徐守香, 王博深, 韩磊, 周燕华, 邢彩虹, 朱宝立, 浦跃朴, 张娟. 我国职业病危害作业分级和EPA吸入风险模型在接苯作业健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(4): 379-384. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19640
引用本文: 徐守香, 王博深, 韩磊, 周燕华, 邢彩虹, 朱宝立, 浦跃朴, 张娟. 我国职业病危害作业分级和EPA吸入风险模型在接苯作业健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(4): 379-384. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19640
XU Shou-xiang, WANG Bo-shen, HAN Lei, ZHOU Yan-hua, XING Cai-hong, ZHU Bao-li, PU Yue-pu, ZHANG Juan. Application of China's occupational disease hazard classification and EPA inhalation risk model in health risk assessment of work exposed to benzene[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(4): 379-384. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19640
Citation: XU Shou-xiang, WANG Bo-shen, HAN Lei, ZHOU Yan-hua, XING Cai-hong, ZHU Bao-li, PU Yue-pu, ZHANG Juan. Application of China's occupational disease hazard classification and EPA inhalation risk model in health risk assessment of work exposed to benzene[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(4): 379-384. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19640

我国职业病危害作业分级和EPA吸入风险模型在接苯作业健康风险评估中的应用

Application of China's occupational disease hazard classification and EPA inhalation risk model in health risk assessment of work exposed to benzene

  • 摘要: 背景

    苯是Ⅰ类致癌物,作为一种重要的生产原料应用于各行各业,工业企业中接触苯的人数居高不下。针对工作场所存在的苯这一职业有害因素,迫切需要运用风险评估模型评价其对劳动者健康损害的严重程度,提出预防或者控制措施,降低职业健康风险。

    目的

    应用我国职业病危害作业分级和美国环境保护署(EPA)吸入风险模型评估江苏省某造漆厂苯接触工人职业健康风险,探讨两种模型的适用性及各自的优势。

    方法

    于2018年3月收集江苏省某造漆厂各岗位苯接触人群的调查问卷(使用的化学原料、岗位人员分布、个人防护用品使用)以及各岗位作业场所环境中苯浓度的监测数据,采用我国工作场所职业病危害作业分级标准以及美国EPA吸入风险评估模型对苯接触人群进行职业健康风险评估。

    结果

    该厂苯职业接触人群主要分布在包装、调漆和调色岗位。各岗位苯接触8 h时间加权平均浓度(CTWA)均小于8 h时间加权平均容许浓度(PC-TWA,为6 mg·m-3),短期接触平均浓度(CSTEL)也均小于短期接触容许浓度(PC-STEL,为10 mg·m-3),工作场所职业病危害作业分级评分指数(G)≤ 1为0级(相对无害作业)。但由于不同岗位苯接触浓度差别较大,应用EPA吸入风险评估模型,各岗位工人随着暴露年限的增加出现不同程度的致癌和非致癌风险。苯暴露CTWA最高的岗位是调色岗,高达4 100 μg·m-3。接苯作业1年时,所有岗位工人的致癌风险(Risk)均大于1×10-6,为中致癌风险;其中,调色岗致癌风险最大,Risk为(32.22~114.23)×10-6。接苯作业5年时,调色岗、调漆岗和包装岗出现高致癌风险,Risk为(102.16~571.16)×10-6。接苯作业20年时,除化验岗位外其他岗位均出现高致癌风险。另外,各岗位危害商数(HQ)也均远高于1,其中包装岗和调色岗的非致癌效应风险较大,HQ为25.39~37.44。

    结论

    依据我国职业病危害作业分级标准,该涉苯企业在此暴露浓度下职业病危害风险为0级(相对无害);依据美国EPA模型,各岗位出现中等到高等水平的健康风险。因此苯的职业病危害作业分级均为0级时,仍应考虑实际接触浓度的致癌性和非致癌性的健康效应,重视苯接触职业人群的健康防护。

     

    Abstract: Background

    Benzene is a group Ⅰ carcinogen. With the wide use of benzene as an important production material in various industries, the number of workers exposed to benzene remains high. There is an urgent need to evaluate workers' health damage caused by occupational benzene exposure in the workplace, and propose preventive and control measures to reduce the occupational health risk of benzene.

    Objective

    This study evaluates the occupational health risks of workers exposed to benzene in a paint factory in Jiangsu Province by China's occupational hazard classification and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inhalation risk assessment model, and discusses their applicability and advantages.

    Methods

    Questionnaires about chemical raw materials, worker distribution, and personal protective equipment usage were distributed among the workers exposed to benzene at various workstations in a paint factory in Jiangsu Province and the workplace monitoring data of benzene concentrations were collected in March 2018. China's occupational hazard classification and US EPA inhalation risk assessment model were used to evaluate the occupational health risks of workers exposed to benzene.

    Results

    The occupational benzene-exposed workers were mainly distributed in packing, paint mixing, and color palette workstations. The concentration of 8 h time weighted average (CTWA) of each workstation was less than the permissible concentration-time weighted average (PC-TWA, 6 mg·m-3), the concentration of short-term exposure limit (CSTEL) was less than the permissible concentration-short-term exposure limit (PC-STEL, 10mg·m-3), and result graded by China's occupational hazard classification was G ≤ 1 (Grade 0), indicating relative harmless work. However, due to the large difference in benzene exposure concentrations in different workstations, the results graded by EPA inhalation risk assessment model showed varied carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks with the extension of exposure years. The highest CTWA of benzene exposure was 4100μg·m-3 in the color palette workstation. The carcinogenic risks (Risk) of workers in the selected workstations all exceeded 1×10-6 after they were exposed to benzene for 1 year, indicating medium carcinogenic risks; among them, the highest carcinogenic risk (Risk) was (32.22-114.23)×10-6 in the color palette workstation. When they were exposed to benzene for 5 years, high carcinogenic risks occurred in the color palette, paint mixing, and packaging workstations, and the Risk values were (102.16-571.16)×10-6. When they were exposed to benzene for 20 years, all workstations except the testing workstation had high carcinogenic risks. The hazard quotients (HQ) of the selected workstations were much higher than 1; among them, the non-carcinogenic risks were higher in the packing and color palette workstations, and their HQ values were 25.39-37.44.

    Conclusion

    According to China's occupational hazard classification standards, the benzene-related factory's occupational hazard risk at reported exposure concentration is grade 0 (relatively harmless). According to the US EPA model, all workstations show medium to high health risks. Therefore, even the result generated by China's occupational hazard classification is grade 0, we should consider the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects of benzene exposure in real workplace settings, and pay attention to the health protection of occupational benzene-exposed population.

     

/

返回文章
返回