Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2017, Vol. 29 Issue (12): 1217-1222    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn1007-0931.2017.12.007
  论著 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
两种风险评估模型在多个行业职业健康风险评估的应用
周莉芳,张美辨,邹华,袁伟明,全长健
浙江省疾病预防控制中心,浙江 杭州 310051
Application of two health risk assessment models in the occupational health risk assessment of chemicals in different industries
ZHOU Li-fang,ZHANG Mei-bian,ZOU Hua,YUAN Wei-ming,QUAN Chang-jian
Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Hangzhou,Zhejiang,310051,China
全文: PDF(612 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 评价新加坡风险评估模型和罗马尼亚风险评估模型在职业健康风险评估应用的适用性。方法 应用2种风险评估模型对造纸、化工和电镀行业重点岗位进行风险评估,采用风险比值比较不同行业职业健康风险,并与职业接触限值、职业病危害作业分级和文献报道进行比较。结果 新加坡风险评估模型评估结果显示,造纸行业风险等级为低~中等风险,风险比值为0.42±0.04;化工行业风险等级为可忽略~低风险,风险比值为0.31±0.10;电镀行业风险等级为低~极高风险,风险比值为0.62±0.15。罗马尼亚风险评估模型评估结果显示,造纸行业风险等级为低~高风险,风险比值为0.46±0.13;化工行业风险等级为最低~低风险,风险比值为0.38±0.08;电镀行业风险等级为低~非常高风险,风险比值为0.52±0.11。化工和造纸行业风险比值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),电镀行业风险比值高于化工行业(P<0.05);2种模型评估所得风险比值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。造纸、化工和电镀行业场所空气中化学物浓度超标率分别为0.00%、7.70%和8.00%。结论 新加坡风险评估模型和罗马尼亚风险评估模型均适用于造纸、化工和电镀等行业职业健康风险评估,风险评估结果基本一致。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
周莉芳
张美辨
邹华
袁伟明
全长健
关键词 风险评估职业健康新加坡风险评估模型罗马尼亚风险评估模型    
AbstractObjective To explore the applicability of Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment mode and Romania risk assessment model in occupational health risk assessment. Methods We employed two risk assessment models to evaluate the risk of key positions in papermaking factories,electroplating factories,and chemical factories. Then we compared the results with occupational exposure limits,classification of occupational hazards and literature reports. Results The results of Singapore model showed that the total risk ratio was 0.40±0.16. The risk levels of papermaking factories,electroplating factories,and chemical factories were low-medium,negligible-low and low-very high,respectively. The risk ratio of three industries were 0.42±0.04,0.31±0.10 and 0.62±0.15. The results of Romania model showed that the total risk ratio was 0.43±0.11. The risk levels of papermaking factories,electroplating factories,and chemical factories were respectively low-high,minimal-low and low-very high. The risk ratio of three industries was 0.46±0.13,0.38±0.08 and 0.52±0.11,respectively. The risk levels of electroplating factories were higher than papermaking factories and chemical factories (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between risk levels of papermaking factories and chemical factories(P>0.05). There was significant difference between the occupational health risk levels assessed by the two models(P>0.05). Conclusion These findings suggest that Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model and Romania risk assessment model both can be applied for the occupational health risk assessment of different workplaces,such as papermaking factories,electroplating factories,and chemical factories. The risk assessment results of the two Methods are basically identical.
Key wordsRisk assessment    Occupational health    Singapore risk assessment model    Romania risk assessment model
     出版日期: 2017-12-07
ZTFLH:  R135  
基金资助:浙江省卫生高层次创新人才培养工程项目
通信作者: 张美辨,E-mail:mbzhang@cdc.zj.cn   
作者简介: 周莉芳,硕士,主管医师,主要从事职业卫生研究工作
引用本文:   
周莉芳,张美辨,邹华,袁伟明,全长健. 两种风险评估模型在多个行业职业健康风险评估的应用[J]. 预防医学, 2017, 29(12): 1217-1222.
ZHOU Li-fang,ZHANG Mei-bian,ZOU Hua,YUAN Wei-ming,QUAN Chang-jian. Application of two health risk assessment models in the occupational health risk assessment of chemicals in different industries. Preventive Medicine, 2017, 29(12): 1217-1222.
链接本文:  
http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn1007-0931.2017.12.007      或      http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2017/V29/I12/1217
[1]USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A,EPA/540/1-89/002 December 1989)[Z]. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,Washington D C,1989.
[2] USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I:Human Health Evaluation Manual(Part F,Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment,EPA-540-R-070- 002OSWER 9285.7-82 January 2009)[Z]. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Environmental Protection Agency,Washington D C,2009.
[3] University of Queensland (Australia). Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment and Management Guideline[R]. Occupational Health and Safety Unit,2011.
[4] Romania. Risk Assessment Method for Occupational Accidents and Diseases[EB/OL]. [2017-02-28]. http://www.protectiamuncii.ro/pdfs/risk_assessment_method.pdf.
[5] Ministry of Occupational Manpower Safety and Heahh Division. A Semi-quantitative Method to Assess Occupational Exposure to Harmful Chemicals[EB/OL].[2017-02-28].https://www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/2014/A%20Semiquantitative%20Method%20to%20Assess%20Occupational%20Exposure%20to%20Harmful%20Che.pdf
[6] International Counci1 on Mining and Metals. Good practice guidance on occupational health risk assessment[EB/OL].[2017-02-28]. https://www.icmm.com/document/629.
