# Introduction ound is a form of energy and (Suter, 1991) rightly describes it as "the result of pressure changes in a medium (usually air), caused by vibration or turbulence." The human ear captures sound within a specific window of the acoustic spectrum, generally within the 20-20000 Hz range. However, it is most responsive to sounds within the mid-frequencies: 1000-10000 Hz (Mariana Alves-Pereira & Castelo Branco, 2000). (Cantrell, 1975) defined noise as sound which is disagreeable, discordant, or which interferes with the reception of wanted sounds. There are many sounds in the world, but not all of them pollute the environment and hence are not regarded as noise (Kryter, 1982). Medically speaking, noise is one of the leading causes of environmental stress and low-frequency noise is equally as stressful as high-frequency noise (Cho, Hwang, & Choi, 2011). One of the challenges in studying and managing noise is its subjective nature: one person's noise is another's music. People have widely varying reactions to noise. Individual reactions depend on characteristics of the noise, the noise source, and the individual's attitude to the noise and noise source. Noise is classified based on its nature into two categories namely: broadband noise and tonal noise. Noise can be said to be tonal if it contains a distinguishable, discrete, continuous note (Greene, Manvell, Scholz, & Enggaard, 2008). Broadband noise has acoustic energy spread out across a wide range of frequencies, whereas a tonal noise has a lot of energy concentrated at certain frequencies -resulting in an audible tone or tones. Tonal noise tends to be more annoying or disturbing and so having the ability to detect and record tones can be very useful. Noise is usually composed of many frequencies combined (Goelzer, Hansen, & Sehrndt, 2001). To facilitate the comparison of measurements between instruments, frequency analysis bands have been standardized. Thus, the International Organization for Standardization has agreed upon preferred frequency bands for sound measurement and analysis. The widest band used for frequency analysis is the octave band. Occasionally, a little more information about the detailed structure of the noise may be required than the octave band will provide. This can be obtained by selecting narrower bands; for example, one-third octave bands. As the name suggests, these are bands of the frequency of approximately one-third of the width of an octave band. Nowadays, sound level meters that can detect tonal noise directly are available in the market, but they are very expensive and beyond the reach of most environmental noise researchers. Hence, the need to adopt an analytical method that can be used to analyse and detect the presence of pure tones in helicopter noise. This paper will employ the simplified method suggested by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). This method tests if the sound pressure level in the one-third octave band of interest exceeds the sound pressure in both adjacent bands by a constant level difference. It is also an extension of previous studies by the current authors (O. Orikpete, Leton, & Momoh, 2020; O. F. Orikpete, Leton, Amah, & Ewim, 2020). S (Edwards, Broderson, Barbour, McCoy, & Johnson, 1979) conducted a study on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which involved taking field measurements of helicopter flyover noise over communities along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Texas and areas adjacent to selected heliports in the United States using two analyzers. One of the analyzers measured the prevailing environmental noise (including helicopter noise), while the other recorded the prevailing environmental noise (excluding helicopter noise). The study also used a social survey to support quantitative measurements by obtaining 272 questionnaire responses from stakeholders. The outcome of the study revealed an average equivalent continuous noise level of 54.5 dB (A) for helicopter flyover noise, a value which exceeded the background noise by 2.5 dB(A); and 63.1 dB(A) for areas adjacent to heliports, which was 13.3 dB(A) above the heliport background noise. Although the results for the social survey showed that 64% of respondents had no problem with helicopter noise, the actual health implications of helicopter noise on residents living within the study area cannot be fully ascertained without a one-third octave frequency band analysis. Noise of the same intensity will produce different hearing impairment depending on the frequency. In his book, (Yost, 2001) explained that the actual pressure transformation in the human ear depends on the frequency of the acoustic stimulus; pointing out that the pressure increase between the eardrum and the inner ear is greater than 30 dB in the region of 2.5 kHz and that the ratio decreases at frequencies exceeding 2.5 kHz. He further elaborated that hearing impairment depends on the characteristics of the noise that an individual is exposed to, most particularly, the frequency of the noise. In summary, temporary hearing loss will occur when one is exposed to broadband noise at frequencies between 3 and 6 kHz; whereas exposure to a pure tone at frequencies greater than 6 kHz, is likely to result in more severe hearing loss. Laboratory studies carried out by (Landström, Lundström, & Byström, 1983) as reported by (Leventhall, Pelmear, & Benton, 2003) revealed that a repeating 42 Hz noise at 70 dB resulted in reduced wakefulness, whereas a repeating 1 kHz noise at 30dB resulted in increased wakefulness. (Phillips, 1995) observed that the central auditory system of the human body is built on frequency-specific processing channels hence assessment and characterization of an acoustic environment would require both the dB level and the frequency distribution considerations. (Mariana Alves-Pereira & Castelo Branco, 2000) shared the same opinion and reiterated that a holistic study of assessment of noise effects should consist of data of both intensity and frequency spectrum analysis because different organ systems are susceptible to different acoustic frequencies. (M Alves-Pereira, 1999) also observed that with very few exceptions, environmental noise assessments rarely included a frequency spectra analysis. The study went further to note that scientific investigations into the extra-aural, whole-body, noise-induced pathology issue have been infrequent since the previous decades and that existing data are often regarded as inconclusive. (Prashanth & Venugopalachar, 2011) investigated the association and contribution of frequency components of industrial noise to auditory and non-auditory effects through a critical review of previous studies published between 1998 and 2009 and found out that most of these noise impact assessment studies were mostly based on inadequate noise intensity. The authors further suggested that for an efficient evaluation of the effects of noise, the frequency spectrum analysis should also be included. They also observed that frequency-related characteristics of noise, for instance intermittent, irregular, tonal, pulse, etc. generated more annoyance than steady noise of the same intensity. In research by (Helmholtz, 1954) on tone sensation, he stated that the first and most important difference between various sounds experienced by our ear is that between "noises" and "musical tones", based on this, (Hansen, 2010) went further to examine the various aspects of the tone-noise dichotomy -the magnitude of tonal content and the pitch strength. He discovered that partial loudness was far easier and more intuitive to adjust in a magnitude adjustment experiment than the magnitude of tonal content. (Leatherwood, 1987) addressed the effects of simulated advanced turboprop (ATP) interior noise environments with tonal beats on subjective annoyance. He observed that propeller tones within the simulated (ATP) environments caused an increased annoyance as a result of an increase in overall sound pressure level due to tones. Also, a study by (Suzuki, Kono, & Sone, 1988)on the effect of tonal