| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北科技大學 === 環境工程與管理研究所 === 100 === Electronic industry is the important basis of Taiwan’s economic development. However, in order to efficiently save energy, the office areas of most electronic workshops limit the ventilation frequency of the air conditioning, coupled with the pollution of stationary sources in the workshop itself or around it, deriving problems endangering people’s health. In order to further understand the current situation of air quality in the office areas of electronic workshops, this study takes 4 offices of two electronic companies in the central region as the examples to measure the concentration of air pollutants which reveals the current situation of air pollution in offices and the characteristics of pollutants, and together with the methods of carcinogenic risk assessment and air resources co-benefits model (ARCoB), this study conducts a quantitative study on the entent of danger of indoor air pollution on human health.
The study results show that the major air pollutants in the four offices are 03、CO2、HCOH, especially serious for HCOH (formaldehyde). The average concentration rate of the four offices is 1.0 ppm, which is higher than second-class norms of standards value (0.08 ppm-1 hr) set by the Environmental Protection Administration. The major reasons include the decoration materials containing HCOH (formaldehyde) and poor office ventilation.
The results of formaldehyde carcinogenic risk assessment show that the average risk value of four offices is 1.52 * 10-5 , about 15.2 times higher than the acceptable risk value of 10-6, which show that the concentration of formaldehyde has caused harms to the office employees’ health. Taking office C as the benchmark, according to the different patterns of work, it shows that the risk value of operators in workshops for a long time is 3.95*10-5, 39.5 times as the acceptable risk value of 10-6, which is mainly caused by the use of adhesive during the process of production.
According to the non-carcinogenic risk assessment, with office C as the benchmark, the average life of the staff in office A increases by 403.56 days (/person-life) and the medical care expenditures reduce by ﹩117.66 (/year-person); the average life of the staff in office B increases by 419.62 days (/person-life) and the medical care expenditures reduce by ﹩130.84 (/year-person); the average life of the staff in office D increases by 121.94 days (/person-life) and the medical care expenditures reduce by ﹩79.12 (/year-person). After office C taking improvement measures, the average life becomes 222.92 days(/person-life) more than that before improvement and the medical care expenditure reduces by ﹩52.71 (/year-person). Among the improvements, the improvement effect of CO is most effective for the increase of average life and the reduction of medical care expenditures. However, O3 in the air outside results in the reduction of average life and increase in annual medical care expenditure.
|
|---|
