《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值：化学有害因素》（GBZ2.1-2007）中化学有害因素职业接触限值应用情况调查及分析
|
摘要
研究背景
为配合《中华人民共和国职业病防治法》的贯彻实施,2002年卫生部制定并发布了《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值》(GBZ2),并在2004年开始对其进行了修订,2007年,颁布实施了《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值:化学有害因素》(GBZ2.1—2007)和《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值:物理因素》(GBZ2.2—2007)。在修订的标准中进一步明确了职业卫生标准所采用的概念及其定义;增加了超限倍数及其应用,增加了化学有害因素的致癌性、致敏性、经皮标识的应用;修订和增加了部分限值。但在引进的限值是否适用于我国现状,现有的OELs在实际工作中的使用情况如何,有哪些限值急需制订配套检测方法等许多方面还存在着值得研究和探讨的问题。
研究目的
本研究将系统评价GBZ2.1—2007中化学有害因素的OELs在实际工作中的使用情况,研究标准的使用情况调查方法和评价方法,建立职业卫生标准检测方法数据库;同时对中国和美国现行的OELs在具体值、制定和管理过程方面进行比较,建立中美OELs对比研究数据库,将调查和比较研究的结果结合起来分析,对我国现行OELs的使用情况、存在的问题以及如何依据需求进行改进等方面进行整理、分析和评价,为制修订符合我国社会经济发展现状的OELs提供依据。
方法和对象
本次调查研究的对象为OELs的使用机构,主要是全国各级职业卫生技术服务机构及卫生监督机构。通过现场培训省级职业卫生技术服务机构,并由卫生部职业卫生标准专业委员会向全国各省、自治区、直辖市卫生厅、局发文,对省级以下职业卫生技术服务机构进行调查。调查内容包括每种化学有害因素OELs的使用率、被调查机构的检测能力、使用限值的工作内容、对限值水平的评价、作业点的达标率、对于无相应检测方法的OELs在检测过程中的处理情况以及对相应职业卫生标准检测方法和限值的需求等方面。
OELs比较研究的对象是中国国家职业卫生标准GBZ2.1—2007和美国政府工业卫生师协会(American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists,ACGIH)、美国国立职业安全卫生研究所(National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health,NIOSH)、美国职业安全与健康管理局(Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration,OSHA)制定的化学有害因素OELs,对上述标准进行限值数量、水平、制定和管理过程等方面的比较,结合问卷调查结果,对我国OELs进行评价和使用情况分析后提出建议。
结果
(一)问卷调查
1.GBZ2.1—2007中93.2%的化学有害因素OELs有不同程度的应用,该标准基本涵盖了目前工作场所主要的、危害较严重的化学有害因素,使用率较高。
2.339种化学有害因素的343个限值中,有105种化学有害因素尚没有对应的检测方法,除48种化学有害因素的检测方法已列入标准制定计划外,仍有57种化学有害因素没有对应的检测方法或制定计划;在已制定的304种化学有害因素的检测方法标准中,有71种化学有害因素却没有对应的OELs。
3.在本次调查中,无机构使用的OELs共23种,而被调查机构反映有一部分劳动者接触机会较多、存在范围比较广的化学有害因素尚无对应的OELs,导致目前一部分机构的检测和评价工作无据可依。
4.有机构经常使用或有时使用的化学有害因素中,有机构认为急需制定方法,且尚未列入标准制定计划的有18种化学有害因素,建议下一步制定职业卫生标准检测方法计划时,将上述18种化学有害因素作为优先考虑的对象。
(二)比较研究
1.我国的OELs与ACGIH相比,TWA限值严于ACGIH的88个,更为宽松的化学有害因素48种,相等的限值88个;STEL的限值严于ACGIH的化学有害因素32种,更为宽松的化学有害因素6种,16种化学有害因素的STEL限值相等;MAC值严于ACGIH中规定的Ceiling值的化学有害因素有4种,更为宽松的化学有害因素共有7种,10种化学有害因素的MAC值与ACGIH中的Ceiling值相等。
我国的OELs与NIOSH相比,TWA限值严于NIOSH的76个,更为宽松的化学有害因素29种,相等的限值78个;STEL的限值严于NIOSH的化学有害因素25种,更为宽松的化学有害因素6种,14种化学有害因素的STEL限值相等;MAC值严于NIOSH中规定的Ceiling值的化学有害因素7种,更为宽松的化学有害因素4种,13种化学有害因素的MAC值与NIOSH中的Ceiling值相等。
