叶伟平, 张成, 梁娇君, 毛革诗, 陈振龙. 三种半定量职业健康风险评估方法在汽车整车制造业中的应用[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(2): 150-156. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19596
引用本文: 叶伟平, 张成, 梁娇君, 毛革诗, 陈振龙. 三种半定量职业健康风险评估方法在汽车整车制造业中的应用[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(2): 150-156. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19596
YE Wei-ping, ZHANG Cheng, LIANG Jiao-jun, MAO Geshi, CHEN Zhen-long. Application of three semi-quantitative occupational health risk assessment methods in automobile manufacturing enterprises[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(2): 150-156. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19596
Citation: YE Wei-ping, ZHANG Cheng, LIANG Jiao-jun, MAO Geshi, CHEN Zhen-long. Application of three semi-quantitative occupational health risk assessment methods in automobile manufacturing enterprises[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2020, 37(2): 150-156. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19596

三种半定量职业健康风险评估方法在汽车整车制造业中的应用

Application of three semi-quantitative occupational health risk assessment methods in automobile manufacturing enterprises

  • 摘要: 背景

    汽车整车制造企业在生产过程中存在粉尘、化学毒物等职业病危害因素,会对作业人员的健康产生不良影响。

    目的

    应用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》中的三种半定量风险评估方法对汽车制造企业进行职业健康风险评估,探索其适用条件。

    方法

    采用判断抽样方法,从湖北省武汉市6家整车制造企业中选取4家,对接触职业病危害因素的主要岗位进行职业健康风险评估,并对三种方法的评估结果进行比较和验证。

    结果

    4家汽车整车制造企业的主要职业病危害因素为电焊烟尘、砂轮磨尘、锰及其无机化合物、二氧化氮、甲苯、二甲苯、丁酮、乙酸丁酯、丁醇、异丙醇。接触比值法评估结果显示,C、D企业熔化极惰性气体保护(melt inert-gas,MIG)焊岗位为高风险岗位。指数法评估结果显示,各企业的点焊、打磨岗位和A、C、D企业的MIG焊岗位为中等风险岗位。综合指数法评估结果与指数法相同。当接触浓度(exposure concentration,EC) < 1/2职业接触限值(occupational exposure levels,OELs)时,接触比值法的风险指数(risk,R)(1.694±0.433)低于指数法(2.344±0.317)和综合指数法(2.327±0.317)(P < 0.001);当1/2 OELsEC <OELs时,接触比值法的R(2.966±0.138)与指数法(2.916±0.206)和综合指数法(2.924±0.195)之间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);当ECOELs时,接触比值法的R(3.398±0.289)高于指数法(2.802±0.283)和综合指数法(2.887±0.279)(P < 0.001)。接触比值法与指数法的评估结果一致性差(加权Kappa=0.118,P < 0.001),与综合指数法的评估结果一致性差(加权Kappa=0.136,P < 0.001),指数法与综合指数法的评估结果一致性极好(加权Kappa=0.977,P < 0.001)。EC超过OELs的岗位,三种评估结果为中等风险以上,与OELs的判定结果相符。手工喷漆岗位在三种评估方法中被评估为可忽略风险岗位和低风险岗位,与职业健康监护结果不一致。

    结论

    三种半定量方法均能识别重点岗位,但是对于手工喷漆岗位的风险评估结果偏保守。三种半定量风险评估结果与EC有关,可根据职业病危害因素的EC,选择合适的评估方法。

     

    Abstract: Background

    Occupational hazards such as dust and toxic chemicals in the production process of automobile manufacturers will adversely affect the health of workers.

    Objective

    This study applies three semi-quantitative risk assessment methods in GBZ/T 298-2017 Guidelines for occupational health risk assessment of chemicals in the workplace to assess the occupational health risk in automobile manufacturing enterprises and explores their applicability.

    Methods

    Judgment sampling method was used to select four out of six automobile manufacturing enterprises in Wuhan City, Hubei Province to conduct occupational health risk assessment for the main positions exposed to occupational hazards, and the results of three occupational health risk assessment methods were compared and verified.

    Results

    The major occupational hazards of the four automobile manufacturers were welding fume, grinding wheel dust, manganese and its inorganic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, butyl acetate, butanol, and isopropyl alcohol. The results of exposure ratio method showed that the melt inert-gas (MIG) welding positions of companies C and D were high-risk positions. The results of index method showed that the spot welding and polishing positions of the four companies and the MIG welding positions of companies A, C, and D were medium-risk positions. The results of composite index method were the same as the index method. When exposure concentration (EC) was less than 1/2 of the relevant national occupational exposure limits (OELs), the risk index (R) of the exposure ratio method (1.694±0.433) was lower than those of the index method (2.344±0.317) and the composite index method (2.327±0.317) (P < 0.001). When 1/2 OELsEC < OELs, there was no significant difference in the R values of the exposure ratio method (2.966±0.138), the index method (2.916±0.206), and the composite index method (2.924±0.195) (P>0.05). When ECOELs, the R of the exposure ratio method (3.398±0.289) was higher than those of the index method (2.802±0.283) and the composite index method (2.887±0.279) (P < 0.001). The consistency of the assessment results between the exposure ratio method and the index method was poor (weighted Kappa=0.118, P < 0.001), that between the exposure ratio method and the composite index method was also poor (weighted Kappa=0.136, P < 0.001), and that between the index method and the composite index method was excellent (weighted Kappa=0.977, P < 0.001). For positions with EC exceeding OELs, the three assessment results were all above medium risk, consistent with the determination results of OELs. The manual spraying positions were evaluated as negligible-risk positions and low-risk positions by the three assessment methods, inconsistent with the results of occupational health examination.

    Conclusion

    The three semi-quantitative risk assessment methods can identify key positions with occupational health hazards, but the results for the manual spraying positions are conservative. Because the results of the three methods are related to EC, it is suggested to choose appropriate assessment methods according to the EC of target occupational hazardous factors.

     

/

返回文章
返回