Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2021, Vol. 33 Issue (9): 873-876,883    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2021.09.003
  论著 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
五种职业健康风险评估模型评估小型露天石料矿场硅尘危害比较
徐秋凉, 曹艺耀, 王鹏, 任鸿, 袁伟明, 李飞, 张美辨
浙江省疾病预防控制中心职业健康与辐射防护所,浙江 杭州 310051
Comparison of five occupational health risk assessment models applied to silica dust hazard in small open pits
XU Qiuliang, CAO Yiyao, WANG Peng, REN Hong, YUAN Weiming, LI Fei, ZHANG Meibian
Department of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310051,China
全文: PDF(894 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 应用5种职业健康风险评估模型评估小型露天石料矿场硅尘危害风险,为职业健康风险评估方法学的研究提供参考。方法 选择7家小型露天石料矿场为评估现场,应用新加坡化学毒物职业暴露半定量风险评估方法(新加坡模型)、英国健康危害物质控制策略简易法(COSHH模型)、罗马尼亚职业事故和职业病风险评估方法(罗马尼亚模型)、澳大利亚职业健康与安全风险评估管理导则(澳大利亚模型)、国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评估操作指南(ICMM模型)分别对接触硅尘岗位的职工进行职业健康风险评估。计算5种模型评估结果的风险比值(RR),比较差异性、准确性和相关性。结果 新加坡模型、COSHH模型、罗马尼亚模型、澳大利亚模型和ICMM模型评估的RR值分别为0.8、1.0、0.4、0.6和0.8。新加坡模型和澳大利亚模型能明确区分汽车运输驾驶员与洒水车司机接触硅尘的风险水平差异,与这2个岗位的实际风险相符。除COSHH模型外,其他4种模型的RR值间均呈正相关(P<0.05);RR值与浓度比值(CR)均呈正相关(P<0.05),其中新加坡模型的RR值与CR值的相关系数最大,为0.801。结论 5种职业健康风险评估模型中新加坡模型相对更能识别石料矿场不同岗位的硅尘危害风险差异,评估准确性较好,与其他模型具有良好的相关性。
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
徐秋凉
曹艺耀
王鹏
任鸿
袁伟明
李飞
张美辨
关键词 石料矿场硅尘职业健康风险    
AbstractObjective To quantitatively compare five occupational health risk assessment models in assessing silica dust hazard risk in small open pits, so as to provide the reference for the research of occupational health risk assessment methodology. Methods Seven small open pits were selected as the evaluation sites. The models from Singapore, the United Kingdom's Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Essentials ( COSHH Essentials ), Australia, Romania, and the International Council on Mining and Metals ( ICMM ) were applied to assessing the occupational health risk of the workers exposed to silica dust. The risk ratios ( RRs ) were calculated, and the parallelism, accuracy and correlation of the evaluation results of the five models were compared. Results The RRs of the Singaporean model, COSHH model, Romanian model, Australian model and ICMM model were 0.8, 1.0, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, respectively. The Singaporean model and the Australian model were able to distinguish transport drivers from sprinkler drivers in the health risk exposed to silica dust, which was consistent with the actual risk of the two posts. Except for COSHH model, the RRs of the other four models were positively correlated ( P<0.05 ); the RRs were all positively correlated with concentration ratios ( CRs ) ( P<0.05 ), and the correlation coefficient between RRs and CRs of the Singaporean model was the largest (0.801). Conclusion Among the five models, the Singaporean model can more accurately evaluate the hazard risk of silica dust in posts of open pits, and has a good correlation with the other models.
Key wordsstone quarry    silica dust    occupational health risk
收稿日期: 2021-03-09      修回日期: 2021-06-10      出版日期: 2021-09-10
中图分类号:  R135  
基金资助:国家自然科学基金(81472961); 浙江省重点研发项目(215C03039); 浙江省基础公益研究计划项目(LGC21H260001); 浙江省卫生健康科技计划(2021KY616,2021KY613,2020KY517,2018KY332); 2016年度浙江省卫生创新人才培养工程; 2018年度浙江省151人才工程; 浙江省疾病预防控制中心疾控英才孵育项目
通信作者: 张美辨,E-mail:mbzhang@cdc.zj.cn   
作者简介: 徐秋凉,硕士,高级工程师,主要从事职业卫生研究工作
引用本文:   
徐秋凉, 曹艺耀, 王鹏, 任鸿, 袁伟明, 李飞, 张美辨. 五种职业健康风险评估模型评估小型露天石料矿场硅尘危害比较[J]. 预防医学, 2021, 33(9): 873-876,883.
