首页|我国职业接触限值与美国政府工业卫生师协会阈限值的比较

我国职业接触限值与美国政府工业卫生师协会阈限值的比较

扫码查看
[背景]美国政府工业卫生师协会(ACGIH)制定并定期更新的阈限值(TLVs)在世界范围内被广泛采纳和引用,也是我国职业接触限值(OELs)的重要参考,有必要定期对其进行追踪并与我国OELs进行比较。[目的]对GBZ 2。1-2019《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第1部分:化学有害因素》(以下简称"GBZ 2。1-2019")中的OELs与ACGIH制定的TLVs(2024)进行比较研究,为我国后续OELs制修订提供参考。[方法]GBZ 2。1-2019中的OELs与ACGIH发布的TLVs采用Microsoft Excel 2019软件建立数据库,并通过化学文摘服务登记号(CAS Rn)及中英文名进行双重比对,比对无误后按照限值的类型进行匹配及比较分析。其中,限值类型按照时间加权平均容许浓度(PC-TWA)与时间加权平均阈限值(TLV-TWA)、短时间接触容许浓度(PC-STEL)与短时间接触阈限值(TLV-STEL)、最高容许浓度(MAC)与上限阈限值(TLV-C)进行匹配。比较分析的内容包括限值类型、限值数量及限值大小。[结果]GBZ 2。1-2019中OELs与ACGIH规定的TLVs(2024)在限值类型及定义方面基本一致,但在限值数量及大小方面存在差异。在限值数量方面,GBZ 2。1-2019中共规定了 358种化学有害因素的365项OELs,ACGIH TLVs(2024)中包括316项与之对应的限值,其中一致的148项(46。9%),基本一致的38项(12。0%),不一致的130项(41。1%)。在限值大小方面,不一致的130项中,OELs低于TLVs的有51项,OELs高于TLVs的有67项,限值类型不一致的有12项,其中部分化学有害因素的OELs显著低于或高于TLVs。[结论]GBZ 2。1-2019中的部分化学有害因素OELs显著低于或高于TLVs,针对以上化学有害因素,建议优先对其进行立项研究,并结合最新的科学证据尽快完成修订。
Comparison of occupational exposure limits in China with threshold limit values announced by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
[Background]The threshold limit values(TLVs)established and regularly updated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists(ACGIH)are widely adopted and referenced globally,serving as a crucial reference for China's occupational exposure limits(OELs).It is neces-sary to track it regularly and compare it with China's OELs.[Objective]To compare the OELs stipulated in Occupational exposure limits for hazardous agents in the workplace-Part 1:Chemical hazardous agents(GBZ 2.1-2019)and the ACGIH TLVs(2024)and to provide references for subsequent formulation and revision of OELs in China.[Methods]The OELs specified in GBZ 2.1-2019 and the TLVs issued by ACGIH were used to es-tablish a database using Microsoft Excel 2019 software.Cross verification was conducted through matching Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers(CAS Rn)and both Chinese and English names to ensure accuracy.Then,comparisons and analyses were carried out based on the type of limit values,which were matched as follows:permissible concentration-time weighted average(PC-TWA)with threshold limit value-time weighted average(TLV-TWA),permissible concentration-short term ex-posure limit(PC-STEL)with threshold limit value-short term exposure limit(TLV-STEL),and maximum allowable concentration(MAC)with threshold limit value-ceiling(TLV-C).Comparisons included types,quantities,and sizes of limits.[Results]The GBZ 2.1-2019 OELs and the ACGIH TLVs(2024)were generally consistent in terms of types and definitions,but there were differences in the number and size of the limits.In terms of the number of limits,GBZ 2.1-2019 specified 365 OELs for 358 chemical hazardous agents,while ACGIH TLVs(2024)included 316 corresponding limits.Among these,148(46.9%)limits were consistent,38(12.0%)were basically consistent,and 130(41.1%)were inconsistent.In terms of the size of the limits,out of the 130 inconsistent limits,51 OELs were lower than the corresponding TLVs,67 OELs were higher than the corresponding TLVs,and 12 were under different limit types.For some chemical hazardous agents,their OELs were significantly lower or higher than their TLVs.[Conclusion]Some of the OELs for chemical hazardous agents specified in GBZ 2.1-2019 are significantly lower or higher than the TLVs.For these chemical hazardous factors,it is recommended to prioritize their inclusion in research projects and to complete the revisions as soon as possible based on the latest scientific evidence.

occupational exposure limitthreshold limit valueAmerican Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienistschemical haz-ardous agent

郭强之、王雅真、慕云涛、刘金玲、姜雪、刘迪、沈忱、李玲玲、刘毅

展开 >

中石化安全工程研究院有限公司化学品安全全国重点实验室,山东青岛 266104

中石化国家石化项目风险评估技术中心有限公司,山东青岛 266104

职业接触限值 阈限值 美国政府工业卫生师协会 化学有害因素

2024

环境与职业医学
上海市疾病预防控制中心 中华预防医学会

环境与职业医学

CSTPCD北大核心
影响因子:0.71
ISSN:1006-3617
年,卷(期):2024.41(11)