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

三種半定量職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估方法在汽車整車制造業(yè)中的應(yīng)用

武漢市職業(yè)病防治院職業(yè)衛(wèi)生科, 湖北 武漢 430015

基金項目: 國家職業(yè)衛(wèi)生標準體系建設(shè)項目（131031109000160010）

詳細信息

作者簡介:

葉偉平(1984-), 男, 碩士, 主管醫(yī)師; E-mail:13377881745@163.com

通訊作者:

陳振龍, E-mail:77785338@qq.com

組稿專家  張美辨（浙江省疾病預(yù)防控制中心職業(yè)健康與輻射防護所），E-mail：mbzhang@cdc.zj.cn

利益沖突  無申報

中圖分類號: R13

計量 文章訪問數(shù):  03119 HTML全文瀏覽量:  0 PDF下載量:  0610 出版歷程 收稿日期:  2019-08-29 錄用日期:  2019-12-29 網(wǎng)絡(luò)出版日期:  2022-11-20 刊出日期:  2020-02-24

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

Occupational Health Department, Wuhan Prevention and Treatment Center for Occupational Diseases, Wuhan, Hubei 430015, China

Funds: This study was funded

More Information

Corresponding author:

CHEN Zhen-long, E-mail: 77785338@qq.com

摘要

摘要:

背景

汽車整車制造企業(yè)在生產(chǎn)過程中存在粉塵、化學(xué)毒物等職業(yè)病危害因素，會對作業(yè)人員的健康產(chǎn)生不良影響。

目的

應(yīng)用GBZ/T 298-2017《工作場所化學(xué)有害因素職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估技術(shù)導(dǎo)則》中的三種半定量風(fēng)險評估方法對汽車制造企業(yè)進行職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估，探索其適用條件。

方法

采用判斷抽樣方法，從湖北省武漢市6家整車制造企業(yè)中選取4家，對接觸職業(yè)病危害因素的主要崗位進行職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估，并對三種方法的評估結(jié)果進行比較和驗證。

結(jié)果

4家汽車整車制造企業(yè)的主要職業(yè)病危害因素為電焊煙塵、砂輪磨塵、錳及其無機化合物、二氧化氮、甲苯、二甲苯、丁酮、乙酸丁酯、丁醇、異丙醇。接觸比值法評估結(jié)果顯示，C、D企業(yè)熔化極惰性氣體保護（melt inert-gas，MIG）焊崗位為高風(fēng)險崗位。指數(shù)法評估結(jié)果顯示，各企業(yè)的點焊、打磨崗位和A、C、D企業(yè)的MIG焊崗位為中等風(fēng)險崗位。綜合指數(shù)法評估結(jié)果與指數(shù)法相同。當接觸濃度（exposure concentration，EC） < 1/2職業(yè)接觸限值（occupational exposure levels，OELs）時，接觸比值法的風(fēng)險指數(shù)（risk，R）（1.694±0.433）低于指數(shù)法（2.344±0.317）和綜合指數(shù)法（2.327±0.317）（P < 0.001）；當1/2 OELs ≤ EC <OELs時，接觸比值法的R（2.966±0.138）與指數(shù)法（2.916±0.206）和綜合指數(shù)法（2.924±0.195）之間的差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義（P>0.05）；當EC ≥ OELs時，接觸比值法的R（3.398±0.289）高于指數(shù)法（2.802±0.283）和綜合指數(shù)法（2.887±0.279）（P < 0.001）。接觸比值法與指數(shù)法的評估結(jié)果一致性差（加權(quán)Kappa=0.118，P < 0.001），與綜合指數(shù)法的評估結(jié)果一致性差（加權(quán)Kappa=0.136，P < 0.001），指數(shù)法與綜合指數(shù)法的評估結(jié)果一致性極好（加權(quán)Kappa=0.977，P < 0.001）。EC超過OELs的崗位，三種評估結(jié)果為中等風(fēng)險以上，與OELs的判定結(jié)果相符。手工噴漆崗位在三種評估方法中被評估為可忽略風(fēng)險崗位和低風(fēng)險崗位，與職業(yè)健康監(jiān)護結(jié)果不一致。

結(jié)論

三種半定量方法均能識別重點崗位，但是對于手工噴漆崗位的風(fēng)險評估結(jié)果偏保守。三種半定量風(fēng)險評估結(jié)果與EC有關(guān)，可根據(jù)職業(yè)病危害因素的EC，選擇合適的評估方法。

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 OELs ≤ EC < 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 EC ≥ OELs, 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.

