滁州市工作场所职业病危害因素监测结果及防控策略分析
滁州市疾病预防控制中心(滁州市卫生监督所)
目的 分析2024年1月至10月滁州市重点行业工作场所职业病危害因素的监测现状,为制定针对性防控策略提供数据依据。方法 采用分层整群随机抽样法,选取2024年1月至10月滁州市15个重点行业的224家用人单位作为研究对象,依照国家职业卫生相关标准,对作业场所粉尘、化学毒物、噪声等主要职业病危害因素开展现场监测。同步调查企业职业卫生管理及劳动者职业健康体检情况,比较不同区域、不同规模企业的危害超标情况与防控落实情况。结果 总计监测224家用人单位,不同规模和不同地区用人单位监测因素超标率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);职业病危害因素监测超标率居于前5位的是矽尘、噪声、水泥粉尘、甲苯、苯;已开展职业健康检查的企业有133家,未开展职业健康检查的企业91家。职业健康检查率由高到低依次是苯、甲苯、二甲苯、矽尘、噪声和电焊烟尘(P<0.05);职业健康检查异常率从高到低依次是二甲苯、矽尘、噪声、苯、电焊烟尘、甲苯(P<0.05);滁州市不同规模企业职业病防治工作差异显著,大型企业监测岗位超标率最高(20.83%),而微型企业职业健康检查覆盖率仅39.02%。结论 滁州市职业病防控工作虽有一定成效,但存在明显的区域与企业规模差异,防控策略需进一步的优化,应着重关注中、小、微企业,高风险区域的矽尘、噪声等危害因素,加强防控策略,整治防控薄弱环节,提升当地职业病防控能力。
Objective To analyze the current monitoring status of occupational disease hazards in key industries in Chuzhou from January to October 2024, and to provide data support for formulating targeted prevention and control strategies. Methods From January to October 2024, using a stratified cluster random sampling method, 224 employers from 15 key industries in Chuzhou were selected as the study subjects. According to national occupational health standards, onsite monitoring was conducted for major occupational disease hazards in the workplaces, such as dust, chemical toxins, and noise. At the same time, the occupational health management of enterprises and the occupational health examination status of workers were investigated, comparing the hazard exceedance and prevention efforts across different regions and different-sized enterprises. Results A total of 224 employers were monitored. There is a statistically significantly difference in the rate of factors exceeding the standard among employers of different sizes and from different regions(P<0.05). The top five occupational hazard factors exceeding limits were silica dust, noise, cement dust, toluene, and benzene. Occupational health examinations were carried out in 133 enterprises, while 91 did not conduct such examinations. The examination rates from high to low were benzene, toluene, xylene, silica dust, noise, and welding fume(P<0.05). The abnormal rates in health exams from high to low were xylene, silica dust, noise, benzene, welding fume, and toluene(P<0.05). There were significant differences in occupational disease prevention efforts among different-sized enterprises in Chuzhou, with large enterprises having the highest exceedance rate at monitored positions(20.83%), while micro-enterprises had an occupational health coverage rate of only 39.02%. Conclusion While there have been some achievements in occupational disease prevention in Chuzhou, there are obvious differences across regions and enterprise sizes. Prevention and control strategies need further optimization, with a focus on small, medium, and micro enterprises and high-risk areas like silica dust and noise, strengthening prevention measures, addressing weak links, and improving local occupational disease prevention capacity.
引用本文
按标准格式复制,或导出到文献管理软件参考文献
共 9 条- [1]曾志伟,战景明,薛向明,等.基于物联网的职业病危害因素在线监测设计[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2023,41(6):467-471.
- [2]王冬芬,李俊设,刘玉潇. 2021-2022年洛阳市涧西区作业场所职业病危害因素的监测结果及具体防控策略研究[J].广州医药,2024,55(1):35-40.
- [3]胡烈聪,马争,钟权锦,等.某市2019-2023年重点行业工作场所职业病危害因素监测分析[J].中国职业医学,2025,52(1):89-93.
- [4]李文捷,李涛,刘拓,等. GBZ 2.1-2019《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第1部分:化学有害因素》标准应用现状及分析[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2025,43(5):364-367.
- [5]金旭,王生,肖斌,等. GBZ 2.2-2007《工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素》标准实施问题分析及修订建议[J].环境与职业医学,2025,42(9):1122-1127.
- [6]高尚,余朝彦,邱乐平. 2023年四川省采矿业职业病危害因素监测结果分析[J].职业与健康,2025,41(8):1009-1013.
- [7]朱力欣.花都地区工作场所职业病危害因素监测情况研究[J].中国卫生产业,2023,20(10):194-198.
- [8]吴京颖,邱志敏,刘祥铨.厦门市集美区部分制造业企业职业病危害监测结果分析[J].中国工业医学杂志,2025,38(3):337-341.
- [9]陆敏芳,劳少泉,苏小媚,等. 2019-2022年佛山市三水区工作场所职业病危害因素监测现状与防治对策[J].智慧健康,2024,10(3):25-29.
| 文章编号 | 2026-05-014(期号内编号) |
|---|---|
| 栏目 | 预防医学研究 |
| 作者 | 开力军;刘明军;张克林 |
| 作者单位 | 滁州市疾病预防控制中心(滁州市卫生监督所) |
| 中图分类号 | R135 |
| 卷期页码 | 2026, 2(05): 53-56 |
| 发布时间 | 2026-08-15 |
| 出版时间 | 2026-08-15 |
| 引用信息 | [1]开力军,刘明军,张克林.滁州市工作场所职业病危害因素监测结果及防控策略分析[J].疾病预防与控制,2026,2(05):53-56. |
| 全文地址 | 在知网查看该文(kns.cnki.net) |
| 数据抓取时间 | 2026-09-22T12:07:47 |