美容美发场所主要污染物暴露特征及从业人群健康风险评价
|
摘要
目的了解昆山市美容美发场所主要污染物浓度水平及其从业人群的健康风险。方法 2017年选取美容、美发场所各4家,分别进行场所主要污染物PM_(10)、甲醛、氨和苯、甲苯、二甲苯的采样检测,同时调查场所从业人群工作时间行为模式,利用健康风险评价的方法,对PM_(10)、甲醛、氨、苯、甲苯、二甲苯健康风险进行评价。结果 PM_(10)、氨合格率分别为77.8%、94.4%,甲醛、苯、甲苯、二甲苯均为100.0%;不同场所间PM_(10)、甲醛、氨检测值分布差异均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05);苯、甲苯、二甲苯检测值均<0.05mg/m~3(检出限)。PM_(10)危险系数(HQ)平均为2.93×10~(-2),均远低于参考限值;氨HQ平均为0.94,低于参考限值;甲醛致癌风险平均为11.85×10~(-6),是参考限值的11.85倍,8家场所致癌风险均高于参考评价限值,最高为参考限值的21.14倍;取0.025 mg/m~3作为风险评价浓度水平,在该浓度水平下,苯致癌风险平均为6.79×10~(-6)。结论甲醛在8家场所从业人群中健康风险普遍较高,其次为氨,PM_(10)和苯健康风险较低。
Objective To understand the concentration levels of major pollutants and health risk of occupational population in beauty and hairdressing public places in Kunshan city.Methods In 2017,a total of 4 beauty and 4 hairdressing public places were selected in Kunshan city,samples were collected and the concentration levels of PM_(10),formaldehyde,ammonia,benzene,toluene and xylene were tested.The time-behavior patterns of employees were investigated,and the health risk assessment model were used to assess the health risk caused by PM_(10),formaldehyde,ammonia,benzene,toluene and triphenyl.Results The qualified rates of PM_(10) and ammonia were 77.8%and 99.4%,respectively.The qualified rates of formaldehyde,benzene,toluene and xylene in places were all 100.0%.There was no significant difference for the distribution of PM_(10),formaldehyde and ammonia in different places(all P>0.05).The detection results of all samples for formaldehyde,benzene,toluene and xylene were less than 0.05 mg/m~3(the limit of detection).The average hazard quotient(HQ)of PM_(10) was 2.93×10-2,which was far less than reference limit value.The average HQof ammonia was 0.94,which was lower than the reference limit value.The average carcinogenic risk of formaldehyde was 11.85×10~(-6),which was 11.85 times of the reference limit value;the health risks of formaldehyde were generally higher in all 8 places,the highest risk was of 21.14 times of reference limit value.Taking 0.025 mg/m~3 as the level of risk assessment concentration,the average carcinogenic risk of benzene was 6.79 x10~(-6).Conclusion The health risks of formaldehyde were generally higher in 8 places,followed by ammonia,the risks of PM_(10) and benzene were relatively lower.
Objective To understand the concentration levels of major pollutants and health risk of occupational population in beauty and hairdressing public places in Kunshan city.Methods In 2017,a total of 4 beauty and 4 hairdressing public places were selected in Kunshan city,samples were collected and the concentration levels of PM_(10),formaldehyde,ammonia,benzene,toluene and xylene were tested.The time-behavior patterns of employees were investigated,and the health risk assessment model were used to assess the health risk caused by PM_(10),formaldehyde,ammonia,benzene,toluene and triphenyl.Results The qualified rates of PM_(10) and ammonia were 77.8%and 99.4%,respectively.The qualified rates of formaldehyde,benzene,toluene and xylene in places were all 100.0%.There was no significant difference for the distribution of PM_(10),formaldehyde and ammonia in different places(all P>0.05).The detection results of all samples for formaldehyde,benzene,toluene and xylene were less than 0.05 mg/m~3(the limit of detection).The average hazard quotient(HQ)of PM_(10) was 2.93×10-2,which was far less than reference limit value.The average HQof ammonia was 0.94,which was lower than the reference limit value.The average carcinogenic risk of formaldehyde was 11.85×10~(-6),which was 11.85 times of the reference limit value;the health risks of formaldehyde were generally higher in all 8 places,the highest risk was of 21.14 times of reference limit value.Taking 0.025 mg/m~3 as the level of risk assessment concentration,the average carcinogenic risk of benzene was 6.79 x10~(-6).Conclusion The health risks of formaldehyde were generally higher in 8 places,followed by ammonia,the risks of PM_(10) and benzene were relatively lower.
