied the changing noise
climate of Ilorin metropolis. In the study, a noise level in Ilorin was investigated and
noise map for the city was developed.
This study was carried out to determine: (i) the noise pollution levels in selected locations
(commercial areas, busy roads/road junctions, passengers loading parks, residential and
industrial areas) in Ilorin metropolis. (ii) if there is significant difference in noise
pollution levels (LNP) in the selected locations.

2.0 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Area
This research is based on the results of outdoor sound level measurements carried out in October
2004 and July 2005 at 47 different locations (12 commercial areas, 12 busy roads/road junctions,
6 passengers loading parks, 6 high density residential ,6 low density residential and 5 industrial
areas) in Ilorin metropolis, the capital city of Kwara state. Table1shows the locations selected for
the noise level measurements in Ilorin metropolis. Figures1 and 2 show an overview of Ilorin
metropolis showing the locations of noise measurements for this study and the population growth
of the metropolis respectfully.

3
Table 1: Locations selected for the noise level measurements in Ilorin Metropolis
Designation Location Designation Location
No No
1 Ita-Alamu 25 Baboko Garage
2 Offa Garage 26 Agaka
3 Gaa-Akanbi 27 Oja-Titun
4 GRA 28 Kuntu
5 Tanke 29 Unilorin Junction
6 Basin 30 Adewole
7 Jebba Road 31 Sawmill-Garage
8 Maraba 32 Asa Dam Road
9 Yoruba Road 33 Geri Alimi
10 Challenge Junction 34 Airport
11 Railway Station 35 Adeta
12 Unity Road 36 Pakata
13 Niger 37 Oloje
14 Ago Market 38 Okelele
15 Emir’s Road 39 Shao Garage
16 Opo Malu 40 Sobi Road
17 Ipata Market 41 General Hospital
18 Oja –Gboro Round-about
19 Gambari 42 Balogun Fulani
20 Oja-Oba 3 Minerals crushing mills
21 Gegele 32 Soft drink bottling Ind.
22 Ita-Amodu 7 Beer brewing & bottling
23 Taiwo Road Ind.
24 Agbooba Junction 3 Tobacco making Ind.
32 Mattress making Ind.

4
Fig. 1 Overview of Ilorin metropolis showing the locations of noise measurements
Throughout this study (Source: Survey Division, Min. of Lands & Housing,
Ilorin, Kwara State)

5
 1000000
2.2 Instrumentation and Noise Survey
Instrumentation for the field measurements consisted of precision grade sound level meter
(according to IEC 651, ANSI S1.4 type), ½- in. condenser microphone and ⅓- octave filter with
frequency range and measuring level range of 31.5Hz – 8 KHz and 35-130dB respectively. The

900000
instruments were calibrated by the internal sound level calibrator before making measurements at
each site. All the instruments comply with IEC standards.
2.3 Assessment of Community Noise Survey
For community noise survey, measurements were made at street level (at road junctions, market
centers, passengers loading parks and residential areas). The instrument was held comfortably in
hand with the microphone pointed at the suspected noise source at a distance not less than 1 m
away from any reflecting object. L Ai (A-weighted instantaneous Sound pressure level)
measurements were recorded at intervals of 30 seconds for a period of 30 minutes, giving 60
meter readings per sampling location. This procedure was carried out for morning (7:30 -8:00
a.m), afternoon (1:00 – 1:30 p.m), evening (4:00-4:30 p.m) and night (8:30 -9:00 p.m)
measurements. From these readings, commonly used community noise assessment quantities like

800000
the exceedence percentiles L10, and L90, the A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level, LAeq, the
daytime average sound level, LD, the day-night average sound level, LDN, the noise pollution
level, LNP and the traffic noise index, TNI were computed. These noise measures are defined as
follows (Saadu et al, 1998):
1 N  L  
L Aeq = 10 log10  ∑  anti log Ai ni  − − − − − − − − − − − (1)
 N i =1  10  

7000006
   L AeqM L AeqA 
LD = 10 log 10  1  anti log + anti log  − − − − − − − − − − − (2)
2 10 10
  

1  L L + 10 
LDN = 10 log 10  15 × anti log D + 9 × anti log N  − − − − − − − − − − − (3)
 24  10 10 
  L AeqE L AeqN 
L N = 10 log 10  1  anti log + anti log  − − − − − − − − − − − (4)
2 10 10
  
L NP = L Aeq + ( L10 − L90 ) − − − − − − − − − − − (5)
TNI = 4( L10 − L90 ) + ( L90 − 30 ) − − − − − − − − − − − (6)

Where LAi is the ith A-weighted sound pressure level reading dB, N is the total number of
readings, LAeq is the A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level, LAeqM is the equivalent sound
pressure for the morning measurement, LAeqA is the equivalent sound pressure level for the
afternoon measurement, LAeqE is the equivalent sound pressure level for the evening
measurement, LAeqN is the equivalent sound pressure level for the night measurement, LN is night
time noise level, LD is day time noise level, L10 is the noise level exceeded 10% of the time, L90 is
the noise level exceeded 90% of the time, LNP is noise pollution level, LDN is day-night noise
level, TNI is the traffic noise index. Tables 7-11 show the noise levels measured in commercial
areas, road junctions/ busy roads, passengers loading parks, high density residential areas and
low density residential areas.
2.4 Assessment of Industrial Noise Exposure
For industrial noise survey, noise levels were measured at the positions of the employees’
heads while they kept their work posture. A total number of 74-industrial machineries
were assessed for noise emission: minerals crushing mills (16), soft drink bottling
industry (12), beer brewing and bottling industry (14),tobacco making industry (14), and
mattress making industry (18). For each of the selected machines in the study, five
measurements were taken at interval of 30 seconds for a period of 15 minutes. The
experimental apparatus used, measures both time varying (non-impulsive) noise and
impulsive noise. Occurrence of impulsive noise was noted during measurement and
analyzed in this study. Each employee was assessed for a period of 8-working hours per
day and 48-working hours per week in each of the selected industries.
2.4.1 Time varying noise exposure
In the case where workers experience time-varying noise exposure because the noise is
cyclical or varies unpredictably at their work station or because they move around the
department or plant in performing their job, the ISO R1999 (Saadu,1988)standard
provides for summing the series of partial exposure that such workers receive during their
work period. The noise levels so measured should be grouped in classes with width of 5
dB each, the level and total duration within the week being recorded for each class. The
total duration of exposure of each class in a week is then converted to partial noise
exposure index utilizing table of partial noise exposure indices. The composite noise
exposure index is then added up and the corresponding equivalent continuous sound
level, LAeq, was read from the chart of relationship between equivalent continuous sound
level and composite noise exposure index.

