首页 > 资讯 > 三种职业健康风险评估方法在汽车制造企业的应用与比较

三种职业健康风险评估方法在汽车制造企业的应用与比较

泰然健康网
2024-12-19 11:48

摘要:

背景

汽车制造行业职业病危害因素复杂多样，劳动者职业健康风险较大。

目的

探讨能准确反映汽车制造企业作业场所风险水平的方法，指导企业进行风险管理。

方法

采用综合指数法、国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评估法（ICMM法）和风险指数法对湖南省3家汽车制造企业的电焊、打磨、喷漆等主要职业病危害因素接触岗位进行风险评估，用Kappa一致性检验三种评估方法的分级结果，用近三年的职业健康体检复查和禁忌证检出情况对评估结果进行验证。

结果

综合指数法评估结果显示：A、B企业各岗位危害因素评估为2~3级，其中A企业二氧化氮为3级，B企业电焊烟尘、二氧化氮、甲醛均为3级；C企业各岗位危害因素为2~4级，C企业的二氧化氮、苯为4级，电焊烟尘、锰及其化合物、砂轮磨尘、二甲苯为3级。ICMM定量法评估各企业危害因素评估为2级和5级，其中A企业的锰及其化合物为5级，C企业的电焊烟尘、砂轮磨尘、苯系物为5级。风险指数法评估各企业危害因素评估为1~4级，其中A、B企业锰及其化合物均为3级，C企业锰及其化合物、苯均为4级。综合指数法与ICMM法、风险指数法的Kappa值分别为0.084（P＞0.05）和−0.046（P＞0.05），ICMM法与风险指数法的Kappa值为0.014（P＞0.05），一致性均较差。将职业健康监护结果与评估结果进行比较，A企业发现锰作业职业禁忌证和发锰超标各1人，但综合指数法对A企业锰及其化合物作业的风险评估为低风险，结果偏保守；ICMM识别出的关键岗位与体检结果一致，但评估等级均为极高风险，结果过于严格；C企业电焊岗位发现电焊烟尘作业禁忌证1人、打磨岗位发现重度混合型肺通气功能障碍2人，各企业焊接、打磨均发现轻、中度肺通气功能障碍多发，而风险指数法对电焊烟尘、砂轮磨尘作业的评估结果均为可忽略风险，与体检结果不符。

结论

综合指数法、ICMM法、风险指数法均能基本识别出职业病危害严重岗位，但具有一定的局限性和适用性。综合来看，综合指数法其评估结果与职业健康监护结果一致性更好，考虑较为全面、客观，更适合汽车制造企业的风险评估。

Abstract:

Background

The complex and diverse occupational disease hazards in automobile manufacturing industry pose high occupational health risks to workers.

Objective

To explore the methods that can accurately reflect the workplace health risk grade of automobile manufacturing enterprises, and to guide enterprises to practice risk classification management.

Methods

Comprehensive index method, International Commission on Mining and Metals occupational health risk assessment method (ICMM method), and risk index method were used toassess health risks of occupational disease hazards in major workstations such as welding, polishing, and painting in three automobile manufacturing enterprises in Hunan Province. Kappa consistency test was used to test the grading results of the three assessment methods. The re-examine results and detection rate of contraindications of occupational health examinations in the past three years were used to verify the assessment results.

