叶开友, 刘晓晓, 陆辰汝, 顾春, 徐惠芳, 徐瑞芳. 青浦区作业场所空气中电焊烟尘及矽尘浓度的主动监测[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2015, 32(12): 1145-1148. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14783
引用本文: 叶开友, 刘晓晓, 陆辰汝, 顾春, 徐惠芳, 徐瑞芳. 青浦区作业场所空气中电焊烟尘及矽尘浓度的主动监测[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2015, 32(12): 1145-1148. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14783
YE Kaiyou , LIU Xiao-xiao , LU Chen-ru , GU Chun , XU Hui-fang , XU Rui-fang . Active Workplace Air Monitoring Results of Welding Fumes and Silica Dust in Qingpu District[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2015, 32(12): 1145-1148. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14783
Citation: YE Kaiyou , LIU Xiao-xiao , LU Chen-ru , GU Chun , XU Hui-fang , XU Rui-fang . Active Workplace Air Monitoring Results of Welding Fumes and Silica Dust in Qingpu District[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2015, 32(12): 1145-1148. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14783

青浦区作业场所空气中电焊烟尘及矽尘浓度的主动监测

Active Workplace Air Monitoring Results of Welding Fumes and Silica Dust in Qingpu District

  • 摘要: 目的 采用主动监测的方式了解上海市青浦区电焊烟尘和矽尘危害状况及其影响因素,为开展电焊烟尘和矽尘危害的干预工作提供基础。

    方法 随机选择青浦区20 家电焊企业68 个电焊岗位和30 家矽尘暴露企业106 个矽尘接尘岗位,作业岗位劳动者佩戴个体空气采样器采集工作场所空气中粉尘,采用称重法检测粉尘浓度,分析粉尘超标情况及其影响因素。

    结果 电焊烟尘浓度M、P25P75分别为2.95、1.23 及8.55 mg/m3;矽尘浓度M、P25P75分别为3.35、1.06 及6.46 mg/m3。50 家粉尘监测企业超标率为74.00%,岗位超标率为70.11%,其中电焊烟尘监测企业超标率为50.00%,岗位超标率为42.65%;矽尘企业超标率为90.00%,岗位超标率为87.74%。电焊烟尘浓度主要影响因素为作业特征(P=0.007)和焊接种类(P=0.006)。矽尘浓度主要影响因素为作业环境(P=0.000)和作业时间(P=0.001)。

    结论 青浦区电焊烟尘和矽尘危害比较严重,而焊接作业种类和控制电焊作业时间可以作为电焊烟尘危害干预的重点。改善作业环境特征、控制作业时间可以作为对矽尘危害干预的重点。

     

    Abstract: Objective To understand the hazard status and the influencing factors of welding fumes and silica dust by active monitoring in Qingpu District of Shanghai, and to provide a scientific basis to intervene the hazards of welding fumes and silica dust.

    Methods A total of 68 welding workstations from 20 enterprises involving welding operation and 106 silica dust workstations from 30 enterprises with silica dust exposure were randomly selected to investigate. The workplace airborne dust was collected using personal air sampler and detected by weighing method to analyze disqualified air dust rates and associated influencing factors.

    Results The median concentration of welding fumes was 2.95 (P25=1.23,P75=8.55) mg/m3, and that of silica dust was 3.35 (P25=1.06,P75=6.46) mg/m3. The dust concentrations in 74.00% enterprises exceeded relevant national standards, with a disqualified rate of 70.11% for sampled workstations. Especially, the concentrations of welding fumes in 50.00% enterprises with welding operation were disqualified, with a disqualified rate of 42.65% for sampled workstations; the concentrations of silica dust in 90.00% enterprises with silica dust exposure were disqualified, with a disqualified rate of 87.74% for sampled workstations. Job characteristics (P=0.007) and welding types (P=0.006) were the major factors affecting welding fume concentrations, whereas operating environment characteristics (P=0.000) and working time (P=0.001) were the major factors affecting silica dust concentrations.

    Conclusion Serious hazard status of welding fumes and silica dust are identified in Qingpu District. Welding types and operating time are the main influencing factors of welding fumes to intervene. Efforts should be made to improve working environment characteristics and reduce operating time to intervene the hazards of silica dust.

     

/

返回文章
返回