|
|
|
| Occupational health risk assessment of dust in cement production enterprises |
| NIU Yong*, ZHANG Lin, LIU Kai, YU Bing, ZHANG Rongping, HAN Lei, XIE Lizhuang, WU Peng, YE Meng
|
| *National Institute for Occupation Health and Poison Control, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Beijing 100050, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To evaluate the occupational health risk of key posts exposed to cement dust in four cement production enterprises, and to provide reference for cement pneumoconiosis prevention and control. Methods Four Chinese typical cement enterprises and key posts exposed to cement dust were selected to carry out occupational health investigation and detection, and three risk assessment methods were used to assess their occupational health risk levels, including semi-quantitative comprehensive index method, semi-quantitative contact ratio method and risk rating method of International Mining and Metal Commission ( ICMM ). Meanwhile, the differences and consistencies among different assessment methods were compared. Results Dust free silica content ranged from ( 4.70±2.01 ) % to ( 5.63±2.48 ) %,and the total and respirable dust concentrations exposed by bagged cement loaders and cement baggers exceeded Chinese permissible concentration-time weighted average（ PC-TWA ）. The results of semi-quantitative comprehensive index method showed that all the types of work were at high risk of total and respirable dust, while the results of the other two assessment methods showed that bagged cement loaders and cement baggers were at a extremely high or intolerable risk. There were no significant differences among three risk assessment methods whether in terms of total dust or respirable dust ( P>0.05 ). ICMM risk rating method and contact ratio method showed highly positive correlation in term of respirable dust ( rs=0.894, P=0.016 ), but not in term of total dust ( rs=0.733, P=0.097 ). However, the correlations of comprehensive index method with the other two methods were unable to conduct. Conclusion Bagged cement loaders and cement baggers are at high occupational health risk levels. Moreover, semi-quantitative contact ratio method and ICMM risk rating method have high positive correlation in term of respirable dust, the applicability of comprehensive index method still needs further study.
|
|
Received: 24 November 2020
Revised: 22 March 2021
Published: 04 June 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 马骏. 水泥生产中粉尘危害与防治[J].劳动保护,2014,(3):24-26.
[2] 赵文莉,李慧,寇振霞,等.2010至2018年甘肃省尘肺病流行特征分析[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2020,38(10):746-749.
[3] 邓蕾. 2018年—2020年宜宾市尘肺病流行病学特征研究[J].母婴世界,2020,(29):270.
[4] 唐浩,王一丹,陈卉,等.我国尘肺病患者病死率的meta分析[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2015,33(3):229-232.
[5] 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:人民卫生出版社,2017.
[6] International Council on Mining and Metals.Good Practice Guidance on Occupational Risk Assessment[Z].2009.
[7] 席耀忠. 中小水泥企业升级转产几种途径的分析[Z].北京:中国建筑材料研究总院,2009.
[8] 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].北京:人民卫生出版社,2004.
[9] 中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中粉尘测定第1部分:总粉尘:GBZ/T 192.1—2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[10] 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].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[11] 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].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[12] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会.工作场所有害因素和职业接触限值第1部分:化学有害因素:GBZ 2.1—2019 [S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2019.
[13] 吴宾,张永亮,陈永青.煤尘职业健康风险评估中两种风险评估方法的应用研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2017,35(4):276-279.
[14] 汪玉清,谌莉莎,朱若凯,等.江西省水泥行业粉尘职业危害调查与分析[J].中国工业医学杂志,2018,31(1):51-53.
[15] 边洪英,康宁,董一文,等.三种半定量风险评估方法在矽尘暴露岗位风险等级划分中的比较[J].中国工业医学杂志,2019,32(3):167-171.
[16] 李旭东,丁俊,刘明,等.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.
[17] 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.
[18] XU Q L,YU F,LI F,et al.Quantitative differences between common occupational health risk assessment models[J]. J Occup Health,2020,62(1):1-11.
[19] 周莉芳,张美辨.职业健康风险评估方法学研究进展[J].环境与职业医学,2020,7(2):125-130.
[20] 厉小燕,陈坤,张美辨,等.国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评估模型在火力发电厂的应用研究[J].浙江预防医学,2013,25(11): 16-20,27.
[21] 丁士旵,胡志平,吴成峰.两种风险评估方法在潮模砂铸造造型工艺职业健康风险评估中的应用[J].职业与健康,2018,34(24):3324-3328. |
|
|
|
