李天正, 管有志, 陈浩, 林艳发, 冯晶, 周伟. 四种风险评估模型在陶瓷生产企业工作场所矽尘危害风险评估中的应用和比较[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(2): 138-143. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19558
引用本文: 李天正, 管有志, 陈浩, 林艳发, 冯晶, 周伟. 四种风险评估模型在陶瓷生产企业工作场所矽尘危害风险评估中的应用和比较[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(2): 138-143. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19558
LI Tian-zheng, GUAN You-zhi, CHEN Hao, LIN Yan-fa, FENG Jing, ZHOU Wei. Risk assessment of workplace silica dust hazard in ceramic manufacturing enterprises: A comparison study of four risk assessment models[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(2): 138-143. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19558
Citation: LI Tian-zheng, GUAN You-zhi, CHEN Hao, LIN Yan-fa, FENG Jing, ZHOU Wei. Risk assessment of workplace silica dust hazard in ceramic manufacturing enterprises: A comparison study of four risk assessment models[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(2): 138-143. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19558

四种风险评估模型在陶瓷生产企业工作场所矽尘危害风险评估中的应用和比较

Risk assessment of workplace silica dust hazard in ceramic manufacturing enterprises: A comparison study of four risk assessment models

  • 摘要: 背景

    陶瓷生产企业工作场所矽尘危害较为严重,通过风险评估加强对工作场所矽尘的治理与防护极为必要。

    目的

    应用多种方法对陶瓷生产企业接触矽尘岗位开展健康风险评估,并对评估结果进行比较,探讨不同职业健康风险评估方法的适用性。

    方法

    选取4家陶瓷生产企业,开展职业卫生调查和职业卫生检测,应用GBZ/T 229.1-2010《工作场所职业病危害作业分级第1部分:生产性粉尘》中作业分级法以及GBZ/T 298-2017《工作场所化学有害因素职业健康风险评估技术导则》定性风险评估法和半定量风险评估法中的接触比值法、综合指数法,对接触矽尘岗位开展健康风险评估,并将评估结果(R)标准化为风险比值(RR)进行比较。

    结果

    A企业杂工、素检打磨、喷釉、整修岗位矽尘浓度超标,浓度最大值分别为0.86、0.87、1.55、0.72 mg·m-3;B企业称量、成型、脱蜡、手工打磨岗位矽尘浓度超标,浓度最大值分别为1.5、1.1、1.9、1.0 mg·m-3;C企业各岗位矽尘浓度均符合标准;D企业水刀切割、普通切割、磨边、切割磨边、手工切割、简易切割岗位矽尘浓度超标,浓度最大值分别为0.48、0.84、0.96、0.72、0.60、0.60 mg·m-3。作业分级法:超标岗位R为3~4,合格岗位R为1~2,RRR的基础上上浮一个等级;定性评估法:所有岗位R均为4,RR均为5;接触比值法:各岗位R为3~5,RR等级同R级别;综合指数法:各岗位RRR相等,为3~5。除定性评估法,其他3种方法检测结果均与接触浓度/职业接触限值成正比,RR关系为:作业分级法≤综合指数法≤接触比值法。

    结论

    对于陶瓷生产企业接触矽尘岗位健康风险评估,定性评估法受矽尘健康危害水平的影响,所有岗位风险分级均为最高,适用性较差;结合检测结果、防护措施、管理措施来看,综合指数法更为符合实际情况,具有较好的适用性。

     

    Abstract: Background

    Silica dust pollution is serious in ceramic enterprises. It is necessary to strengthen silica dust control and protection in workplace through risk assessment.

    Objective

    Through assessing the health risk of silica dust exposure in ceramic manufacturing enterprises by various methods, and comparing the assessment results, the study aims to explore the applicability of different occupational health risk assessment methods.

    Methods

    Four ceramics manufacturers were selected to carry out occupational health investigation and occupational health monitoring. The health risks of silica dust exposure positions were assessed by the classification of occupational hazards in workplace (GBZ/T 229.1-2010), a qualitative assessment method, and two semi-quantitative methods (exposure ratio method and composite index method) (GBZ/T 298-2017). The assessment results (R) were standardized into risk ratios (RR) for comparison.

    Results

    In enterprise A, the concentrations of silica dust in handyman, element inspection and grinding, glaze spraying, and trimming positions exceeded the occupational exposure limit, with the maximum concentrations of 0.86, 0.87, 1.55, and 0.72 mg·m-3, respectively. In enterprise B, the concentrations of silica dust in weighing, molding, dewaxing, and manual grinding positions exceeded the limit, with the maximum concentrations of 1.5, 1.1, 1.9, and 1.0 mg·m-3, respectively. In enterprise C, the concentrations of silica dust in all positions were lower than the limit. In enterprise D, the concentrations of silica dust in water jet cutting, ordinary cutting, edge grinding, cutting and grinding, manual cutting, and simple cutting positions exceeded the limit, with the maximum concentrations of 0.48, 0.84, 0.96, 0.72, 0.60, and 0.60 mg·m-3, respectively. By the occupational hazard classification method, the Rs of the unqualified positions were 3-4 and the Rs of the qualified positions were 1-2; transferred RRs were one grade higher than the corresponding Rs. By the qualitative risk assessment method, the Rs of all positions were 4, and the RRs were 5. By the exposure ratio method, the Rs and RRs of all positions were equal, and all were 3 to 5. By the composite index method, the Rs and RRs of all positions were equal, and all were 3 to 5. Except the qualitative assessment method, the results generated from the other three methods were proportional to the ratio of exposure concentration to occupational exposure limit, and RR for occupational hazard classification method ≤ RR for composite index method ≤ RR for exposure ratio method.

    Conclusion

    For the health risk assessment of positions exposed to silica dust in ceramic enterprises, the results of qualitative assessment method are affected by the level of health hazards of silica dust, and the risk grades are the highest for all positions; therefore, its applicability is limited. Combined with monitoring results, protective measures, and management measures, composite index method is more practical and has better applicability.

     

/

返回文章
返回