HTML全文

圖  1   不同濃度等級下三種半定量職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估方法的風(fēng)險等級比較

[注（Note）] *：P < 0.001。

Figure  1.   Risk levels for different concentration levels of target hazards by three semi-quantitative occupational health risk assessment methods

表  1   武漢市4家汽車整車制造企業(yè)職業(yè)衛(wèi)生基本情況

Table  1   General occupational health information in four automobile manufacturers in Wuhan

企業(yè)
Enterpris 年生產(chǎn)規(guī)模/萬輛Annual production
capacity/104
vehicles 工人數(shù)
Workers 崗位
Position 原輔料
Materials 日接觸
時問/h
Daily
exposure
hours 日使
用量
Daily
usage 周工作
天數(shù)/d
Weekly
work
days 作業(yè)方式
Operation 防護措施
Protective measure A 25 4681 點焊
Spot welding - 9.5 - 5 手工/半自動
Manual/semi-automatic 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation，personal protection MIG焊
MIG welding 焊絲
Welding wire 9.5 20 kg 5 手工
Manual 局部通風(fēng)，個人防護
Local ventilation, personal protection 打磨
Polishing - 9.5 - 5 手工
Manual 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection 手工噴漆
Manual spraying 油漆
Paint 9.5 24 L 5 手工
Manual 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection B 15 1641 點焊
Spot welding - 7.5 - 5 半自動
Semi-automatic 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection MIG焊
MIG welding 焊絲
Welding wire 0.5 1 kg 5 手工
Manual 局部通風(fēng)，個人防護
Local ventilation, personal protection 打磨
Polishing - 7.5 - 5 手工
Manual 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection 手工噴漆
Manual spraying 油漆
Paint 1.0 18 L 5 手工
Manual 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection C 8 1 412 點焊
Spot welding - 8.0 - 5 手工/半自動
Manual/semi-automatic 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation，personal protection MIG焊
MIG welding 焊絲
Welding wire 8.0 18 kg 5 手工
Manual 局部通風(fēng)，個人防護
Local ventilation, personal protection 打磨
Polishing - 8.0 - 5 手工
Manual 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection 手工噴漆
Manual spraying 油漆
Paint 8.0 36 L 5 手工
Manual 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection D 15 1815 手工點焊
Manual spot welding - 10.0 - 5 手工/半自動
Manual/semi-automatic 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation，personal protection MIG焊
MIG welding 焊絲
Welding wire 10.0 20 kg 5 手工
Manual 局部通風(fēng)，個人防護
Local ventilation, personal protection 手工噴漆
Manual spraying 油漆
Paint 10.0 28 L 5 手工
Manual 全面通風(fēng)，個人防護
General ventilation, personal protection

表  2   三種半定量職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估方法對武漢市4家汽車整車制造企業(yè)主要職業(yè)病危害因素的評估結(jié)果比較

Table  2   Comparison of grading occupational health hazardous factors by three semi-quantitative occupational health risk assessment methods in four automobile manufacturers in Wuhan