7
 The above procedure was applied in computing the equivalent continuous sound level
(non-impulsive noise), LAeq, in the industries surveyed. Tables 8-12 show the computed
equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq) for the industries surveyed.
The noise pollution level can be computed by using the relation (ISO/R131- 1959)
(Peterson and Gross, 1974):
LNP = LAeq +19.88 (7)
2.4.2 Impulse Noise Level
The new Draft International Standard, “Determination of occupational noise exposure
and estimation of noise – induced hearing impairment “(ISO/DIS 1999-1981) stipulates
that so far the un-weighted instantaneous sound pressure level does not exceed 145
dB(A), impulse noise and non-impulse noise should not be considered independently but
should be included in the A-weighted daily noise exposure averaged on an equal energy
basis.
The draft recommendation, in effect, permits the combination of exposures to different
kinds of noise in the same daily duration for estimating the sound exposure level (SEL),
LAeq (8h), which is defined as equivalent A-weighted exposure level for an 8-hour daily
working period. This is given by (Saadu,1988) :
 1 j =q  L Aj  1 i =k  L  
L Aeq (8h) = 10 log 10  ∑ anti log t j + ∑ anti log Ai ni  (8)
 8 j =1  10  N i =1  10  
Where
LAj is the A-weighted sound pressure level of a continuous noise
j =k

tj is the duration of LAj in hours, ∑t

j =1
j = 8hours

q is the number of different values of LAj

LAi is the A-weighted sound pressure level (peak) of a single impulse noise
ni is the frequency of occurrence of LAi
k is the number of different values of LAi
i =k
N is the number of values of LAi given by N = ∑ ni
i =1
The noise exposure records of the workers in the soft drink bottling industry, minerals
crushing mills and beer brewery and bottling industry were computed based on the above
equation. Tables 13 -14 show the noise expose records.

2.5 Analysis
The indoors and outdoors ambient noise measurements carried out in October 2004 and
July 2005 at 47 locations in Ilorin metropolis are to be analyzed.
In table 2, the noise pollution levels (LNP) for commercial centers is presented to illustrate
the full data set. Fisher’s distribution and Scheffe’s Post Hoc tests were made on the full
data set.
Using one-way analysis of variance, a null hypothesis of the first test is
Ho: μ1 = μ2
That is, the means of populations from which the samples are drawn are equal.
In this test, two independent estimates of the population variance are (i) within group
variance estimate which deals with how different each of the values in a given sample is

8
from other values in the same group (ii) between group variance estimates which deals
with how different the means of various samples (or groups) are from each other.
These are computed as follows:
The total sum of squares is
(∑ X ) 2
SS T = ∑ X − 2 (9)
N
Where
∑X 2 = ∑X 12 + ∑X 22 + ...... ∑X n2 (10)
The sum of squares between groups is
(∑ X 1 ) 2 (∑ X 2 ) 2 (∑ X K ) 2 (∑ X ) 2
SS B = + + ....... − (11)
N1 N2 NK N
Where k is number of groups
Sum of squares within groups is
SS W = ∑( X 1 − X 1 ) + ∑( X 2 − X 2 ) + ....... ∑( X K − X K )
2 2 2
(12)
Computation of various degrees of freedoms is as follows:
Degree of freedom between groups is
dfB = k – 1 (13)
Degree of freedom within groups is
dfW = N – k (14)
Total degrees of freedom is
dfT = N – 1 = dfB + dfW (15)
Where N is the total number of observations
Computation of mean squares between and within groups is as follows:
Mean square between the groups is
SS B
MSS B = (16)
df B

Mean square within the groups is

SS
MSS W = W (17)
df W
Finally, the Fisher’s ratio is computed as
MSS B
F= (18)
MSS W
The second test, known as Scheffe’s Post Hoc Test is to be carried out on the data set.
This test ascertains the pair wise difference responsible for significant difference (if any)
in obtained F-values in Fisher’s distribution test (ANOVA test).The technique behind this
test is to moderate a critical value of F (usually α = 0.05) by a factor k – 1. So, we obtain
S = ( k −1) F0.05 (19)
Next we adjust the MSSW of Fisher’s test by the factor k – 1 to obtain
 1 1 1 
SS E = ( k −1) F0.05 MSS W 
 N + N + ....... N   (20)
 1 2 K 

9
 Where
Nk are the numbers of elements in each sample.
The two tests were made with α = 0.05, i.e probability of making an error by saying the
null hypothesis is false when it is actually true. On the other hand, (1- α ) is the
probability of making the right decision when the null hypothesis is true, or the
confidence level ( Adedayo, 2000).
Table 2: Noise pollution levels (LNP) for commercial centres
x x−x ( x − x)2
96 11.6 134.56
82 -2.4 5.76
81 -3.4 11.56
81 -3.4 11.56
86 1.6 2.56
81 -3.4 11.56
93 8.6 73.96
92 7.6 57.76
90 5.6 31.36
68 -16.4 268.96
83 -1.4 1.96
80 -4.4 19.36
x = 84 .4 σ 2 = 52.577
σ = 7.25

