两种职业健康风险评估模型在上海市奉贤区某汽车零部件制造企业中的运用
|
摘要
目的探讨新加坡半定量风险评估模型和模糊数学风险评估模型在上海市奉贤区某汽车零部件企业职业健康风险评估中的运用。方法对某汽车零部件制造企业主要生产车间进行职业卫生学调查,并对生产场所职业病危害因素进行检测。根据检测结果,应用新加坡半定量风险评估模型和模糊数学风险评估模型开展职业健康风险评估,并比较评估结果。结果新加坡半定量风险评估模型评估结果:摩擦片车间接触的甲苯、甲醛和热处理车间接触的甲醛为中等风险;变矩器车间接触的铜烟为可忽略风险;其他各车间接触的毒物、粉尘均为低风险。模糊数学风险评估模型评估结果:基于毒物、粉尘和噪声建立的模糊矩阵计算得出摩擦片车间、热处理车间、变矩器车间和整个厂区的综合评估结果均为Ⅱ级(良);基于毒物、粉尘建立的模糊矩阵计算得出摩擦片车间和热处理车间综合评估结果为Ⅱ级(良),变矩器车间和整个厂区的综合评估结果为Ⅰ级(优)。结论新加坡半定量风险评估模型和模糊数学风险评估模型评估结果一致性较好。实际运行中,根据需要对现有职业健康风险评估方法进行改良并运用多种评估方法进行评估可作为风险评估的策略之一。
[Objective]To explore the application of Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model and fuzzy mathematical risk assessment model in occupational health risk assessment of an automobile-component manufactory in Fengxian District of Shanghai.[Methods] An occupational hygiene survey was conducted on the main production workshops of an automobile-component manufactory,and the occupational hazard factors in workplace were examined. Based on the detection results,Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model and fuzzy mathematical risk assessment model were used to conduct occupational health risk assessment and the results of the assessment were compared.[Results]Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model assessment results: toluene and formaldehyde in friction plate workshop and formaldehyde in heat treatment workshop were moderate risk;copper smoke in torque converter workshop was negligible risk;poisons and dust exposure in other workshops were all low risk. Fuzzy mathematics risk assessment model assessment results: based on the fuzzy matrix established by the poison,dust and noise,the comprehensive evaluation results of friction plate workshop,heat treatment workshop,torque converter workshop and the entire plant area were grade Ⅱ(good);based on the fuzzy matrix established by the poison and dust,the comprehensive evaluation results of the friction plate workshop and heat treatment workshop were Grade Ⅱ(good),and the torque converter workshop and entire plant area were GradeⅠ(excellent).[Conclusion]The consistency between Singapore semiquantitative risk assessment model and fuzzy mathematical risk assessment model is relatively good. In actual operation,the improvement of existing occupational health risk assessment methods and using multiple assessment methods for assessment can be one of the risk assessment strategies.
[Objective]To explore the application of Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model and fuzzy mathematical risk assessment model in occupational health risk assessment of an automobile-component manufactory in Fengxian District of Shanghai.[Methods] An occupational hygiene survey was conducted on the main production workshops of an automobile-component manufactory,and the occupational hazard factors in workplace were examined. Based on the detection results,Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model and fuzzy mathematical risk assessment model were used to conduct occupational health risk assessment and the results of the assessment were compared.[Results]Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model assessment results: toluene and formaldehyde in friction plate workshop and formaldehyde in heat treatment workshop were moderate risk;copper smoke in torque converter workshop was negligible risk;poisons and dust exposure in other workshops were all low risk. Fuzzy mathematics risk assessment model assessment results: based on the fuzzy matrix established by the poison,dust and noise,the comprehensive evaluation results of friction plate workshop,heat treatment workshop,torque converter workshop and the entire plant area were grade Ⅱ(good);based on the fuzzy matrix established by the poison and dust,the comprehensive evaluation results of the friction plate workshop and heat treatment workshop were Grade Ⅱ(good),and the torque converter workshop and entire plant area were GradeⅠ(excellent).[Conclusion]The consistency between Singapore semiquantitative risk assessment model and fuzzy mathematical risk assessment model is relatively good. In actual operation,the improvement of existing occupational health risk assessment methods and using multiple assessment methods for assessment can be one of the risk assessment strategies.
引文
[1]李克勇,迟娜美,孙原,等.模糊数学法综合评价COREX炼铁项目职业病危害控制效果研究[J].职业卫生与应用救援,2013,31(1):8-11.
[2]曾庆民,陈才,符发雄,等.模糊数学法应用于职业病危害控制效果评价的探讨[J].中国职业医学,2010,37(3):263-265.
[3]全国人民代表大会常务委员会.中华人民共和国职业病防治法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2012:2
[4]邢涟,漆骏,曹叔翘,等.对职业健康风险评估的思考—由国外职业健康风险评估方法谈起[J].中国卫生工程学,2014,13(5):431-434.
[5]谭强,刘移民,陈松根.职业健康风险评估方法研究进展[J].职业与健康,2013,29(5):628-630.
[6]厉小燕.五种职业健康风险评估方法的应用研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2014:1-3.
[7]谢红卫,张美辨,周莉芳,等.两种风险评估模型在印刷行业中的应用研究[J].环境与职业医学,2016,33(1):29-33.
[8]王爱红,冷朋波,边国林,等.两种风险评估模型在木质家具制造企业职业健康风险评估中的应用[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2016,34(10):759-761.
[9]李鹏飞,杨永坚.风险评估法在某化工企业职业病危害现状评价中的综合应用[J].职业与健康,2016,32(1):11-14.
[10]张鹏,刘弢,李涛,等.两种风险评估模型在转椅家具制造企业的应用比较[J].预防医学,2018,30(2):158-162.
[11]中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.工作场所化学有害因素职业健康风险评估技术导则[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2017:6-7.
[12]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范:GBZ 159-2004[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2004:5-8.
[13]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中粉尘测定第1部分:总粉尘浓度:GBZ/T 192.1-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007:1-3.
[14]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所物理因素测量第8部分:噪声:GBZ/T 189.8-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007:1-2.
[15]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第1部分:化学有害因素:GBZ 2.1-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:2-6,10-15.
[16]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素:GBZ 2.2-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:5-6.
[17]王忠旭,李涛.职业健康风险评估与实践[M].北京:中国环境出版社,2016:271-273.
[18]王建宇,丘创逸.模糊综合方法在中小化工企业的职业健康风险评估中的运用[J].职业与健康,2010,26(1):1-4.
[19]宋银芳,谢素璞,高飞.基于HACCP与模糊数学的职业病控制效果综合评价方法[J].安全,2015,(9):16-18.
[20]边国林,王爱红,李晓海,等.三种职业健康风险评估模方法在小型家具制造企业的应用研究[J].预防医学,2017,29(10):1003-1008.
[2]曾庆民,陈才,符发雄,等.模糊数学法应用于职业病危害控制效果评价的探讨[J].中国职业医学,2010,37(3):263-265.
[3]全国人民代表大会常务委员会.中华人民共和国职业病防治法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2012:2
[4]邢涟,漆骏,曹叔翘,等.对职业健康风险评估的思考—由国外职业健康风险评估方法谈起[J].中国卫生工程学,2014,13(5):431-434.
[5]谭强,刘移民,陈松根.职业健康风险评估方法研究进展[J].职业与健康,2013,29(5):628-630.
[6]厉小燕.五种职业健康风险评估方法的应用研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2014:1-3.
[7]谢红卫,张美辨,周莉芳,等.两种风险评估模型在印刷行业中的应用研究[J].环境与职业医学,2016,33(1):29-33.
[8]王爱红,冷朋波,边国林,等.两种风险评估模型在木质家具制造企业职业健康风险评估中的应用[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2016,34(10):759-761.
[9]李鹏飞,杨永坚.风险评估法在某化工企业职业病危害现状评价中的综合应用[J].职业与健康,2016,32(1):11-14.
[10]张鹏,刘弢,李涛,等.两种风险评估模型在转椅家具制造企业的应用比较[J].预防医学,2018,30(2):158-162.
[11]中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.工作场所化学有害因素职业健康风险评估技术导则[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2017:6-7.
[12]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范:GBZ 159-2004[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2004:5-8.
[13]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中粉尘测定第1部分:总粉尘浓度:GBZ/T 192.1-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007:1-3.
[14]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所物理因素测量第8部分:噪声:GBZ/T 189.8-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007:1-2.
[15]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第1部分:化学有害因素:GBZ 2.1-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:2-6,10-15.
[16]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素:GBZ 2.2-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:5-6.
[17]王忠旭,李涛.职业健康风险评估与实践[M].北京:中国环境出版社,2016:271-273.
[18]王建宇,丘创逸.模糊综合方法在中小化工企业的职业健康风险评估中的运用[J].职业与健康,2010,26(1):1-4.
[19]宋银芳,谢素璞,高飞.基于HACCP与模糊数学的职业病控制效果综合评价方法[J].安全,2015,(9):16-18.
[20]边国林,王爱红,李晓海,等.三种职业健康风险评估模方法在小型家具制造企业的应用研究[J].预防医学,2017,29(10):1003-1008.