三种风险评估模型在二甲基甲酰胺职业健康风险评估中的应用

Application of three risk assessment models in occupational health risk assessment of dimethylformamide

目的利用美国环境保护署（EPA）吸入风险评估模型、新加坡半定量风险评估模型和职业危害风险评估指数法评估江苏某地区二甲基甲酰胺（DMF）使用企业的职业健康风险，探索适合DMF的风险评估模型，并提出相应的风险控制措施。方法以江苏DMF使用企业为对象，于2013年进行职业卫生现场调查，分别利用上述3种风险评估模型评估DMF的职业健康风险。EPA吸入风险评估模型的非致癌风险值（危害商数，HQ）=暴露浓度（EC）／吸入毒性参考值（RfC）；新加坡半定量风险评估模型的风险指数（Risk）=[危害等级（HR）×暴露等级（ER）]1/2；职业危害风险评估指数等级=2^健康效应等级×2^暴露比值×作业条件等级。结果EPA吸入风险评估模型评估DMF使用企业所有车间（干法、湿法、印刷）和岗位（涂台、配料、放卷、收卷、辅助）的HQ均超过1（高风险）；新加坡半定量风险评估模型评估干法、湿法和印刷车间风险等级分别为3．5（高风险）、3．5（高风险）和2．8（一般风险），涂台、配料、放卷、收卷和辅助岗位的风险等级分别为4．0（高风险）、4．0（高风险）、2．8（一般风险）、2．8（一般风险）和2．8（一般风险）；职业危害风险评估指数法评估涂台、配料、收卷、放卷和辅助岗位的风险指数分别为42（高度危害）、33（高度危害）、23（中度危害）、21（中度危害）和22（中度危害）。新加坡半定量风险评估模型和职业危害风险评估指数法的评估结果比较一致，干法、湿法车间以及涂台、配料岗位属于高风险，印刷车间和收卷、放卷、辅助岗位属于一般风险；而EPA吸入风险评估模型对所有车间和岗位的风险判定均为高风险。结论职业危害风险评估指数法综合考虑了健康效应、暴露情况和作业条件，能够更加全面、准确的评估DMF引发的职业健康风险。

Objective To investigate the application of United States Environmental Protection Agency （EPA） inhalation risk assessment model, Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model, and occupational hazards risk assessment index method in occupational health risk in enterprises using dimethylformamide （DMF） in a certain area in Jiangsu, China, and to put forward related risk control measures. Methods The industries involving DMF exposure in Jiangsu province were chosen as the evaluation objects in 2013 and three risk assessment models were used in the evaluation. EPA inhalation risk assessment model： HQ=EC/RfC; Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model： Risk =（HR ×ER）^1/2; Occupational hazards risk assessment index = 2health effect level×2^exposure ratio×Operation condition level. Results The results of hazard quotient （HQ〉1） from EPA inhalation risk assessment model suggested that all the workshops （dry method, wet method and printing） and work positions （pasting, burdening, unreeling, rolling, assisting） were high risk. The results of Singapore semiquantitative risk assessment model indicated that the workshop risk level of dry method, wet method and printing were 3.5 （high）, 3.5 （high） and 2.8 （general）, and position risk level of pasting, burdening, unreeling, rolling, assisting were 4 （high）, 4 （high）, 2.8 （general）, 2.8 （general） and 2.8 （general）. The results of occupational hazards risk assessment index method demonstrated that the position risk index of pasting, burdening, unreeling, rolling, assisting were 42 （high）, 33 （high）, 23 （middle）, 21 （middle） and 22 （middle）. The results of Singapore semi-quantitative risk assessment model and occupational hazards risk assessment index method were similar, while EPA inhalation risk assessment model indicated all the workshops and positions were high risk. Conclusion The occupational hazards risk assessment index method fully considers health effects,exposure, and operating conditions and can comprehensively and accurately evaluate occupational health risk caused by DMF.