CC BY
10
RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL FACTORS ON THE PERSONNEL HEALTH
Kaidakova Natalya Nickolayevna
Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural History, Doctor of Medical Sciences of the Russian Federation,
Kazakhstan Agency of Applied Ecology, Head Of Department, Almaty
ОЦЕНКА РИСКА ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ ФИЗИЧЕСКИХ ФАКТОРОВ НА ЗДОРОВЬЕ ПЕРСОНАЛА
Кайдакова Наталья Николаевна, Доктор медицинских наук Российской Федерации, Академик Российской Академии Естествознания, Казахстанское Агентство прикладной экологии, г. Алматы ABSTRACT
Analysis and risk assessment of occupational diseases personnel from exposure to physical factors has made to the results of workplaces labor conditions compliance certification (WLCCC) [7] of the production facility in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Measures have been developed to improve working conditions. It was identified and reduced hazard class working conditions of each production site. The effectiveness of these measures was estimated.
Keywords: risk, assessment, physical factors, health, personnel, hazard class, labor conditions. АННОТАЦИЯ
Анализ и оценка риска развития профессиональных заболеваний персонала от воздействия физических факторов проведена по результатам аттестации по условиям труда [7] предприятия Республики Казахстан. Разработаны мероприятия по улучшению условий труда. Определен и снижен класс вредности условий труда каждого производственного объекта и риск развития профессиональных заболеваний персонала. Оценена эффективность выполнения этих мероприятий.
Ключевые слова: риск, оценка, физические факторы, здоровье, персонал, вредный класс, условия труда.
Relevance. Guidelines for Risk Assessment of the impact of physical factors on health personnel are developed by experts from different countries [2, 6, 8]. The legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not define the obligation of such an assessment, it remains unclear theoretical and practical significance.
Literature review. Risk assessment of the impact of air pollutants on human health apply for workplaces and residential areas [1, 9]. Method limitation are health impact assessment only chemicals excluding physical, biological and psycho-physiological impacts.
BS 8800 Appendix E [2] recommends development of enterprise risk management program to ensure its safety and to obtain stable profits.
Semi-quantitative theory of identification, assessment and mitigation of workplace hazards and risks in relation to all pollutants, found its use abroad in the occupational health and safety [6].
The general principles of risk assessment and management was developed in the international standard ISO 31000:2009 [4], Russian state standard R 12.0.006-2002 [3] and Standard Republic of Kazakhstan12.0.002-2010 [10].
A series of Russian standards for risk includes about 200 methodological, institutional, industrial documents.
Law of the Republic in Kazakhstan No. 188-V dated April 11, 2014 [5], adopted the concept of risk reduction at hazardous industrial facilities without quantitative assessment criteria. "Methodological Recommendations" [8] (hereinafter referred to as - MR No.46) determine milestones to quantify the risk of occupational diseases development among personnel, hazard class of an industrial facility. However, there is no methodology of development of risk management measures and assessment of their efficiency, which limits the practical use of this concept.
The aim of the study To analyze and evaluate the risk of occupational disease personnel from exposure to physical factors determine the hazard class of each production facility and assess the effectiveness of the developed activities. Objectives of the study were: - to define the method for the calculation of the risk of occupational diseases development on the example of physical factors impact on employees health from industrial facility,
- to determine the method for the calculation to determine the hazard class of industrial facilities,
- to offer the methods of dynamic assessment of effectiveness of measures to improve labor conditions developed on the basis of results of WLCCC. Methods of the study. Methods of mathematical and
theoretical analysis were applied to calculate the risks of physical factors impact on the employee health. The analytical method was used to develop measures to mitigate risks. Also, the method of assessment of the economic effectiveness while implementing measures developed during the first year after certification.
Results of the study. It was established that of the 223 employees of the production facility where attestation workplaces was completed, 165 people work in the optimal and acceptable working conditions. Harmful working conditions on the physical, chemical and psychophysiological effects of class 3.1 installed on 26 locations, class 3.2 - 22 places.
