Qualitative and quantitative differences between common occupational health risk assessment models in typical industries.

OBJECTIVE: The differences in the methodologies of various occupational health risk assessment (OHRA) models have not been extensively reported. We aimed to understand the qualitative and quantitative differences between common OHRA models in typical industries.

METHODS: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Australian, Romanian, Singaporean, International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) models were evaluated, and a theoretical framework was established for a comparative study.

RESULTS: Qualitative comparisons showed that each OHRA model had its own strengths and limitations, and exhibited a diverse distribution at different levels for each evaluation indicator. The Singaporean, COSHH, and EPA models had a much higher comprehensive advantage than the other models for all indicators. Quantitative comparisons demonstrated that these three models also had a stronger ability to distinguish the difference in risk ratios between different industries. The Singaporean model had the strongest correlation with the other models.

CONCLUSION: Each model possessed its own strengths and limitations depending on its unique methodological principles. Combining the EPA, Singaporean, and COSHH models might be advantageous for developing an OHRA strategy. More studies comparing multiple models in key industries are required.