XU Qiuliang, CAO Yiyao, WANG Peng, REN Hong, YUAN Weiming, LI Fei, ZHANG Meibian. Comparison of five occupational health risk assessment models applied to silica dust hazard in small open pits. Preventive Medicine, 2021, 33(9): 873-876,883.
链接本文:  
http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2021.09.003      或      http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2021/V33/I9/873
[1] 邬堂春,牛桥,周志俊,等.职业卫生与职业医学[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2017:186.
[2] 牛东升,王会宁,郑昀,等.小型露天采石场职业病危害调查与防治对策[J].职业与健康,2019,35(20):2752-2755.
[3] ZHOU L F,TIAN F,ZOU H,et al.Research progress in occupational health risk assessment methods in China[J].Biomed Environ Sci,2017,30(8):616-622.
[4] 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.
[5] 谢红卫,张美辨,周莉芳,等.两种风险评估模型在印刷行业中的应用研究[J].环境与职业医学,2016,33(1):29-33.
[6] 周莉芳,张美辨,邹华,等.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.
[7] XU Q,YU F,LI F,et al.Quantitative differences between common occupational health risk assessment models[J/OL].J Occup Health,2020,62(1)[2021-06-10].https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12164.
[8] 张鹏,刘弢,李辉,等.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):158-162.
[9] 邹亚玲,陆利通,汤小鸥,等.定性与半定量职业健康风险评估法在某胶黏剂生产企业的应用比较[J].中国职业医学,2018,45(6):770-774, 778.
[10] Ministry of Manpower Occupational Safety and Health Division. A semi-quantitative method to assess occupational exposure to harmful chemicals[EB/OL].[2021-06-10]. https://www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/2014/A%20Semiquantitative%20Method%20to%20Assess%20Occupational%20Exposure%20to%20Harmful%20Che.pdf.
[11] Health and Safety Executive.COSHH Essentials-easy steps to control chemicals[EB/OL].[2021-06-10]. https://www.researchgate.net/lite.publication.PublicationDownloadCitationModal.downloadCitation.html?fileType=RIS&citation=citation&publicationUid=31283880.
[12] University of Queensland. Occupational health and safety risk assessment and management guideline[M].Brisbane:Occupational Health and Safety Unit,2011.
[13] National Research Institute for Labour Protection. Risk assessment method for occupational accidents and diseases[EB/OL].[2021-06-10]. http://www.protectiamuncii.ro/pdfs/risk_assessment_method.pdf.
[14] International Council on Mining and Metals.Good practice guidance on occupational health risk assessment.Second edition[EB/OL][2021-06-10]. https://www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/health-and-safety/161212_health-and-safety_health-risk-assessment_2nd-edition.pdf.
[15] 中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范:GBZ 159—2004[S].2004.
[16] 中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中粉尘测定第2部分:呼吸性粉尘浓度:GBZ/T 192.2—2007[S].2007.
[17] 中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中粉尘测定第4部分:游离二氧化硅含量:GBZ/T 192.4—2007[S].2007.
[18] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第1部分:化学有害因素:GBZ 2.1—2019
[S]. 2019.
[19] U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment[EB/OL].[2021-06-10].https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-carcinogen-risk-assessment.
[20] TIAN F,ZHANG M,ZHOU L,et al.Qualitative and quantitative differences between common occupational health risk assessment models in typical industries[J].J Occup Health,2018,60(5):337-347.
[21] 徐秋凉,张美辨,邹华,等.六种常用职业健康风险评估模型在小型印刷企业中的定量比较[J].环境与职业医学,2020,37(2):131-137.
[1] 梁志明, 曾庆民, 邓永愈, 李丽泉, 余建文, 钟秀霞, 苏世标. 四种方法评估电器制造行业化学有害因素风险结果比较[J]. 预防医学, 2020, 32(3): 310-314.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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): 158-162.
[6] 田亚锋, 刘开钳, 吴礼康, 王丽华, 戴志腾, 冯晶, 阳宏. 比较三种职业健康风险评估模型在蓄电池生产企业的应用[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(12): 1248-1251.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed