SKStephen E. Keith

Stephen E. Keith

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Stephen E. Keith has a total of 69 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Sleep actigraphy time-synchronized with wind turbine output

    by David S Michaud, Stephen E Keith, Mireille Guay, Sonia Voicescu, Allison Denning, James P McNamee

    Studies have yielded inconsistent evidence for an association between long-term average wind turbine sound pressure level (SPL) and disturbed sleep. Transient changes in sleep may be more susceptible to short-term variations in wind turbine SPL throughout the sleep period time. We analyzed sleep actigraphy data (participant sleep nights = 2,094, males = 151, females = 192) in 10 min intervals time-synchronized to wind turbine supervisory control and data acquisition. Calculated indoor wind turbine SPL was considered after adjusting for turbine rotor speed and closed/open bedroom windows. Maximum calculated nightly average wind turbine SPL reached 44.7 dBA (mean = 32.9, SD = 6.4) outdoors and 31.4 dBA (mean = 12.5, SD = 8.3) indoors. Wind turbine SPL in 10 min intervals, and nightly averages, was not statistically associated with actigraphy outcomes. However, the variability in wind turbine SPL due to changes in wind turbine operation across the sleep period time, as measured by the difference between the 10 min SPL and the nightly average SPL (∆SPL), was statistically related to awakenings (p = 0.028) and motility (p = 0.015) rates. These diminutive differences translate to less than 1 min of additional awake and motility time for a 5 dBA increase over a 450 min sleep period time. Overall results showed that wind turbine SPL below 45 dBA was not associated with any consequential changes in actigraphy-measured sleep. Observations based on ∆SPL provided some indication that a more sensitive assessment of sleep may be one that considers variations in wind turbine SPL throughout the sleep period time.


  • Open Access

    Wind turbine audibility calculations inside dwellings

    by Stephen E. Keith, David S. Michaud, Katya P. Feder, Victor Soukhovtsev, Sonia A. Voicescu, Allison R. Denning, Jason Tsang, Norm Broner, Werner G. Richarz

    The objective of the current paper was to characterize indoor wind turbine sound pressure levels (SPLs) to assess the audibility of wind turbine noise indoors, accounting for window opening, frequency spectra, and presbycusis. Loudspeaker generated noise was used to determine the outdoor to indoor SPL differences at 11 representative dwellings using ISO 140-5:1998. The procedure was extended to 16 Hz. With windows closed, indoor broadband A- and C-weighted SPLs were lower by 25.9 and 15.3 dB, respectively, for wind turbine noise spectra. With windows opened, the corresponding results were 13.8 and 9.9 dB, respectively. Standard deviations for these results were 3 dB so that indoor and outdoor SPL would tend to be highly correlated. For 35 dBA outdoor SPL, the indoor SPL was potentially audible at frequencies as low as 31.5 Hz. Specifically, at 35 dBA, 80% to 100% of adults below the age of 60 years, would potentially be able to hear wind turbine noise indoors with windows partially open. This would drop to 10% to 30% with closed windows. Uncertainties around these estimates are discussed.


  • Open Access

    Wind turbine low frequency and infrasound propagation and sound pressure level calculations at dwellings

    by Stephen E. Keith, Gilles A. Daigle, Michael R. Stinson

    This study was developed to estimate wind turbine low frequency and infrasound levels at 1238 dwellings in Health Canada's Community Noise and Health Study. In field measurements, spectral peaks were identifiable for distances up to 10 km away from wind turbines at frequencies from 0.5 to 70 Hz. These measurements, combined with onsite meteorology, were in agreement with calculations using Parabolic Equation (PE) and Fast Field Program (FFP). Since onsite meteorology was not available for the Health Canada study, PE and FFP calculations used Harmonoise weather classes and field measurements of wind turbine infrasound to estimate yearly averaged sound pressure levels. For comparison, infrasound propagation was also estimated using ISO 9613-2 (1996) calculations for 63 Hz. In the Health Canada study, to a distance of 4.5 km, long term average FFP calculations were highly correlated with the ISO based calculations. This suggests that ISO 9613-2 (1996) could be an effective screening method. Both measurements and FFP calculations showed that beyond 1 km, ISO based calculations could underestimate sound pressure levels. FFP calculations would be recommended for large distances, when there are large numbers of wind turbines, or when investigating specific meteorological classes.