Harmful working conditions was identified on the factors of influence:
- electromagnetic fields (EMF). On 11 workplaces defined class 3.1 and 18 places - class 3.2;
- noise. On 4 workplaces defined class 3.2 working conditions;
- illumination. On 13 workplaces defined class 3.1;
- high temperature. 2 workplaces defined class 3.1. Calculation of labor conditions hazard index entire
industrial facilities (LCHI) - was made according to the formula (1) of the MR No.46:
GfniXRi)/
/Np
Where,
ni - the number of workplaces production facility in the i class
working conditions. ^
; - the numerical value of the i-th class working conditions (for class 1 is set to 1, Class 2 - 2; Class 3.1 - 4, Class 3.2 - 8; for class 3.3 - 16; Class 3.4 - 32; Class 4 - 64); Np - the total number of workplaces production facility.
Identify indicators hazard of working conditions for one workplace class 3.1 and 3.2 by a factor of EMI:
LCHI =
(1)
1 Х 4 1
1 Х 8
LCHI for Class 3.1 by a factor "" EMF \ "and other") = = 4 (2)
LCHI for Class 3.2 by a factor "" EMF \ "and other") = = 8 (3)
The quantitative value of the index does not depend on exposures and was defined by labor conditions hazard class. The next step was to specify the levels of risk of occupational
1
diseases for personnel by all factors impacting on workplaces. So, for example, for a second engineer ship engine room results of the calculation was presented in Table 1.
Indicator hazard of working conditions on the noise for second engineer ship engine room was 8, the level of risk of occupational disease was defined by Table 2 and refers to the "Medium (significant) risk".
Table 1
Levels of risk of occupational diseases
for the second engineer ship engine room
Job title Harmful Class conditions Indicator harmful of working
factors labor factor conditions (LCHI)
Second engineer machine Noise 3,2 8
separation vessel Temperature 3,1 4
Illumination 3,1 4
Table 2
Level of risk of occupational diseases, depending on the hazard of working conditions index (LCHI) at the enterprise
LCHI The level of risk of occupational diseases of the manufacturing facility
LCHI = 1 No risk
LCHI < 2 Negligible (tolerable) risk
2 < LCHI < 4 Low (small) risk
4 < LCHI < 8 Medium (significant) risk
8 < LCHI < 16 High (intolerable) risk
16 < LCHI < 32 Very high (intolerable) risk
32 < LCHI < 64 Ultra-high risk
Indicator hazard of working conditions by a factor of "temperature" in the operating room as second engineer ship engine room was 4, the level of risk of occupational diseases related to "low (small) risk."
Indicator hazard of working conditions by a factor of "lack of illumination" in the work area as second engineer ship engine room was 4, the level of risk of occupational diseases related to "Low (small) risk."
For second engineer ship rate hazard of working conditions by a factor of noise was 8, the level of risk of occupational diseases related to "Medium (significant) risk." The overall assessment is the worst figure for the mechanics of the engine room of the vessel it was equal to 8.
Evaluation was performed for all 48 seats production facility with classes working conditions 3.1 and 3.2.
Next, we calculated the index of hazard of working conditions for the production facility for the class of 3.1 according to the results WLCCC:
"" (4)
Indicator values hazard of working conditions for the organization of class 3.1 in the first year of implementation of activities:
1C. Y A.
(5)
LCHI (class 3.1) = =0,47
v / nnrt
Totals index hazard of working conditions for the organization of the class as a result of 3.2 WLCCC: LCHI ( class 3.2) =
29 Х 8
= 1,04
(6)
Indicator values hazard of working conditions for the organization of class 3.2 in the first year of implementation of activities
LCHI ( класса 3.2) =
27 Х 8
=0,97
(7)
LCHI ( class 3.1) = ^^ =1,17
V У НПО
Definition of hazard class production facility on Table 3. Table 4 shows the evaluation of the level of risk of occupational diseases in workers manufacturing facility hazard class and dangerous working conditions and jobs hazard class production facility.