3.0 Results and Discussion

The results for complete data set of noise pollution levels (LNP) in all the locations surveyed
are presented in Table 3. Relevant parameters to determine F- values in Fisher’s test
(ANOVA test) are computed. A glance look at Table 3 shows that the average noise
pollution of locations surveyed ranges from 59- 110.2 dB(A). The lowest and highest noise
pollution levels were recorded at low density residential areas and industrial areas
respectively. The major sources of noise pollution at the selected industries for this study
are the industrial machineries such as Vibratory crusher, grinding and filling machine (at
solid minerals crushing mills), electric generator, ammonia compressor and bottle washing
machines (at soft drinks bottling and beer brewing and bottling industries). The noise
exposure pattern of these machineries is impulsive in nature. The next locations of high
noise pollution level are the road junctions/ busy roads. The major sources of noise at these
locations include road traffic, vehicle horn, rolling tires etc.

Table 3: Noise Pollution Levels in dB(A) for all Locations

No. of Location
Location Commercial Road Junctions/ Passengers High Density Low Density
Industrial
Centres Busy Roads Loading Parks Residential Areas Residential Areas Areas

10
 (X1) (X2) (X3) (X4) (X5) (X6)
1 96 106 90 76 64 109
2 82 90 81 72 63 111
3 81 85 89 76 52 111
4 81 89 94 86 61 105
5 86 88 86 67 57 115
6 81 87 87 69 56
7 93 102
8 92 86
9 90 94
10 68 90
11 83 95
12 80 86

∑X i = 1013 1098 527 446 353 551

Xi = 84.4 91.5 87.8 74.3 58.8 110.2
∑X i
2
=
86145 100952 46383 33382 20875 60773
(∑ X ) i
2

= 85514.1 100467 46288.2 33152.7 20768.2 60720.2

N

Tables 4 and 5 show the mean number and standard deviation and ANOVA source table
respectively of noise pollution levels (LNP) of all the surveyed locations.

Table 4: Means and standard deviations of noise pollution levels

1 (n= 12) 2 (n=12) 3 (n=6) 4 (n=6) 5 (n=6) 6 (n=5)
Mean 84.4 91.5 87.8 74.3 58.8 110.2
Standard 7.25 6.36 3.92 6.18 4.22 3.25
Deviation

Table 5: ANOVA source table

MSS B
Source SS df MSS F = F0.05 , 5, 41
MSS W
Between samples 8524.24 5 1704.85
Within samples 1596.98 41 34.72 49.11 3.97
Within Total 1021.23 46

From Table 5, F-values calculated is 49.11 while the tabulated values (F0.05,5,41) at 95%
confidence level is 3.97 (Lipson and Seth,1973).Since the calculated F-value is greater
than the tabulated, hence, there is a significant difference (P< 0.05) in noise pollution
levels in all the locations surveyed based on the data analyzed.
Since the obtained F-value leads to the result being significantly difference in Fisher’s
test, we now wish to find out which pair wise difference was responsible for the
significant difference. Could it be pair wise of (μ1 and μ2) or (μ1 and μ3)? To ascertain
which pair wise responsible for significant difference, a test known as Scheffe’s Post Hoc
test is carried out. This test is an appropriate measure for all comparisons of mean after
Fisher’s test (ANOVA test).

11
Using equation (20) and substituting the appropriate parameters we have
 1 1 1 
SS E = ( k −1) F0.05 MSS W 
 N + N + ....... N  
 1 2 K 

= 24.44
Next, we compare this value of SSE with difference in pair wise mean. Any pair with
difference more than SSE is responsible for the significant difference in Fisher’s value.

Table 6: Table of pair wise difference

X 6 − X 5 = 51 .4 X 2 − X 5 = 32 .7 X 3 − X 5 = 29 X 1 − X 4 = 10 .1
X 6 − X 4 = 35 .9 X 2 − X 4 = 17 .2 X 3 − X 4 =13 .5 X 1 − X 5 = 25 .6
X 6 − X 3 = 22 .4 X 2 − X 3 = 3.7 X 3 − X 1 = 3. 5
X 6 − X 2 = 18 .7 X 2 − X 1 = 7.1
X 6 − X 1 = 25 .8

From Table 6, the pair wise differences between X 6 and X 5 (51.4) , X 6 and X 4
(35.9), X 6 and X 1 (25.8), X 2 and X 5 (32.7), X 3 and X 5 (29) and X 1 and
X 5 (25.6) are greater than the critical F-value (SSE).Hence, these pairs are responsible
for the significant difference in F-value.
This analysis reveals that there is significant difference (p< 0.05) in noise pollution levels
between industrial areas and low density residential areas; industrial areas and high
density residential areas; industrial areas and commercial areas; road junctions/ busy
roads and low density residential areas; passengers loading parks and low residential
areas and commercial areas and low density residential areas. But there is no significant
difference (p> 0.05) in noise pollution levels between industrial areas and road junctions/
busy roads; industrial areas and passengers loading parks; road junctions/ busy roads and
high density residential areas; road junctions/ busy roads and passengers loading parks;
road junctions/ busy roads and commercial areas; passengers loading parks and
commercial areas and commercial areas and high density residential areas.
At 95% confidence level, the F-value tabulated is less than the calculated F-value. Hence,
we reject the null hypothesis and infer that the difference in noise pollution level is
significant.
Generally, in Nigerian urban areas noise exposure levels vary from one location to
another. Noise pollution exposure in industrial areas, road junctions/ busy roads,
commercial areas and passengers loading parks are relatively high when compare with
that of low density residential areas. This makes industrial employees, residents living
close to road junctions/ busy roads, traders, police men and traffic warders to be exposed
to excessive noise pollution. These group of people are prone to various noise induce
problems.
Figure 3 shows variation of noise pollution levels with locations in Ilorin metropolis. The
highest average noise pollution level was recorded at industrial areas (110.2dB (A))
followed by road junctions/ busy roads (91.5 dB(A)) , Passengers loading parks (87.8
dB(A)) and commercial areas (84.4 dB(A)). These noise pollution levels are higher than
those reported by Saadu (1988) for all the locations chosen for this study in Ilorin
metropolis. This is basically due to increased in population density, commercial
activities, industrial activities and traffic volume.