Results

The results of comprehensive index method showed that the hazards of each selected workstation in enterprises A and B were evaluated as grade 2-3, among which NO2 in enterprise A was grade 3, and welding fume, NO2, and formaldehyde in enterprise B were all grade 3. The hazards of each selected workstation in enterprise C were grade 3-4, among which NO2 and benzene in were grade 4, and welding fume, manganese and its compounds, grinding wheel dust, and xylene were grade 3. The hazards evaluated by ICMM quantitative method were grade 2 and grade 5, among which manganese and its compounds in enterprise A and welding fume, grinding wheel dust, and benzene series in enterprise C were graded as grade 5. The hazards evaluated by risk index method were grade 1-4, among which manganese and its compounds in enterprises A and B were grade 3, and manganese and its compounds and benzene in enterprise C were grade 4. The Kappa value between comprehensive index method and ICMM method was 0.084 (P>0.05), that between comprehensive index method and risk index method was −0.046 (P>0.05), and that between ICMM method and risk index method was 0.014 (P>0.05), indicating poor consistency. By comparing the results of occupational health surveillance with the results of occupational health risk assessment, one worker was found to have occupational contraindication of manganese exposure and 1 worker was found to have excessive manganese in hair in enterprise A. However, the comprehensive index method graded low risk for manganese and its compounds in enterprise A and the result is conservative. The key workstations identified by ICMM method were consistent with the occupational health examination results, but the assessment grades were all extremely high risk, and the results were too strict. One worker was found to be contraindicated to welding fumes, and 2 polishers were found to have severe mixed pulmonary ventilation dysfunction in enterprise C. Mild and moderate pulmonary ventilation dysfunction was found to be common in welding and polishing workstations in each enterprise. The assessment results of welding fumes and grinding wheel dust by the risk index method were negligible risks, which were inconsistent with the occupational health examination results.

Conclusion

The comprehensive index method, ICMM method, and risk index method can basically identify workstations with serious occupational hazards, but they have certain limitations and applicability. In general, the evaluation results of the comprehensive index method were generates more consistent with the results with occupational health surveillance than the other two methods, is more comprehensive and objective in consideration, and is more suitable for health risk assessment of automobile manufacturing enterprises.

表 1 职业卫生调查及检测结果

Table 1 Occupational health survey and test results

企业
(Enterprise)岗位
(Workstation)劳动定员
(Manpower quota)日接触时间/h
(Daily
exposure
hours)危害因素
(Hazard)检测岗位数
(Detected position)检测浓度/
(mg·m−3)
(Concentration)职业接触限值/(mg·m−3)
(Occupational
exposure limits)工程防护措施
(Engineering protection
measure)个体防护措施
(Personal protective
measure) A企业(A enterprise)点焊(Spot welding)1507.5电焊烟尘(Welding fume)170.5~1.04全室通风+移动除尘器
(General ventilation+mobile dust collector)防尘毒半面罩(Dust-proof half-face mask)二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)30.25同上同上MIG焊/MAG焊(MIG welding/MAG welding)1247.5电焊烟尘(Welding fume)270.5~1.44全室通风+上吸罩或移动除尘器(General ventilation+upper suction hood or mobile dust collector)防尘毒半面罩(Dust-proof half-face mask)锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds)21＜0.004~0.0240.15同上同上二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)130.25同上同上打磨(Polishing)1147.5砂轮磨尘(Grinding wheel dust)130.4~1.68全室通风+移动除尘器(General ventilation+mobile dust collector)防尘口罩(Dust mask)喷漆(Spraying)227.5二甲苯(Xylene)2＜3.350全室通风及岗位送风系统+每个喷漆房各设有一套单独漆雾净化系统(General ventilation and local air supply system+a separate paint mist purification system in each painting room)防毒面罩、防护服(Gas mask, protective clothing)乙苯(Ethyl benzene)2＜1.3100同上同上乙酸丁酯(Butyl acetate)2＜0.3200同上同上丁醇(Butyl alcohol)2＜0.2100同上同上丙醇(n-Propyl alcohol)2＜0.6200同上同上B企业(B enterprise)点焊(Spot welding)3037.5电焊烟尘(Welding fume)210.4~1.74全室通风+局部通风除尘设施(General ventilation+local ventilation with dust removal facilities)防尘毒半面罩(Dust-proof half-face mask)二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)20.095同上同上二氧化碳气体保护焊(Carbon dioxide arc welding)387.5电焊烟尘(Welding fume)90.2~1.14全室通风+局部通风除尘设施(General ventilation+local ventilation with dust removal facilities)防尘毒半面罩(Dust-proof half-face mask)锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds)7<0.004~0.0130.15同上同上二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)40.008~0.15同上同上打磨(Polishing)347.5砂轮磨尘(Grinding wheel dust)30.4~0.68全室通风+局部通风除尘设施(General ventilation+local ventilation with dust removal facilities)防尘口罩(Dust mask)喷漆(Spraying)327.5甲苯(Toluene)3<1.250通风净化处理装置+水旋式洗涤器吸收漆雾(Ventilation with purification treatmente+water rotary scrubber to absorb paint mist)防毒面罩、防护服(Gas mask, protective clothing)二甲苯(Xylene)3<3.350同上同上乙酸乙酯(Ethyl acetate)3<0.3200同上同上乙酸丁酯(Butyl acetate)3<0.3200同上同上甲醇(Methyl alcohol)3<1.325同上同上异丙醇(Isopropyl alcohol)3<0.7350同上同上甲醛(Formalde)3<0.070.5同上同上丙酮(Acetone)3<0.5300同上同上C企业(C enterprise)点焊(Spot welding)1437.5电焊烟尘(Welding fume)20.24移动式通风除尘设施(Mobile ventilation with dust removal facilities)防尘毒半面罩(Dust-proof half-face mask)二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)20.02~0.035同上同上二氧化碳气体保护焊(Carbon dioxide arc welding)827.5电焊烟尘(Welding fume)100.2~0.74移动式通风除尘设施(Mobile ventilation with dust removal facilities)防尘毒半面罩(Dust-proof half-face mask)锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds)10＜0.007~0.0080.15同上同上二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)60.1~0.25同上同上打磨((Polishing)377.5砂轮磨尘(Grinding wheel dust)60.4~1.68移动式通风除尘设施(Mobile ventilation with dust removal facilities)防尘口罩(Dust mask)喷漆(Spraying)697.5苯(Benzene)80.3~1.16通风排毒系统(Ventilation with detoxification system)防毒面罩、防护服(Gas mask, protective clothing)甲苯(Toluene)8＜0.3~4.850同上同上二甲苯(Xylene)8＜0.3~26.750同上同上乙酸乙酯(Ethyl acetate)8＜0.3200同上同上乙酸丁酯(Butyl acetate)8＜0.3200同上同上丁醇(Butyl alcohol)8＜0.2100同上同上