Table 3
Definition of hazard class production facility
Level of risk Occupational Diseases Class insalubrity Feature class hazard of working conditions
Ultra-high risk Class I Industrial facility is of extremely high hazard level
High (intolerable) risk / very high (intolerable) risk Class II Industrial facility is of high hazard level
Medium (significant) risk Class III Industrial facility is of medium
Low (small) risk Class IV Industrial facility is low hazard level
No risk/negligible (tolerable) risk Class V Industrial facility of minor hazard level
Table 4
Risk level of occupational diseases in workers manufacturing facility hazard class and dangerous working conditions and jobs __hazard class production facility__
№ Name production facility The level of risk of occupational diseases at the production object as a whole Hazard class production facility
1 Office №1 None Class V hazard low hazard
2 Office №2 None Class V hazard low hazard
№ Name production facility The level of risk of occupational diseases at the production object as a whole Hazard class production facility
3 Office №3 None Class V hazard low hazard
4 Office №4 None Class V hazard low hazard
5 Test laboratory None Class V hazard low hazard
6 Vessel №1 Medium (significant) risk Class III hazard medium hazard
7 Vessel №2 Medium (significant) risk Class III hazard medium hazard
8 Office №5 Low (small) risk Class IV hazard low hazard
Developed with WLCCC recommendations on im- lighting. In the first year of implementation of the Action Plan
provement and improvement of working conditions success- assessed class working conditions. The results are shown in
fully implemented. On objects 1,2,3 conducted electromag- Table 5. netic normalization of the situation in the workplace, improved
Table 5
Results of the Action Plan on the results of certification of industrial facilities on labor conditions in the first year of ___implementation__
Number of workers
Number of workers Number of workers places a general
places a general assessment places a general assessment assessment of working
Name The number ofjobs of working conditions - of working conditions - conditions -
№ production Class 2 allowable Class 3.1 harmful, degree 1 Class 3.2 harmful
facile degree 2
ty Prior to the After the Prior to the implementation of measures After the implementatio n of measures Prior to the After the
implementati on of measures implementati on of measures implementati on of measures impleme ntation of measures
1 Office №1 98 70 88 26 8 2 -
2 Office №2 32 19 26 13 6 - -
3 Office №3 14 2 13 12 1 - -
4 Office №4 19 14 17 3 0 2* 2*
5 Test laboratory 11 10 10 1 1
6 Vessel №1 8 - - 3 3 5 5
7 Vessel №2 7 - - 3 3 4 4
8 Office №5 34 14 14 5 5 15 15
Altogether 223 129 168 65 26 29 27
* - intensity on the labor, Assessed level of risk of occupational diseases for workers manufacturing unit (Table 6).
Table 6
Evaluation of CWR for one employee and the whole plant dynamics
Labor Conditions Hazard Class LCHI per 1 workplace Level of risk of occupational disease evelopment for employee IHWC on AWWC in the Company Hazard Class of industrial facility for the Company ILCHI for the Company for the year-end Hazard class of industrial facility for the Company
At any harmful factors Class 3.1 4 Low (small) risk 1,17 Negligibly small (portable) risk 0,47 Risk missing
At any harmful factors Class 3.2 8 Medium (Important) risk 1,04 Negligibly small (portable) risk 0,97 Risk missing
Thus, it should be noted the effectiveness of measures and «sensitivity» of the methodology used for assessment.
Discussion and Conclusion. Estimated data of level of risk of occupational diseases for 1 employee following our study are changed from low (minor) to medium (significant) risk. However, when assessing the risk to the company, this difference was reduced to a negligible minor (tolerable) risk.
Assessment of the occupational health and safety system of in the company was made according to the following criteria [2, 7] :
- Increased level of security: the more effective decrease in the highest risks, the more efficient will be measures;
- Latitude impact: the more the number of risks or safety of a larger number of persons is covered by measures the more they will be effective;
- Compliance with the requirements: measures which comply with the requirements shall subject to implementation;
- Adding flexibility to work: If the flexibility of labor due to measures has increased, it should be implemented, although the impact on safety is small;
- Cost-effectiveness: the best measures are not necessarily expensive;
- Very often remarkable results are achieved by minor improvement, almost free of charge;
- Undoubtedly, this assessment boosts the practical relevance of risk assessment of harmful industrial factors impact on personnel health. CONCLUSIONS
The methodical approaches developed (Figure 1) enable to:
- assess the risk of occupational diseases from harmful factors with personnel;
- determine the hazard class of the industrial facility;
- assess the effectiveness of measures taken to improve labor conditions in the dynamics while implementing scheduled activities, including the removal and mitigation of risks with personnel occupational diseases;
- method is applicable for the assessment of chemical, physical and any other harmful factors identified WLCCC and quantified by LCHI
References
1. Arnold M. Kuzmack, Robert E. McGaughy. Quantitative Risk Assessment for Community Exposure to Vinyl Chloride. Office of Health and Ecological Effects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. Total pages 122.