12
Tables 7 to 11 show the Traffic Noise Index (TNI) of Commercial areas, Road junctions/ busy
roads, Passengers loading parks, High density residential areas and Low density residential
respectively in Ilorin metropolis. The average Traffic Noise Index (TNI) ranges from 70 to 84
dB(A) at commercial areas; 86 to 98 dB(A) at road junctions/ busy roads; 80 to 89 dB(A) at
passengers loading parks; 62 to 70 at high density residential areas and 36 to 54 dB(A) at low
density residential areas. It should be noted that a TNI of 74 dB(A) has been reported to be
associated with less than 3% annoyance in social survey ( Ahmad et al , 2006).Hence, road
junctions/ busy roads and low density residential areas have the highest and lowest annoyance
responses due to traffic noise.
Tables 12 to 16 show the noise exposure levels in the industries surveyed in this study. The
average equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq ) ranges from 82.8- 94.83 dB(A).The highest and
lowest noise pollution level (LNP) were recorded as114.77 and104.92 dB(A) at minerals crushing
mills and mattress making industry respectively. The impulse noise level ranges from 105.9 –
110.9 dB(A). Based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria, the
computed daily Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure of the industries ranges between
73.83 to 95.94 dB(A). The highest exposure to 8- hour TWA noise is experienced by the
operator of washing machine II in soft drink bottling industry.
In all the locations surveyed, the noise levels are very much higher than the levels
reported for living rooms. The bedroom noise levels of 25-30 dB(A) reported by Davies
and Masten (2004) has been exceeded in all locations of Ilorin metropolis during the
night time, resulting in more possible sleep disturbance due to traffic noise. It should be
noted that the World Health Organization (WHO), recommends a noise level of less than
35 dB(A) based on the continuous equal energy concept for the restorative process of
sleep (Mufuruku, 1997).

4.0 CONCLUSION
Comparative study of noise pollution levels in Ilorin metropolis was carried out at 47-
different locations to compare the level of noise pollution from community and industrial
noise sources .A statistical analysis carried out shows that the noise pollution levels (LNP)
differs significantly (P<0.05) at α = 0.05 between industrial areas and low density
residential areas; industrial areas and high density residential areas; road junctions/ busy
roads and low density residential areas; passengers loading park and low density
residential areas and commercial areas and low density residential areas. But no
significant difference (P>0.05) in noise pollution levels between industrial areas and road
junctions/ busy roads, industrial areas and passengers loading parks, road junction/ busy
roads and high density residential areas, road junctions/ busy roads and passengers
loading parks, passengers loading parks and commercial areas and commercial areas and
high density residential areas. The statistical analysis paired all the locations surveyed
into two zones: zone of similar noise pollution levels and zone of different noise pollution
levels.
The results of this study show that the average noise pollution levels in Ilorin metropolis
ranges from 58.8 dB(A) to 110.2 dB(A) with the highest average noise pollution at
industrial areas (110.2 dB(A)) followed by road junctions/ busy roads(91.5 dB(A)),
passengers loading parks (87.8 dB(A) and commercial areas ( 84.4 dB(A)). This result
differs from that of Braj and Jain (1995) that reported the measurements of noise levels in
some residential, industrial, and commercial areas in the capital city of India, Delhi that

13
commercial areas have the highest noise levels followed by industrial and residential
areas. The reason for having highest noise pollution levels at industrial areas in Ilorin
metropolis is possibly due to aging and poor maintenance of the industrial machines of
the industries selected for this study as observed when noise measurement was carried
out.
Due to few number of industries in this metropolis compare to traffic volume and
commercial activities, the major sources of noise pollution can be associated to traffic
noise which include the ambient noise sources from exhaust, rolling stocks and tires of
motor vehicles, vehicle mounted loudspeaker; human conversation in the market place,
hawking, record player and loudspeaker use to call on passengers into commercial
vehicles at the passengers loading parks and worshippers at religious centers.
This investigation reveals that noise pollution levels at 34 of 47 measurement points in
Ilorin metropolis exceeded recommended level of 80 dB(A) by values of 1 to 34 dB(A).
Hence, the present status of noise pollution in Ilorin metropolis poses severe health risk
to the populace. Furthermore, discomfort and irritation being caused by the pollution can
drastically reduce productivity, both in public service and private sectors. In addition,
some areas may soon reach the threshold of pains, and lead to permanent loss of hearing
and death.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to these adverse effects of noise pollution on the populace a number of action plans
can be taken to abate the environmental and industrial noise pollution in Nigeria. These
include: technical, planning, behavioural and educational solutions. For industrial noise
pollution, firstly, noise should be reduced from the source through proper and regular
maintenance, replacement of worn out parts, replacing old machines with new ones and
provision of damper at the base of machines. Secondly, minimizing noise intensity
transmitted along its transmission path by covering outer surfaces of machine rooms with
sound absorbent materials, Green belt design and use of noise protective measures. In
environmental noise pollution, since transport infra-structures can be recognized as major
sources of noise, technical actions on the transport systems can produce interesting
results. Possible technical controls include (i) changes in road profiles, (ii) low noise
pavements (porous or porous elastic) type, (iv) effective repairs to the silencers and
vehicle suspensions so as to reduce exhaust and rolling stock noise, (v) reduction
limitations or restrictions on traffic (types of vehicles, speed, hours of access etc) and (vi)
building of acoustic barriers along the sides of heavily traveled highways running through
residential areas. Transportation and land planning (private versus public transportation,
bus lanes, parking areas, shuttle buses and pedestrian areas) are important components of
plan. Since noise also results from the citizen’s behavior (driver, music player, hawker
etc), information and education campaigns usually produce good results in the long term.
Information on different actions and on the results should be well disseminated and
should correspond to general aims and action plans. There is need to establish
environmental noise impact criteria levels for various land use purposes. These criteria
levels would enable impacts to be determined. The authorities should pass laws to check
excesses of the sources of high noise levels. Other professionals such as town planners,
architects and environmental engineers as well, should have the problems of