企業(yè)
Enterprise 崗位
Position 危舍因素
Hazardous factor 檢測點數(shù)
Detected
sites OELs/
mg.m-3 Ctwa/
mg.m-3 HR 接觸比值法
Exposure ratio method 指數(shù)法
Index method 綜合指數(shù)法
Composite index method ER R ER R ERR A 點焊
Spot welding 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 21 4 1.305±0.982 3 2.238±0.62 2.572±0.320 2.340 2.650 2.309±0.107 2.631±0.059 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 21 5 0.084±0.017 2 1.000 1.414 2.340 2.163 1.974 1.414 MIG焊
MIG welding 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 9 4 0.811±0.542 3 1.778±0.44 2.290±0.316 2.343 2.720 2.343±0.100 2.651±0.057 錳及其無機化合物
Manganese and its
inorganic compounds 9 0.15 0.046±0.068 2 1.778±1.09 1.817±0.536 2.466 2.233 2.312±0.186 2.149±0.085 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 9 5 0.093±0.043 2 1.000 1.414 2.466 2.233 2.168 2.082 打磨
Polishing 砂輪磨塵
Grinding wheel dust 6 8 1.300±1.620 3 1.500±0.83 2.063±0.541 3.129 3.064 2.727±0.225 2.858±0.116 手工噴漆
Manual
spraying 甲苯
Toluene 9 50 < 0.03 2 1.000 1.414 2.280 2.135 2.057 2.028 二甲苯
Xylene 9 50 0.992±2.010 2 1.111±0.33 1.479±0.195 2.188 2.092 2.004±0.060 2.002±0.029 乙酸丁酯
Butyl acetate 9 200 0.328±0.418 2 1.000 1.414 2.188 2.092 1.984 1.922 丁酮
Methyl ethyl ketone 9 300 0.127±0.212 2 1.000 1.414 2.280 2.135 2.057 2.135 丁醇
Butanol 9 100 5.333±11.30 2 1.111±0.33 1.479±0.195 2.188 2.092 2.004±0.060 2.002±0.029 B 點焊
Spot welding 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 12 4 0.531±0.290 3 1.750±0.45 2.270±0.324 2.512 2.745 2.352±0.119 2.656±0.068 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 12 5 0.043±0.017 2 1.000 1.414 2.512 2.241 2.154 2.076 MIG焊
MIG welding 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 3 4 0.767±0.158 3 2.000 2.449 1.648 2.223 1.694 2.449 錳及其無機化合物
Manganese and its
inorganic compounds 3 0.15 0.016±0.008 2 1.667±0.57 1.805±0.338 1.648 1.815 1.641±0.092 1.810±0.051 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 3 5 0.021±0.007 2 1.000 1.414 1.648 1.815 1.534 1.752 打磨
Polishing 砂輪磨塵
Grinding wheel dust 6 8 2.832±2.660 3 1.833±0.75 2.302±0.490 2.724 2.859 2.523±0.183 2.302±0.490 手工噴漆
Manual spraying 甲苯
Toluene 3 50 < 0.03 2 1.000 1.414 1.919 1.959 1.769 1.414 二甲苯
Xylene 3 50 < 0.05 2 1.000 1.414 1.842 1.919 1.707 1.848 乙酸丁酯
Butyl acetate 3 200 0.205±0.174 2 1.000 1.414 1.842 1.919 1.707 1.848 丁醇
Butanol 3 100 < 0.3 2 1.000 1.414 1.842 1.919 1.707 1.848 C 點焊