  • Open Access

    Corrigendum: Effects of Wind Turbine Noise on Self-Reported and Objective Measures of Sleep

    by David S Michaud, Katya Feder, Stephen E Keith, Sonia A Voicescu, Leonora Marro, John Than, Mireille Guay, Allison Denning, Brian J Murray, Shelly K Weiss, et al.

    Sleep, Volume 39, Issue 1, 1 January 2016, Pages 97–109, https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.5326


  • Open Access

    Chronic noise exposure in the spontaneously hypertensive rat

    by David Michaud, Anne T.M Konkle, StephenE Keith, James P McNamee

    Introduction: Epidemiological studies have suggested an association between the relative risk for developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and long-term exposure to elevated levels of transportation noise. The contention is that this association is largely owing to an increase in stress-related biomarkers that are thought to be associated with CVD. Animal models have demonstrated that acute noise exposure is capable of triggering a stress response; however, similar studies using chronic noise models are less common. Materials and Methods: The current study assessed the effects of intermittent daily exposure to broadband 80 kHz bandwidth noise of 87.3 dBA for a period of 21 consecutive days in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Results: Twenty-one days of exposure to noise significantly reduced body weight relative to the sham and unhandled control groups; however, noise had no statistically significant impact on plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone (or adrenal gland weights). Noise was associated with a significant, albeit modest, increase in both corticosterone and aldosterone concentrations following the 21 days of exposure. Interleukin 1 and interleukin 6 levels were unchanged in the noise group, whereas both tumour necrosis factor alpha and C-reactive protein were significantly reduced in noise exposed rats. Tail blood sampling for corticosterone throughout the exposure period showed no appreciable difference between the noise and sham exposed animals, largely due to the sizeable variation for each group as well as the observed fluctuations over time. Discussion: The current pilot study provides only modest support that chronic noise may promote stress-related biological and/or developmental effects. More research is required to verify the current findings and resolve some of the unexpected observations.


  • Open Access

    Wind turbine sound pressure level calculations at dwellings

    by Stephen E. Keith, Katya Feder, Sonia A. Voicescu, Victor Soukhovtsev, Allison Denning, Jason Tsang, Norm Broner, Tony Leroux, Werner Richarz, Frits van Den Berg

    This paper provides calculations of outdoor sound pressure levels (SPLs) at dwellings for 10 wind turbine models, to support Health Canada's Community Noise and Health Study. Manufacturer supplied and measured wind turbine sound power levels were used to calculate outdoor SPL at 1238 dwellings using ISO [(1996). ISO 9613-2−Acoustics] and a Swedish noise propagation method. Both methods yielded statistically equivalent results. The A- and C-weighted results were highly correlated over the 1238 dwellings (Pearson's linear correlation coefficient r > 0.8). Calculated wind turbine SPLs were compared to ambient SPLs from other sources, estimated using guidance documents from the United States and Alberta, Canada.


  • Open Access

    Self-reported and measured stress related responses associated with exposure to wind turbine noise

    by David S. Michaud, Katya Feder, Stephen E. Keith, Sonia A. Voicescu, Leonora Marro, John Than, Mireille Guay, Allison Denning, Tara Bower, Paul J. Villeneuve, et al.

    The current study was the first to assess stress reactions associated with wind turbine noise (WTN) exposure using self-reported and objective measures. Randomly selected participants, aged 18–79 yr (606 males; 632 females), living between 0.25 and 11.22 km from wind turbines, were exposed to outdoor calculated WTN levels up to 46 dBA (response rate 78.9%). Multiple regression modeling left the great majority (77%–89%) of the variance in perceived stress scale (PSS) scores, hair cortisol concentrations, resting blood pressure, and heart rate unaccounted for, and WTN exposure had no apparent influence on any of these endpoints. PSS scores were positively, but weakly, related to cortisol concentrations and resting heart rate (Pearson r = 0.13 and r = 0.08, respectively). Across WTN categories, modeled mean PSS scores ranged from 13.15 to 13.84 (p = 0.8614). Modeled geometric means for hair cortisol concentrations, resting mean systolic, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were 150.54–191.12 ng/g (p = 0.5416), 113.38–116.82 mmHg (p = 0.4990), 67.98–70.34 mmHg (p = 0.5006), and 68.24–70.71 bpm (p = 0.5223), respectively. Irrespective of WTN levels, diastolic blood pressure appeared to be slightly (2.90 mmHg 95% CI: 0.75,5.05) higher among participants highly annoyed by blinking lights on turbines (p = 0.0081). Collectively, the findings do not support an association between exposure to WTN up to 46 dBA and elevated self-reported and objectively defined measures of stress.


