臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

背景：國內化學品運作場所風險管理規範，對於製程區進行環境監測等管理措施，多年來已有明確運行方式。相較之下對於實驗室，具有化學品少量多樣性與高危害性特色之場所，並無明確之風險評估方式與缺乏完整的監測數據。「化學品分級管理」(CCB)是以健康危害、散布狀況、使用量三個指標，評估勞工暴露於化學品之健康危害進行風險分級，並採取對應之暴露控制措施，以達到簡易評估與防範之成效。
目的：利用CCB、問卷調查與作業環境監測資料，評估製程區與實驗室場所化學品健康危害風險及分析其危害與防範。
方法：以評估工具CCB實際運用於化學品製造公司的製程區與實驗室場所，得知化學品危害、暴露與風險分布。另以化學品危害性為主軸設計問卷，篩選實驗室環境監測項目，並調查作業方式風險、防範認知與CCB之助益，統計分析所得數據，再結合CCB實際運用之結果，探討製程區與實驗室場所化學品風險與工作者危害認知特性及差異。
結果：CCB執行結果發現實驗室危害性指標明顯高於製程區，而使用量指標及風險等級明顯低於製程區。問卷結果發現危害防範中的工程控制，製程區受訪者認為可行性是低的。危害通識訓練項目，實驗室受訪者認為重要性較低。此外，兩區受訪者皆認同個人防護具的重要性與可行性。實驗室化學品作業環境監測結果發現空氣中甲醇、異丙醇、丙酮、乙酸乙酯、正己烷、甲苯與苯乙烯等化學物質濃度皆低於國內目前法令所訂「八小時日時量平均容許濃度」之標準。
結論：實驗室化學品少量使用之特色，顯著降低化學品健康危害之風險；工程控制與使用適當防護具，足以防範作業過程中，化學反應所帶來的健康危害。相對穩定的製程區，化學品風險來自於無效或不足的工程控制。

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.

中文摘要………………………………………………………………... i
英文摘要………………………………………………………………...iii
誌謝……………………………………………………………………..vi
目錄…………………………………………………………………….vii
表目錄…………………………………………………………………...x
圖目錄………………………………………………………………….xii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
第二章 文獻探討 3
2.1 化學品管理沿革 3
2.2 分級管理演進 4
2.2.1 分級管理特性 4
2.2.2 分級管理初期 5
2.3 各國化學品分級管理實施概述 6
2.3.1 英國：物質健康危害控制要點(COSHH Essentials) 6
2.3.2 法國：潛在風險等級(Risk Potential Hierarchy) 7
2.3.3 德國：化學品管理指引/危害物質管控計劃(EMKG) 7
2.3.4 荷蘭：管理工具Stoffenmanager 8
2.3.5 挪威：管理工具KjemiRisk 8
2.3.6 比利時：管理工具Regetox / SOBANE 9
2.3.7 新加坡：半定量風險評估(SQRA) 9
2.3.8 韓國：韓國控制工具箱Korean Control Toolkit 10
2.3.9 國際勞工組織(ILO)：國際化學品控制工具箱(ICCT) 11
2.4 我國化學品分級管理 18
2.4.1 分級管理步驟與表單 18
2.4.2 化學品分級管理優點與限制 24
2.5 實驗室化學品危害概述 25
第三章 研究方法 26
3.1 研究對象 26
3.2 研究設計 26
3.3 化學品分級管理 27
3.3.1 適用範圍初篩 28
3.3.2 危害群組劃分 28
3.3.3 暴露等級 28
3.3.4 風險等級 31
3.3.5 暴露控制表單 31
3.4 問卷設計與調查方式 31
3.4.1 問卷設計 32
3.4.2 問卷方式 33
3.5 作業環境監測規劃 34
第四章 研究結果 35
4.1 化學品分級管理結果 35
4.1.1 危害群組等級分布 36
4.1.2 暴露等級分布 36
4.1.3 風險等級分布 37
4.2 化學品問卷調查結果 39
4.2.1 問卷Part 1-基本資料 39
4.2.2 問卷Part 2-實驗室化學品調查與作業環境監測 39
4.2.3 問卷Part 3-作業方式 41
4.2.4 問卷Part4-危害與防範 42
4.2.5 問卷Part5-化學品分級管理運用 49
第五章 討論 52
5.1 化學品分級管理(CCB)指標等級差異 52
5.2 皮膚眼睛接觸危害與個人防護具 53
5.3 化學品分級管理(CCB)評估工具特性 54
5.4 化學品小量使用之影響 55
5.5 暴露控制表單符合性 56
5.6 作業方式風險差異 57
5.7 化學品危害與防範認知 58
5.8 化學品分級管理資訊運用 60
5.9 實驗室作業環境監測 61
第六章 結論與建議 62
6.1 結論 62
6.2 建議 62
參考文獻 64
附錄1 問卷定稿版 67
附錄2 暴露控制表單(300) 73
附錄3 暴露控制表單(400) 76

