高级检索
陈林, 钱秀荣, 赵都, 冯心怡, 达瓦德吉, 胡伟江, 杨红, 张恒东. 三种职业健康风险评估方法在某铅酸蓄电池企业中应用比较[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2018, 34(6): 849-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1119044
引用本文: 陈林, 钱秀荣, 赵都, 冯心怡, 达瓦德吉, 胡伟江, 杨红, 张恒东. 三种职业健康风险评估方法在某铅酸蓄电池企业中应用比较[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2018, 34(6): 849-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1119044
Lin CHEN, Xiu-rong QIAN, Du ZHAO, . Occupational hazards in a lead-acid battery enterprise: a comparison study of three health risk assessment methods[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2018, 34(6): 849-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1119044
Citation: Lin CHEN, Xiu-rong QIAN, Du ZHAO, . Occupational hazards in a lead-acid battery enterprise: a comparison study of three health risk assessment methods[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2018, 34(6): 849-853. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1119044

三种职业健康风险评估方法在某铅酸蓄电池企业中应用比较

Occupational hazards in a lead-acid battery enterprise: a comparison study of three health risk assessment methods

  • 摘要:
      目的  比较3种不同职业健康风险评估方法,为铅酸蓄电池企业更好的开展职业健康风险评估工作提供依据。
      方法  对江苏省某铅酸蓄电池企业进行职业卫生调查,检测作业岗位铅烟/尘、硫酸浓度及铅接触作业工人血铅,采用国际采矿与金属委员会(ICMM)职业健康风险评估法、健康危害化学物控制要素法(COSHH Essentials)、综合指数法对铅酸蓄电池企业关键岗位的职业危害因素进行健康风险评估,比较标准化后的风险比值,以血铅异常率为参照,选择评估结果更准确的风险评估方法。
      结果  当有害因素浓度在1/2限值~限值之间时,和膏与加酸岗位,3种方法评估结果完全一致,均为中等风险;当有害因素浓度高于限值时,铸板、磨片、分刷片与焊接岗位COSHH Essentials法和综合指数法评估结果为高风险;当有害因素浓度低于1/2限值时,球磨与涂板岗位评估结果不一致,综合指数法评估结果与血铅异常率的中等风险相对应。
      结论  综合指数法适用于有害因素任意现场检测浓度情况下的职业健康风险评估。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To compare hazards of occupational lead exposure evaluated with three different occupational health risk assessment methods in a lead acid battery enterprise and to provide evidences for efficient implementation of occupational health risk assessment in enterprises.
      Methods  We conducted an occupational health survey, including field study, monitoring on workplaces' lead smoke/dust and sulfuric acid concentration, and detection of blood lead among exposed workers in a lead-acid battery company in Jiangsu province. Then we analyzed the data collected using International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) model, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH Essentials), and composite index method to evaluate health hazards of lead exposure among workers at main work sites. We compared the standardized risk ratios resulted from the three methods and adopted rate of abnormal blood lead as references to select a more accurate assessment method.
      Results  When the concentration of hazardous substances ranging between 1/2 of and equal to the threshold limit value, a moderate health risk in relation to exposures at work sites of gel electrolyte mixing and acid adding was identified consistently by the three assessment methods. When the concentration of hazardous substances being higher than the threshold limit value, a high health risk relevant to exposures at work sites of plate casting, sheet grinding, sheet dividing, and welding was detected with the COSHH Essentials method and composite index method. Whereas, when the concentration of hazardous substances being lower than a half of the threshold limit value, the estimated health risk associated with exposures at work sites of ball milling and sheet plastering were inconsistent for the three methods; but a moderate health risk related to the two work sites' exposure was derived based on the evaluation of composite index method and blood lead abnormal rate.
      Conclusion  The composite index method is appropriate to lead-related occupational health risk assessment at various exposure conditions in lead acid battery factory.

     

/

返回文章
返回