塑膠表面處理業職業暴露與健康風險評估

Occupational exposure and health risk assessment of plastic surface treatment industry

張淑娟(Shu-chuan Chang)

指導教授 ： 李崇德

國立中央大學/工學院/環境工程研究所碩士在職專班/碩士(2014年)

摘要

塑膠表面處理業的製程危害特性以化學性危害為主要，與危險物、有害物直接接觸會造成職業病。本研究針對塑膠表面處理業的W公司工作人員進行職業暴露評估，目的是了解塑膠表面處理業工作人員的暴露實態和健康風險。評估方式為初步危害分析、統計與相加效應評估、健康風險評估與化學品分級管理。
本研究化學品危害部分共有六個相似暴露群組，為塗裝三課調漆作業(SEG01)、塗裝三課擦拭作業(SEG02)、塗裝五課調漆作業(SEG03)、塗裝五課擦拭作業(SEG04)、印刷作業(SEG05)與檢驗噴印作業(SEG08)。
本研究以離群值檢定針對2014年作業環境測定數據和歷年作業環境測定數據比較，顯示2014年測定值和歷年作業環境測定數據屬於同一個頻率分布。以相加效應評估化學品危害，塗裝三課調漆作業SEG01為0.16，塗裝五課調漆作業SEG03為0.54，塗裝三課擦拭作業SEG02為0.28，塗裝五課擦拭作業SEG04為0.15，印刷作業SEG05為0.23，檢驗噴印作業SEG08為0.02，塗裝五課調漆作業的數值最高，但這些化學品危害相加效應都小於1，符合作業環境測定容許限值。
以健康風險進行評估，塗裝作業慢性吸入風險度HI，在SEG01為8.74*10-5，SEG03 為1.75*10-4，SEG03危害高於SEG01，這兩個區域危害物質前四項依序為二甲苯、正己烷、甲苯、丙酮。擦拭作業HI在SEG02為2.12*10-4，SEG04為1.11*10-4，危害物質為正己烷，SEG02危害高於SEG04。健康風險評估評估結果與相加效應評估結果相類似。印刷作業慢性吸入風險度HI，在SEG05為3.571*10-5，危害物質依序為二甲苯、甲苯、正己烷、乙二醇丁醚。檢驗噴印作業SEG08為6*10-6，危害物質為丁酮。塗裝三課擦拭作業SEG02慢性吸入HI值最高，但這些作業的HI值都小於1，符合作業環境容許濃度規定。SEG05的異佛爾酮致癌風險度HI為1.08*10-8，小於1.0*10-6，為可接受致癌風險。
比較各作業區域健康檢查異常率，發現異常率排序由大而小為SEG01 (6.6%)、SEG03 (6.3%)、SEG02 (6.0%)、SEG08 (5.8%)、SEG04 (3.8%)、SEG05(3.4%)，其中，SEG01的異常率較高與健康風險評估評估結果不同。以統計T檢定評估各相似暴露群組和間接人員的白血球與紅血球檢查數據差異顯著性，發現SEG02擦拭作業的白血球、SEG01塗裝三課調漆作業的紅血球、SEG03塗裝五課調漆作業的紅血球，具有顯著性差異。
綜合以上分析，塑膠表面處理業W公司塗裝與印刷製程暴露實態符合法規標準。塗裝五課調漆作業(SEG03)為化學品危害相加效應值最高的作業區域，塗裝三課擦拭作業(SEG02)為慢性吸入HI值最高區域且為白血球異常率較高區域，塗裝三課與塗裝五課調漆作業(SEG01、SEG03)則為紅血球異常率較高區域，研究結果顯示前述區域應實施工程與管理改善並持續監控。

