| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄第一科技大學 === 環境與安全衛生工程研究所 === 104 === Background: Regulations of processing areas of chemical operating sites in Taiwan have been implemented for environmental monitoring for several years. By comparison, laboratories that possess small volumes and a wide range of various items of hazardous chemicals lack well-defined methods of assessing risk and comprehensively monitoring data. Chemical control banding (CCB) is used to rate risk levels of worker exposure to hazardous chemicals by assessing three indices comprising health hazards, dispersion, and quantity in use. Subsequently, exposure control can be implemented, attaining the goals of simple assessment and prevention measures.
Objective: By using CCB, questionnaires, and the monitoring data of operational environments, this study evaluated the risks of chemical hazards in processing areas and laboratories, and analyzed the associated threats and prevention methods.
Methods: The chemical hazard, exposure, and risk distributions in chemical manufacturers’ processing areas and laboratories were assessed using CCB. In addition, questionnaires were designed on the basis of the toxicity of chemicals to screen the items for environmental monitoring in the laboratories. The questionnaires were employed to survey the risks of operating procedures, prevention awareness, and benefits of CCB. The chemical hazards in the processing areas and laboratories and the characteristics and variations in the workers’ hazard recognition were subsequently investigated using the statistically analyzed data and the practical application of CCB.
Result: The results of implementing CCB revealed that the hazard indices in the laboratories were significantly higher than those of the processing areas, but both the quantity and risk level indices in the laboratories were significantly lower than those of the processing areas. According to the results from the questionnaires, the respondents from the processing areas believed that the feasibility of implementing engineering controls for hazard prevention was low. The respondents from the laboratories believed that the importance of general hazard training was low. In addition, the respondents from both the processing areas and the laboratories agreed on the importance and feasibility of using personal protective equipment. The results of the environmental monitoring of chemicals in the laboratories revealed that the chemical substances that possessed lower concentration values than the standard of the time-weighted average permissible exposure limit established by the government included methanol, isopropanol, acetone, ethyl acetate, normal hexane, toluene, and styrene.
Conclusion: The small-volume characteristic of chemical use in the laboratories substantially reduced the risks of chemical hazards. Engineering control and proper usage of personal protective equipment were sufficient for preventing the risks of health hazards caused by chemical reactions. By comparison, the risks of chemical substances in the processing areas were caused by ineffective or inadequate engineering control.
|
|---|