2. BS 8800, 1996, 2004. Guide to Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems. British Standard Institution. Total pages 40.
3. GOST R 12.0.006-2002. Group T 58. The State Standard of the Russian Federation. The Occupational Safety Standards. General requirements to the safety and health management in the organization.
4. ISO 31000: 2008 and 2009. Risk Management. Principles and Guidelines. Total pages 24.
5. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan. No 188-V dated April 11, 2014 On Civil Protection. Total pages 188.
6. M. Murtonen. Risk assessment at workplace - a practical guide. VTT - Technical Research Centre of Finnish Ministry of Social Security and Public Health. Department of Occupational Safety. Tampere, Finland. Health and Social Security. No.1, 2012. Total pages 78.
7. Manual 2.2.755-99. Hygienic assessment criteria and classification of labor conditions by hazard indices and risks in the industrial environment, severity and intensity of the labor process. Total pages 111.
8. Methodological recommendations for risk management at hazardous industrial facilities have been agreed by the Order of the Committee for State Control over Emergency Situations and Industrial Safety of the Republic of Kazakhstan. No. 46 dated October 01, 2013. Total pages 47.
9. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Committee for the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, Commission for Life Sciences. National Research Council. NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS. Washington, D.C. 1983. Total pages 191 (URL: http ://www. epa. gov/region9/science/seminars/2012/re d-book.pdf) (Date of handling 17.06.15).
10. RoK Standards 12.0.002-2010. The Occupational Safety Standards. Safety and health management system in the organizations. Guidelines for Assessment and Risk Management.
РЕПРОДУКЦИЯ НАУЧНЫХ КАДРОВ В МЕДИЦИНЕ
Карпович Анатолий Васильевич,
кандидат медицинских наук, главный врач ГАУЗ «Саратовская стоматологическая поликлиника №3», главный внештатный стоматолог Министерства здравоохранения Саратовской области, г. Саратов
REPRODUCTION OF THE SCIENTIFIC STAFF IN THE MEDICINE АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье изложены результаты авторского медико-социологического исследования модели формирования научного потенциала в динамике профессиогенеза. Сделан вывод о необходимости создания системы заказа научных кадров для различных научных направлений медицины.
Ключевые слова: ключевые слова. научный потенциал, стадии профессиогенеза, воспроизводство научных кадров
ABSTRACT
The article contains results of the author's medico-sociological research of model offormation of scientific potential in dynamics ofprofessiogenesis are stated. It is drawn a conclusion on necessity of creation of system of the order of the scientific stafffor various scientific directions of medicine.
Keywords: scientific potential, stages ofprofessiogenesis, reproduction of the scientific staff
Одной из наиболее острых проблем современной российской науки является восстановление системы воспроизводства научных кадров, имеющей целью сохранение научных традиций и диапазона направлений научных исследований [1,с. 120]. Согласно статистическим данным в целом в российской науке отмечается тенденция к снижению численности кандидатов наук и увеличение числа докторов наук [2, с.66]. Официальная статистика объясняет процесс уменьшения численности кандидатов наук оттоком из науки в другие отрасли экономики профессиональной, работоспособной и относительно молодой по возрасту (преимущественно в возрасте 30-39 лет) части научных кадров[5, с.77].
В то же время изучение научных кадров в медицине носит в основном статистический характер, практически отсутствуют исследования формирования научного потенциала в динамике профессиогенеза [11, с. 112; 10, с.58]. В связи с этим не разработана концепция отбора наиболее перспективных для научной деятельности специалистов, и формирование научных кадров носит «стихийный» характер [4, с.91]. На наш взгляд, это одна из основных причин нерационального распределения исследователей в медицине, провоцирующих в свою очередь стагнацию в развитии отдельных медицинских наук [3, с. 84].