引文
[1]张国斌.太原市公共场所内氨的测定及分析[J].山西化工,2016,36(6):58-59.
[2]田宁波,方进国.美发场所空气卫生质量监测结果[J].中国消毒学杂志,2014,31(11):1241-1242.
[3]黄冬娟,叶绍燕,黄运坤.2016年柳州市公共场所卫生状况分析[J].环境卫生学杂志,2017,7(5):398-402.
[4]张莉,陈颖,王秦,等.2016年湖北省咸宁市公共场所空气中苯系物监测分析[J].环境卫生学杂志,2017,7(6):421-423.
[5]董婷,李天昕,赵秀阁,等.某焦化厂周边大气PM10重金属来源及健康风险评价[J].环境科学,2014,35(4):1238-1244.
[6]于云江,王琼,张艳平,等.兰州市大气主要污染物环境与健康风险评价[J].环境科学研究,2012,25(7):751-756.
[7]段小丽.暴露参数的研究方法及其在环境健康风险评价中应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2012.
[8]向华丽,杨俊,仇珍珍,等.隧道工人的PM10职业暴露特征调查分析及其健康风险评价[J].环境科学,2015,36(8):2768-2774.
[9]刘建龙,谭超毅,张国强,等.湖南省4城市住宅室内环境健康风险评价[J].环境与职业医学,2008,25(4):375-377.
[10] Azuma K,Uchiyama I,Uchiyama S,et al.Assessment of inhalation exposure to indoor air pollutants:Screening for health risks of multiple pollutants in Japanese dwellings[J].Environ Res,2016,145(9):39-49.
[11]梁晓军,张建新,孙强,等.昆山市公共场所空气甲醛暴露及健康风险评价[J].环境卫生学杂志,2016,6(4):275-279.
[12]刘世明,刘泽春,郑天可,等.农村室内公共场所甲醛污染及致癌风险评价[J].公共卫生与预防医学,2015,26(1):61-64.
[13]杭晶晶.苏州市姑苏区2014年度公共场所卫生状况的分析[D].苏州:苏州大学,2015.
[14]熊文艳,邱荣发,钟淙,等.南昌市公共场所空气中甲醛污染对从业人员的健康风险评价[J].现代预防医学,2014,41(1):14-16.
[2]田宁波,方进国.美发场所空气卫生质量监测结果[J].中国消毒学杂志,2014,31(11):1241-1242.
[3]黄冬娟,叶绍燕,黄运坤.2016年柳州市公共场所卫生状况分析[J].环境卫生学杂志,2017,7(5):398-402.
[4]张莉,陈颖,王秦,等.2016年湖北省咸宁市公共场所空气中苯系物监测分析[J].环境卫生学杂志,2017,7(6):421-423.
[5]董婷,李天昕,赵秀阁,等.某焦化厂周边大气PM10重金属来源及健康风险评价[J].环境科学,2014,35(4):1238-1244.
[6]于云江,王琼,张艳平,等.兰州市大气主要污染物环境与健康风险评价[J].环境科学研究,2012,25(7):751-756.
[7]段小丽.暴露参数的研究方法及其在环境健康风险评价中应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2012.
[8]向华丽,杨俊,仇珍珍,等.隧道工人的PM10职业暴露特征调查分析及其健康风险评价[J].环境科学,2015,36(8):2768-2774.
[9]刘建龙,谭超毅,张国强,等.湖南省4城市住宅室内环境健康风险评价[J].环境与职业医学,2008,25(4):375-377.
[10] Azuma K,Uchiyama I,Uchiyama S,et al.Assessment of inhalation exposure to indoor air pollutants:Screening for health risks of multiple pollutants in Japanese dwellings[J].Environ Res,2016,145(9):39-49.
[11]梁晓军,张建新,孙强,等.昆山市公共场所空气甲醛暴露及健康风险评价[J].环境卫生学杂志,2016,6(4):275-279.
[12]刘世明,刘泽春,郑天可,等.农村室内公共场所甲醛污染及致癌风险评价[J].公共卫生与预防医学,2015,26(1):61-64.
[13]杭晶晶.苏州市姑苏区2014年度公共场所卫生状况的分析[D].苏州:苏州大学,2015.
[14]熊文艳,邱荣发,钟淙,等.南昌市公共场所空气中甲醛污染对从业人员的健康风险评价[J].现代预防医学,2014,41(1):14-16.