两种风险评估方法在粉尘职业健康风险评估中的应用比较

  目的  比较两种风险评估方法对粉尘工作岗位职业健康风险评估的结果，探讨其适用性。
  方法  分别选取广州市某汽车制造企业、某家具制造企业和某煤码头生产过程中产生粉尘的典型岗位为研究对象，开展现场职业卫生调查、工作场所典型岗位粉尘浓度检测，应用国内《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）中推荐的半定量综合指数法和国际采矿与金属委员会定量职业健康风险评估法（ICMM定量法）分别对各企业粉尘岗位进行职业健康风险评估，并对两种方法的评估结果进行比较。
  结果  半定量综合指数法评估汽车制造企业二氧化碳焊岗位电焊烟尘、煤码头卸船、输送带巡检、堆料、清扫、装船岗位煤尘为低风险，汽车制造企业电阻焊岗位为中等风险，家具制造企业开料、铣边、开孔、水磨、加工岗位矽尘为高风险；ICMM定量法评估汽车制造企业焊接岗位电焊烟尘为潜在风险，煤码头卸船、输送带巡检、堆料、装船岗位煤尘为非常高风险，家具制造企业5个岗位及煤码头清扫岗位为不可容忍风险；ICMM定量法所得评估结果大部分高于半定量综合指数法。
  结论  两种评估方法均能在一定程度上评估和预测粉尘的职业健康风险。ICMM定量法评估结果更为严格；半定量综合指数法综合考虑了粉尘的健康效应、接触情况及防护措施，对粉尘所得的职业健康风险结果更为全面、准确。

Application and comparison of two risk assessment methods in workplaces with dust exposure

  Objective  Two risk assessment methods were used to assess occupational health risk of dust in various workplaces and the results were compared to explore the applicability.  Methods  The workplaces with dust exposure in an automobile manufacturing enterprise, a furniture manufacturing enterprise and a coal wharf in Guangzhou City were chosen as the study subjects and the field investigation and monitoring on dust in these workplaces were carried out. The semi-quantitative comprehensive index method recommended by "The guidelines for occupational health risk assessment of chemicals in the workplace(GBZ/T 298-2017) " and the quantitative method of the "International council on mining and metals"(ICMM) were used for occupational health risk assessment. The risk classification results of these two methods were compared and analyzed.  Results  The semi-quantitative comprehensive index method showed that the welding dust in the workplace of carbon-dioxide arc welding in automobile manufacturing enterprise was ranked as low, that the coal dusts in workplaces of loading and unloading, routing inspection, piling and taking and sweeping in coal wharf were ranked as low, that welding dust in workplace of resistance welding was rank as medium, and the dusts in the workplaces of cutting, edge milling, trepanning, levigation, processing in furniture manufacturing enterprises were ranked as high. The ICMM method showed that the welding dust in automobile manufacturing enterprise was ranked as potential risk, that the coal dusts in coal wharf were ranked as very high risk, and that dusts in furniture manufacturing enterprises were ranked as intolerable level. The evaluation results of ICMM quantitative method were mostly higher than those of semi-quantitative comprehensive index method.  Conclusion  Both methods can appropriately predict and assess the occupational health risk of dust. The comprehensive index method takes into account of the health effects, exposure conditions and operating conditions, and can comprehensively and accurately assess the occupational health risks caused by different dust.