components on loudness and noisiness of wide-band noise was observed to be less than what was estimated by L A , LL(Z), PLdB, and PNdB. It was observed that Zwicker's Loudness Level competently evaluates the effect of the test stimuli used. He concluded by stating that conventional positive tone correction is not always required in the evaluation of environmental noise. In a research by (Angerer, McCurdy, & Erickson, 1991), it was discovered that a model has a distinct effect on tonal-noise perception. (Mirowska, 2001) presented a Polish recommendation for the estimation of low-frequency noise (LFN) in homes as a result of appliances installed within or outside the building. Using the accepted A10 characteristic rating curve for noise spectra measurement in dwellings, he observed that when the sound pressure levels of noise exceeded the A10 curve, low-frequency noise was observed to be annoying. Similarly, (Pawlaczyk-?uszczy?ska, Szymczak, Dudarewicz, & ?liwi?ska-Kowalska, 2006) researched ways to compute low-frequency noise (LFN) in the working environment to prevent annoyance and its consequences on work performance. All proposed LFN exposure criteria: the assessment method based on the low frequency equivalent continuous A-weighted sound SPL, frequency analysis in 1/3-octave bands and the criterion curves based on the hearing threshold level or A-weighting characteristics was able to predict annoyance experienced from LFN in occupational settings. Several investigations have also specifically focused on the effects of aircraft noise on human annoyance rating and performance. As discovered by (More & Davies, 2010) from the test conducted on the effect of noise characteristics on people's response to aircraft noise; an increase in annoyance rating was observed when both tonalness and roughness were varied with loudness being kept constant. Loudness was found to be the major contributor to annoyance while tonalness and roughness also influenced the annoyance ratings. In another study (Li, Smith, & Zhang, 2010) made use of a one-quarter-scale A340 main landing gear model to identify and control a source of tonal-noise that had been noted in aircraft landing gear noise during the landing process of an aircraft. Several methods were used to control the tone, the most practical of which was either rotation of the hinged door, so that it was no longer parallel to the leg door, or complete removal of the hinged door. Also, a new signal processing tool for counter-rotating open rotors technology for aircraft propulsion applications was developed by (Sree, 2013). It was verified that the new technique provides almost the same results whether the data segment selection is made with respect to the for ward rotor or aft rotor "1/rev" signal, particularly when the two rotor speeds are about the same. Also, mechanical buildings and the effect of noises generated from rotating components on humans have been understudied. Most of these studies examined human perception of noise, one of which was the study on differences in task performance and perception under ventilation-type background noise spectra with differing tonality by (Ryherd & Wang, 2008). The result showed that perception trends for tonality, annoyance, and distraction changes based on the frequency and prominence of discrete tones in noise. Furthermore (Ryherd & Wang, 2010) examined the effects of noise on human task performance and perception from mechanical systems in buildings with tonal components using an office-like environment. Higher ratings of loudness followed by roar, rumble, tones, and perception of more low-frequency rumble were noticed to cause higher annoyance and distraction which led to reduced task performance. In a similar study by (Francis, 2014) in an investigation on annoyance thresholds, the background noise level was found out to affect perceptions of annoyance. Also (Lee & Wang, 2014) discovered that loudness and tonality both have a significant influence on noise-induced annoyance and also that maximum allowable tonal components