14
environmental noise pollution in mind when siting new roads, shopping centers, schools,
hospitals and both commercial and residential houses in general.
Table 7: Commercial areas noise levels
Site Period of the day Noise level descriptors(dB (A))
LAeq L10 L90 TNI LNP LD LN LDN
Oja-Oba Market Morning 82 87 71 105 98
Afternoon 84 88 74 100 98 83
Evening 85 89 78 92 96
Night 76 81 67 93 90 83 89

Oja- Ago Market Morning 69 73 62 76 80

Afternoon 71 75 66 72 80 70
Evening 78 82 71 85 89
Night 66 66 53 75 79 75 81

Oloje Market Morning 76 81 65 99 92

Afternoon 72 76 65 79 83 74
Evening 71 74 66 68 79
Night 59 62 53 59 68 68 76

Oja-Titun Market Morning 68 71 59 77 80

Afternoon 76 79 63 97 92 74
Evening 74 77 62 92 89
Night 51 54 43 57 62 71 78

Ipata Market Morning 73 78 64 90 87

Afternoon 74 79 64 94 89 74
Evening 66 72 57 87 81
Night 72 56 40 74 88 69 77

Oja-Gboro Morning 78 71 59 77 80
Market Afternoon 75 79 63 97 92 72
Evening 76 77 62 92 89
Night 76 54 43 57 62 76 83

Gegele Market Morning 77 80 63 101 94

Afternoon 80 84 66 108 98 79
Evening 84 87 75 93 96
Night 69 74 60 86 83 81 87

Gambari Market Morning 79 81 68 90 92

Afternoon 86 90 77 99 99 84
Evening 83 86 73 95 96
Night 74 73 66 64 81 81 88

Agaka Morning 78 80 70 80 88
Shopping Afternoon 83 86 76 86 93 81
center Evening 82 84 75 81 91
Night 75 76 63 85 88 80 87

Yoruba Road Morning 47 60 51 57 56

Shopping Afternoon 68 70 60 70 78 65
center Evening 69 74 59 89 84
Night 47 50 43 41 54 66 72

15
Station Morning 78 80 73 71 85
shopping Afternoon 75 79 69 79 85 77
center Evening 76 78 73 63 81
Night 72 74 66 68 80 75 81

Taiwo Road Morning 66 69 59 69 76

shopping Afternoon 75 79 69 79 75 73
center Evening 74 74 65 71 86
Night 69 73 61 79 81 72 79

Mean Morning 73 76 64 83 84
Afternoon 77 80 68 88 89 76
Evening 77 80 68 84 88
Night 67 66 55 70 76 75 82

Table8: Traffic noise levels at major road junctions /busy roads

Site Period of the day Noise level descriptors(dB (A))
LAeq L10 L90 TNI LNP LD LN LDN
Challenge Morning 89 94 75 121 108
Junction Afternoon 88 93 74 120 107 89
Evening 86 94 74 124 106
Night 81 87 65 123 103 84 92

Ita- Amodu Morning 77 81 72 78 86

Junction Afternoon 81 86 71 101 96 79
Evening 81 84 72 90 93
Night 76 80 70 80 86 79 85

Unilorin mini- Morning 70 75 63 81 82

Campus round- Afternoon 72 77 63 89 86 71
about Evening 72 78 60 102 90
Night 69 71 60 74 80 71 77

General Hospital Morning 74 79 69 79 84

Junction Afternoon 77 82 69 91 90 76
Evening 77 81 70 84 88
Night 76 80 62 102 94 77 83

Agbooba - Morning 78 81 71 81 88
Surulere Afternoon 77 80 73 71 84 78
Junction Evening 81 85 71 97 95
Night 77 81 72 87 86 79 85

Unity road Morning 78 81 72 78 87

Afternoon 78 83 73 83 88 78
Evening 78 82 73 79 87
Night 77 76 66 76 87 77 84

Emir’s road Morning 80 82 71 85 91

Afternoon 85 89 71 113 103 83
Evening 87 92 70 128 109
Night 82 86 64 122 104 85 91

Asa Dam road Morning 72 77 64 86 85

16
 Afternoon 75 76 65 89 86 74
Evening 74 77 66 80 85
Night 73 64 49 79 88 74 80

Sobi road Morning 81 84 71 93 94

Afternoon 81 83 71 89 93 81
Evening 85 88 74 100 99
Night 76 77 63 89 90 83 89

Pakata road Morning 74 77 68 74 83

Afternoon 75 79 63 97 91 75
Evening 75 80 66 92 89
Night 74 73 52 106 95 75 81

Jebba road Morning 72 76 54 112 94

Afternoon 75 78 53 123 100 73
Evening 69 74 58 116 93
Night 68 72 46 120 94 68 75