Kent, Chris, 2001，基礎毒理學，江秀梅等譯，高立，新北。
中華民國勞動部職業安全衛生署，2011，化學品分級管理－勞工化學暴露健康危害的守護者_1000809更新版。2015年11月22日，取自http://ccb.osha.gov.tw/content/info/PaperDownload.aspx?cssid=3
中華民國勞動部職業安全衛生署/化學品分級管理運用手冊，2015。2015年8月16日，取自 http://ccb.osha.gov.tw/content/info/PaperDownload.aspx?cssid=3
林瑞玉、林敬凱、賴陽名、黃文昌，2011化學品與緊急應變管理系統，2011年工業安全衛生技術研討會，經濟部工業局
徐武軍等編註，1998，化學工業導論_石油化學工業(能源、環保與工安篇)，滄海，台中。
張志平，2013，物化處理系統污泥特性調查及其水泥材料化之可行性研究-以處理大專院校實驗室廢棄物之系統為例，成功大學，博士論文。
張振平，2002，實驗室緊急應變程序之建立，勞工安全衛生研究所
勞動部/勞動法令查詢系統。2015年9月6日，取自
http://laws.mol.gov.tw/Chi/Default.asp
賈台寶，石東生，2005，實驗室化學品安全衛生計畫指引，勞工安全衛生研究所
葉超仁，2015，勞工暴露於有機溶劑蒸氣在不同作業姿勢下濃度差異之研究，中山醫學大學，碩士論文。
蔡朋枝，2000，大專院校安全衛生輔導急災害類型調查與通報系統規劃，教育部委託計畫。
ACGIH, 2001. Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices, 7th Ed., USA, Cincinnati.
ACGIH, 2015. About us/History. Retrieved September 6, 2015, from
http://www.acgih.org/about-us/history/
Balsat, A., De Graeve, J., Mairiaux, P., 2003. A structured strategy for assessing chemical risks, suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 47:549-556.
Brooke, I.M., 1998. A UK scheme to help small firms control health risks from chemicals: toxicological considerations. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 42.6: 377-390.
COSHH Essentials. Retrieved October 3, 2015, from
http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/essentials/
COSHH essentials Control Guidance Sheet(CGS) . Retrieved October 3, 2015, from http://www.hse.gov.uk/plastics/coshh.htm
Directive 98/24/EC. Retrieved October 4, 2015, from
https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directives/75
Ellenbecker, M.J., 1996. Engineering controls as an intervention to reduce worker exposure. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29.4: 303-307.
Furr, A.K., 2000. CRC handbook of laboratory safety. CRC Press.
International Labour Office, international chemical control toolkit (ICCT) . Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/ctrl_banding/toolkit/icct/guide.pdf
Kim, M.-U., Shin, S., & Byeon, S.-H., 2015. Comparison of chemical risk assessment methods in South Korea and the United Kingdom. Journal of Occupational Health, 57.4: 339-345.
Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140: 1–55.
Lombardi, D.A., Verma, S.K., Brennan, M.J., & Perry, M.J., 2009. Factors influencing worker use of personal protective eyewear. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41: 755-762.
Money, C.D., 2003. European experiences in the development of approaches for the successful control of workplace health risks. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 47: 533-540.
Nascimento, E.D.S., & Tenuta Filho, A., 2010. Chemical waste risk reduction and environmental impact generated by laboratory activities in research and teaching institutions. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 46: 187-198.
NIOSH, 2009. Qualitative risk characterization and management of occupational hazards: control banding (CB), DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009–152
OSHA/Permissible exposure limits(PEL) . Retrieved September 6, 2015, from https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/
Pedrozo, M.D.F.M., & Philipi Jr, A., 2005. Laboratory waste management: evaluation of the disposal procedures routinely adopted by three Brazilian public institutions. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 62.6:687-700.
Wang, S.-M., Wu, T.-N., Juang, Y.-J., Dai, Y.-T., Tsai, P.-J., & Chen, C.-Y., 2013. Developing a semi-quantitative occupational risk prediction model for chemical exposures and its application to a national chemical exposure databank. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10: 3157-3171.
Skordal, K.J., 2012. Control banding tools: advanced regulated evaluation and authorization of chemicals tool and agreement with professional judgment. University of Washington, USA.