關鍵字

塑膠表面處理業 ； 作業環境測定 ； 職業暴露評估 ； 相加效應評估 ； 健康風險評估

並列摘要

Chemical hazards are the main hazardous characteristics of plastic surface treatment industry. Direct contact with dangerous and harmful substances will cause occupational disease. This study made occupational exposure assessment on the workers of coating and printing sections of a plastic surface treatment plant W. The objective was to realize the actual exposure and health risk for the workers in plastic surface treatment industry. The assessment included preliminary hazard analysis, statistical analysis and additive effect assessment, health risk assessment, and suggestions for chemical classification management.
Having six similar exposure groups in this study of chemicals hazard, these were blending operations in Coating Section 3 (SEG01), blending operations in Coating Section 5 (SEG03), wiping operations in Coating Section 3 (SEG02), wiping operations in Coating Section 5 (SEG04), screen printing operation (SEG05) and the inspection and spray printing operation (SEG08).
This study adopted outlier detection method to test the compliance with the historical data for the measurements on working environment in 2014. It revealed that the measurements in 2014 were in a frequency distribution with the historical data. Additive effect was utilized to assess chemicals hazard and found the values from the blending operations in Coating Section 3 (SEG01) and Coating Section 5 (SEG03) were 0.16 and 0.54, respectively. In the wiping operations, the value of additive effect assessment in Coating Section 3 (SEG02) was 0.28 and that of Coating Section 5 (SEG04) was 0.15. Similarly, the values of additive effect assessment in the screen printing operation (SEG05) and the inspection and spray printing operation (SEG08) were 0.23 and 0.02, respectively. The value of SEG03 was the highest of all. However, all these values were less than 1 and were complied with the allowable limit in the working environment.
In the health risk assessment, the chronic inhale hazard index (HI) of SEG01 was 8.74*10-5 and that of SEG03 was 1.75*10-4. The HI value of SEG03 was higher than SEG01. The hazardous substances in both operations, from high to low, were xylene, n-hexane, toluene, and acetone. In the wiping operations, the values of HI in SEG 02 and SEG04 were 2.12*10-4 and 1.11*10-4 respectively. The HI value of SEG02 was higher than SEG04. The most hazardous chemical was n-hexane. The results from health risk assessment were similar with the additive effect assessment. The HI value in chronic inhale risk of screen printing operation SEG05 was 3.57*10-5 and the hazardous substances were xylene, toluene, n-hexane, and 2-butoxyethanol. The HI value of the inspection and spray printing operation of SEG08 was 6.00*10-6 and the hazardous substance was butanone. The HI value of SEG02 was the greatest of all. However, all these operations were having HI values less than 1 and were complied with the limit of working environment. The cancer HI value of isophorone was 1.08*10-8, which was less than the acceptable cancer risk of 1.00*10-6.
The ranks of abnormal rates from health examination from high to low were 6.6% in SEG01, 6.3% in SEG03, 6.0% in SEG02, 5.8% in SEG08, 3.8% in SEG04, and 3.4% in SEG05. The abnormal rate of SEG01 was the highest, which was different from the health exposure risk assessment. For the T-tests of significant difference between similar exposing group and the indirect operators, the leukocyte of the wiping operation workers of SEG02 and red blood cell of the blending operation workers of SEG01 and SEG03 were with significant differences.
Concluding from the above analyses, the exposure conditions of both coating and printing sections of plastic surface treatment in W company meet statutory standards. The blending operation in Coating Section 5 (SEG 03) was with the highest hazard value in the chemicals additive effect. The wiping operation in Coating Section 3 (SEG 02) was having the highest chronic inhale HI value and leukocyte abnormal rate. Moreover, the blending operation in Coating Section 3 (SEG 01) and Coating Section 5 (SEG 03) showed the greatest abnormal rate of red blood cell. These findings indicated the necessity of implementing engineering and management improvement and persistent monitoring on the aforementioned areas.

並列關鍵字

Plastic Surface Treatment Industry ； Working Environment Testing ； Occupational Exposure Assessment ； Additive Effect Assessment ； Health Risk Assessment

參考文獻

勞動部，風險評估技術指引，2010。

勞動部，職業安全衛生法，2013。

龔祺修，汽車噴漆勞工有機溶劑暴露評估，碩士論文，長榮大學健康科學學院職業安全與衛生學系，2011。

Billy Bullock, DHSc, MSPH, CIH, CSPA, Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures, Third Edition, AIHA,2006.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Diesel engines exhaust carcinogenic, P3-4, 1/12/2012.