中国GBZ2.1与德国MAK工作场所化学有害因素职业接触限值比较研究

系统比较中国现行职业接触限值标准GBZ2.1-2007与德国职业接触限值MAK在定义、制定原则和具体数值方面的差异，为中国GBZ2.1的修订提供建议和依据。将 GBZ2.1中规定的OELs与德国MAK于2015年公布的化学有害因素 OELs ，按不同类型建立比较分析数据库，并进行比较分析，分析结果表明:中德2国在职业接触限值的制定原则，化学有害因素的来源、数量与标识等方面有显著差异。 因此，我国应加强对化学性有害因素孕期毒性接触限值的研究和应用。中德在选择化学性有害因素制定OELs时各有侧重，我国在重金属方面制定的OELs，如:钴、钼、铍、铊等，是德国MAK以及美国ACGIH中所未有的，而德国则不再为致癌物质制定OELs。中、德均制定有OELs的化学性有害因素在数值上差异较大，中国有部分OELs同时高于德国MAK和美国ACGIH。我国的职业接触限值更新频率较慢，应缩短OELs更新周期，在对现行的GBZ2.1进行制修订时，可将发达国家OELs作为1项参考。德国风险分级评估方法对致癌物质的管理和评估值得进一步探讨及研究。

Comparison of occupational exposure limits for chemical hazardous agents in workplace between China GBZ 2.1 and German MAK

To systematically compare the difference between the current standard GBZ 2.1-2007 of occupational exposure limits (OELs) in China and the German maximum workplace concentration MAK in the aspects of definition, formulation principles, specific values of OELs, etc., and provide the suggestions and basis for the revision of GBZ 2.1, a comparison analysis database was established according to different types for the OELs of GBZ 2.1 and the OELs of chemical hazardous agents published by German MAK in 2015, and the comparison analysis was carried out. The results showed that the formulation principles of OELs, the sources of legal OELs, the quantity and mark of OELs between China and Germany were different. So the study and application on OELs of pregnancy toxicity for chemical hazardous agents in China should be enhanced. There were different focus for China and Germany when selecting chemical hazardous agents to formulate the OELs, the OELs of heavy metals, such as cobalt, molybdenum, beryllium, thallium, and so on, formulated in China did not exist in German MAK and American ACGIH, and the OELs were no longer formulated for cancerogenic substance in Germany. There were great difference in values of OELs for the chemical hazardous agents both in China and Germany, and the partial OELs in China were higher than those in German MAK and American ACGIH simultaneously. The updating frequency of OELs in China was slower, so the updating cycle should be shortened. When revising the current GBZ 2.1, the OELs in the advanced countries can be taken as a reference. The management and assessment on cancerogenic substance in the German risk classification and assessment method deserves the further discussion and research.