  • Open Access

    Exposure to wind turbine noise: Perceptual responses and reported health effects

    by David S. Michaud, Katya Feder, Stephen E. Keith, Sonia A. Voicescu, Leonora Marro, John Than, Mireille Guay, Allison Denning, D'Arcy McGuire, Tara Bower, et al.

    Health Canada, in collaboration with Statistics Canada, and other external experts, conducted the Community Noise and Health Study to better understand the impacts of wind turbine noise (WTN) on health and well-being. A cross-sectional epidemiological study was carried out between May and September 2013 in southwestern Ontario and Prince Edward Island on 1238 randomly selected participants (606 males, 632 females) aged 18–79 years, living between 0.25 and 11.22 km from operational wind turbines. Calculated outdoor WTN levels at the dwelling reached 46 dBA. Response rate was 78.9% and did not significantly differ across sample strata. Self-reported health effects (e.g., migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, etc.), sleep disturbance, sleep disorders, quality of life, and perceived stress were not related to WTN levels. Visual and auditory perception of wind turbines as reported by respondents increased significantly with increasing WTN levels as did high annoyance toward several wind turbine features, including the following: noise, blinking lights, shadow flicker, visual impacts, and vibrations. Concern for physical safety and closing bedroom windows to reduce WTN during sleep also increased with increasing WTN levels. Other sample characteristics are discussed in relation to WTN levels. Beyond annoyance, results do not support an association between exposure to WTN up to 46 dBA and the evaluated health-related endpoints.


  • Open Access

    Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance

    by David S. Michaud, Stephen E. Keith, Katya Feder, Sonia A. Voicescu, Leonora Marro, John Than, Mireille Guay, Tara Bower, Allison Denning, Eric Lavigne, et al.

    The possibility that wind turbine noise (WTN) affects human health remains controversial. The current analysis presents results related to WTN annoyance reported by randomly selected participants (606 males, 632 females), aged 18–79, living between 0.25 and 11.22 km from wind turbines. WTN levels reached 46 dB, and for each 5 dB increase in WTN levels, the odds of reporting to be either very or extremely (i.e., highly) annoyed increased by 2.60 [95% confidence interval: (1.92, 3.58), p < 0.0001]. Multiple regression models had R2's up to 58%, with approximately 9% attributed to WTN level. Variables associated with WTN annoyance included, but were not limited to, other wind turbine-related annoyances, personal benefit, noise sensitivity, physical safety concerns, property ownership, and province. Annoyance was related to several reported measures of health and well-being, although these associations were statistically weak (R2 < 9%), independent of WTN levels, and not retained in multiple regression models. The role of community tolerance level as a complement and/or an alternative to multiple regression in predicting the prevalence of WTN annoyance is also provided. The analysis suggests that communities are between 11 and 26 dB less tolerant of WTN than of other transportation noise sources.


  • Open Access

    Wind turbine sound power measurements

    by Stephen E. Keith, Katya Feder, Sonia A. Voicescu, Victor Soukhovtsev, Allison Denning, Jason Tsang, Norm Broner, Werner Richarz, Frits van Den Berg

    This paper provides experimental validation of the sound power level data obtained from manufacturers for the ten wind turbine models examined in Health Canada's Community Noise and Health Study (CNHS). Within measurement uncertainty, the wind turbine sound power levels measured using IEC 61400-11 [(2002). (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva)] were consistent with the sound power level data provided by manufacturers. Based on measurements, the sound power level data were also extended to 16 Hz for calculation of C-weighted levels. The C-weighted levels were 11.5 dB higher than the A-weighted levels (standard deviation 1.7 dB). The simple relationship between A- and C- weighted levels suggests that there is unlikely to be any statistically significant difference between analysis based on either C- or A-weighted data.