| 职业噪声暴露之不同评估方法的差异性及影响因素分析 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 唐颖,陈飚,张霞,宁勇,徐毅,陈春晖,陈健.职业噪声暴露之不同评估方法的差异性及影响因素分析[J].职业卫生与应急救援,2022,40(6):641-644. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 唐颖 陈飚 张霞 宁勇 徐毅 陈春晖 陈健 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1.上海市疾病预防控制中心, 上海 200336 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 2021年度上海市卫生健康地方标准预研制项目2021WB05;上海市卫生健康委员会监督所科研课题202015 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的 采用定点检测和个体检测评估职业噪声暴露水平,探究两种方法评估结果的差异原因。方法 根据GBZ/T 189.8—2007《工作场所物理因素测量第8部分:噪声》,对52家机械制造企业的290名工人分别采用定点检测和个体检测计算噪声8 h等效声级,进行噪声暴露评估。用配对样本t检验和配对χ2检验探究两种检测方法计算的噪声8 h等效声级及超标率是否存在差异,用配对样本t检验分析两种检测方法所得结果在不同工种和作业方式间是否存在差异,用独立样本t检验和线性混合效应模型探究两种检测方法所得结果差异性的影响因素。结果 290名工人基于定点检测的噪声8 h等效声级均值为83.5 dB(A),超标率为36.9%;基于个体检测的噪声8 h等效声级均值为85.9 d B(A),超标率为52.1%,个体检测的均值及超标率均高于定点检测(P <0.05)。按工种和作业方式分层后发现,车床工和电焊工的基于个体检测的噪声8 h等效声级均值均高于定点检测(P <0.05),固定作业的基于个体检测的噪声8 h等效声级均值高于定点检测(P <0.05),而流动作业的基于个体检测的噪声8 h等效声级均值低于定点检测(P=0.002)。线性混合效应模型结果显示,电焊工两种检测方法所得的噪声8 h等效声级的差值的均值比车床工高1.7 dB(A)(β=1.7,95%CI:0.4~3.0,P=0.012),流动作业工人两种检测方法所得的噪声8 h等效声级的差值的均值高于固定作业工人,但差异无统计学意义(β=0.7,95%CI:-1.1~2.5,P=0.452)。结论 定点检测和个体检测两种方法评估的职业噪声暴露结果存在差异,工种和作业方式对结果的差异性有影响。针对流动作业和电焊工的职业噪声暴露评估,建议采用个体检测。
|
| 关 键 词： | 职业噪声 暴露评估 个体检测 定点检测 差异性 |
| 收稿时间： | 2022-05-13 |
Analysis of the differences and influencing factors of occupational noise exposure level assessed by two different methods |
| |
| Abstract: | Objective To observe the difference of occupational noise exposure level calculated according to area sampling and individual sampling, in order to explore influencing factors between two methods. Methods According to the standard of GBZ/T 189.8-2007 Measurement of Physical Agents in Workplace Part 8: Noise, 8 hour equivalent sound level of 290 employees in 52 machinery manufacturing enterprises were measured by individual sampling and area sampling to assess noise exposure. Paired sample t test and paired χ2 test were used to compare the test results and non -compliance rate compared with national exposure limit of the two methods. Paired sample t test was used to analyze the differences between two results in different work types and operation modes. Independent sample t test and linear mixed effects model were used to explore the influencing factors of the differences between two results. Results The mean value of 8 h equivalent sound level based on area sampling of 290 workers was 83.5 dB (A) with non -compliance rate of 36.9%. The mean value of 8 h equivalent sound level based on individual sampling of 290 workers was 85.9 dB (A) with non-compliance rate of 52.1%. The mean value and non-compliance rate of 8 h equivalent sound level based on individual sampling were higher than that based on area sampling (P < 0.05). Stratified by work type and operation mode, the mean value of 8 h equivalent sound level of lathe workers and welders based on individual sampling was higher than that based on area sampling (P < 0.05). The mean value of 8 h equivalent sound level of workers with fixed operation based on individual sampling was higher than that based on area sampling(P < 0.05), while the mean value of 8 h equivalent sound level of workers with mobile operation based on individual sampling was lower than that based on area sampling(P=0.002). The results of the linear mixed effect model showed that the mean value of the difference between two results of welders was 1.7 dB(A) higher than that of lathe workers(β=1.7, 95%CI: 0.4-3.0, P=0.012). The mean value of the difference between two results of workers with mobile operation was higher than workers with fixed operation, but the difference was not statistically significant (β=0.7, 95%CI: -1.1-2.5, P=0.452). Conclusions There are differences in occupational noise exposure assessment results between area sampling and individual sampling. Work type and operation mode could affect the differences of two results. Individual sampling should be recommended for the occupational noise exposure assessment in welders with mobile operation. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 维普 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《职业卫生与应急救援》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《职业卫生与应急救援》下载全文 |
|
