Application of two occupational health risk assessment methods in enterprises with 1-bromopropane production and utilization
10.11763/j.issn.2095-2619.2021.04.007
- Author:
Yi ZHANG
1
;
Jing-wei XIAO
1
;
Zhong-sheng LI
1
;
Xiao CHEN
1
;
Wen-jian CAI
1
;
Hao FU
1
;
Jia-qi LÜ
1
;
Bin LI
1
Author Information
1. National Institude of Occupational Health and Poison Control,Chinese Center for Disease Control Beijing, 100050, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
1-Bromopropane;
Occupational health;
Risk assessment;
Quantitative method;
Semi-quantitative method
- From:
China Occupational Medicine
2021;48(04):397-401
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the applicability of two risk assessment methods for occupational health risk assessment in enterprises with 1-bromopropane(1-BP) production and utilization. METHODS: Three enterprises with 1-BP production and utilization were selected as the research subjects by a typical sampling method. The exposure concentration of time-weighted average of 1-BP-exposed in worker was detected. The non-carcinogenic health risk of 1-BP was assessed using the USA Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) inhalation risk(EPA assessment model) and the Ministry of Manpower of Singapore(MOM assessment model), and the results were compared. RESULTS: When the EPA method was used for the assessment, the risk assessment results of the four posts in the manufacturing enterprises were all negligible. In the enterprises that use 1-BP, the posts of cleaning machine B and clamping were of medium risk and the other four posts were of low risk based on the occupational exposure limit(OEL) in China used as the reference exposure concentration(RfC). When the 24-hour minimal risk level of USA Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry was used as the RfC, the posts of cleaning machine B and clamping were of extreme high risk; the posts in cleaning machine A and checking were of high risk; the post in the cleaning machine D was of medium risk and the post of cleaning machine C was of low risk. When the MOM assessment model was used for evaluation, the four posts were of low risk in the 1-BP production enterprises. In the enterprises that use 1-BP, the posts of cleaning machine B and clamping were of high risk; the posts of cleaning machine A, cleaning machine D and checking were of medium risk; and the post of cleaning machine C was of low risk. CONCLUSION: When the OEL value is used for risk assessment, the MOM assessment method is more suitable than the EPA assessment method to assess occupational health risks of 1-BP.
