期刊文献+

苏州某企业清洗防护板项目职业病危害控制效果评价 被引量:2

Evaluation on control effect of occupational hazards in cleaning protection board project of an enterprise in Suzhou City
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的调查苏州某企业清洗防护板过程可能产生和存在的职业病危害因素及其危害程度,评价其职业病防护设施的控制效果。方法采用职业卫生现场调查、职业卫生检测、职业健康检查等方法。结果该项目主要的职业病危害因素有硝酸、氟化氢、盐酸及氯化氢、氢氧化钾、氧化铝粉尘、铜尘及噪声。检测结果表明,化学因素均未超出职业卫生接触限值,其中硝酸时间加权平均(TWA)浓度为0.021-0.035 mg/m^3,短时间接触浓度(STEL)为0.205-0.315 mg/m^3;氟化氢Cmax为0.021mg/m^3;盐酸及氯化氢Cmax为0.8 mg/m^3;氢氧化钾Cmax为0.037 mg/m^3;氧化铝粉尘(个体粉尘)TWA浓度为0.1 mg/m^3,超限倍数为0.1倍;铜尘TWA浓度为0.014-0.118 mg/m^3,超限倍数为0.1-1.4倍。噪声检测合格率为70.6%,高压水枪冲洗岗位噪声8 h等效声级(LEX,8 h)为110.9-111.4 d B(A),人工熔射岗位LEX,8 h为97.2-97.4d B(A),喷砂岗位噪声为94.5-95.6 d B(A),均超出职业卫生接触限值。结论该项目部分岗位噪声超标化学危害因素控制效果较好,采取的职业病危害防护设施基本可行。 [Objective] To investigate the occupational hazard factors generated during cleaning protection board processes in an enterprise of Suzhou City, analyze the damage degree, and evaluate the control effect of occupational prevention facilities.[Methods] The field occupational health investigation, occupational health inspection and occupational health examination were adopted.[Results] The main occupational hazard factors were nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid, potassium hydroxide, aluminum oxide dust, copper dust and noise. Test results showed that the concentrations of chemical factors did not exceed the occupational exposure limits. The time weighted average concentration( TWA) and the short term exposure limit( STEL) of nitric acid was 0.021-0.035 mg/m^3 and 0.205-0.315 mg/m^3 respectively. The maximum concentration( Cmax) of hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid, and potassium hydroxide was 0.021 mg/m^3, 0.8 mg/m^3,and 0.037 mg/m^3, respectively. TWA of aluminum oxide dust( individual dust) was 0.1 mg/m^3, with the excursion limits of 0.1time, and TWA of copper dust was 0.014-0.118 mg/m^3, with the excursion limits of 0.1-1.4 times. The qualified rate of noise was70.6%. 8-hour equivalent sound pressure level( LEX, 8 h) in rinse post with water cannons, manual spraying post, and sandblasting post was respectively 110.9-111.4 d B( A), 97.2-97.4 d B( A) and 94.5-95.6 d B( A), which all exceeded the occupational exposure limit.[Conclusion] The noise intensity of some posts in this project exceeds the occupational exposure limit, while the control effect of chemical factors is satisfactory. The occupational prevention facilities are basically feasible.
出处 《职业与健康》 CAS 2015年第19期2597-2600,共4页 Occupation and Health
关键词 防护板 清洗 职业病危害 控制效果评价 Protection board Cleaning Occupational hazard Evaluation of control effect
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

  • 1中华人民共和国主席令[2011]52号.中华人民共和国职业病防治法[S].
  • 2GBZ/T197-2007,建设项目职业病危害控制效果评价技术导则[S].
  • 3GBZ1-2010,工业企业设计卫生标准[S].
  • 4全国个体防护装备标准化技术委员会.个体防护装备选用规范[S].GB/T 11651-2008,2009.
  • 5GBZ2.1-2007.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第1部分化学有害因素[S].
  • 6GBZ2.2-2007.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分物理因素[S].
  • 7王铁军.噪声对人体健康的危害及个体防护[J].工业安全与防尘,2000,26(4):40-42. 被引量:11

共引文献348

同被引文献29

引证文献2

二级引证文献4

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部