论文部分内容阅读
目的分析某铅酸蓄电池企业引进国外极板生产线进行生产工艺改造后铅和噪声危害状况。方法以某引进国外极板生产线(调查组)和某传统极板生产线(对照组)的铅酸蓄电池企业为调查对象,分别进行工作场所职业病危害因素检测、职业健康检查和职业病防护措施分析。结果调查组工作场所铅烟和铅尘水平超标率均低于对照组(13.6%vs 71.0%,19.2%vs 72.3%,P<0.01),调查组作业工人尿铅水平超标率低于对照组(15.6%vs37.5%,P<0.05)。调查组和对照组工作场所噪声强度超标率差异无统计学意义(38.9%vs 43.5%,P>0.05)),调查组和对照组作业工人听力损失率、双耳高频平均听阈≥40 d BHL和较好耳语频平均听阈≥26 d BHL检出率差异均无统计学意义(43.8%vs 37.5%,9.4%vs 12.5%,3.1%vs 5.4%,P>0.05)。结论极板生产线改造有利于铅职业病危害的防治控制,但对于噪声职业病危害的防治控制并无明显优势。
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the lead and noise hazards of a lead-acid battery enterprise after its introduction of foreign plate production line. Methods A lead-acid battery enterprise, which introduced foreign plate production line (investigation group) and a traditional plate production line (control group), was used to conduct workplace occupational hazards testing, occupational health check and occupational disease protection measures. Results The levels of lead and lead dust in the surveyed workplaces were higher than those in the control group (13.6% vs 71.0%, 19.2% vs 72.3%, P <0.01). The excess urinary lead levels in workers in the survey group were lower than those in the control group 15.6% vs37.5%, P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups (38.9% vs 43.5%, P> 0.05). The hearing loss rate of workers in the survey group and the control group were higher than the average hearing threshold of both ears ≥40 d BHL There was no significant difference in the detection rate of BHL between the two groups (43.8% vs 37.5%, 9.4% vs 12.5%, 3.1% vs 5.4%, P> 0.05). Conclusion The transformation of plate production line is conducive to the prevention and control of lead occupational hazards, but there is no obvious advantage for the prevention and control of noise occupational hazards.