某体温计制造企业职业健康风险评估研究

职业与健康 ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (18): 2449-2455.

• 论著 • 下一篇

某体温计制造企业职业健康风险评估研究

张宏群¹, 郭俊², 冯宇梦¹

1.盐城市疾病预防控制中心职放科,江苏盐城 224000;
2.盐城市盐都区疾病预防控制中心卫生科,江苏盐城 224003

收稿日期:2022-12-02 修回日期:2023-02-06 出版日期:2023-09-15 发布日期:2026-03-25
通信作者: 郭俊,副主任医师,E-mail：1192118@sina.com
作者简介:张宏群,男,副主任医师,主要从事劳动卫生工作。
基金资助:
江苏省“333工程”科研项目（BRA2018398）; 国家重点职业病监测项目; 盐城市医学科技发展计划项目（YK2019018）

Study on occupational health risk assessment of a thermometer manufacturer

ZHANG Hongqun¹, GUO Jun², FENG Yumeng¹

1. Department of Occupational and Radiological Health,Yancheng Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Yancheng Jiangsu 224000,China;
2. Health Surveillance Division,Yandu District Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Yancheng Jiangsu 224003,China

Received:2022-12-02 Revised:2023-02-06 Online:2023-09-15 Published:2026-03-25
Contact: GUO Jun,Associate chief physicion,E-mail：1192118@sina.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨温度计制造企业职业健康风险评估的最优化模型。方法 2021年7—10月,选择某温度计制造企业作为研究对象,运用GBZ/T 298—2017《工作场所化学有害因素职业健康风险评估导则》综合指数法、美国环境保护局吸入风险定量风险评估方法（supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment of environmental protection agency America,EPA）、新加坡有害化学物质职业接触风险评估方法（risk assessment method for occupational exposure to harmful chemicals of ministry of manpower Singapore,MOM）、国际采矿和金属委员会职业健康风险评估操作指南（good practice guidance on occupational health risk assessment of international council on mining and metals,ICMM）、澳大利亚昆士兰大学职业健康与安全风险评估管理导则（occupational health risk assessment and management guideline of Queensland Australia,Australia）、罗马尼亚职业事故和职业病风险评估方法（risk assessment method for occupational accidents and diseases of ministry of labor and social protection department Romania,MLSP）、英国健康与安全执行局危险物质危害控制规程（control of substances hazardous to health essentials for Health and Safety Executive England,COSHH）等7种方法分别进行职业健康风险评估,同时引入归一化风险比值（normalized risk ratio,NRR）进行比较,分析各模型评估结果的异同性。结果该企业涉汞岗位空气汞浓度均超过职业接触限值,存在职业健康高风险隐患。综合指数法和ICMM、MOM模型的风险等级是高风险（4级）,与专家会商法一致,低于EPA的极高风险（5级）,高于Australian、COSHH的中等风险（3级）和MLSP的低风险（3级）。综合指数法模型的归一化风险比值与MOM、ICMM一致性为一般（Kappa=0.286,P<0.05）,差异均无统计学意义（Z=-1.622、-0.816,均P>0.05）;Australia和ICMM一致性为一般（Kappa=0.211,P<0.05）,差异有统计学意义（Z=-3.317,P<0.05）;Australia和COSHH一致性为较差（Kappa<0.05,P<0.05）,差异无统计学意义（Z=-1.000,P>0.05）;其他模型之间一致性为较差,差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。结论综合指数法模型适用于温度计制造企业的职业健康风险评估,MOM模型和ICMM模型次之,其他4种常用模型不推荐使用。