Adeta Morning 73 75 68 66 80
Junction Afternoon 72 73 59 85 86 73
Evening 70 74 64 74 80
Night 74 79 55 121 98 72 79

Mean Morning 77 80 68 86 89
Afternoon 78 82 67 96 93 78
Evening 78 82 69 97 93
Night 75 77 60 98 92 77 83

Table9: Passengers loading parks noise levels

Site Period of the day Noise level descriptors(dB (A))
LAeq L10 L90 TNI LNP LD LN LDN
Maraba garage Morning 74 79 63 97 90
Afternoon 81 81 59 117 103 79
Evening 72 75 62 84 85
Night 69 67 54 76 82 71 80

Shao garage Morning 76 71 60 74 87

Afternoon 71 74 64 74 81 74
Evening 72 76 66 76 82
Night 62 65 55 65 72 69 77

Offa garage Morning 79 83 71 89 91

Afternoon 74 78 66 84 86 72
Evening 81 86 73 95 94
Night 73 77 66 80 84 79 85

Baboko garage Morning 80 84 74 84 90

Afternoon 82 88 74 100 96 81
Evening 83 86 77 83 92
Night 81 86 71 101 96 82 88

Saw-mill garage Morning 81 81 72 78 90

17
 Afternoon 78 80 72 74 86 80
Evening 76 79 72 70 83
Night 71 75 62 84 84 74 82

Geri-Alimi Morning 79 80 71 77 88
garage Afternoon 75 77 65 83 87 78
Evening 76 80 73 71 83
Night 73 77 62 92 88 74 82

Mean Morning 78 80 69 82 89
Afternoon 77 80 67 89 90 77
Evening 77 80 71 80 87
Night 72 75 62 83 84 75 82
Table 10: Residential area noise levels (high density areas)
Site Period of the day Noise level descriptors(dB (A))
LAeq L10 L90 TNI LNP LD LN LDN
Opomalu Morning 64 68 58 68 74
Afternoon 66 70 59 73 77 65
Evening 66 69 59 69 76
Night 65 68 58 68 75 66 72

Okelele Morning 62 63 57 51 68
Afternoon 56 58 52 46 62 60
Evening 71 75 69 63 82
Night 66 70 61 67 75 69 75

Kuntu Morning 63 73 57 91 79
Afternoon 60 63 52 66 71 62
Evening 68 67 56 70 79
Night 65 60 50 60 75 67 73

Niger Morning 64 67 60 58 71
Afternoon 77 80 61 107 96 74
Evening 76 75 62 84 89
Night 76 80 68 86 88 76 82

Balogun fulani Morning 60 63 57 51 66

Afternoon 62 66 56 66 72 61
Evening 61 63 52 66 72
Night 55 56 52 38 59 59 66

Gaa-Akanbi Morning 66 69 62 60 73
Afternoon 56 60 51 57 65 63
Evening 65 69 60 66 74
Night 57 60 52 54 65 63 66

Mean Morning 63 67 59 63 72
Afternoon 63 66 55 69 74 64
Evening 68 70 60 70 79
Night 64 66 57 62 73 67 83

Table 11: Residential area noise levels (low density areas)

Site Period of the day Noise level descriptors(dB (A))
LAeq L10 L90 TNI LNP LD LN LDN

18
Tanke Morning 59 55 46 52 68
Afternoon 51 47 40 38 64 57
Evening 57 53 43 53 67
Night 54 55 53 31 56 56 63

GRA Morning 61 58 46 64 71
Afternoon 57 60 46 72 67 59
Evening 55 59 47 65 61
Night 56 59 54 44 52 56 53

Basin Morning 45 48 41 39 52
Afternoon 41 43 38 28 46 43
Evening 46 49 43 37 52
Night 55 56 55 29 56 53 59

Adewole Morning 57 54 43 57 68
Afternoon 47 51 38 60 60 54
Evening 51 52 43 49 60
Night 45 47 38 44 54 49 57

Ita-Alamu Morning 49 52 43 49 58
Afternoon 49 54 45 51 58 49
Evening 48 52 43 49 57
Night 49 51 45 39 55 49 55

Airport Morning 51 52 39 61 64
Afternoon 43 41 33 35 51 49
Evening 44 44 32 50 56
Night 44 40 33 31 51 44 52

Mean Morning 54 53 43 54 64
Afternoon 48 49 40 47 58 52
Evening 50 52 42 51 60
Night 51 51 46 36 58 51 57
M- Morning; A- Afternoon; E- Evening; N- Night

Tables 8 : Exposure Records Table of Employee in Beer brewing and bottling industry
Noise Source Sound pressure Total duration per wk in hr Partial LAeq LNP
Level (Obtained by interview) Noise (dB(A)) (dB(A))
Exposure
Index(PNE
)
Boiler 90 10 25 85.1
85 16 15
80 14 5

Air.Compressor1 90 7 20 84.9
85 18 15
80 15 5
Air Compressor2 90 10 25
85 12 10
80 18 5 84.9

19
Air Compressor3 90 15 40 86.2
85 12 10
80 13 5

Air Compressor4 90 15 40 86.2

85 10 10
80 15 5

Ammonia 90 8 20 84.9
Compressor1 85 20 15
80 12 5

Ammonia 90 10 25 85.1
Compressor2 85 15 15
80 15 5

Pump 100 2.2 50 93.2

95 7.8 65
90 10 25
85 20 15

Electricity 100 15 400 97.7

Generator 95 25 200

Filling & 95 25 200 94.6

Crowning M/c 90 15 40
85 10 10

Washing M/c 95 9 70 92.5

90 30 75
85 1 0

Full Sighting 95 10 80 92.8

M/c 90 25 65
85 5 4

Case Packing 100 3 75 94.1

M/c 95 13 110
90 18 45
85 6 5

Labeling M/c 90 20 50 87.2

85 10 10
80 10 5

20
 Mean 89.2

Tables 9 : Exposure Records Table of Employee in Soft Drink bottling industry

Noise Source Sound pressure Total duration per wk in hr Partial LAeq
Level (Obtained by interview) Noise (dB(A))
Exposure
Index(PNE
)
Boiler 90 10 25 85.6
85 26 20
80 13 5

