Araújo, Fabiana Cristina Mendonça deSperi, Maria RaquelPontes, Marilia PinheiroSilva, Jaciara Fonseca2023-05-292023-05-292017SPERI, Maria Raquel; ARAUJO, Fabiana Cristina Mendonça de; PONTES, Marilia Pinheiro; SILVA, Jaciara Fonseca. Recursos de biossegurança na avaliação audiológica básica: estudo comparativo entre o uso do protetor descartável de fone de ouvido e o uso do policloreto de vinila (pvc). Distúrbios da Comunicação, [S.L.], v. 29, n. 2, p. 292-301, 29 jun. 2017. Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo (PUC-SP). http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/2176-2724.2017v29i2p292-301. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/dic/article/view/30646. Acesso em: 29 maio 2023.https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/52566Objective: The study compared the effects of the Disposable Earphone Protector® and the PVC film (Polyvinyl Chloride) on pure-tone and speech auditory thresholds, and the effect of latter material on acoustic reflex thresholds, to verify the possibility of adopting these materials as biosafety action. Method: Participants were 72 normal-hearing subjects with ages between 18 and 40 years, evaluated at a speech-language outpatient clinic of a Federal university. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the materials regarding the acoustic reflex thresholds. On the other hand, the audiometry and SRT (Speech Recognition Threshold) thresholds showed a small difference, however, within the 95% confidence interval. Conclusion: According to the results and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association – ASHA recommendation it can be concluded that neither the Disposable Earphone Protector® or the PVC film interfere in the audiological evaluationAttribution 3.0 Brazilhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/audiologiaexposição a agentes biológicosaudiometriaarticlehttps://doi.org/10.23925/2176-2724.2017v29i2p292-301