Spot welding 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 8 4 1.025±1.316 3 2.000±0.92 2.397±0.539 2.727 2.859 2.556±0.190 2.397±0.539 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 8 5 0.046±0.329 2 1.000 1.414 2.724 2.334 2.305 2.147MIG焊
MIG welding 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 4 4 5.975±4.055 3 1.494±1.01 3.197±0.613 2.904 2.952 2.962±0.166 2.980±0.084 錳及其無機化合物
Manganese and its
inorganic compounds 4 0.15 0.455±0.601 2 3.500±1.73 2.581±0.671 2.904 2.410 2.946±0.222 2.426±0.092 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 4 5 0.082±0.043 2 1.000 1.414 2.904 2.410 2.494 2.233 打磨
Polishing 砂輪磨塵
Grinding wheel dust 3 8 1.433±0.777 3 2.000 2.449 3.129 3.064 2.904 2.952 手工噴漆
Manual
spraying 甲苯
Toluene 3 50 0.092±0.775 2 1.000 1.414 2.280 2.135 2.057 2.028 二甲苯
Xylene 3 50 1.420±0.956 2 1.000 1.414 2.188 2.092 1.984 1.992 乙酸丁酯
Butyl acetate 3 200 42.767±14.7 2 2.000 2.00 2.188 2.092 2.163 2.080 丁酮
Methyl ethyl ketone 3 300 1.770±0.461 2 1.000 1.414 2.280 2.135 2.057 2.028 丁醇
Butanol 3 100 2.527±0.523 2 1.000 1.414 2.188 2.092 1.984 1.992 D 手工點焊
Manual spot spraying 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 18 4 2.661±1.330 3 2.722±0.66 2.837±0.350 2.954 2.977 2.903±0.119 2.950±0.061 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 18 5 0.122±0.014 2 1.000 1.414 2.954 2.431 2.466 2.221 MIG焊
MIG welding 電焊煙塵
Welding fume 6 4 4.950±2.487 3 3.833±0.75 3.378±0.333 3.107 3.053 3.196±0.090 3.096±0.044 錳及其無機化合物
Manganese and its
inorganic compounds 6 0.15 0.118±0.119 2 2.667±1.15 2.276±0.478 3.107 2.493 3.019±0.175 2.457±0.071 二氧化氮
Nitrogen dioxide 6 5 0.123±0.015 2 1.000 1.414 3.107 2.493 2.643 2.299 打磨
Polishing 砂輪磨塵
Grinding wheel dust 3 8 4.733±3.523 3 2.667±1.15 2.788±0.586 3.129 3.064 3.023±0.205 3.010±0.101 手工噴漆
Manual
spraying 甲苯
Toluene 6 50 < 0.03 2 1.000 1.414 2.280 2.135 2.057 2.028 二甲苯
Xylene 6 50 < 0.05 2 1.000 1.732 2.188 2.562 1.984 2.440 乙酸丁酯
Butyl acetate 6 200 1.547±1.548 2 1.000 1.414 2.188 2.092 1.984 1.992 異丙醇
Isopropyl alcohol 6 350 < 0.47 2 1.000 1.414 2.280 2.135 2.057 2.028 合計
Total 292 1.857±0.628 2.401±0.349a 2.302±0.375a[注] HR：危害分級；ER：接觸等級；R：風(fēng)險指數(shù)：1=可忽略風(fēng)險，2=點風(fēng)險，3=中等風(fēng)險，4=高風(fēng)險，5=極高風(fēng)險；a：與接觸比值法比較，P < 0.001。
[Note] HR: Hazard rating; ER: Exposure rating; R: Risk; 1=Negligible risk; 2=Spot risk; 3=Medium risk; 4=High risk; 5=Very high risk; a: Compared with exposure ratio method, P < 0.001.

