Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2018, Vol. 30 Issue (8): 794-798    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2018.08.009
  论著 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
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
李旭东1,丁俊12,刘明1,徐海娟1,苏世标1,胡世杰1
1. 广东省职业病防治院,广东 广州 510300
2. 广东药科大学
Application research of three risk assessment methods to organic solvents in painting produced industry
LI Xu-dong*,DING Jun,LIU Ming,XU Hai-juan,SU Shi-biao,HU Shi-jie
*Guangdong Province Hospital for Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment,Guangzhou,Guangdong 510300,China
全文: PDF(537 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 采用定性评估法、综合指数法和国际采矿与金属委员会法(ICMM)矩阵法对涂料生产企业进行职业健康风险评估,探索其适用条件和适用范围。方法 采用职业卫生学调查法调查4家涂料生产企业有机溶剂巡检岗位接触的有机溶剂种类、接触情况和职业病防护措施;采用检测检验法检测岗位8小时平均接触浓度(CTWA);采用定性评估法、综合指数法和ICMM矩阵法评估巡检工职业健康风险等级。采用比值法对评估结果进行转化,比较三种方法所得的评估结果。结果 4家涂料生产企业巡检岗位接触的有机溶剂有苯、甲苯、二甲苯、苯乙烯、乙酸乙酯、乙酸丁酯、甲苯二异氰酸酯(TDI)、甲基丙烯酸甲酯、异丙醇、正丁醇和丙酮。定性评估法中危害因素的危害等级为B~E级,接触等级为2~3级,风险等级为2~4级;综合指数法中危害等级为2~5级,接触等级为2~3级,风险等级为2~4级;ICMM矩阵法中健康后果描述为2~4级,暴露发生可能为高、中、低,风险等级为1~4级。定性评估法评估结果高于或等于综合指数法和ICMM矩阵法;CTWA高于职业接触限值(OELs)时,ICMM矩阵法评估结果高于或等于综合指数法;CTWA低于行动水平(1/2 OELs)时,ICMM矩阵法评估结果低于或等于综合指数法;高毒物在CTWA超过OELs时,低毒物在CTWA低于1/2 OELs时,三种方法的评估结果一致。结论 三种方法针对某一危害因素的职业健康风险评估结果不完全一致,接触浓度超标时选用ICMM矩阵法和定性评估法更保守,接触浓度低于1/2 OELs时选用综合指数法和定性评估法更保守。
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
李旭东
丁俊
刘明
徐海娟
苏世标
胡世杰
关键词 职业健康风险评估定性评估法综合指数法ICMM矩阵法涂料生产企业    
AbstractObjective To explore the applicable conditions and applicability of qualitative risk assessment,synthesis index method and International Council on Mining and Metals(ICMM)matrix method by application of painting produced enterprises.Methods Occupational Hygiene Investigation Method was used to investigate the exposure of organic solvent types,contact conditions and occupational disease prevention measures for the inspection positions of 4 painting produced enterprises;Detected 8-hour average contact concentration of post used inspection test method;assessed the occupational heath risk level of inspection worker used qualitative risk assessment,synthesis index method and ICMM matrix method. Compared the assessment results after converted by ratio method.Results The organic solvents contacted by inspection positions of 4 paint manufacturing enterprises are benzene,toluene,xylene,styrene,ethyl acetate,butyl acetate,toluene diisocyanate(TDI),methyl methacrylate,isopropyl alcohol,Butanol and acetone. The risk classifications of hazard factors in the qualitative risk assessment method are B-E grade,the exposure classifications are 2-3 grade,the risk grade assessment results are 2-4 grade;The risk classifications of synthesis index method are 2-5 grade,the exposure classifications are 2-3 grade,risk grade assessment results are 2-4 grade;the health consequences of the ICMM matrix method described as 2-4 grade,the exposure possibility may be high,medium and low,and the risk assessment results are 1-4 grade. The risk level of qualitative risk assessment method is higher than or equal to the synthesis index method and ICMM matrix method. When the on-site detection concentration is higher than the occupational exposure limit(OELs),the ICMM matrix method result is higher than or equal to the synthesis index method,lower than or equal to the synthesis index method results if the on-site detection concentration is lower than action level(1/2 OELs). The assessment results of three methods are consistent when high toxic substances with the on-site detection concentration exceeds the OELs and low toxic substances with the on-site detection concentration is lower than 1/2OELs.Conclusion The occupational health risk assessment results of three methods for a certain risk factor are not completely consistent. When the exposure concentration exceeds the OELs,the ICMM matrix method and the qualitative assessment method are more conservative. When the exposure concentration is lower than 1/2 OELs,the synthesis index method and the qualitative assessment method are more conservative.
