唐颖, 宁勇, 杨思佳, 陈健. 石化企业苯暴露的概率风险评估[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2018, 35(5): 452-456. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2018.17685
引用本文: 唐颖, 宁勇, 杨思佳, 陈健. 石化企业苯暴露的概率风险评估[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2018, 35(5): 452-456. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2018.17685
TANG Ying, NING Yong, YANG Si-jia, CHEN Jian. Application of probabilistic risk assessment to benzene exposure in petrochemical plant[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2018, 35(5): 452-456. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2018.17685
Citation: TANG Ying, NING Yong, YANG Si-jia, CHEN Jian. Application of probabilistic risk assessment to benzene exposure in petrochemical plant[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2018, 35(5): 452-456. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2018.17685

石化企业苯暴露的概率风险评估

Application of probabilistic risk assessment to benzene exposure in petrochemical plant

  • 摘要: 目的 使用概率风险评估(概率评估)法对某石化企业员工苯职业接触产生的健康风险进行评估,与点估计风险评估(点评估)法进行比较。

    方法 参考美国环境保护署(EPA)的吸入风险评估模型,运用@risk软件,对某石化企业2个工种(化工部外操工和质检部分析员)苯职业接触产生的健康风险进行概率评估。根据EPA的推荐,风险值(用于评估致癌风险)大于1×10-4为高风险,1×10-6~1×10-4为低风险,小于1×10-6为无风险;危害商数(用于评估非致癌风险)≥ 1为健康风险较大, < 1为健康风险较小。同时用传统的点评估法对前述健康风险进行评估,比较两种评估方法的优缺点。

    结果 点评估结果显示:外操工和分析员苯职业接触的致癌风险分别为0.43×10-4和0.37×10-4,位于低风险水平;而危害商数分别为3.24和3.76,健康风险较大。概率评估结果显示:外操工职业接触苯的致癌风险位于高风险、低风险和无风险水平的概率分别为10.6%、88.9%和0.5%,分析员相应的概率分别为2.1%、97.9%和0%;外操工苯职业接触的危害商数较大和较小的概率分别为72.3%和27.7%,分析员相应的概率分别为100%和0%。

    结论 点评估法结果单一,无法显示人群中的风险分布,有可能忽视或者高估人群风险。概率评估法减少了不确定性,展险概率的全分布,提供相对准确的信息,可为人群的健康风险管控提供科学依据。

     

    Abstract: Objective To assess the health risk of exposure to benzene in a petrochemical plant using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), and compare with point estimate risk assessment (point assessment).

    Methods Two types of workers, outside operators of chemical department and analysts of quality control department in a petrochemical plant, were selected to assess for the health risk of occupational benzene exposure using@risk software with references to the PRA and inhalation risk assessment models of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the recommendation values by EPA, the cancer risk value >1×10-4 was high cancer risk level, 1×10-6-1×10-4 was low cancer risk level, < 1×10-6 was no risk level; hazard quotient ≥ 1 was defined as non-cancer hazard level, and < 1 as no non-cancer hazard level. Conventional point assessment was also used. The advantages and disadvantages of the two methods were compared.

    Results The results of point assessment showed that the cancer risks of outside operators and analysts were 0.43×10-4 and 0.37×10-4, respectively, both indicating a low cancer risk level, while the hazard quotients were 3.24 and 3.76, respectively, indicating non-cancer hazards. The PRA results showed that the probabilities of the operators at high, low, and no cancer risk levels were 10.6%, 88.9%, and 0.5%, respectively, and the corresponding probabilities of the analysts were 2.1%, 97.9%, and 0%, respectively. The probabilities of the operators with and without non-cancer hazards were 72.3% and 27.7%, respectively, and the corresponding probabilities of the analysts were 100% and 0%, respectively.

    Conclusion Point assessment cannot show the distribution of a specific health risk in a population and are possibly to ignore or overestimate the risk. PRA show a full distribution of risk probability with reduced uncertainty and relatively accurate information, thus providing a scientific basis for health risk management and control.

     

/

返回文章
返回