五种职业健康风险评估模型评估小型露天石料矿场硅尘危害比较  

Comparison of five occupational health risk assessment models applied to silica dust hazard in small open pits

作　　者：徐秋凉 曹艺耀[1] 王鹏 任鸿 袁伟明[1] 李飞 张美辨[1] XU Qiuliang;CAO Yiyao;WANG Peng;REN Hong;YUAN Weiming;LI Fei;ZHANG Meibian(Department of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection,Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Hangzhou,Zhejiang 310051,China)

机构地区：[1]浙江省疾病预防控制中心职业健康与辐射防护所,浙江杭州310051

出　　处：《预防医学》2021年第9期873-876,883,共5页CHINA PREVENTIVE MEDICINE JOURNAL

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(81472961);浙江省重点研发项目(215C03039);浙江省基础公益研究计划项目(LGC21H260001);浙江省卫生健康科技计划(2021KY616,2021KY613,2020KY517,2018KY332);2016年度浙江省卫生创新人才培养工程;2018年度浙江省151人才工程;浙江省疾病预防控制中心疾控英才孵育项目。

摘　　要：目的应用5种职业健康风险评估模型评估小型露天石料矿场硅尘危害风险,为职业健康风险评估方法学的研究提供参考。方法选择7家小型露天石料矿场为评估现场,应用新加坡化学毒物职业暴露半定量风险评估方法 (新加坡模型)、英国健康危害物质控制策略简易法(COSHH模型)、罗马尼亚职业事故和职业病风险评估方法 (罗马尼亚模型)、澳大利亚职业健康与安全风险评估管理导则(澳大利亚模型)、国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评估操作指南(ICMM模型)分别对接触硅尘岗位的职工进行职业健康风险评估。计算5种模型评估结果的风险比值(RR),比较差异性、准确性和相关性。结果新加坡模型、COSHH模型、罗马尼亚模型、澳大利亚模型和ICMM模型评估的RR值分别为0.8、1.0、0.4、0.6和0.8。新加坡模型和澳大利亚模型能明确区分汽车运输驾驶员与洒水车司机接触硅尘的风险水平差异,与这2个岗位的实际风险相符。除COSHH模型外,其他4种模型的RR值间均呈正相关(P<0.05);RR值与浓度比值(CR)均呈正相关(P<0.05),其中新加坡模型的RR值与CR值的相关系数最大,为0.801。结论 5种职业健康风险评估模型中新加坡模型相对更能识别石料矿场不同岗位的硅尘危害风险差异,评估准确性较好,与其他模型具有良好的相关性。Objective To quantitatively compare five occupational health risk assessment models in assessing silica dust hazard risk in small open pits, so as to provide the reference for the research of occupational health risk assessment methodology. Methods Seven small open pits were selected as the evaluation sites. The models from Singapore, the United Kingdom’s Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Essentials( COSHH Essentials), Australia, Romania, and the International Council on Mining and Metals( ICMM) were applied to assessing the occupational health risk of the workers exposed to silica dust. The risk ratios( RRs) were calculated, and the parallelism, accuracy and correlation of the evaluation results of the five models were compared. Results The RRs of the Singaporean model, COSHH model,Romanian model, Australian model and ICMM model were 0.8, 1.0, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, respectively. The Singaporean model and the Australian model were able to distinguish transport drivers from sprinkler drivers in the health risk exposed to silica dust, which was consistent with the actual risk of the two posts. Except for COSHH model, the RRs of the other four models were positively correlated( P<0.05);the RRs were all positively correlated with concentration ratios( CRs)( P<0.05), and the correlation coefficient between RRs and CRs of the Singaporean model was the largest( 0.801). Conclusion Among the five models, the Singaporean model can more accurately evaluate the hazard risk of silica dust in posts of open pits, and has a good correlation with the other models.

关 键 词：石料矿场 硅尘 职业健康风险 

分 类 号：R135[医药卫生—劳动卫生]