decrease when the background noise level is high. They went further to state that ANSI Loudness Level and Tonal Audibility are the most reliable metrics to reflect human annoyance perception. (Lee, Francis, & Wang, 2017) studied the relationship between human perception and noises with tones in the built environment. Correlation analysis with noise metrics and subjective perception ratings suggested that ANSI Loudness Level among the tested loudness metrics corresponded most strongly with annoyance perception. In a review by (Hansen, Verhey, & Weber, 2011) it was reported that high correlation of the magnitude of tonal content and partial loudness indicates that the magnitude of strong tonal components may be assessed by quantifying the partial loudness of the tonal components. ( (White, Bronkhorst, & Meeter, 2017) sought to find out if the continuous rating of aircraft noise above noises from other sources with similar intensity is due to the source identity of the noise. He concluded that annoyance was influenced by both identifiability and the presence of tonal components. (Oliva, Hongisto, & Haapakangas, 2017) researched on the difference in tonal and non-tonal sounds at overall levels close to typical regulated levels inside residential dwellings. It was observed that penalty depended on the tonal frequency and the tonal audibility. Also, penalty values were different with different overall levels especially at high tonal performance under assorted tonal noise conditions through subjective testing. The task performance showed that loudness metrics are most highly correlated with annoyance responses while tonality metrics demonstrate relatively less but also significant correlation with annoyance. A study by (Hajczak, Sanders, & Druault, 2019) focused on the boundary element method (BEM) with a simple harmonic point source model used to characterize the resonance between the two facing cylindrical cavities in the wheels of a generic nose landing gear LAGOON, where a flow independent of tonal noise emission had been reported experimentally. It was observed that the facing cavities present much sharper resonances than the single cavity, and that the presence of the main strut only increased the amplification of the axisymmetric mode. Recently, (Radosz, 2018) observed that noise with medium and high frequencies of tonal components were regarded as more annoying in an experiment carried out on the relationship between human perception and noise with tonal components in a working environment. (Torjussen, 2019) observed that the Aures tonality method outperforms the EPNL tone correction approach when assessing the subjective response to aircraft noise during take-off with the presence of multiple complex tones. A research by (Wallner, Hutter, & Moshammer, 2019) showed that a scientific approach within a complex environmental noise problem could foster an agreement about noise protection measures. Measurements were taken from 7 am to 5 pm at each location using two integrating sound analyzers; one measured the sound level including the contribution from helicopters and the other the sound level excluding that from helicopters (this was switched to IDLE mode any time a helicopter was audible). Location coordinates were obtained using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device. # III. # Study Area # b) Tonal Noise Detection Method (ISO, 2003) provides objective one-third octave band assessment procedure (shown in Figure 2) to be used to verify the presence of audible tones if their presence is in dispute. This method is based on onethird octave analysis. The one-third octave spectrum is searched for peaks and the search criterion is the level difference between a peak and its adjacent bands. When this difference reaches a certain frequency dependent level a tone is found. The standard defines different levels of threshold depending upon the frequency of the one-third octave band and these are: An examination of Fig. 36 above shows protruding bands at the 8 th and 16 th positions counting