两种风险评价方法在某铅酸蓄电池企业铅职业病危害风险分级中的应用比较  

Comparison and application of two risk assessment methods for occupational lead exposure risk classification in a lead-acid battery enterprise

作　　者：陈慧峰[1] 姚智华 闫雪华[1] 赵雷[1] 王烁[1] 林健 黄汉林[4] 

机构地区：[1]广东省职业病防治院,广东省职业病防治重点实验室,广州510300 [2]广东医科大学 [3]深圳市龙华新区疾病预防控制中心 [4]广东省妇幼保健院

出　　处：《中华劳动卫生职业病杂志》2017年第2期130-133,共4页Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases

基　　金：广东省实验室体系建设项目（2012A061400007）

摘　　要：目的 应用两种风险评价方法评估某铅酸蓄电池企业铅职业病危害风险分级,并进行比较分析.方法 于2013年4月,对该铅酸蓄电池企业进行职业卫生调查,对作业场所铅烟、铅尘进行检测,采用课题组建立并优化的职业性化学危害风险评估指标体系（简称＂优化指标体系＂）和新加坡半定量风险评价模型进行铅酸蓄电池企业铅作业的职业病危害风险分级,并对两种风险分级结果进行比较分析.结果 铅烟风险分级结果中,优化指标体系将原料组和铸造组车间分级为轻度风险,组立课车间为中度风险;新加坡半定量风险评价模型将原料组车间分级为高风险,而铸造组和组立课车间为极高风险.铅尘的风险分级结果中,优化指标体系将原料组车间分级为轻度风险,而涂板组、切板组和组立课车间为中度风险;新加坡半定量风险评估模型将原料组车间分级为中等风险,涂板组和切板组车间为高风险,组立课车间为极高风险.结论 两种风险评价方法对铅职业病危害风险分级结果存在一定差异,优化指标体系较为合理可行,可操作性强.Objective To apply and compare two risk assessment methods for occupational lead exposure risk classification in a lead-acid battery enterprise. Methods In April 2013, an occupational health survey was carried out in a lead-acid battery enterprise. Lead smoke and lead dust were tested in the workplace. The risk assessment index system for occupational chemical hazards that was established and optimized by the research group （referred to as ＂optimized index system＂）, as well as the Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model, was used for occupational lead exposure risk classification in the lead-acid battery enterprise. The two risk classification results were analyzed and compared. Results In the lead smoke risk classification results, the optimized index system classified the raw material group and foundry group workshops as Class I hazardous and the assembling group workshop as Class II hazardous. The Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model classified the raw material group workshop as high risk and foundry group and assembling group workshops as extremely high risk. In the lead dust risk classification results, the optimized index system classified the raw material group workshop as Class I hazardous, while the plate painting group, plate cutting group, and assembling group workshops were classified as Class II hazardous. The Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model classified the raw material group workshop as medium risk, the plate painting group and plate cutting group workshops as high risk, and the assembling group workshop as extremely high risk. Conclusion There are some differences in risk assessment of occupational lead exposure between the two risk assessment methods. The optimized index system is comparably more reasonable and feasible, and is highly operable.

关 键 词：风险评价 铅 职业暴露 

分 类 号：R134[医药卫生—劳动卫生]