Carbon Dioxide 90 9 25 85.4

Compressor 85 25 20
80 5 0

Ammonia 95 9 70 92.2
Compressor 90 20 50
86 10 10

Pump1 95 4 30 89.5
90 23 65
85 12 10

Pump 2 95 6 45 89.5
90 20 50
85 13 10

Pump 3 95 5 40 90.9
90 24 65
85 10 10

Electricity 100 16 400 96.5

Generator 1 95 20 50
90 2 5

Filling & 95 20 160 93.5

Crowning M/c 90 19 50

Washing M/c1 95 8 65 92.5

90 26 65
85 5 4

Washing M/c 2 95 6 70 92.5

90 28 75

21
 85 4 0

Full Sighting 95 10 80 92.8

M/c 90 25 65
85 5 4

Case Packing 100 3 75 94.1

M/c 95 13 110
90 18 45
85 6 5

Mean 91.18

Tables 10 : Exposure Records Table of Employee in Tobacco making industry

Noise Source Sound pressure Total duration per wk in hr Partial LAeq
Level (Obtained by interview) Noise (dB(A))
Exposure
Index(PNE
)
Boiler 1 90 37.5 100 90

Boiler 2 95 2.5 20 90.6

90 35 90

Vacuum pump 105 2.5 200 94.2

90 10 25
85 20 15
80 5 0

Vacuum 95 10 80 91.4
Compressor 1 90 12 30
85 15.5 15

Vacuum 95 11.5 95 92.5

Compressor 2 90 13 35
85 13 10

Auto Fixing 95 2.5 20 90.6

M/c 90 35 90

Mechanical 85 37.5 30 84.8

Fixing M/c

22
Electricity 105 1.1 90 92.9
Generator 1 100 1.4 35
90 4.2 10
80 30.8 10

Electricity Not in use Not in use - -

Generator 2

Electricity 105 1.2 90 92.3

Generator 3 100 1.0 25
90 3.5 10
80 31.8 10

Electricity 105 1.4 105 93.2

Generator 4 100 1.3 35
90 4.0 10
80 30.8 10

Electricity 105 1.5 120 93.5

Generator 5 100 1.0 25
90 4.0 10
80 31 10

Electricity 105 1.2 75

Generator 6 100 1.7 110 92.8
90 4.1 45
80 30.5 5

Air Compressor 90 8 20 84.9

85 13 10
80 16.5 5

Packing M/c 90 17.5 45 88.5

(Automated) 85 20 15

Mean 90.87

Tables 11 : Exposure Records Table of Employee in Mattress making industry

Noise Source Sound pressure Total duration per wk in hr Partial LAeq

23
 Level (Obtained by interview) Noise (dB(A))
Exposure
Index(PNE
)
Electricity 100 16 400 95.6
Generator 1 80 24 5

Electricity 100 17 450 96.8

Generator 2 85 23 20

Automated 85 15 15 82.8
foam 80 25 5
production M/c

Trolley 1 90 5 15 84.4
85 17 15
80 18 5

Trolley 2 90 6 15 84.4
85 18 15
80 16 5

Trolley 3 90 8 20 84.9
85 20 15
80 12 5

Trolley 4 90 8 20 84.4
85 12 10
80 20 5

Sowing & 85 19 15 82.8

Knitting M/c 1 80 21 5

Sowing & 85 25 20 83.1

Knitting M/c 2 80 15 5

Sowing & 85 22 15 82.8

Knitting M/c 3 80 18 5

Sowing & 85 19 15 82.8

Knitting M/c 4 80 21 5

Sowing & 85 15 15 82.8

Knitting M/c 5 80 25 5

Sowing & 85 20 15 82.8

24
Knitting M/c 6 80 20 5

Sowing & 85 19 15 82.8

Knitting M/c 7 80 21 5

Sowing & 85 24 20 83.1

Knitting M/c 8 80 16 5

Sowing & 85 25 20 83.1

Knitting M/c 9 80 15 5

Cutting M/c 90 10 25 85.1

85 15 15
80 15 5

Electric Motor 90 15 40 86.2

85 20 15
80 5 0

Mean 85.04

Tables 12 : Exposure Records Table of Employee in Solid Minerals crushing mills in Ilorin Metropolis
Noise Source Sound pressure Total duration per wk in hr Partial LAeq
Level (Obtained by interview) Noise (dB(A))
Exposure
Index(PNE
)
Electricity 105 1.0 80 94.8
Generator 100 4.0 100
95 12.0 95
90 23.0 65

Vibratory 105 8.5 710 101.4

Crushing M/c 100 15.25 400
90 16.25 45

Vibratory 105 9.0 710 101.5

Grinding M/c 100 14.5 400
90 16.5 50

25
Vibratory 105 7.5 630 100.2
Milling M/c 100 14 350
90 18.5 50

Blower 1 95 5 40 90
(Vibratory 90 17 45
Grinding M/c) 85 18 15

Electric motor 95 8 65 91.4

1 90 15 40
85 17 15

Crush Feeding 100 9 225 94.6

M/c 95 12 95
80 19 5

Sucking M/c 105 4 315 98.1

100 10 250
95 10 80
90 16 40

Electric Motor 95 8.5 70 91.6

2 90 16 40
85 15.5 15

Filling M/c 95 15 125 93.2

90 11 30
80 14 5

Blower 2 95 6 45 87.1
(Filling M/c) 90 18 45
80 16 5

Vibratory 95 8 65 91.4
Milling M/c 2 90 18.5 50
80 13.5 5

Electric Motor 95 8.5 70 91.6

3 90 19 50
80 12.5 5

Hammer Mill 105 25 1980 104.5

M/c (Hammer 85 15 15
Blow)

