徐秋凉, 张美辨, 邹华, 袁伟明, 李飞. 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. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19624
引用本文: 徐秋凉, 张美辨, 邹华, 袁伟明, 李飞. 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. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19624
XU Qiu-liang, ZHANG Mei-bian, ZOU Hua, YUAN Wei-ming, LI Fei. Quantitative comparison of six common occupational health risk assessment models for small printing companies[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(2): 131-137. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19624
Citation: XU Qiu-liang, ZHANG Mei-bian, ZOU Hua, YUAN Wei-ming, LI Fei. Quantitative comparison of six common occupational health risk assessment models for small printing companies[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(2): 131-137. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19624

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

Quantitative comparison of six common occupational health risk assessment models for small printing companies

  • 摘要: 背景

    目前国际研究领域中职业健康风险评估模型多达十几种,每种模型由于其建立的技术原理不同,各有其自身的优势和局限性。采用不同的模型对同一危害进行评估,得出的结果并不完全一致,目前有关各种职业健康风险评估模型间差异的研究报道很少。

    目的

    研究六种常用职业健康风险评估模型之间的差异,为相关标准制定、职业健康风险评估方法学研究及应用提供参考依据。

    方法

    于2019年选取浙江省7家小型印刷企业印刷和复合岗位作为研究对象,印刷岗位和复合岗位接触的风险因子种类相同,可通过比较两个岗位各风险因子浓度比值(即检测浓度与职业接触限值的比值)来确定岗位的固有风险,作为判定各模型风险评估结果准确性的依据。运用六种常见的职业健康风险评估模型(美国EPA模型、新加坡模型、英国COSHH模型、澳大利亚模型、罗马尼亚模型和ICMM模型)对7家企业印刷和复合岗位各风险因子进行职业健康风险评估;利用风险比值(RR)对各风险评估模型进行定量比较,验证六种模型评估结果的准确性,分析评估结果的平行性及相关性。

    结果

    7家印刷企业复合岗位二甲苯和乙酸乙酯浓度比值均值(0.33±0.40)大于印刷岗位(0.08±0.07)(P < 0.05),故以复合岗位二甲苯和乙酸乙酯的固有风险高于印刷岗位作为判定模型评估结果准确性的依据。美国EPA模型、新加坡模型得出复合岗位二甲苯和乙酸乙酯的RR均值高于印刷岗位(P < 0.05),与岗位固有风险结果相符;而其他模型未能区分复合岗位、印刷岗位风险的差别。六种模型评估结果平行性分析结果显示:美国EPA模型RR均值(0.65±0.34)最大,其次为英国COSHH模型(0.50±0.15),再次为新加坡模型(0.36±0.15)、澳大利亚模型(0.34±0.15)和ICMM模型(0.34±0.08),罗马尼亚模型RR均值(0.20±0.10)最小(4个层次之间两两比较,P < 0.05)。相关性分析结果显示:7家企业复合岗位和印刷岗位各风险因子浓度比值与各模型RR间均存在相关性(P < 0.01),其与RR美国EPA模型RR新加坡模型的相关系数最大(r=0.761、0.792,P < 0.01),与RR英国COSHH模型的最小(r=0.330,P < 0.01)。各模型RR间相关性分析结果显示:除了RR美国EPA模型RR英国COSHH模型之间无相关性,其他各模型RR间均存在一定的相关性;RR美国EPA模型RR新加坡模型r值为0.601,与其他模型RRr值均小于0.5(P < 0.01);RR新加坡模型与其他各模型RR间的r值均大于0.7。

    结论

    美国EPA模型和新加坡模型评估结果准确,与风险因子浓度比值相关性较强;美国EPA模型和英国COSHH模型相对较独立,而新加坡模型与其他模型的相关性均较强。

     

    Abstract: Background

    There are more than ten kinds of occupational health risk assessment models in the world. Each model has its own advantages and limitations due to its different technical principles. Different models may generate inconsistent results of risk assessment towards a single hazard. At present, there are few reports on the differences among various occupational health risk assessment models.

    Objective

    The purpose of this study is to understand the differences among six commonly used occupational health risk assessment models, and to provide references for the formulation of relevant standards and for the methodological study and application of occupational health risk assessments.

    Methods

    The printing and laminating positions of seven small printing companies in Zhejiang Province were selected as study subjects in 2019. Because they were exposed to the same risk factors, the inherent risks of both positions were estimated by comparing occupational hazard concentration ratio (the ratio of hazard concentration to occupational exposure limit), and then were used to determine the accuracy of results calculated by each risk assessment model. Six common occupational health risk assessment models (i.e., U.S. EPA model, Singapore model, UK COSHH model, Australian model, Romanian model, and ICMM model) were used to assess the identified occupational health risk factors of the selected printing and laminating positions. A quantitative comparison of the risk assessment models was conducted using risk ratio (RR) to verify the accuracy and analyze the parallelism and correlation of the assessment results.

    Results

    The average xylene and ethyl acetate concentration ratio of the laminating positions (0.33±0.40) in the selected seven printing companies was greater than the ratio of the printing positions (0.08±0.07) (P < 0.05), thus it was the basis for judging the accuracy of model evaluation results that higher inherent risk of xylene and ethyl acetate in laminating positions than that in printing positions. According to U.S. EPA model and Singapore model, the mean RR of xylene and ethyl acetate in laminating positions was higher than that in printing positions (P < 0.05), which was consistent with the inherent risk of the two positions. The assessment results of other models failed to distinguish the risk difference between the two positions. The parallelism analysis results showed that RRU.S. EPA=0.65±0.34, RRUK COSHH=0.50±0.15, RRSingapore model=0.36±0.15, RRAustralian model=0.34±0.15, RRICMM=0.34±0.08, and RRRomanian=0.20±0.10 (P < 0.05). The correlation analysis results showed that the concentration ratio of each occupational hazard in the laminating and printing positions of the seven companies was correlated with the RR of each model (P < 0.01), and the correlation coefficient was the largest for RRU.S.EPA model and RRSingapore model (r=0.761 and 0.792, P < 0.01), and the smallest for RRUK COSHH model (r=0.330, P < 0.01). The correlation analysis results also showed that there was a correlation between RR of each model except that between RRU.S.EPA model and RRUK COSHH model; the correlation coefficient (r) between RRU.S.EPA model and RRSingapore model was 0.601, the values between RRU.S.EPA model and other RRs were < 0.5 (P < 0.01), and the values between RRSingapore model and other RRs were greater than 0.7.

    Conclusion

    Both U.S. EPA model and Singapore model have better assessment accuracy and strong correlation with the field survey based occupational hazard concentration ratio. U.S. EPA model and UK COSHH model are relatively independent, while Singapore model has strong correlations with other models.

     

/

返回文章
返回