from the left and this corresponds to the 63 Hz and 400 Hz one-third octave bands respectively. Referring to An examination of Fig. 37 above shows protruding bands at the 8 th , 24 th and 28 th positions counting from the left and this corresponds to the 63 Hz, 2.5 kHz and 6.3 kHz one-third octave bands respectively. Referring to # Results and Discussion # Location 17 An examination of Fig. 38 above shows protruding bands at the 8 th , 16 th , 19 th , and 28 th positions counting from the left and this corresponds to the 63 Hz, 400 Hz, 800 Hz, and 6.3 kHz one-third octave bands respectively. Referring to An examination of Fig. 39 above shows protruding bands at the 6 th , 8 th , 16 th , and 28 th positions counting from the left and this corresponds to the 40 Hz, 63 Hz, 400 Hz, and 6.3 kHz one-third octave bands respectively. Referring to Table 2, we subtract the noise level values (at 40 Hz, 63 Hz, 400 Hz, and 6.3 kHz) from their immediate adjacent bands right and left to see if they meet the criteria of being 'tones'. At 40 Hz, # Location 19 An examination of Fig. 40 above shows protruding bands at the 8 th , 11 th , 13 th , 16 th , and 28 th positions counting from the left and this corresponds to the 63 Hz, 125 Hz, 200 Hz, 400 Hz and 6.3 kHz one-third octave bands respectively. Referring to # Location 20 An examination of Fig. 41 above shows protruding bands at the 8 th and 28 th positions counting from the left and this corresponds to the 63 Hz and 6.3 kHz one-third octave bands respectively. Referring to Table 2, we subtract the noise level values (at 63 Hz and 6.3 kHz) from their immediate adjacent bands right and left to see if they meet the criteria of being 'tones'. At 63 Hz, # VI. Conclusion and Recommendations A one-third octave band frequency analysis was conducted at each noise measurement locations in order to assess any tonal component associated with helicopter flyover activity. Analysis of the one-third octave band frequency spectra measured at each of the noise monitoring locations from 7 am to 5 pm are presented in Tables 23-41. The frequency spectra showed that the helicopter noise contains tonal noise at locations 7 (at 400 Hz), 18 (at 6.3 kHz), 19 (at 6.3 kHz), and 20 (at 6.3 kHz) From an examination of the one-third octave band frequency spectra, it is noted that spectra measured at all locations are generally broadband except for locations 7, 18, 19, and 20 which have pure tones in line with the ISO 1996-2 criteria. Tonal noise was mostly observed at the high frequency range at 6.3 kHz. It can therefore be concluded that there is significant tonal content associated with helicopter flyover noise at locations 7, 18, 19, and 20 and therefore residents in these locations will experience higher level of annoyance and daytime sleep disturbance associated with tonal noise. The results of the study clearly indicate that helicopter flyover noise generates tonal noise across a section of Mgbuoshimini community and this could produce increased annoyance and day-time sleep disturbance. It is also clear from the results of this study that heliport is sited too close to the community and is operating outside the limits set out in ISO 1996ISO -2:2007. . ![Mgbuoshimini is a community located in Obio Akpor Local Government Area (LGA) of Rivers State. It lies on Latitude 4 o 48' 30N and Longitude 6 o 58' 22E. It is surrounded by Nkbuodahia, Rumu-Olumene and Azumini communities to the West, Orowokwo-Woji, Rumueme and Rumuepirikom to the North, Diobu and Elechi to the East and Amatagwolo and Eremogbogoro communities to the South. The map for Mgbuoshimini is presented in Figure 1 using the geographical is located at the Nigerian Agip Oil Company base, and used for offshore transportation of personnel and equipment with over six thousand flights (6 000) per year.](image-2.png "") 1![Figure 1: Map of Mgbuoshimini community Source: Department of geography and regional planning, University of Port Harcourt](image-3.png "Figure 1 :") 1Noise) 1Noise)?Continue Assessment of Helicopter Flyover