本文關鍵詞：中美個體采樣方法對電焊煙塵采樣結果影響的對比分析　出處：《中國預防醫(yī)學雜志》2016年12期 　論文類型：期刊論文

  更多相關文章： 個體采樣 方法 比較

【摘要】：通過對比分析我國個體采樣方法與美國個體采樣方法對粉塵檢測結果的影響,找出中美對于粉塵個體采樣不同方法之間的區(qū)別及聯(lián)系。本研究對北京市豐臺區(qū)4個電焊車間的勞動者分別按照中國《工作場所空氣中有害物質監(jiān)測的采樣規(guī)范》(GBZ159-2004)和美國《Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual》規(guī)定的采樣對象選取原則和采樣方法進行個體采樣,其中,在中國采樣對象確定原則中,將"不能確定接觸有害物質濃度最高和接觸時間最長的勞動者時"的采樣方案定義為第一種方案,將"能夠確定接觸有害物質濃度最高和接觸時間最長的勞動者時"的采樣方案定義為第二種方案;美國采樣對象選取的原則按照"最高風險概率等于10%,置信區(qū)間為95%時確定采樣對象人數(shù)。數(shù)據(jù)的分析及處理采用統(tǒng)計學SPSS 16.0軟件進行,定量資料的分析采用雙側t檢驗,定性資料分析采用雙側χ2檢驗,P0.05為差異有統(tǒng)計學意義。結果顯示,采用中國第一方案采樣的檢測結果均值范圍(1.85±1.46)mg/m3~(5.72±3.81)mg/m3,采用美國方案為(1.85±1.46)mg/m3~(5.44±3.12)mg/m3,中國第一方案的結果略高于美國方案,差異無統(tǒng)計學意義;采用中國第二種采樣方案檢測結果中,某消毒設備廠、某汽車公司的檢測結果 (6.34±1.33)mg/m3和(7.42±2.40)mg/m3,略高于美國方案檢測結果 (3.80±2.01)mg/m3和(3.84±2.67)mg/m3,某車輛裝備公司和某構件廠的結果 (5.41±5.23)mg/m3和(1.00±0.25)mg/m3,略低于美國檢測結果(5.44±3.12)mg/m3和(1.85±1.46)mg/m3,差異無統(tǒng)計學意義。在95%可信區(qū)間上限值比較中,中國采樣結果均較美國采樣結果有增高的趨勢。在采樣對象較少的情況下,中國個體采樣方法與美國個體采樣方法所得出結果差異無統(tǒng)計學意義,但中國個體采樣數(shù)據(jù)及95%可信上限值普遍高于美國個體采樣數(shù)據(jù)。與美國采樣方法比較,我國現(xiàn)行采樣規(guī)范有一些不足,應加快我國"采樣規(guī)范"修訂的步伐,滿足職業(yè)衛(wèi)生工作發(fā)展的需要。
[Abstract]:The influence of individual sampling method in China and American individual sampling method on dust detection results was analyzed. To find out the difference and relation between Chinese and American methods of individual dust sampling. In this study, workers in four welding workshops in Fengtai District, Beijing, were sampled according to the Chinese Standard for Monitoring harmful substances in the Air in the Workplace. > (. GB 159-2004). And the United States < Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy. Manual > the sampling object selection principle and sampling method for individual sampling. Among them, in the principle of sampling object determination in China, the sampling scheme "the highest concentration of exposure to harmful substances and the longest exposure to the laborer" is defined as the first scheme. (B) to define the sampling programme "when workers are able to determine the highest concentrations and longest exposure to hazardous substances" as the second option; The principle of sample selection in the United States is "maximum risk probability is equal to 10%." The sample size was determined when the confidence interval was 95. The data were analyzed and processed by statistical SPSS 16.0 software, and the quantitative data were analyzed by bilateral t test. Qualitative data analysis using bilateral 蠂 2 test (P0.05) was statistically significant. The results showed that. The mean range of the sampling results using the first Chinese scheme is 1.85 鹵1.46 mg / m ~ 3, 5.72 鹵3.81 m ~ 3 路m ~ (3) 路m ~ (3) 路m ~ (3) ~ (-1) ~ (-1). The result of the first scheme in China was slightly higher than that in the United States (5.44 鹵3.12) mg / m ~ (3). The difference was not statistically significant. In the test results of the second sampling scheme in China, the test results of a disinfection equipment factory and an automobile company were 6.34 鹵1.33 mg / m ~ 3 and 7.42 鹵2.40 mg / m ~ 3 respectively. It was a little higher than that of the United States (3.80 鹵2.01g / m ~ 3) and 3.84 鹵2.67g / m ~ (3). The results of a vehicle equipment company and a component factory are 5.41 鹵5.23 mg / m ~ 3 and 1.00 鹵0.25 mg / m ~ 3 respectively. It was slightly lower than that in the United States (5.44 鹵3.12 mg / m ~ 3) and 1.85 鹵1.46 mg / m ~ (3) respectively. There was no significant difference in the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. The sampling results in China are higher than those in the United States, but there is no significant difference between the Chinese individual sampling method and the American individual sampling method in the case of fewer sampling objects. However, the Chinese individual sampling data and the 95% credible upper limit value are generally higher than the American individual sampling data. Compared with the American sampling method, the current sampling standards of our country have some shortcomings. In order to meet the needs of the development of occupational health work, we should speed up the revision of sampling norms in China.
【作者單位】： 首都經濟貿易大學安全與環(huán)境工程學院;北京市豐臺區(qū)疾病預防控制中心;
【基金】：國家安全生產監(jiān)督管理總局2015年安全生產重大事故防治關鍵技術科技項目(beijing-0011-2015AQ)
【分類號】：R134.4
【正文快照】： 在職業(yè)病危害因素檢測工作中,個體采樣檢測具有直接、簡便、結果可靠的特點,尤其適用于巡檢作業(yè)的工人,是檢測工作的重要組成部分[1]。在我國《工作場所空氣中有害物質監(jiān)測的采樣規(guī)范》(GBZ159-2004)[2](以下簡稱“采樣規(guī)范”)中,對于職業(yè)接觸限值為時間加權平均容許濃度(PC-T

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 劉后金;;美國礦山安全衛(wèi)生管理局1975～1980年度鈾與非鈾礦山氡子體采樣結果統(tǒng)計表[J];冶金安全;1983年03期

，

本文編號：1400658