表 2 3种职业健康风险评估方法的结果

Table 2 Results of three occupational health risk assessment methods

企业
(Enterprise)岗位
(Workstation)危害因素
(Hazard)综合指数法
(Comprehensive
index method)ICMM法
(International Council
on Mining and
Metals model)风险指数法
(Risk index
method)HRERR风险等级
(Risk
grade)CPrEPeEUR风险等级
(Risk
grade)健康效应
(Health
effect)接触水平
(Level of
exposure)作业条件
(Operating
condition)RR风险等级
(Risk
grade) A企业(A enterprise)点焊(Spot welding)电焊烟尘(Welding fume)31.95221310130211.142.592.951二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)51.80331310130221.032.595.331MIG焊/MAG焊(MIG welding/MAG welding)电焊烟尘(Welding fume)31.95221310130211.162.593.001锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds)22.0422153101450581.042.5921.503二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)51.80331310130221.032.595.331打磨(Polishing)砂轮磨尘(Grinding wheel dust)31.95221310130211.082.592.791喷漆(Spraying)二甲苯(Xylene)31.90221310130221.002.635.261乙苯(Ethyl benzene)31.84221310130221.002.635.261乙酸丁酯(Butyl acetate)21.90221310130211.002.632.631丁醇(Butyl alcohol)21.84221310130211.002.632.631丙醇(n-Propyl alcohol)21.90221310130221.002.635.261B企业(B enterprise)点焊(Spot welding)电焊烟尘(Welding fume)32.10331310130211.142.592.951二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)51.95331310130221.032.595.331二氧化碳气体保护焊(Carbon dioxide arc welding)电焊烟尘(Welding fume)32.10331310130211.092.592.831锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds)21.95221310130281.052.5921.703二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)51.95331310130221.012.595.251打磨(Polishing)砂轮磨尘(Grinding wheel dust)31.95221310130211.052.592.711喷漆(Spraying)甲苯(Toluene)22.05221310130221.002.635.261二甲苯(Xylene)32.05221310130221.002.635.261乙酸乙酯(Ethyl acetate)22.10221310130211.002.632.631乙酸丁酯(Butyl acetate)22.05221310130211.002.632.631甲醇(Methyl alcohol)22.10221310130221.002.635.261异丙醇(Isopropyl alcohol)22.05221310130221.002.635.261甲醛(Formalde)51.89331310130241.002.6310.532丙酮(Acetone)22.10221310130211.002.632.631C企业(C enterprise)点焊(Spot welding)电焊烟尘(Welding fume)32.81331310130211.043.313.431二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)52.81441310130221.033.316.812二氧化碳气体保护焊(Carbon dioxide arc welding)电焊烟尘(Welding fume)32.8133153101450511.063.313.501锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds)23.17331310130281.053.3127.734二氧化氮(Nitrogen dioxide)52.81441310130221.013.316.702打磨(Polishing)砂轮磨尘(Grinding wheel dust)33.0333153101450511.053.313.491喷漆(Spraying)苯(Benzene)53.1944153101450581.092.7824.344甲苯(Toluene)22.8622153101450521.012.785.641二甲苯(Xylene)33.1933153101450521.082.785.991乙酸乙酯(Ethyl acetate)22.86221310130211.002.782.781乙酸丁酯(Butyl acetate)22.96221310130211.002.782.781丁醇(Butyl alcohol)22.94221310130211.002.782.781

表 3 职业健康风险评估结果验证

Table 3 Verification of occupational health risk assessment results

企业
(Enterprise)危害因素
(Hazard)风险等级
(Risk grade)体检人次
(No. of physical examinations)复查
(Re-examine)职业禁忌证
(Occupational contraindications) 综合指数法
(Composite index method)ICMM法
(ICMM method)风险指数法
(Risk index method)人数
(No. of cases)复查率/%
(Rate of
re-examine)/%人数
(No. of cases)检出率/%
(Positive rate)/% A企业(A enterprise) 锰及其无机化合物(Manganese and its compounds) 2 5 3 390 1 0.26 1 0.26 电焊烟尘(Welding fume) 2 2 1 578 4 0.69 0 0.00 其他粉尘(Other dust) 2 2 1 1446 24 4.15 0 0.00 苯系物(Benzene series) 2 2 1 412 11 2.67 0 0.00 B企业(B enterprise) 锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds) 2 2 3 104 0 0.00 0 0.00 电焊烟尘(Welding fume) 3 2 1 175 0 0.00 0 0.00 其他粉尘(Other dust) 2 2 1 154 1 0.65 0 0.00 苯系物(Benzene series) 2 2 1 376 4 1.06 0 0.00 C企业(C enterprise) 锰及其化合物(Manganese and its compounds) 3 2 4 88 1 1.13 0 0.00 电焊烟尘(Welding fume) 3 2~5 1 130 0 0.00 1 0.77 其他粉尘(Other dust) 3 5 1 1172 12 1.02 0 0.00 苯系物(Benzene series) 2~4 5 1~4 1700 60 3.53 3 0.18 [1] 路艳艳, 柴剑荣, 徐承敏, 等. 杭州市新建汽车整车制造项目职业病危害控制效果[J]. 职业与健康, 2017, 33(15): 2029-2033. doi: 10.13329/j.cnki.zyyjk.2017.0613

LU Y Y, CHAI J R, XU C M, et al. Control effect of occupational hazards in new automobile manufacturing project of Hangzhou City[J]. Occup Health, 2017, 33(15): 2029-2033. doi: 10.13329/j.cnki.zyyjk.2017.0613

[2]

WANG T S, SONG B, SUN Q H, et al. Occupational health risk assessment of benzene, toluene, and xylene in Shanghai[J]. Biomed Environ Sci, 2021, 34(4): 290-298.