Noise for Tonal Components Assessment of Helicopter Flyover Noise for Tonal Components Assessment of Helicopter Flyover Noise for Tonal Components70.00 80.00 50.00 60.00TOTAL Leq TOTAL Leq60.00 60.00 40.00 70.0050.00 30.00 50.0000 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 30.00TOTAL Leq TOTAL LeqYear 20200.00 0.00Leq Leq16 1625 2540 4063 63100 100160 160250 250400 400630 6301k 1k1.6k 1.6k2.5k 2.5k4k 4k6.3k 6.3k10k 10k16k 16kYear 2020 Year 202040Figure 9: One-third octave frequency band at Location 739 41Volume XX Issue XI Version I30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00TOTAL LeqTOTAL LeqVolume XX Issue XI Version I Volume XX Issue XI Version I( D D D D )10.00 20.00 10.00 10.00( ( D D D D ) D D D D )Global Journal of Medical Research0.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 0.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 70.00 0.00Leq16254063100160250 TOTAL Leq 400 630 1k 1.6k 2.5k TOTAL Leq4k6.3k10k16kSeries1Global Journal of Medical Research Global Journal of Medical Research10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 20.00 30.00TOTAL Leq TOTAL Leq0.00 0.00 0.00Leq Leq Leq16 16 1625 25 2540 40 4063 63 63100 100 100160 160 250 250 400 400 630 630 1k 1k 1.6k 1.6k 2.5k 160 250 400 630 1k 1.6k 2.5k4k 2.5k 4k6.3k 4k 6.3k10k 6.3k 10k16k 10k 16k16k10: One-third octave frequency band at Location 8 Figure 11: One-third octave frequency band at Location 9Figure 12: One-third octave frequency band at Location 10Figure 13: One-third octave frequency band at Location 11 Figure 14: One-third octave frequency band at Location 12 2 2Assessment of Helicopter Flyover Noise for Tonal ComponentsLocation Leq 12.5Hz 16Hz 20Hz 50Hz 63Hz 80Hz 100Hz 125Hz 160Hz 200Hz 250Hz 315Hz 400Hz 25Hz 31.5Hz 40Hz1 80.20 15.50 52.77 56.46 53.21 56.48 60.00 63.91 8.50 11.60 21.03 42.92 43.13 39.52 44.28 48.91 27.462 72.87 9.84 50.44 54.65 53.88 54.53 56.04 59.44 17.03 19.83 18.29 38.04 41.34 41.49 48.19 45.52 31.633 73.74 4.32 51.99 52.38 55.26 57.91 60.23 61.70 5.35 29.50 19.01 36.40 32.62 41.83 46.69 48.07 23.924 72.60 3.16 48.65 46.84 49.51 53.04 56.38 59.74 8.47 20.69 23.52 33.66 39.91 49.16 40.36 42.70 29.695 75.47 4.11 59.99 56.71 59.53 62.46 65.58 69.22 7.82 37.85 33.86 43.25 38.18 49.72 47.76 54.57 30.896 75.23 4.97 57.25 62.18 64.31 66.17 65.77 65.14 6.47 27.84 25.71 34.12 37.65 41.30 45.00 51.49 28.197 71.26 3.83 48.66 54.35 50.14 63.43 47.64 48.26 0.93 25.67 21.08 22.32 32.18 38.79 42.88 38.63 24.008 70.51 2.67 45.44 44.37 48.47 51.65 54.56 56.62 5.31 16.32 22.19 33.55 38.78 49.07 38.59 40.61 28.389 70.37 4.38 54.51 52.83 57.75 59.30 65.44 66.43 7.29 36.91 33.90 41.99 33.59 48.22 45.58 50.87 28.6310 75.85 3.55 56.40 61.90 62.89 66.17 64.81 63.35 5.82 26.48 24.91 33.92 37.74 41.57 44.15 47.28 27.6911 72.95 1.72 53.89 57.97 61.15 64.04 61.29 62.75 3.53 20.59 23.49 28.20 34.14 37.26 41.36 46.74 24.4612 68.28 2.18 53.87 46.59 54.00 56.56 58.69 66.19 2.53 28.80 28.88 37.79 29.99 44.77 32.04 45.69 21.4113 68.79 4.27 54.90 51.74 57.71 58.02 63.19 66.39 6.89 31.18 33.38 37.38 33.98 47.84 40.40 50.27 25.4614 67.95 1.16 51.67 50.99 56.69 56.44 62.50 62.18 4.95 28.78 28.75 32.87 31.08 43.29 32.44 47.64 21.7415 67.47 3.03 49.40 49.32 57.33 55.16 58.82 65.28 1.56 27.98 33.53 33.65 31.04 44.09 33.69 47.69 25.9916 67.81 0.87 49.43 46.93 48.49 53.47 53.59 66.36 2.25 26.58 28.27 34.40 28.09 42.18 26.87 42.45 18.3917 67.90 2.75 50.90 48.88 57.10 53.26 58.73 66.75 1.64 30.86 30.71 37.99 32.99 44.51 35.77 46.14 25.9418 67.43 1.27 45.03 48.72 52.58 51.79 54.58 62.85 1.58 29.84 28.88 34.25 27.18 43.21 31.08 41.63 21.5119 67.64 1.16 50.91 44.32 56.76 51.81 56.30 64.15 0.69 30.82 26.37 36.45 33.03 40.38 30.62 44.55 23.3020 67.32 2.19 45.27 46.20 52.90 53.30 55.83 62.77 0.73 27.68 26.02 32.41 31.96 41.32 30.31 43.77 20.23Global Journal of Year 2020 45 Medical Research Volume XX Issue XI Version I ( D D D D ) 2At 250 Hz,63.43 -47.64 = 15.79 dB? 8 dB63.43 -50.14 = 13.29 dB? 8 dBHence, there is tonal noise at 250 Hz 2At 63 Hz,49.07 -38.59 = 10.48 dB ? 15 dB49.07 -38.78 = 10.29 dB ? 