关键词: 温度计, 评估模型, 风险评估, 汞, 职业健康

Abstract: Objective To explore the optimal model of occupational health risk assessment in thermometer manufacturing enterprises. Methods A thermometer manufacturing enterprise was taken as a research sample,and seven models,including Composite-Index of GBZ/T 298-2017 Guidelines for occupational health risk assessment of chemical hazards in the workplace,supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment of environmental protection agency America（EPA）,risk assessment method for occupational exposure to harmful chemicals of ministry of manpower Singapore（MOM）,good practice guidance on occupational health risk assessment of international council on mining and metals（ICMM）,occupational health risk assessment and management guideline of Queensland Australia（Australia）,risk assessment method for occupational accidents and diseases of ministry of labor and social protection department Romania（MLSP）,and control of substances hazardous to health essentials for Health and Safety Executive England（COSHH）,were used to evaluate occupational health risks between July and October 2021. The normalized risk ratio（NRR） was used to quantitatively compare each model and analyze the similarities and differences of the evaluation results of these models. Results All the mercury concentrations in the air of mercury exposed positions in this enterprise were detected to be higher than that of occupational exposure limit（OEL）,and all these positions were assessed to have high occupational health risks. The risk assessment results of comprehensive index method,ICMM and MOM were high risk（grade 4）,which was consistent with that of expert consultation method,lower than EPA's extremely high risk（grade 5）,but higher than Australian's,COSHH's medium risk（grade 3） and MLSP's low risk （grade 3）.The consistence of NRR of the comprehensive index method to MOM and ICMM was general（Kappa=0.286,P<0.05）,and the difference was not statistically significant（Z=-1.622,-0.816,P>0.05）. The consistence of Australia and ICMM was general（Kappa=0.211,P<0.05）,and difference was not statistically significant（Z=-3.317,P<0.05）. The consistence of Australia and COSHH was poor（Kappa<0.05,P<0.05）,and difference was not statistically significant（Z=-1.000,P>0.05）.The consistency of other models were poor,and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）. Conclusion The comprehensive index model is suitable for the occupational health risk assessment of thermometer manufacturing enterprises,followed by MOM model and ICMM model,while the other four common models is not recommended.

Key words: Thermometer, Evaluation model, Risk assessment, Mercury, Occupational health

中图分类号:

R135

张宏群, 郭俊, 冯宇梦. 某体温计制造企业职业健康风险评估研究. [J]职业与健康, 2023, 39(18): 2449-2455.

ZHANG Hongqun, GUO Jun, FENG Yumeng. Study on occupational health risk assessment of a thermometer manufacturer. [J]OCCUPATION AND HEALTH, 2023, 39(18): 2449-2455.

参考文献

[1] 环境保护部副部长赵英民.履行汞公约,谱写化学品环境管理新篇章-写在《关于汞的水俣公约》生效之际[N].中国环境报,2017-08-16(001).
[2] 冯新斌,史建波,李平,等.我国汞污染研究与履约进展[J].中国科学院院刊,2020,35(11):1344-1350.
[3] GRIDELE L,DELBECQ P,HERVE L,et al.Proposal of a new risk assessment method for the handling of powders and nanomaterials[J].Ind Health,2015,53(1):56-68.
[4] SHUR P Z,ZAITSEVA N V,ALEKSEEV V B,et al.Occupational health risk assessment and management in workers in improvement of national policy in occupational hygiene and safety[J].Gig Sanit,2015, 94(2):72-75.
[5] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会.中华人民共和国职业病防治法(2018修订版)[EB/OL].(2019-05-20)[2022-05-10].http://www.nhc.gov.cn/zyjks/pqt/201905/23139e16d23c4ffdba281988ce52467e.shtml.
[6] International Council On Mining And Metals.Good practice guidance on occupational health risk assessment[EB/OL].(2016-04-25)[2022-05-10].https://www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/health-and-safety/2016/guidance_health-risk-assessment-2016.pdf.
[7] National Research Institute For Labou Protection.Risk assessment method for occupational accidents and diseases[EB/OL].(2011-01-20)[2022-05-10].http://www.protectiamuncii.ro/pdfs/risk_Assessment_method.pdf.
[8] Univerrsiny of Queensland.Occupational health and safety risk assessment and management guideline[R].Australia:Occupational Health and Safety Unit,2011.
[9] Health and Safety Executive.The technical basis for COSHH essentials:Easy steps to control chemicals[EB/OL].(2015-01-17)[2022-05-10].https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/guidance/coshh-technical-basis.pdf.
[10] Ministry of Manpowe Occupational Safety and Health Division.A semi-quantitative method to assess occupational exposure to harmful chemicals[R].Singapore:2005.
[11] US Envionmental Protection Agency.Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I:human health evaluation manual(Part F,supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment,EPA-540-R-070-002OSWER9285.7-82 January 2009)[R].Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Environmental Protection Agency.Washington,DC:2009.
[12] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.工作场所化学有害因素职业健康风险评估技术导则:GBZ/T 298—2017[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2017:1-33.
[13] 中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范:GBZ 159—2004[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2004:2-12.
[14] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.工作场所空气有毒物质测定第18部分:汞及其化合物:GBZ/T 300.18—2017[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2017:3-10.
[15] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.工作场所空气有毒物质测定第37部分:一氧化碳和二氧化碳:GBZ/T 300.37—2017[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2017:3-6.
[16] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第一部分:化学有害因素:GBZ 2.1—2019[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2020:4-31.
[17] 杨婵,聂志超,唐道冰,等.3种半定量风险评估方法和烧结砖瓦生产企业中的应用研究[J].职业与健康,2022,38(10):1297-1301.
[18] 徐秋凉,张美辩,邹华,等.六种常用职业健康风险评估模型在小型印刷企业中的定量比较[J].环境与职业医学,2020,37(2):131-137.
[19] 张美辨,唐仕川.职业健康风险评估方法学实践应用[M].北京:人民军医出版社,2016.
[20] 阮晓颖,傅红,张旭慧,等.半定量评估法在节能灯生产行业职业危害风险评估的应用[J].预防医学,2016,28(11):1114-1118.
[21] 韩丽芳,余晓峰,谢凯蕾,等.美国EPA吸入风险评估模型在荧光灯制造企业汞职业健康风险中的应用[J].预防医学,2017,29(6):625-628.
[22] 吴维权,柯伟奕,曾细嫦,等.深圳市电子行业企业中苯系物的职业健康风险评估[J].职业与健康,2022,38(11):1450-1454,1459.
[23] FANG T,MEIBIAN Z,LIFANG Z,et al.Qualitative and quantitative differences between common occupational health risk assessment models in typical industries[J].J Occup Health,2018,60(5):337-347.
[24] 叶伟平,毛革诗,梁娇君,等.5种职业健康风险评估法在公交维修保养公司油漆岗位的适用性研究[J].职业与健康,2022,38(11):1446-1449.
[25] 金蕾,唐天统.3种职业健康风险评估方法在海南省西部地区某燃煤发电企业的应用[J].职业与健康,2022,38(12):1590-1595.