我国的OELs与OSHA相比,TWA限值严于OSHA的104个,更为宽松的化学有害因素10种,相等的限值40个;STEL的限值严于OSHA的化学有害因素1种;MAC值严于OSHA中规定的Ceiling值的化学有害因素有3种,5种化学有害因素的MAC值与NIOSH中的Ceiling值相等。
2.化学有害因素的致癌性、致敏性和经皮标识的应用方面GBZ2.1—2007和ACGIH的规定是一致的;
3.与美国相比,我国的标准制定过程在公众意见和诉求、同行评议意见和各相关方意见的收集和采纳,毒理学研究,职业卫生学调查和职业流行病学调查等背景资料的收集和整理,理解和应用超限倍数,非常规工作制下调整OELs,阐述和应用联合作用,标识化学有害因素OELs所适用的化学有害因素的物理状态等方面应做进一步的研究工作等方面尚有差距。
结论
1.GBZ2.1—2007基本涵盖了目前工作场所主要的、危害较严重的化学有害因素,使用率较高。化学有害因素的致癌性、致敏性和经皮标识的应用方面GBZ2.1—2007和ACGIH的规定保持了一致。
2.GB Z2.1—2007中目前存在OELs和化学有害因素方法不对应、在制定职业卫生标准时应更多考虑需求分析的等方面的问题。
3.对于使用广泛,使用率高,标准配套情况良好的OELs,应尽快制定其单因素的综合职业卫生防护指南;对于有机构使用但又无能力检测的OELs,应在对具体原因进行进一步调查的基础上,明确是否需要尽快制定其对应的检测方法。
4.对于被调查机构认为限值水平过严和过松的限值,应再进行现场职业卫生学调查,对其做更为系统的全面评估,为制修订限值提供更详尽的科学依据。
5.我国在标准制定过程中,在公众意见和诉求、同行评议意见和各相关方意见的收集和采纳,毒理学研究,职业卫生学调查和职业流行病学调查等背景资料的收集和整理,理解和应用超限倍数,非常规工作制下调整OELs,阐述和应用联合作用,标识化学有害因素OELs所适用的化学有害因素的物理状态等方面应做进一步的研究工作。
Background
In order to comply with Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases,Occupational exposure limits for hazardous agents in the workplace(GBZ2) was developed by Ministry of Health in 2002 and revised in 2004,and Occupational exposure limits for hazardous agents in the workplace Part 1:Chemical hazardous agents(GBZ2.1-2007) and Occupational exposure limits for hazardous agents in the workplace Part 2:Physical agents(GBZ2.2-2007) were promulgated in 2007.In the revising process,experts reviewed standards and documentations of ACGIH、NIOSH and OSHA.As so many occupational exposure limits(OELs) used in America were introduced into China, many problems are urgent for us to solve,such as investigating whether the limits are fit for the status of China and it is necessary to set determination methods standards for the chemical hazardous agents without determination methods,and etc..
Objective
Evaluate the application of the OELs of chemical hazardous agents in GBZ2.2-2007 and explore the methods of investigation and evaluation on the application of OELs.Compare OELs in China with that in America and establish the comparative study database.According to the two parts above,the application of the OELs,the problems existing in OELs in China and how to improve them will be analyzed and recommendation for standards setting and revising will be proposed.
