Discussion on the criteria for grading the severity of hazards from occupational exposure to toxins (GB5044-85)!

Of course, all 6 indicators need to be met: lol :victory:

Currently, the grading of occupational hazard levels is based on GB5044-85. There are 6 indicators specified in this standard; I believe they should be considered comprehensively – it’s not sufficient to meet just one indicator, nor is it necessary to meet all six of them.

It would be even better if you could state the basis and reasons!

In clause 2.2 of the \"Classification of the Hazard Levels of Occupational Exposure to Toxic Substances,\" the principle for classification involves a comprehensive analysis based on various grouping criteria, with careful consideration given to all relevant factors; the hazard level is determined based on the category to which the majority of these criteria belong. However, for certain specific toxic substances, the hazard level can be determined based on their acute effects, chronic effects, or carcinogenicity. Therefore, I believe that in general, the majority of indicators should be taken into account; if there are clear values indicating acuteness, chronicity, or carcinogenicity, then one such indicator is sufficient. This post was last edited by *aoling on 2009-2-10 10:25]

According to the Classification of Hazards from Occupational Exposure to Poisons [GB 5044-85]: 2 Classification Principles 2.1 The classification of hazards from occupational exposure to poisons is based on six criteria: acute toxicity, incidence of acute poisoning, incidence of chronic poisoning, consequences of chronic poisoning, carcinogenicity, and the maximum allowable concentration. 　2.2 The grading principle is based on a comprehensive analysis of six grading indicators, with a thorough consideration of all factors; the level of hazard is determined according to the classification of the majority of these indicators. However, for certain special toxins, the level can be determined based on their prominent hazards such as acute toxicity, chronic effects, or carcinogenicity. 3 Basis for classification 3.1 Acute toxicity Data derived from animal experiments regarding the respiratory inhalation median lethal concentration (LC50) or the oral and dermal median lethal doses (LD50) are used; the lowest value among these LC50 or LD50 values is selected as the indicator of acute toxicity. 　3.2 Incidence of acute poisoning A qualitative indicator based on the incidence of acute poisoning and its consequences ； It can be divided into four categories: prone to poisoning, susceptible to poisoning, occasionally poisoned, and no acute poisoning. Designating cases prone to fatal poisoning or disability as severe consequences of poisoning ； A good prognosis is indicated by ease of recovery. 　3.3 Prevalence of chronic poisoning Generally, it is based on the incidence of poisoning among workers in the industries where they are most exposed to toxic substances ； However, in the absence of prevalence data, the incidence of toxic symptoms or toxicological indicators can be used. 　3.4 Consequences of chronic poisoning Based on the outcome of chronic poisoning, it is classified into four categories: continued progression or inability to be cured after discontinuing exposure, near-complete recovery, and spontaneous recovery. The consequences of chronic poisoning can be determined based on the nature of the damage observed in animal experiments (progressive, irreversible, reversible) and the pathophysiological characteristics of the target organs (ability to repair, regenerate, and maintain functional reserve). 　3.5 Carcinogenicity It is determined as a human carcinogen, a suspected human carcinogen, an animal carcinogen, or non-carcinogenic, primarily based on carcinogenicity data regarding this toxin published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer or other recognized sources. 　3.6 Maximum allowable concentration The values are primarily based on those in Table 4 of TJ36-79, \"Hygienic Standards for the Design of Industrial Enterprises\", which specifies the maximum allowable concentrations of harmful substances in workshop air. 　3.7 The criteria for classifying the degree of risk associated with occupational exposure to toxins are shown in Table 1; these classifications include four levels: extremely high risk, high risk, moderate risk, and low risk.

2.2 The grading principle is based on a comprehensive analysis of six grading indicators, with a thorough consideration of all factors; the level of hazard is determined according to the category to which the majority of the indicators belong. However, for certain special toxins, the level can be determined based on their prominent hazards such as acute toxicity, chronic effects, or carcinogenicity. 4.2 The degree of hazard for other occupations exposed to the same toxin (not listed in Table 2) can be classified based on the concentration of the toxin in the workshop air, the incidence of poisoning, and the duration of exposure. If the concentration of toxic substances in the workshop air frequently reaches the maximum allowable levels specified in TJ36-79 \"Hygienic Standards for Industrial Enterprise Design,\" and the incidence of illness or symptoms is lower than the corresponding values in these classification standards, the classification level can be reduced by one tier.

The grading principle is based on a comprehensive analysis of six grading criteria, with careful consideration given to all of them; the level of hazard is determined according to the classification of the majority of these criteria. However, for certain special toxins, the level of hazard can be determined based on their prominent hazards such as acute toxicity, chronic effects, or carcinogenicity. This principle of ‘an’ is a bit vague, and it’s difficult to determine the appropriate degree

This grading is no longer meaningful. It only specifies the levels defined by the maximum allowable concentrations. According to the new standards, regarding the exposure limits for occupational hazard factors, no maximum limit is set for certain occupational disease-causing factors. So it’s meaningless

I don’t know why, but this version has been in use yet to this day without any revisions~