谭强, 高颖, 巫一芳, 孟琪, 刘江辉, 聂云峰. 两种职业健康风险评估法在非煤地下矿山粉尘危害中的应用[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2023, 40(6): 641-647. DOI: 10.11836/JEOM22433
引用本文: 谭强, 高颖, 巫一芳, 孟琪, 刘江辉, 聂云峰. 两种职业健康风险评估法在非煤地下矿山粉尘危害中的应用[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2023, 40(6): 641-647. DOI: 10.11836/JEOM22433
TAN Qiang, GAO Ying, WU Yifang, MENG Qi, LIU Jianghui, NIE Yunfeng. Application of two occupational health risk assessment methods for dust hazards in non-coal underground mines[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2023, 40(6): 641-647. DOI: 10.11836/JEOM22433
Citation: TAN Qiang, GAO Ying, WU Yifang, MENG Qi, LIU Jianghui, NIE Yunfeng. Application of two occupational health risk assessment methods for dust hazards in non-coal underground mines[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2023, 40(6): 641-647. DOI: 10.11836/JEOM22433

两种职业健康风险评估法在非煤地下矿山粉尘危害中的应用

Application of two occupational health risk assessment methods for dust hazards in non-coal underground mines

  • 摘要: 背景

    非煤地下矿山的开采可能接触到铅、锌、铜、非金属矿石等多种类型的粉尘,各类粉尘普遍存在于采选的各个环节,是非煤地下矿山的主要职业病危害之一。

    目的

    比较两种风险评估方法在非煤地下矿山生产性粉尘职业健康风险评估中的应用,为非煤矿山粉尘危害健康风险评估方法的选用及粉尘危害的管理提供借鉴。

    方法

    对铅锌矿、铜矿、萤石矿3家典型非煤地下矿山开采企业的粉尘危害现状进行职业卫生现场调查,并使用综合指数法与国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评估法(ICMM法)进行风险评估。综合指数法依据现场检测数据、粉尘的空气动力学直径、危害控制措施、职业卫生管理、日使用量和日接触时间确定接触等级;ICMM法依据粉尘导致的后果、接触概率、接触时间、不确定系数确定风险等级。使用两种方法进行风险评估后,使用肯德尔(Kendall)一致性检验方法对两种风险评估结果进行统计学分析,比较其一致性程度。

    结果

    依据综合指数法,3家企业中,粉尘性质为矽尘、铅尘时,其风险指数为3级(中等风险)或4级(高风险),而粉尘性质为其他粉尘(游离SiO2含量<10%,含铅、锌、铜的粉尘,使用其他粉尘限值参照比较)、萤石混合性粉尘、氟及其化合物、氧化锌、铜尘时,风险指数为1级(可忽略风险)或2级(低风险);依据ICMM法,3家企业接触矽尘、铅尘的岗位风险分别为4级(非常高风险)、3级(高风险),接触其他粉尘(游离SiO2含量<10%,含铅、锌、铜的粉尘,使用其他粉尘限值参照比较)、萤石混合性粉尘、氟及其化合物、氧化锌、铜尘的岗位为1级(可容忍的风险)或2级(潜在风险)。两种方法一致性水平很高,Kendall W系数为0.974,P<0.05。

    结论

    对于非煤地下矿山生产性粉尘的职业健康风险评估,ICMM法与综合指数法风险评估结果的一致性水平很高。ICMM法操作更为简便,在非煤地下矿山粉尘危害健康风险评估中可优先选用。

     

    Abstract: Background

    The mining of non-coal underground mines may come into contact with various types of dust, such as lead, zinc, copper, and non-metallic minerals. Dust of various kinds commonly exists in all aspects of mining and selection, and is one of the main occupational hazard groups in non-coal underground mines.

    Objective

    To compare the application of two risk assessment methods in the occupational health risk assessment of productive dust in non-coal underground mines, and to provide a reference for the selection of dust hazard health risk assessment methods and the management of dust hazards in non-coal mines.

    Methods

    A field investigation of the dust hazards of three typical non-coal underground mining enterprises (lead-zinc mines, copper mines, and fluorite mines) was carried out, and the comprehensive index method and the occupational health risk assessment method from the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) were used to perform risk assessments. The comprehensiveindex method considers the following factors: dust monitoring data, the aerodynamic diameter of dust, hazard control measures, occupational health management, daily usage, and daily exposure time to determine exposure levels. The ICMM method determines the risk level based on the consequences caused by dust, exposure probability, exposure time, and uncertainty coefficient. Kendall consistency test was used to compare agreement between the results generated by the two methods.

    Results

    The results generated by the comprehensive index method were as follows: level 3 (medium risk) or level 4 (high risk) for silica dust or lead dust; level 1 (negligible risk) or level 2 (low risk) for other dust (dust with free SiO2 content<10% and containing lead, zinc, and copper, using other dust limit values for comparison), fluorspar mixed dust, fluorine and its compounds, zinc oxide, and copper dust. The risk levels graded by the ICMM method were as follows: level 4 (very high risk) and level 3 (high risk) for exposure to silica dust and lead dust, respectively, and level 1 (tolerable risk) or level 2 (potential risk) for exposure to other dust (dust with free SiO2 content <10% and containing lead, zinc, and copper, using other dust limit values for comparison), fluorspar mixed dust, fluorine and its compounds, zinc oxide, and copper dust. The consistency level between the results graded by the two methods was very high (Kendall W coefficient=0.974, P < 0.05).

    Conclusion

    For the occupational health risk assessment of productive dust in non-coal underground mines, the consistency level of risk assessment results between the ICMM method and the comprehensive index method is very high. The ICMM method is more convenient to operate and should be preferred in assessing health risks of dust hazard in non-coal underground mines.

     

/

返回文章
返回