Key wordsOccupational health risk assessment    Qualitative assessment method    Synthesis index method    ICMM matrix method    Paint manufacturing enterprises
          出版日期: 2018-07-25
中图分类号:  R134  
基金资助:广东省职业病防治院,广东省职业病防治重点实验室项目(2017B030314152 );广东省科技计划项目(2011B031900005, 2011B050700001,2013B021800176);国家科技支撑计划项目(2014BAI12B01);广东省医学科研基金(A2015150,C2016014)
通信作者: 苏世标,E-mail:18927588172@163.com   
作者简介: 李旭东,硕士,副主任医师,主要从事职业流行病学研究工作
引用本文:   
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.
LI Xu-dong, DING Jun, LIU Ming, XU Hai-juan, SU Shi-biao, HU Shi-jie. Application research of three risk assessment methods to organic solvents in painting produced industry. Preventive Medicine, 2018, 30(8): 794-798.
链接本文:  
http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2018.08.009      或      http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2018/V30/I8/794
[1] 杜,王丹,李文杰,等. 基本职业卫生服务——职业病防治[J] . 中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2009,27(2):108-110.
[2] USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual[Z] . 1989.
[3] Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation,Environmental Protection Agency. Risk assessment guidance for superfund Volume I human health evaluation manual(Part F),Supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment[Z] . 2009.
[4] Romania. Risk Assessment Method for Occupational Accidents and Diseases[EB/OL] .[2018-03-28] . http://www.protectiamuncii.ro/pdfs/risk_assessment_ method.pdf .
[5] Ministry of Occupational Manpower Safety and Health Division. A Semi-quantitative Method to Assess Occupational Exposure to Harmful Chemicals[EB/OL] .[2018-03-28] . https://www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/2014/A%20Semiquantitative%20 Method%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] . [2018-03-28] . https://www.icmm.com/document/629.2017.
[7] 边国林,王爱红,李晓海,等. 三种职业健康风险评估方法在小型家具制造企业的应用研究[J] . 预防医学,2017,29(10): 1003-1008.
[8] 西晓静,李涛,黄力维,等. 两种职业健康风险评估方法在输气管道工程的应用[J] . 油气田环境保护,2017,27(3):55-59, 62.
[9] 张键,张雪艳,邵华. 三种健康风险评估方法在海洋石油平台职业噪声危害评价中的比较[J] . 中国工业医学杂志,2017,30(3):163-167.
[10] 丁钢强,张美辨. 国外职业健康风险评估指南[M] . 上海:复旦大学出版社,2014.
[11] 刘文慧,苏世标,徐海娟,等. 职业健康风险评估方法应用研究进展[J] . 中国职业医学,2016,43(4):487-490.
[12] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 工作场所化学有害因素职业健康风险评估技术导则:GBZ/T 298—2017[S] . 北京:中国标准出版社,2017.
[13] 王子炜. 涂料生产过程中的毒性分析[J] . 化学工程与装备,2013(8):202-204.
[14] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范:GBZ 159—2004[S] . 北京:中国标准出版社,2004.
[15] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 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—2007[S] .北京:中国标准出版社,2007.
[16] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 职业卫生名词术语:GBZ/T 224—2010[S] . 北京:中国标准出版社,2010.
[17] 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.
[18] Health and Safety Executive. COSHH essentials:Controlling exposure to chemicals-a simple control banding approach[R] .
[19] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.职业性接触毒物危害程度分级:GBZ 230—2010[S] . 北京:中国标准出版社,2010.
[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] 阮晓颖, 傅红, 朱霖, 俞爱青, 王强, 张磊, 张美辨. 某垃圾生态填埋场项目职业病危害风险预评价[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(12): 1193-1199.
[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