Method
Investigat the occupational health technical service institutions.Train the persons filling the questionaire of the occupational health service at province level and the Occupational Health Standards Committee under MOH informed public health administrative department of 31 provinces who transferred the questionnaire to the institutions to be investigeted.The contents of the questionnaire include the.rate of application of OELs,the capability of the institutions on chemical hazardous agents determination,the works the OELs are used in,the evaluation on the level of the OELs,the percent of pass of the sites each OEL concerned,the treatment when no determination methods can be used,and the requirement for OELs and relevant determination methods.
Compare the level of OELs and the management in standards setting and revising in China with that in America.In the light of the investigation results from the fore part,suggestions for standards setting and revising in China will be proposed.
Results
Results of investigation
1.In GBZ2.2-2007,at least 93.2 percent of chemical hazardous agents are used in practice.The standard covers most of the chemical hazardous agents which may cause serious adverse effect to heath.
2.In GBZ2.2-2007,105 OELs haven't had relevant determination method and 48 of that are planning to be set.On the other side,in the 304 determination methods already existed,71 still haven't had relevant OELs.
3.In this investigation,23 in 343 OELs have never been used;inversely,some other chemical hazardous agents often used in practice haven't had OELs,which result in some difficulties in work.
4.The determination methods of 18 chemicals in urgent need have not been listed in the standards setting program yet,although they should be considered firstly.
Results of comparative study
1.Comparing the level of the OELs in China with that of ACGIH.88 TWA in China are lower than ACGIH,48 are higher and 88 are equal.32 STEL of China are lower than ACGIH,6 are higher and 16 are equal.4 MAC of China are lower than Ceiling ofACGIH,7 are higher and 10 are equal.
Comparing the level of the OELs in China with that of NIOSH.76 TWA in China are lower than NIOSH,29 are higher and 78 are equal.25 STEL of China are lower than NIOSH,6 are higher and 14 are equal.7 MAC of China are lower than Ceiling ofNIOSH,4 are higher and 13 are equal.
Comparing the level of the OELs in China with that of OSHA.104 TWA in China are lower than OSHA,10 are higher and 40 are equal.1 STEL of China is lower than OSHA.3 MAC of China are lower than Ceiling of OSHA and 5 are equal.
2.The designation of carcinogenicity,sensitization and skin in GBZ2.2-2007 is corresponding to the concept in ACGIH.
3.Compared with occupational standards used in America,we have several urgent problems in the process of standards setting,the contribution of interested party, the peer-reviewed and public information,toxicology,occupational health field investigation and occupational epidemiology research before standards setting,the reasonable application of the concept of excursion limits,adjustment of occupational exposure limits for unusual work schedules,the concept and reasonable application of combined action,description of the feature of chemical hazardous agents,and etc..
Conclusions
1.GBZ2.2-2007 covers most of the chemical hazardous agents which may cause serious adverse effect to heath.The designation of carcinogenicity,sensitization and skin in GBZ2.2-2007 is corresponding to the concept in ACGIH.
2.At present,there are problems in several aspects in the application of GBZ2.2 -2007,such as the mismatch of OELs and determination methods,the needs of soliciting opinions from all walks of life before occupational health standards setting and revising,and etc..
3.We should develop Standards Completion Program or other similar programs for the OELs widely used.We should also make sure whether we need develop standard determination methods for the OELs of chemical hazardous agents that none of the institutions is competent for their determination,which should initiate,with the purpose of improving our occupational health standards and on the basis of further study.
4.We should revise the OELs that the occupational health technical service institutions consider lower or higher on the basis of further systematically evaluation and occupational health field investigations.
5.We should make further study on the process of standards setting,the contribution of interested party,the peer-reviewed and public information,toxicology, occupational health field investigation and occupational epidemiology research before standards setting,the reasonable application of the concept of excursion limits, adjustment of occupational exposure limits for unusual work schedules,the concept and reasonable application of combined action,description of the feature of chemical hazardous agents,and etc..
为配合《中华人民共和国职业病防治法》的贯彻实施,2002年卫生部制定并发布了《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值》(GBZ2),并在2004年开始对其进行了修订,2007年,颁布实施了《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值:化学有害因素》(GBZ2.1—2007)和《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值:物理因素》(GBZ2.2—2007)。在修订的标准中进一步明确了职业卫生标准所采用的概念及其定义;增加了超限倍数及其应用,增加了化学有害因素的致癌性、致敏性、经皮标识的应用;修订和增加了部分限值。但在引进的限值是否适用于我国现状,现有的OELs在实际工作中的使用情况如何,有哪些限值急需制订配套检测方法等许多方面还存在着值得研究和探讨的问题。
研究目的
本研究将系统评价GBZ2.1—2007中化学有害因素的OELs在实际工作中的使用情况,研究标准的使用情况调查方法和评价方法,建立职业卫生标准检测方法数据库;同时对中国和美国现行的OELs在具体值、制定和管理过程方面进行比较,建立中美OELs对比研究数据库,将调查和比较研究的结果结合起来分析,对我国现行OELs的使用情况、存在的问题以及如何依据需求进行改进等方面进行整理、分析和评价,为制修订符合我国社会经济发展现状的OELs提供依据。
方法和对象
本次调查研究的对象为OELs的使用机构,主要是全国各级职业卫生技术服务机构及卫生监督机构。通过现场培训省级职业卫生技术服务机构,并由卫生部职业卫生标准专业委员会向全国各省、自治区、直辖市卫生厅、局发文,对省级以下职业卫生技术服务机构进行调查。调查内容包括每种化学有害因素OELs的使用率、被调查机构的检测能力、使用限值的工作内容、对限值水平的评价、作业点的达标率、对于无相应检测方法的OELs在检测过程中的处理情况以及对相应职业卫生标准检测方法和限值的需求等方面。
OELs比较研究的对象是中国国家职业卫生标准GBZ2.1—2007和美国政府工业卫生师协会(American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists,ACGIH)、美国国立职业安全卫生研究所(National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health,NIOSH)、美国职业安全与健康管理局(Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration,OSHA)制定的化学有害因素OELs,对上述标准进行限值数量、水平、制定和管理过程等方面的比较,结合问卷调查结果,对我国OELs进行评价和使用情况分析后提出建议。
结果
(一)问卷调查
1.GBZ2.1—2007中93.2%的化学有害因素OELs有不同程度的应用,该标准基本涵盖了目前工作场所主要的、危害较严重的化学有害因素,使用率较高。
2.339种化学有害因素的343个限值中,有105种化学有害因素尚没有对应的检测方法,除48种化学有害因素的检测方法已列入标准制定计划外,仍有57种化学有害因素没有对应的检测方法或制定计划;在已制定的304种化学有害因素的检测方法标准中,有71种化学有害因素却没有对应的OELs。
3.在本次调查中,无机构使用的OELs共23种,而被调查机构反映有一部分劳动者接触机会较多、存在范围比较广的化学有害因素尚无对应的OELs,导致目前一部分机构的检测和评价工作无据可依。
4.有机构经常使用或有时使用的化学有害因素中,有机构认为急需制定方法,且尚未列入标准制定计划的有18种化学有害因素,建议下一步制定职业卫生标准检测方法计划时,将上述18种化学有害因素作为优先考虑的对象。
(二)比较研究
1.我国的OELs与ACGIH相比,TWA限值严于ACGIH的88个,更为宽松的化学有害因素48种,相等的限值88个;STEL的限值严于ACGIH的化学有害因素32种,更为宽松的化学有害因素6种,16种化学有害因素的STEL限值相等;MAC值严于ACGIH中规定的Ceiling值的化学有害因素有4种,更为宽松的化学有害因素共有7种,10种化学有害因素的MAC值与ACGIH中的Ceiling值相等。
我国的OELs与NIOSH相比,TWA限值严于NIOSH的76个,更为宽松的化学有害因素29种,相等的限值78个;STEL的限值严于NIOSH的化学有害因素25种,更为宽松的化学有害因素6种,14种化学有害因素的STEL限值相等;MAC值严于NIOSH中规定的Ceiling值的化学有害因素7种,更为宽松的化学有害因素4种,13种化学有害因素的MAC值与NIOSH中的Ceiling值相等。
我国的OELs与OSHA相比,TWA限值严于OSHA的104个,更为宽松的化学有害因素10种,相等的限值40个;STEL的限值严于OSHA的化学有害因素1种;MAC值严于OSHA中规定的Ceiling值的化学有害因素有3种,5种化学有害因素的MAC值与NIOSH中的Ceiling值相等。
2.化学有害因素的致癌性、致敏性和经皮标识的应用方面GBZ2.1—2007和ACGIH的规定是一致的;
3.与美国相比,我国的标准制定过程在公众意见和诉求、同行评议意见和各相关方意见的收集和采纳,毒理学研究,职业卫生学调查和职业流行病学调查等背景资料的收集和整理,理解和应用超限倍数,非常规工作制下调整OELs,阐述和应用联合作用,标识化学有害因素OELs所适用的化学有害因素的物理状态等方面应做进一步的研究工作等方面尚有差距。
结论
1.GBZ2.1—2007基本涵盖了目前工作场所主要的、危害较严重的化学有害因素,使用率较高。化学有害因素的致癌性、致敏性和经皮标识的应用方面GBZ2.1—2007和ACGIH的规定保持了一致。
2.GB Z2.1—2007中目前存在OELs和化学有害因素方法不对应、在制定职业卫生标准时应更多考虑需求分析的等方面的问题。
3.对于使用广泛,使用率高,标准配套情况良好的OELs,应尽快制定其单因素的综合职业卫生防护指南;对于有机构使用但又无能力检测的OELs,应在对具体原因进行进一步调查的基础上,明确是否需要尽快制定其对应的检测方法。
4.对于被调查机构认为限值水平过严和过松的限值,应再进行现场职业卫生学调查,对其做更为系统的全面评估,为制修订限值提供更详尽的科学依据。
5.我国在标准制定过程中,在公众意见和诉求、同行评议意见和各相关方意见的收集和采纳,毒理学研究,职业卫生学调查和职业流行病学调查等背景资料的收集和整理,理解和应用超限倍数,非常规工作制下调整OELs,阐述和应用联合作用,标识化学有害因素OELs所适用的化学有害因素的物理状态等方面应做进一步的研究工作。
Background
In order to comply with Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases,Occupational exposure limits for hazardous agents in the workplace(GBZ2) was developed by Ministry of Health in 2002 and revised in 2004,and Occupational exposure limits for hazardous agents in the workplace Part 1:Chemical hazardous agents(GBZ2.1-2007) and Occupational exposure limits for hazardous agents in the workplace Part 2:Physical agents(GBZ2.2-2007) were promulgated in 2007.In the revising process,experts reviewed standards and documentations of ACGIH、NIOSH and OSHA.As so many occupational exposure limits(OELs) used in America were introduced into China, many problems are urgent for us to solve,such as investigating whether the limits are fit for the status of China and it is necessary to set determination methods standards for the chemical hazardous agents without determination methods,and etc..
Objective
Evaluate the application of the OELs of chemical hazardous agents in GBZ2.2-2007 and explore the methods of investigation and evaluation on the application of OELs.Compare OELs in China with that in America and establish the comparative study database.According to the two parts above,the application of the OELs,the problems existing in OELs in China and how to improve them will be analyzed and recommendation for standards setting and revising will be proposed.
Method
Investigat the occupational health technical service institutions.Train the persons filling the questionaire of the occupational health service at province level and the Occupational Health Standards Committee under MOH informed public health administrative department of 31 provinces who transferred the questionnaire to the institutions to be investigeted.The contents of the questionnaire include the.rate of application of OELs,the capability of the institutions on chemical hazardous agents determination,the works the OELs are used in,the evaluation on the level of the OELs,the percent of pass of the sites each OEL concerned,the treatment when no determination methods can be used,and the requirement for OELs and relevant determination methods.
Compare the level of OELs and the management in standards setting and revising in China with that in America.In the light of the investigation results from the fore part,suggestions for standards setting and revising in China will be proposed.
Results
Results of investigation
1.In GBZ2.2-2007,at least 93.2 percent of chemical hazardous agents are used in practice.The standard covers most of the chemical hazardous agents which may cause serious adverse effect to heath.
2.In GBZ2.2-2007,105 OELs haven't had relevant determination method and 48 of that are planning to be set.On the other side,in the 304 determination methods already existed,71 still haven't had relevant OELs.
3.In this investigation,23 in 343 OELs have never been used;inversely,some other chemical hazardous agents often used in practice haven't had OELs,which result in some difficulties in work.
4.The determination methods of 18 chemicals in urgent need have not been listed in the standards setting program yet,although they should be considered firstly.
Results of comparative study
1.Comparing the level of the OELs in China with that of ACGIH.88 TWA in China are lower than ACGIH,48 are higher and 88 are equal.32 STEL of China are lower than ACGIH,6 are higher and 16 are equal.4 MAC of China are lower than Ceiling ofACGIH,7 are higher and 10 are equal.
Comparing the level of the OELs in China with that of NIOSH.76 TWA in China are lower than NIOSH,29 are higher and 78 are equal.25 STEL of China are lower than NIOSH,6 are higher and 14 are equal.7 MAC of China are lower than Ceiling ofNIOSH,4 are higher and 13 are equal.
Comparing the level of the OELs in China with that of OSHA.104 TWA in China are lower than OSHA,10 are higher and 40 are equal.1 STEL of China is lower than OSHA.3 MAC of China are lower than Ceiling of OSHA and 5 are equal.
2.The designation of carcinogenicity,sensitization and skin in GBZ2.2-2007 is corresponding to the concept in ACGIH.
3.Compared with occupational standards used in America,we have several urgent problems in the process of standards setting,the contribution of interested party, the peer-reviewed and public information,toxicology,occupational health field investigation and occupational epidemiology research before standards setting,the reasonable application of the concept of excursion limits,adjustment of occupational exposure limits for unusual work schedules,the concept and reasonable application of combined action,description of the feature of chemical hazardous agents,and etc..
Conclusions
1.GBZ2.2-2007 covers most of the chemical hazardous agents which may cause serious adverse effect to heath.The designation of carcinogenicity,sensitization and skin in GBZ2.2-2007 is corresponding to the concept in ACGIH.
2.At present,there are problems in several aspects in the application of GBZ2.2 -2007,such as the mismatch of OELs and determination methods,the needs of soliciting opinions from all walks of life before occupational health standards setting and revising,and etc..
3.We should develop Standards Completion Program or other similar programs for the OELs widely used.We should also make sure whether we need develop standard determination methods for the OELs of chemical hazardous agents that none of the institutions is competent for their determination,which should initiate,with the purpose of improving our occupational health standards and on the basis of further study.
4.We should revise the OELs that the occupational health technical service institutions consider lower or higher on the basis of further systematically evaluation and occupational health field investigations.
5.We should make further study on the process of standards setting,the contribution of interested party,the peer-reviewed and public information,toxicology, occupational health field investigation and occupational epidemiology research before standards setting,the reasonable application of the concept of excursion limits, adjustment of occupational exposure limits for unusual work schedules,the concept and reasonable application of combined action,description of the feature of chemical hazardous agents,and etc..
引文
[1]卞耀武,张怀西,殷大奎,等.《中华人民共和国职业病防治法》条文释义.北京:人民卫生出版社,2002年.
[2]中共中央、国务院关于卫生改革与发展的决定中发(1997)3号19970115中共中央国务院
[3]中华人民共和国国民经济和社会发展第十一个五年规划纲要(2006年3月14日第十届全国人民代表大会第四次会议批准).北京:人民出版社,2006年3月.
[4]温家宝政府工作报告--2008年3月5日在第十一届全国人民代表大会第一次会议上.北京:人民出版社,2008年3月.
[5]卫生部办公厅关于印发2005年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划的通知.卫办政法发[2005]271号.2005年12月8日.
[6]卫生部办公厅关于印发《2006年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知.卫政法发[2006]291号.2006年7月27日.
[7]卫生部办公厅关于印发《2007年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知.卫政法发[2007]164号.2007年5月17日.
[8]卫生部办公厅关于印发《2008年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知.卫政法函[2008]321号.2008年8月11日.
[9]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(GBZ2.1-2007)[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[10]张敏,王丹,杜燮神等.ACGIH有关化学因素的TLVs[J].国外医学卫生学分册,2007,34(1):4-24.
[11]李涛,张敏,贺青华等.危险化学品使用手册[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,2007.
[12]张敏,石春兰,杜燮神.美国NIOSH《危险化学品职业安全与卫生指南》之四十九--苯(人类潜在致癌物)[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,16(2):176-180.
[13]张敏,石春兰,杜燮祎.美国NIOSH《危险化学品职业安全与卫生指南》之一百○五--一氧化碳[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,16(2):181-184.
[14]卫生部关于印发《2008年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知(卫政法函[2008]321号).
[15]张敏 李涛 吴维皑等.我国化学物质职业接触限值研究规范与建议[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,1(6):238-245.
[16]张敏,王丹,杜燮祎等.ACGIH及其TLVs和BEIs的制定政策和程序[J].国外医学卫生学分册,2007,34(1):1-4.
[17]张敏 李涛 杜燮祎等.我国职业卫生标准体系研究[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,1(6):221-225.
[18]刘铁民.国外职业接触限值研制与立法,劳动保护科学技术,1994,14(3):30-34.
[19]杨磊,易桂林.我国劳动卫生标准接触限值的研究进展和问题.中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2003,21(4):317-319.
[20]LEIDEL NA,BUSCH KA,CROUSE WE.Exposure measurement action level and occupational environmental variability[M].Springfield,VA:U.S.National Technical Information Service,1975.
[21]BURINGH E,LANTING R.Exposure variability in the workplace:its implications for the assessment of compliance[J].Am Ind Hyg Assoc,1991,52:6-13.
[22]李文捷,杜燮祎,张敏等.非常规工作制职业接触限值调整的方法及应用[J].国外医学(卫生学分册),2009,36(2):65-72.
[23]VERMA D K.Adjustment of occupational exposure limits for unusual work schedules[J].Am Ind Hyg Assoc,2000,61(5):367-374.
[24]雷博.采煤工作面现行“三·八”工作制执行过程中存在的主要弊端与改进思路[J].煤矿开采,2007,12(4):98-100.
[25]蒲德贵,杨锦竺.向煤矿工人的幸福生活迈步-重庆市石壕煤矿推行“四六工作制”[EB/OL].1994-2008 China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House.http://www.cnki.net.
[26]BRIEF R S,SCALA R A.Occupational health aspects of unusual work schedules:a review of exxon experiences[J].Am Ind Hyg Assoc,1986,47(4):199-202.
[27]DROLET D.Guide for the adjustment of permissible exposure values(PEVs) for unusual work schedules[M].3rd ed,Montreal:IRSST,2008.
[28]OSHA.OSHA Compliance Officers Field Manual[M].Washington,D.C.1979.
[29]李文捷,杜燮神,张敏等.非常规工作制容许接触限值调整指南--魁北克模型[J].国外医学(卫生学分册),2009,36(2):73-82.
[2]中共中央、国务院关于卫生改革与发展的决定中发(1997)3号19970115中共中央国务院
[3]中华人民共和国国民经济和社会发展第十一个五年规划纲要(2006年3月14日第十届全国人民代表大会第四次会议批准).北京:人民出版社,2006年3月.
[4]温家宝政府工作报告--2008年3月5日在第十一届全国人民代表大会第一次会议上.北京:人民出版社,2008年3月.
[5]卫生部办公厅关于印发2005年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划的通知.卫办政法发[2005]271号.2005年12月8日.
[6]卫生部办公厅关于印发《2006年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知.卫政法发[2006]291号.2006年7月27日.
[7]卫生部办公厅关于印发《2007年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知.卫政法发[2007]164号.2007年5月17日.
[8]卫生部办公厅关于印发《2008年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知.卫政法函[2008]321号.2008年8月11日.
[9]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(GBZ2.1-2007)[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[10]张敏,王丹,杜燮神等.ACGIH有关化学因素的TLVs[J].国外医学卫生学分册,2007,34(1):4-24.
[11]李涛,张敏,贺青华等.危险化学品使用手册[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,2007.
[12]张敏,石春兰,杜燮神.美国NIOSH《危险化学品职业安全与卫生指南》之四十九--苯(人类潜在致癌物)[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,16(2):176-180.
[13]张敏,石春兰,杜燮祎.美国NIOSH《危险化学品职业安全与卫生指南》之一百○五--一氧化碳[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,16(2):181-184.
[14]卫生部关于印发《2008年卫生标准制(修)订项目计划》的通知(卫政法函[2008]321号).
[15]张敏 李涛 吴维皑等.我国化学物质职业接触限值研究规范与建议[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,1(6):238-245.
[16]张敏,王丹,杜燮祎等.ACGIH及其TLVs和BEIs的制定政策和程序[J].国外医学卫生学分册,2007,34(1):1-4.
[17]张敏 李涛 杜燮祎等.我国职业卫生标准体系研究[J].中国卫生监督杂志,2009,1(6):221-225.
[18]刘铁民.国外职业接触限值研制与立法,劳动保护科学技术,1994,14(3):30-34.
[19]杨磊,易桂林.我国劳动卫生标准接触限值的研究进展和问题.中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2003,21(4):317-319.
[20]LEIDEL NA,BUSCH KA,CROUSE WE.Exposure measurement action level and occupational environmental variability[M].Springfield,VA:U.S.National Technical Information Service,1975.
[21]BURINGH E,LANTING R.Exposure variability in the workplace:its implications for the assessment of compliance[J].Am Ind Hyg Assoc,1991,52:6-13.
[22]李文捷,杜燮祎,张敏等.非常规工作制职业接触限值调整的方法及应用[J].国外医学(卫生学分册),2009,36(2):65-72.
[23]VERMA D K.Adjustment of occupational exposure limits for unusual work schedules[J].Am Ind Hyg Assoc,2000,61(5):367-374.
[24]雷博.采煤工作面现行“三·八”工作制执行过程中存在的主要弊端与改进思路[J].煤矿开采,2007,12(4):98-100.
[25]蒲德贵,杨锦竺.向煤矿工人的幸福生活迈步-重庆市石壕煤矿推行“四六工作制”[EB/OL].1994-2008 China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House.http://www.cnki.net.
[26]BRIEF R S,SCALA R A.Occupational health aspects of unusual work schedules:a review of exxon experiences[J].Am Ind Hyg Assoc,1986,47(4):199-202.
[27]DROLET D.Guide for the adjustment of permissible exposure values(PEVs) for unusual work schedules[M].3rd ed,Montreal:IRSST,2008.
[28]OSHA.OSHA Compliance Officers Field Manual[M].Washington,D.C.1979.
[29]李文捷,杜燮神,张敏等.非常规工作制容许接触限值调整指南--魁北克模型[J].国外医学(卫生学分册),2009,36(2):73-82.