[3] 苏艺伟, 李艳华, 郭尧平, 等. 2017年广州市某汽车厂职业病危害因素及职工健康状况[J]. 职业与健康, 2018, 34(17): 2310-2313,2317. doi: 10.13329/j.cnki.zyyjk.2018.0646

SU Y W, LI Y H, GUO Y P, et al. Occupational hazards and workers' health status of an automobile manufacturing factory in Guangzhou City in 2017[J]. Occup Health, 2018, 34(17): 2310-2313,2317. doi: 10.13329/j.cnki.zyyjk.2018.0646

[4]

JAROLIMEK J, URBAN P, PAVLÍNEK P, et al. Occupational diseases in the automotive industry in Czechia - Geographic and medical context[J]. Int J Occup Med Environ Health, 2017, 30(3): 455-468.

[5] 门金龙, 门敬尧, 张玉君, 等. 山东省20家汽车制造企业职业病危害现况调查[J]. 中华劳动卫生职业病杂志, 2021, 39(3): 198-202. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20200509-00245

MEN J L, MEN J Y, ZHANG Y J, et al. Investigation on occupational hazards in 20 automobile manufacturing enterprises in Shandong Province[J]. Chin J Ind Hyg Occup Dis, 2021, 39(3): 198-202. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20200509-00245

[6] 李天正, 管有志, 陈浩, 等. 四种风险评估模型在陶瓷生产企业工作场所矽尘危害风险评估中的应用和比较[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(2): 138-143. doi: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19558

LI T Z, GUAN Y Z, CHEN H, et al. Risk assessment of workplace silica dust hazard in ceramic manufacturing enterprises: a comparison study of four risk assessment models[J]. J Environ Occup Med, 2020, 37(2): 138-143. doi: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19558

[7] 许振国, 张敏红, 刘莉莉, 等. 加油站苯接触岗位职业健康风险评估[J]. 中国职业医学, 2018, 45(6): 762-765.

XU Z G, ZHANG M H, LIU L L, et al. Occupational health risk assessment for benzene-exposed posts at gas stations[J]. China Occup Med, 2018, 45(6): 762-765.

[8]

CAI Y, LI F, ZHANG J, et al. Occupational health risk assessment in the electronics industry in China based on the occupational classification method and EPA model[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2018, 15(10): 2061. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102061

[9] 金蕾, 李宾, 王龙义, 等. 海南省某燃煤发电企业职业健康风险综合评估[J]. 职业与健康, 2021, 37(21): 2885-2890.

JIN L, LI B, WANG L Y, et al. Comprehensive risk assessment on occupational hazards of a coal-fired power generation enterprise in Hainan Province[J]. Occup Health, 2021, 37(21): 2885-2890.

[10] 何金铜, 尹强兵, 廖春华, 等. 不同半定量风险评估方法在发电厂氨与联氨岗位职业健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 中国工业医学杂志, 2022, 35(3): 268-270.

HE J T, YIN Q B, LIAO C H, et al. Comparison of different semi quantitative risk assessment methods applied in ammonia and hydrazine posts of power plants[J]. Chin J Ind Med, 2022, 35(3): 268-270.

[11] 周莉芳, 张美辨. 职业健康风险评估方法学研究进展[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(2): 125-130. doi: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19509

ZHOU L F, ZHANG M B. Research progress on occupational health risk assessment methodology[J]. J Environ Occup Med, 2020, 37(2): 125-130. doi: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19509

[12]

CHALAK M H, BAHRAMIAZAR G, RASAEE J, et al. Occupational health risk assessment at healthcare institutions: developing a semi-quantitative risk method[J]. Int J Risk Saf Med, 2021, 32(4): 265-278. doi: 10.3233/JRS-200048

[13] 丘海丽, 李天正, 香映平, 等. 深圳市某大型集成电路制造企业中3种职业健康风险评估方法的应用[J]. 职业与健康, 2021, 37(12): 1603-1608.

QIU H L, LI T Z, XIANG Y P, et al. Application of three occupational health risk assessment methods in a large-scale integrated circuit manufacturing enterprise in Shenzhen City[J]. Occup Health, 2021, 37(12): 1603-1608.

