首页|土砂石开采业粉尘职业危害风险评估

土砂石开采业粉尘职业危害风险评估

扫码查看
目的 基于土砂石开采企业中粉尘职业暴露的危害现状,运用4种风险评估方法对其健康危害进行风险评估,为该行业重点职业危害风险评估提供方法依据.方法 以四川省3家典型土砂石开采企业的10个接尘岗位为评估对象,通过职业卫生学调查、粉尘检测与评价,运用改良后定量分级法、综合指数法、国际采矿与金属委员会(ICMM)定量法、职业危害风险指数法,对比分析接尘岗位粉尘职业健康危害风险及方法应用比对.结果 接尘岗位的4种职业健康危害风险分别为:(1)改良后定量分级法风险等级主要为Ⅰ级和Ⅲ级(岗位数分别为5个,各占50.0%).(2)综合指数法风险等级主要为高风险(岗位数:7个,占70.0%)和低风险(岗位数:3个,占30.0%).(3)ICMM定量法风险等级主要为非常高风险(岗位数:3个,占30.0%)和不可容忍风险(岗位数:7个,占70.0%).(4)职业危害风险指数法风险等级以极度危害为主(岗位数:5个,占比50.0%).4种风险评估方法比对分析显示,改良后定量分级法和综合指数法、综合指数法和职业危害风险指数法一致性较好(Z=0.535,P>0.05;Z=1.852,P>0.05),且可信度与稳定性好(rs=0.669,P<0.001;rs=0.847,P<0.001),其他评估方法间存在不稳定性(Z=-3.981,P<0.001).结论 改良后定量分级法与综合指数法、综合指数法与职业危害风险指数法两两间的评估结果差异无统计学意义且呈正相关,分别相互验证了评估结果的可信度.在土砂石开采业中,若粉尘游离二氧化硅含量在同一水平内,粉尘性质相同,则4种方法的风险评估结果基本一致.
Risk assessment of occupational exposure to dusts in soil,gravel and crushed stone mining industries
Objective To assess the health risk of occupational exposure to dusts in current soil,gravel and crushed stone industries using four methods,providing a methodological basis for risk assessment of key occupational hazards in these in-dustries.Methods Workers at 10 positions exposed to dusts were selected from three typical soil,gravel and crushed stone mining enterprises in Sichuan,and the dusts that they exposed to were explored using occupational hygiene investigation,dust detection and evaluation,their risks of exposure to dusts were assessed using improved quantitative grading method,comprehensive index method,ICMM quantitative method,and occupational hazard risk index method.A comparative analy-sis of health risks and assessment methods was conducted.Results The occupational health risks of dust exposure in the workers are:(1)Improved quantitative grading method:the risk levels at 5 positions(50.0%)and the other 5 positions(50.0%)were mainly rated level Ⅰ and level Ⅲ,respectively;(2)Comprehensive index method:The risk level mainly in-cluded high risk(7 positions,accounting for 70.0%)and low risk(3 positions,accounting for 30.0%);(3)ICMM quan-titative method:The risk level mainly included very high risk(3 positions,accounting for 30.0%)and intolerable risk(7 positions,accounting for 70.0%);(4)Occupational hazard risk index method:The risk level was mainly extreme hazard(5 positions,accounting for 50.0%).Comparative analysis of four risk assessment methods showed that the improved quan-titative grading method and comprehensive index method had good consistency(Z=0.535,P>0.05),with high reliability and stability(r,=0.669,P<0.001).And high consistency was found between comprehensive index method and occupation-al hazard risk index method(Z=1.852,P>0.05),with high reliability and stability(r,=0.847,P<0.001).There was in-stability among the other assessment methods(Z=-3.981,P<0.001).Conclusion Insignificant differences and positive correlation exist between the evaluation results by the comprehensive index method and the improved quantitative grading method,and between those by the comprehensive index method and the occupational hazard risk index method,verifying the credibility of the evaluation results.In these industries,if the free silica concentrations in inhalant dusts are at the same level and the dust properties are the same,the risk assessment results by the four methods are basically consistent.

Soil,gravel and crushed stone mining industriesDust exposureOccupational healthRisk assessment

康续荣、王本成、王永伟、石婷、崔方方

展开 >

国家能源集团西藏电力有限公司,西藏 山南 856400

四川大学华西公共卫生学院(华西第四医院)

四川省职业卫生应急(甲级)重点实验室

四川大学华西-协和陈志潜卫生健康研究院卫生应急管理研究中心

展开 >

土砂石开采业 粉尘暴露 职业健康 风险评估

2024

中国卫生工程学
中华预防医学会,吉林省预防医学会

中国卫生工程学

影响因子:0.416
ISSN:1671-4199
年,卷(期):2024.23(1)
  • 23