15 dBHence, there is no tonal noise. 2At 40 Hz,41.99 -33.59 = 8.4 dB ? 15 dB41.99 -28.63 = 13.36 dB ? 15 dBHence, there is no tonal noise. 244.77 -29.99 = 14.78 dB ? 15 dBAt 125 Hz,53.87 -46.59 = 7.28 dB ? 15 dB53.87 -45.69 = 8.18 dB ? 15 dBHence, there is no tonal noise.At 63 Hz,44.77 -32.04 = 12.73 dB ? 15 dB 2At 63 Hz,43.29 -32.44 = 10.85 dB ? 15 dB43.29 -31.08 = 12.21 dB ? 15 dBHence, there is no tonal noise. 2At 63 Hz,44.09 -33.69 = 10.40 dB ? 15 dB44.09 -31.04 = 13.05 dB ? 15 dBAt 400 Hz,65.28 -60.45 = 4.83 dB ? 8 dB65.28 -58.82 = 6.46 dB ? 8 dB 2At 63 Hz,42.18 -26.87 = 15.31 dB ? 15 dB42.18 -28.09 = 14.09 dB ? 15 dBAt 2.5 kHz,55.17 -50.41 = 4.76 dB ? 6 dB55.17 -49.72 = 5.45 dB ? 6 dB 244.51 -32.99 = 11.52 dB ? 15 dBAt 400 Hz,66.75 -59.62 = 7.13 dB ? 8 dB66.75 -58.73 = 8.02 dB ? 8 dBAt 800 Hz,62.39 -58.38 = 4.01 dB ? 6 dB62.39 -56.72 = 5.67 dB ? 6 dBAt 6.3 kHz,51.16 -40.62 = 10.54 dB ? 6 dBAt 63 Hz,51.16 -47.26 = 3.90 dB ? 6 dB44.51 -35.77 = 8.74 dB ? 15 dBHence, there is no tonal noise. 2Assessment of Helicopter Flyover Noise for Tonal ComponentsYear 202070.005660.00Volume XX Issue XI Version I0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00D D D D )(Global Journal of Medical ResearchAt 63 Hz, 40.38 -30.62 = 9.76 dB ? 15 dBAt 400 Hz, 64.15 -55.58 = 8.57 dB ? 8 dB 64.15 -56.30= 7.85 dB ? 8 dB At 6.3 kHz, 50.51 -44.07 = 6.44 dB ? 6 dB 50.51 -37.56 = 12.95 dB ? 6 dB40.38 -33.03 = 7.35 dB ? 15 dBAt 125 Hz,50.91 -44.32 = 6.59 dB ? 15 dB50.91 -44.55 = 6.36 dB ? 15 dBAt 200 Hz,56.76 -51.81 = 4.95 dB ? 8 dB56.76 -44.32 = 12.44 dB ? 8 dB © 2020 Global Journals Source:(Morillas, González, & Gozalo, 2016) © 2020 Global Journals ## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ## None. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. Funding None. * Noise-induced extra-aural pathology: a review and commentary. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine MAlves-Pereira 1999 70 A7 Pt 2 * Vibroacoustic disease: the need for a new attitude towards noise MAlves-Pereira NBranco 2000 Lisboa CITIDEP & DCEA-FCT-UNL * Development of an annoyance model based upon elementary auditory sensations for steadystate aircraft interior noise containing tonal components JRAngerer DAMccurdy RAErickson 1991 * Effects of noise exposure RWCantrell Best Available 56 3 1 1975 * The relationship between pure-tone noise and human bio-signal response WCho S.-HHwang HChoi International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 12 4 2011 * Assessment of the Environmental Compatibility of Differing Helicopter Noise Certification Standards RGEdwards ABBroderson RWBarbour DFMccoy CWJohnson 1979 Retrieved from * Determining Thresholds of Annoyance to Tones in Noise JMFrancis 2014 * Occupational exposure to noise: evaluation, prevention and control: World Health Organisation BGoelzer CHHansen GSehrndt 2001 * Implementation of ISO 1996-2 (2007) pure tone assessment in a sound level meter CGreene DManvell MScholz ALEnggaard Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123 5 2008 * Landing gear interwheel tonal noise characterization with the Boundary Element Method AHajczak LSanders PDruault Journal of sound and vibration 458 2019 * Tone-noise dichotomy: investigating tonal content magnitude & pitch strength HHansen 2010 Universität Oldenburg * The magnitude of tonal content. A review HHansen JLVerhey RWeber Acta Acustica united with Acustica 97 3 2011 * On the sensation of tone HHelmholtz 1954 Dover New York republication of the 1885 edition * Annoyance of low-level tonal sounds-A penalty model VHongisto PSaarinen DOliva Applied Acoustics 145 2019 * Acoustics-Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise-Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures Iso International Organization for Standardization 2003 * Community annoyance from aircraft and ground vehicle noise KDKryter The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 72 4 1982 * Exposure to infrasound-perception and changes in wakefulness ULandström RLundström MByström Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 