论文部分内容阅读
[目的]通过建立粉尘作业者呼吸防护用品现场使用情况的评价方法,分析呼吸防护用品使用中的不足,以及对尘肺发病的影响,为尘肺的预防与控制工作提供依据。[方法]根据GB/T 18664—2002《呼吸防护用品的选择、使用与维护》和GB 2626—2006《呼吸防护用品自吸过滤式防颗粒物呼吸器》的有关内容确定各要素,建立个体呼吸防护用品使用综合评价方法,应用问卷调查与现场调查的方法,对上海某企业,3个车间243名接触粉尘作业者的呼吸防护用品使用情况进行调查和评价。[结果]所调查企业未制定和实施呼吸保护计划,呼吸防护用品的选择类型和呼吸防护用品的月均发放数达标率分别仅为43.21%和21.49%,而呼吸防护用品佩戴率的达标率为84.36%;全企业呼吸防护基本合格率为19.34%,不合格率为80.66%。高千伏胸片显示尘肺或观察对象组的呼吸防护基本合格率明显低于对照组(P<0.05),OR=8.66,95%CI:1.059~70.735;呼吸防护不合格是“尘肺或观察对象”的危险因素。[结论]正确规范地使用合格的呼吸防护用品是粉尘作业者有效的防护措施之一。
[Objective] The purpose of this study was to establish a method for field use of respiratory protective equipment for dust operators, analyze the shortcomings in the use of respiratory protective equipment and its impact on the incidence of pneumoconiosis, and provide the basis for the prevention and control of pneumoconiosis. [Methods] According to GB / T 18664-2002 “Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment” and GB 2626-2006 “Respiratory protective equipment self-absorption filter particulate respirator respirator” to determine the relevant elements of the establishment of individual respiratory protection The article uses the comprehensive evaluation method to investigate and evaluate the use of respiratory protection articles by 243 contact dust workers in a certain enterprise in Shanghai and 3 workshops using questionnaires and on-site investigations. [Results] The surveyed enterprises did not formulate and implement respiratory protection plan, the selection type of respiratory protective articles and the average monthly issued rate of respiratory protection articles were only 43.21% and 21.49%, while the compliance rate of respiratory protective articles was 84.36%; the whole enterprise respiratory protection basic pass rate was 19.34%, the failure rate was 80.66%. The high pass-thoracic radiograph showed that the basic pass rate of respiratory protection in the pneumoconiosis or observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 8.66, 95% CI: 1.059 ~ 70.735). The respiratory protection failed was “pneumoconiosis or observation Object ”risk factors. [Conclusion] The proper and normal use of qualified respiratory protection products is one of the effective protective measures for dust operators.