某体温计制造企业职业健康风险评估研究

Study on occupational health risk assessment of a thermometer manufacturer

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	李勇, 周丹, 张宏, 陈浩, 杨冰. 4种风险评估法在采矿业矽尘职业健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(5): 582-586.
[2]	付秀影, 黄露, 杨娣, 汤德铭, 崔景茜, 段旭. 北京市东城区生活饮用水氯消毒副产物健康风险评估[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(3): 374-378.
[3]	时佳, 赵树海, 徐密娟, 张丽芳, 贾煜, 侯文胜. 4种职业健康风险评估方法在高原地区管道防腐企业粉尘接害岗位健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(2): 156-160.
[4]	赖宣丞, 邢坤, 聂宏骞, 黎承, 石慧. 海南省市售辣椒制品中真菌毒素膳食暴露风险评估[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(2): 184-188.
[5]	郑懿, 任莹, 刘雪芹, 王赤华, 王芬. 2020—2024年黄冈市饮用水11种金属及类金属分布特征及健康风险评估[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(1): 100-106.
[6]	黄琳. 2024年邵武市重点职业病监测及职业健康风险评估[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(1): 22-26.
[7]	金蕾, 陈玉珅, 李宾. 2024年海南省重点职业病危害接触人群健康状况及特征分析[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(1): 27-34.
[8]	赵永军, 张京战, 李菲, 刘添洪. 2023—2024年保定市部分放射工作人员职业健康现状及分析[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(1): 35-38.
[9]	刘朝发, 刘雪媛, 师杨, 卢清平, 张栗. 成都市汽车制造业企业中主要苯系物的职业健康风险评估[J]. 职业与健康, 2026, 42(1): 44-48.
[10]	王陆阳, 毕明丽, 王晓舜, 张晓军, 赵旭鹏, 丁晓文. 北京市某污水处理厂磷化氢暴露职业健康风险评估[J]. 职业与健康, 2025, 41(9): 1168-1172.
[11]	黄磊, 王安冬, 程荔, 王大宇. 天津市噪声作业工人职业健康检查结果分析[J]. 职业与健康, 2025, 41(9): 1261-1264.
[12]	李天娇. 2023年滕州市职业健康检查结果分析[J]. 职业与健康, 2025, 41(8): 1014-1018.
[13]	地力努尔·吐逊, 边洪英. 北京市10家印刷企业作业工人职业卫生相关知识知晓情况调查[J]. 职业与健康, 2025, 41(8): 1070-1073.
[14]	谢军, 肖超, 李德才. 2023年中江县第三产业5类职业人群职业健康素养监测及影响因素分析[J]. 职业与健康, 2025, 41(7): 930-935.
[15]	范小猛, 冯玉超, 张海, 苏艺伟, 王致, 林婧舒. 不同职业健康风险评估方法在地埋式污水处理厂的应用研究[J]. 职业与健康, 2025, 41(6): 731-735.