[7] 张美辨,唐仕川. 职业健康风险评估方法学实践应用[M]. 北京:人民军医出版社,2016:1-29.
[8] 杨进,许敏凤,顾慧珍. 一起酒厂急性硫化氢混合气体中毒死亡事件[J]. 浙江预防医学,2012,24(9):53-54.
[9] LANCIA M,PANATA L,TONDI V,et al. A fatal work-related poisoning by hydrogen sulfide:report on a case[J]. Am J Forensic Med Pathol,2013,34(4):315-317.
[10]肖晓琴,王致,张海,等. 造纸行业职业病危害识别与关键控制点分析[J]. 中国卫生工程学,2010,9(3):191-193, 196.
[11]靳雅丽,李雪谦,苏世标,等. 粉尘职业危害风险评估指标体系建立与应用研究[J]. 中国职业医学,2016,43(6):703-706,710.
[12]陈捷敏. 甲醇中毒视网膜功能结构和蛋白质组学研究[D]. 上海:复旦大学,2012.
[13]魏海龙,李利琼,陈丹,等. 硫酸气雾吸入中毒性肺水肿四例报告并文献复习[J]. 中国呼吸与危重监护杂志,2015,14(1):88-90.
[14]王晓彤,李艳萍,刘秀玲,等. 急性氯化氢吸入247例临床分析[J]. 中国工业医学杂志,2017,30(1):26-27.
[15]李敏,张丽华,黄丽蓉,等. 职业接触酸雾工人健康状况调查[J]. 中国职业医学,2012,39(2):175-176.
[16]张峻,韩磊,赵圆. 一起急性氯甲烷中毒事故的调查与处理[J]. 中国工业医学杂志,2012,25(6):475-476.
[17]郭美琼,何坚,郭翔,等. 一例急性二甲苯中毒病例报告[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援,2015,33(2):113-114.
[18]王晓彤,张明,迟宁. 急性重度氨中毒1例报告[J]. 中国工业医学杂志,2016,29(5):347-349.
[19]窦建瑞,钱晓勤,毛一扬,等. 草甘膦对人体的毒性研究进展[J]. 江苏预防医学,2013,24(6):43-45.
[20]YANG Y,LIU H,XIANG X H,et al. Outline of occupational chromium poisoning in China[J]. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol,2013,90(6):742-749.
[21]左晨艳,杨波波,吴婷,等. 氰化物中毒及解毒的研究进展[J]. 毒理学杂志,2016,30(4):311-316.
[1] 黎乾,王芬,提高兰,倪丰颖,郑寿贵,包芳芳. 综合指数法和定量风险评估法在反光膜企业的应用比较[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(9): 946-949.
[2] 洪琪, 李锐. 移动医疗APP的风险评估与管理[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(6): 637-639.
[3] 庞志峰, 章光明. 金华市埃博拉出血热输入和本地传播风险评估[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(4): 335-340.
[4] 丁俊, 苏世标, 靳雅丽, 刘明, 谈伟君. 家具生产企业有机溶剂的三种健康风险评估方法比较[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(4): 400-404.
[5] 王莎莎, 李明, 蒋兴祥. 绍兴市噪声作业职业病危害特征分析[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(4): 405-408.
[6] 周煜, 沈毅, 王姝婷, 赵栋. 杭州市居民谷物和烧烤油炸类食品多环芳烃暴露风险评估[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(3): 260-265.
[7] 郭丽花, 俞敏, 钟节鸣, 方乐, 陈向宇, 王春梅, 谢开婿. 桐乡市社区高血压患者心血管病发病风险评估[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(2): 124-127.
[8] 赵静, 王杰, 张红兵, 王伟, 解燕, 韩磊. 江苏省职业健康检查机构现状调查[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(2): 199-201.
[9] 王祚懿, 陈强, 何晓庆, 盛微, 罗进斌. 金华市农村生活饮用水化学污染健康风险评估[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(10): 1012-1016.
[10] 何晓庆, 罗进斌, 王祚懿, 盛微. 婺城区大气PM2.5金属元素污染的慢性健康风险评估[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(1): 23-27.
[11] 张文翠,朱钰玲,胡伟江,叶萌,牛勇,周莹,张 ,梅良英. 选矿企业石棉粉尘的职业健康风险评估[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(9): 879-883.
[12] 李旭东,丁俊,刘明,徐海娟,苏世标,胡世杰. 三种职业健康风险评估方法评估涂料生产企业有机溶剂风险的应用比较[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(8): 794-798.
[13] 杨科华,沈群燕,沈晓靖,骆丹丹,廖晓静,杨丹红. 抑郁症患者照料人心理负担及影响因素研究[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(7): 693-695.
[14] 郭蓉, 王玮, 刘存卫, 程国霞, 胡佳薇, 王彩霞, 田丽, 李天来. 陕西省部分蔬菜中有机磷农药残留的膳食暴露风险评估[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(2): 148-152.
[15] 张鹏, 刘弢, 李辉, 张传会, 马力, 张美辨. 两种风险评估模型在转椅家具制造企业的应用比较[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(2): 158-163.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed