Chen H F, Yao Z H, Yan X H, Zhao L, Wang S, Lin J, Huang H L
Guangdong Province Hospital for Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Occupational Diseases Prevention and Treatment, Guangzhou 510300, China.
Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2017 Feb 20;35(2):130-133. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-9391.2017.02.012.
To apply and compare two risk assessment methods for occupational lead exposure risk classification in a lead-acid battery enterprise. In April 2013, an occupational health survey was carried out in a lead-acid battery enterprise. Lead smoke and lead dust were tested in the workplace. The risk assessment index system for occupational chemical hazards that was established and optimized by the research group (referred to as "optimized index system" ) , as well as the Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model, was used for occupational lead exposure risk classification in the lead-acid battery enterprise. The two risk classification results were analyzed and compared. In the lead smoke risk classification results, the optimized index system classified the raw material group and foundry group workshops as Class I hazardous and the assembling group workshop as Class II hazardous. The Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model classified the raw material group workshop as high risk and foundry group and assembling group workshops as extremely high risk. In the lead dust risk classification results, the optimized index system classified the raw material group workshop as Class I hazardous, while the plate painting group, plate cutting group, and assembling group workshops were classified as Class II hazardous. The Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model classified the raw material group workshop as medium risk, the plate painting group and plate cutting group workshops as high risk, and the assembling group workshop as extremely high risk. There are some differences in risk assessment of occupational lead exposure between the two risk assessment methods. The optimized index system is comparably more reasonable and feasible, and is highly operable.
应用并比较两种职业性铅暴露风险评估方法，对一家铅酸蓄电池企业进行职业性铅暴露风险分级。2013年4月，对一家铅酸蓄电池企业开展了职业健康调查。对工作场所的铅烟和铅尘进行了检测。采用研究组建立并优化的职业性化学有害因素风险评估指标体系（以下简称“优化指标体系”）以及新加坡半定量风险评估模型，对该铅酸蓄电池企业的职业性铅暴露风险进行分级。对两种风险分级结果进行分析比较。在铅烟风险分级结果中，优化指标体系将原料组和铸造组车间列为Ⅰ级危害，装配组车间列为Ⅱ级危害。新加坡半定量风险评估模型将原料组车间列为高风险，铸造组和装配组车间列为极高风险。在铅尘风险分级结果中，优化指标体系将原料组车间列为Ⅰ级危害，而极板涂漆组、极板切割组和装配组车间列为Ⅱ级危害。新加坡半定量风险评估模型将原料组车间列为中度风险，极板涂漆组和极板切割组车间列为高风险，装配组车间列为极高风险。两种风险评估方法在职业性铅暴露风险评估方面存在一些差异。优化指标体系相对更合理可行，且具有较高的可操作性。