2 1 1983 * Annoyance response to simulated advanced turboprop aircraft interior noise containing tonal beats JDLeatherwood 1987 USA * How tonality and loudness of noise relate to annoyance and task performance JLee JMFrancis LMWang Noise Control Engineering Journal 65 2 2017 * Assessment of noiseinduced annoyance by tones in noise from building mechanical systems JLee LMWang 2014 * GLeventhall PPelmear SBenton A review of published research on low frequency noise and its effects 2003 * Identification and attenuation of a tonal-noise source on an aircraft's landing gear YLi MGSmith XZhang Journal of Aircraft 47 3 2010 * Evaluation of low-frequency noise in dwellings. New Polish recommendations MMirowska Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 20 2 2001 * An examination of the combined effects of loudness, tonalness, and roughness on annoyance ratings of aircraft noise SMore PDavies The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 127 3 2010 * A review of the measurement procedure of the ISO 1996 standard. Relationship with the European Noise Directive JM BMorillas DMGonzález GRGozalo Science of the Total Environment 565 2016 * Annoyance of low-level tonal sounds-Factors affecting the penalty DOliva VHongisto AHaapakangas Building and Environment 123 2017 * Measurement and mapping of helicopter noise: A case study of Mgbuoshimini Community OOrikpete TLeton OMomoh Nigeria. Journal of Critical Reviews 7 19 2020 * An Assessment of the Impact of Helicopter Noise: Case Study of Mgbuoshimini Community Nigeria OFOrikpete TGLeton VEAmah DR EEwim Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences Research 2020 * Proposed criteria for assessing low frequency noise annoyance in occupational settings MPawlaczyk-?uszczy?ska WSzymczak ADudarewicz M?liwi?ska-Kowalska International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 19 3 2006 * Central auditory processing: a view from auditory neuroscience DPPhillips Otology & Neurotology 16 3 1995 * The possible influence of noise frequency components on the health of exposed industrial workers-A review. Noise and Health KMPrashanth SVenugopalachar 2011 13 16 * Pilot study on the influence of tonal noise an-noyance on work performance JRadosz Proceedings of 25th International Congress on Sound and Vibration 25th International Congress on Sound and Vibration 2018 Paper presented at the * Implications of human performance and perception under tonal noise conditions on indoor noise criteria EERyherd LMWang The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124 1 2008 * AB-10-018: The effects of noise from building mechanical systems with tonal components on human performance and perception EERyherd LMWang 2010 1322 * Progress in calculating tonality of technical sounds RSottek Paper presented at the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings 2014 * A novel signal processing technique for separating tonal and broadband noise components from counter-rotating open-rotor acoustic data DSree International Journal of Aeroacoustics 12 1-2 2013 * Noise and its effects AHSuter 1991 Paper presented at the Administrative conference of the United States * An experimental consideration of the evaluation of environmental noise with tonal components YSuzuki SKono TSone Journal of sound and vibration 127 3 1988 * Analysing Tones in Industrial and Commercial Sound MTorjussen Paper presented at the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings 2019 * A new approach for the evaluation of tonal noise (Tonality). Psychophysics, Physiology and Models of Hearing MVormann MMeis VMellert ASchick 1999 * Evaluating an 80 Hz tonal noise from a hydropower plant PWallner H.-PHutter HMoshammer International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 32 3 2019 * Annoyance by transportation noise: The effects of source identity and tonal components KWhite AWBronkhorst MMeeter The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 141 5 2017 * Fundamentals of hearing: an introduction WAYost 2001 Acoustical Society of America