26
Milling M/c 100 5 100 94.4
95 15.5 125
90 19.5 50

Electric Motor 95 8 65 91.4

90 19.5 50
80 12.5 5

Mean 94.83

Table 13: Continuous Noise Exposure Records

Exposure Levels in Duration of Exposure in Hours
dB(A)
Operators in the Operators in the Operators in the Beer
minerals crushing soft drink bottling brewing & bottling
mills industry industry
105 3.4
100 3.5 3.0 2.5
95 4.5 3.5 3.0
90 3.9 4.0 3.5
85 3.0 2.5 2.3
80 3.3 2.4 3.1
=21.6 =15.4 =14.4

Table 14: Impulse Noise Exposure Records

Exposure Levels Estimation number of occurrence per day
(Peak) in dB(A)
Operators in the Operators in the Operators in the Beer
minerals crushing soft drink bottling brewing & bottling
mills industry industry
115 45
110 28 50 40
105 63 60 50
100 52 44 45
95 30 47

=188 =184 =182

Table 15 shows the computed LAeq (8h) for Minerals crushing mills, soft drink bottling
industry and Beer brewing and bottling industry where impulse noise occurred.
Table 15 Computed impulse noise exposure
Industry Impulse Noise Exposure
(LAeq (8h)) dB(A)
Minerals crushing mills 110.9
Soft drink bottling industry 106.7
Beer brewing & bottling industry 105.9

27
REFERENCES:
Ahamad, K (1998), “A study of Noise Pollution in Dhaka City” : in Kathmandu
University Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology 1(4)
Ahmad, J; Abbas, A and Reem, S (2006), “Evaluation of Traffic Noise Pollution in
Amman, Jordan”, J. of Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 120, 499-525
Bond M (1996), “ Plague by Noise. New Scientist, November 16, 14-15
Braj, B.S and Jain, V.K (2005), “A Comparative Study of Noise Levels in Some
Residential, Industrial and Commercial Areas in Delhi”, J. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 35(1); 1-11
Birgitta, B; Thomas L; Dietrich, H; (Ed.) (1999), Guidelines for Community Noise
Commission of the European Committee (CEC) (2000), Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council Relating to the Assessment and Management of
Environmental Noise, Com 468 Final
Davis, M.L and Masten, S.J (2004), Principle of Environmental Engineering and Science,
Mc Graw-Hill
Ighoroje, A.D.A; Marchie C and Nwobodo, E.D (2004), “Noise Induced Hearing
Impairment as an Occupational Risk Factor among Nigerian Traders”, Nigeria J.
of Physiological Sciences 9(1-2); 14-19
ISO/R131- 1959, “Expression of the Physical Subjective Magnitudes of Sound or Noise”,
in: Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management 7(2); 75-77
Lipson, C and Sheth, N.J (1973), Statistical Design and Analysis of Engineering
Experiments. New York: Mc Graw-Hill International
Mansouri, N; Pourmahabadian, M; Ghasemkhani, M(2006), “Road Traffic Noise in
Down Town Area of Tehran”, Iran J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 3(4); 267-273
Mufuruki, T.S (1997), “Environmental Impact Arising from the Operation of Dar es
Salam International Airport” in: J of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
120, 499-525
Narender, S and Dvar, S.C (2004),“Noise Pollution – Sources, Effects and Control”, J.
Hum.Ecol. 16(3); 181-187
NPC (2006), Nigeria Population Census
Okah-Avae, B.E (1996), The Science of Industrial Machinery and Systems Maintenance,
Spectrum Books Ltd, Lagos, Nigeria
Onuu, M.U and Menkiti, A.I (1993), “Spectral Analysis of Road Traffic Noise in Part of
South Eastern Nigeria” in :Zuma J. of Pure and Applied Sciences 6(2); 135-138
Peterson, A.P and Gross, E.G (1974), Hand book of Noise Measurement 7th Ed. Gerkand
Publishers, USA, 46-50
Saadu, A.A (1988), “Community and Occupational Noise Survey and Analysis of Some
Selected Nigerian Cities and Industries”, PhD Thesis, University of Benin,
Nigeria
Saadu, A.A; Onyeonwu, R.O; Ayorinde, E.O; Ogisi, F.O (1998), “Road Traffic Noise
Survey and Analysis in Some Major Urban Centers in Nigeria”, Noise Control
Eng. J. 46(4); 146-158
Sampath, S; Muralis, S.D and Kuma, V.S (2004), “ Ambient Noise Levels in Major
Cities in Kerala”, J. Ind. Geophys. Union. 8 (4);293-298
Sukru, D; Celalettin, O; Hakan , K; Sain, K (2006), “ Noise Pollution and Map of Konja
city in Turkey”, J. Int. Environmental Application and Science.1(1-2);

28
 63-72
Tekalan, S.A (1991), “Effects of Noise on Hearing and other Body Systems”, Ecology
and Environment Journal, October- December, 2-11
Ugwuanyi, J.U; Ahemen, I and Agbendeh, A.A (2004), “Assessment of Environmental
Noise Pollution in Marurdi Metropolis, Nigeria”, Zuma J. of Pure and Applied
Sciences 6(2); 135-138
Yilmaz, H and Ozer, S (2005), “Evaluation and Analysis of Environmental Noise
Pollution in the City of Erzurum, Turkey”, Int. J. Environment and Pollution, 23
(4); 438-448

29