陈喆, 徐洪青. 化学有害因素职业健康风险评估在企业安全风险分级管控中的应用[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2020, 38(1): 35-40. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2020.01.008
引用本文: 陈喆, 徐洪青. 化学有害因素职业健康风险评估在企业安全风险分级管控中的应用[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2020, 38(1): 35-40. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2020.01.008
CHEN Zhe, XU Hongqing. Application of occupational health risk assessment in the management and control of safety risk of chemical hazards[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2020, 38(1): 35-40. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2020.01.008
Citation: CHEN Zhe, XU Hongqing. Application of occupational health risk assessment in the management and control of safety risk of chemical hazards[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2020, 38(1): 35-40. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2020.01.008

化学有害因素职业健康风险评估在企业安全风险分级管控中的应用

Application of occupational health risk assessment in the management and control of safety risk of chemical hazards

  • 摘要:
    目的 选取一家汽车零部件制造企业的职业健康重点岗位作为研究对象,探索不同化学有害因素职业健康风险评估方法在企业安全风险分级管控中的应用。
    方法 分别选用接触比值法和综合指数法开展化学有害因素职业健康风险评估,并结合企业安全风险分级管控,将风险等级划分为ABCD四个等级。
    结果 通过接触比值法分析得到的涂装底漆巡检、涂装面漆巡检、塑料件表面补漆岗位安全风险等级为B级(较大风险);涂装清漆巡检、烘房手工补漆岗位为C级(一般风险),料架手工氩弧焊、调漆巡检、废水处理岗位为D(级低风险)。通过综合指数法分析得到的废水处理岗位安全风险等级为B级(较大风险);料架手工氩弧焊、塑料件表面补漆、烘房手工补漆岗位为C级(一般风险),其余岗位为D级(低风险)。
    结论 进行工作场所化学有害因素职业健康风险评估时,可优先选用综合指数法。但综合指数法在赋值时,存在一定的主观性,对开展具体评估工作的人员有一定专业性要求。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective The key positions in an auto parts manufacturing enterprise were studied, to explore the application of different occupational health risk assessments on chemical hazards in enterprise safety risk grading management.
    Methods Occupational health risk assessment in these key positions was done with the exposure ratio method or the comprehensive index method, and then the risk levels were divided into four levels (A, B, C and D) combined with the enterprise safety risk grading management and control.
    Results The results derived from exposure ratio method showed that the classification of risk level in the coating-primer inspection, the painting-topcoat inspection, the plastic surface refinishing was ranked as level-B (higher risk); the risk in the painting-varnish inspection and the manual refinishing in drying room was ranked as level-C (common risk); and the risk in the manual argon arc welding, the paint-mixing inspection, and the wastewater treatment was ranked as level-D (lower risk). The results derived from comprehensive index method showed that the classification of risk level in the wastewater treatment was ranked as level-B; the risk in the manual argon arc welding, the plastic surface refinishing and manual refinishing in drying room was ranked as level-C; and the risk in the other positions was ranked as level-D.
    Conclusion It seems that the results derived from comprehensive index method were more realistic. However, this work can only be done by qualified profession, since the value assignment of certain parameter is subjective.

     

/

返回文章
返回