[14] 刘静容, 梁娇君, 毛革诗, 等. 半定量与定量模型在光纤制造企业风险评估的比较研究[J]. 公共卫生与预防医学, 2022, 33(4): 41-44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-2483.2022.04.010

LIU J R, LIANG J J, MAO G S, et al. A comparative study of semi-quantitative and quantitative models in risk assessment of optical fiber manufacturing enterprises[J]. J Public Health Prev Med, 2022, 33(4): 41-44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-2483.2022.04.010

[15] 邱奕冰, 边寰锋, 林佰敏, 等. ICMM评估模型在某金属表面处理企业职业健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 职业与健康, 2021, 37(1): 20-23. doi: 10.13329/j.cnki.zyyjk.2021.0004

QIU Y B, BIAN H F, LIN B M, et al. Application of ICMM assessment model in occupational health risk assessment of a metal surface treatment enterprise[J]. Occup Health, 2021, 37(1): 20-23. doi: 10.13329/j.cnki.zyyjk.2021.0004

[16] 林嗣豪, 王治明, 唐文娟, 等. 职业危害风险指数评估方法的初步研究[J]. 中华劳动卫生职业病杂志, 2006, 24(12): 769-771. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-9391.2006.12.022

LIN S H, WANG Z M, TANG W J, et al. A methodological study on occupational hazard risk index[J]. Chin J Ind Hyg Occup Dis, 2006, 24(12): 769-771. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-9391.2006.12.022

[17] 叶伟平, 张成, 梁娇君, 等. 三种半定量职业健康风险评估方法在汽车整车制造业中的应用[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2020, 37(2): 150-156. doi: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19596

YE W P, ZHANG C, LIANG J J, et al. Application of three semi-quantitative occupational health risk assessment methods in automobile manufacturing enterprises[J]. J Environ Occup Med, 2020, 37(2): 150-156. doi: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2020.19596

[18] 丁俊, 苏世标, 靳雅丽, 等. 家具生产企业有机溶剂的三种健康风险评估方法比较[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(4): 400-404. doi: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2019.04.019

DING J, SU S B, JIN Y Y, et al. Application research of three health risk assessment methods to organic solvents in a furniture manufacturing enterprise[J]. Prev Med, 2019, 31(4): 400-404. doi: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2019.04.019

[19] 朱晓玲, 香映平, 周伟, 等. 2种风险评估方法评估深圳市二氯甲烷重点行业职业健康风险比较[J]. 中国职业医学, 2020, 47(6): 691-694,700.

ZHU X L, XIANG Y P, ZHOU W, et al. Comparison of two risk assessment methods to assess occupational health risk in key industries of dichloromethane in Shenzhen City[J]. China Occup Med, 2020, 47(6): 691-694,700.

[20] 叶伟平, 毛革诗, 梁娇君, 等. 5种职业健康风险评估法在公交维修保养公司油漆岗位的适用性研究[J]. 职业与健康, 2022, 38(11): 1446-1449. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1257.2022.11.zyyjk202211002

YE W P, MAO G S, LIANG J J, et al. Study on applicability of five occupational health risk assessment methods in paint position of bus maintenance company[J]. Occup Health, 2022, 38(11): 1446-1449. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1257.2022.11.zyyjk202211002

[21] 柯伟奕, 吴维权, 曾细嫦, 等. 3种职业健康风险评估方法评估深圳市电子企业苯系物风险的比较[J]. 职业与健康, 2022, 38(15): 2026-2031. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1257.2022.15.zyyjk202215003

KE W Y, WU W Q, ZENG X C, et al. Comparison of three occupational health risk assessment methods to evaluate risk of benzene series in electronic enterprises in Shenzhen City[J]. Occup Health, 2022, 38(15): 2026-2031. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1257.2022.15.zyyjk202215003

[22] 林超, 沈登辉. 某市汽车制造业粉尘职业接触调查与健康风险评价[J]. 工业卫生与职业病, 2022, 48(3): 195-198.

LIN C, SHEN D H. Investigation on occupational hazards and health risk assessment of dust in automobile manufacturing industry in of a city[J]. Ind Health Occup Dis, 2022, 48(3): 195-198.