參考文獻(16)

[1] 曹素紅.兩種職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估模型在上海市奉賢區(qū)某汽車零部件制造企業(yè)中的運用[J].職業(yè)與健康, 2018, 34(20):2740-2744. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zyyjk201820002 [2] 劉文慧, 蘇世標, 徐海娟, 等.職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估方法應(yīng)用研究進展[J].中國職業(yè)醫(yī)學(xué), 2016, 43(4):487-490. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zgzyyx201604025 [3]

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume Ⅰ: human health evaluation manual (Part F, supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment, EPA-540-R-070-002OSWER 9285.7-82 January 2009)[R]. Washington. DC: Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.

[4]

The University of Queensland. Occupational health and safety risk assessment and management guideline[R]. Australia: Occupational Health and Safety Unit, 2004.

[5]

Ministry of Manpower Occupational Safety and Health Division. A semi-quantitative method to assess occupational exposure to harmful chemicals[R]. Singapore: Ministry of Manpower Occupational Safety and Health Division, 2005.

[6] 工作場所化學(xué)有害因素職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估技術(shù)導(dǎo)則: GBZ/T 298-2017[S].北京: 中國標準出版社, 2018. [7] 工作場所空氣中有害物質(zhì)監(jiān)測的采樣規(guī)范: GBZ 159-2004[S].北京: 人民衛(wèi)生出版社, 2006. [8] 郭軼斌, 郭威, 秦宇辰, 等.基于Kappa系數(shù)的一致性檢驗及其軟件實現(xiàn)[J].中國衛(wèi)生統(tǒng)計, 2016, 33(1):169-170, 174. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zgwstj201601058 [9] 蘇藝偉, 李艷華, 郭堯平, 等. 2017年廣州市某汽車廠職業(yè)病危害因素及職工健康狀況[J].職業(yè)與健康, 2018, 34(17):2310-2313, 2317. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zyyjk201817002 [10] 路艷艷, 柴劍榮, 徐承敏, 等.杭州市新建汽車整車制造項目職業(yè)病危害控制效果[J].職業(yè)與健康, 2017, 33(15):2029-2033. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zyyjk201715004 [11] 張守剛, 張榮, 宋偉, 等.某新建汽車生產(chǎn)線建設(shè)項目職業(yè)病危害控制效果評價[J].職業(yè)與健康, 2009, 25(15):1653-1655. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zyyjk200915042 [12] 李旭東, 丁俊, 劉明, 等.三種職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估方法評估涂料生產(chǎn)企業(yè)有機溶劑風(fēng)險的應(yīng)用比較[J].預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué), 2018, 30(8):794-798. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zjyfyx201808009 [13] 許振國, 張敏紅, 劉莉莉, 等.加油站苯接觸崗位職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估[J].中國職業(yè)醫(yī)學(xué), 2018, 45(6):762-765. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zgzyyx201806021 [14] 丁俊, 蘇世標, 靳雅麗, 等.家具生產(chǎn)企業(yè)有機溶劑的三種健康風(fēng)險評估方法比較[J].預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué), 2019, 31(4):400-404. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2019.04.005 [15] 田亞鋒, 劉開鉗, 吳禮康, 等.比較三種職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估模型在蓄電池生產(chǎn)企業(yè)的應(yīng)用[J].預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué), 2018, 30(12):1248-1251. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2018.12.011 [16] 陳琳, 馬煒鈺, 靳雅麗, 等.廣州汽車4S店化學(xué)有害因素職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估[J].中國職業(yè)醫(yī)學(xué), 2018, 45(6):789-792. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zgzyyx201806028

施引文獻

補充資料

審稿意見

勘誤/撤稿

圖(1)  /  表(2)

計量 文章訪問數(shù):  HTML全文瀏覽量:  0 PDF下載量:  出版歷程 收稿日期:  2019-08-29 錄用日期:  2019-12-29 網(wǎng)絡(luò)出版日期:  2022-11-20 刊出日期:  2020-02-24

目錄

相關(guān)知識

煤焦油瀝青職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估分析
常用汽車內(nèi)飾材料的健康效應(yīng)及控制策略
關(guān)注車內(nèi)健康，倡導(dǎo)健康出行 中國汽車健康指數(shù)引領(lǐng)汽車行業(yè)加速發(fā)展
中國汽車健康指數(shù)
電動汽車電磁輻射并不高 中國汽車健康指數(shù)測評
高標準把控車內(nèi)環(huán)境健康 全國首個《新能源汽車車內(nèi)空氣質(zhì)量健康評價指南》在深實施
健康汽車怎么看？汽車健康指數(shù)：數(shù)據(jù)告訴你全文
健康風(fēng)險評估的種類包括
安全健康風(fēng)險評估.doc
出行健康不容忽視，做“最健康的汽車”，極狐汽車是認真的！

網(wǎng)址: 三種半定量職業(yè)健康風(fēng)險評估方法在汽車整車制造業(yè)中的應(yīng)用 http://www.u1s5d6.cn/newsview701261.html