中华劳动卫生职业病杂志
中華勞動衛生職業病雜誌
중화노동위생직업병잡지
Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases
2015年
11期
822-825
,共4页
罗鑫%荣怿%汪利民%何金铜%赵明%卢玮%张润博%孙维伟%陈卫红
囉鑫%榮懌%汪利民%何金銅%趙明%盧瑋%張潤博%孫維偉%陳衛紅
라흠%영역%왕이민%하금동%조명%로위%장윤박%손유위%진위홍
粉尘%纤维计数浓度测定%方法%人造矿物纤维
粉塵%纖維計數濃度測定%方法%人造礦物纖維
분진%섬유계수농도측정%방법%인조광물섬유
Dust%Fiber number concentration determination%Methods%Man-made mineral fibers
目的 比较我国目前使用的石棉纤维计数浓度测定方法和WHO纤维计数浓度测定方法的异同,为现场准确测定纤维计数浓度提供依据.方法 以某热陶瓷纤维生产企业作为研究现场,采用个体采样方法对该企业40个工作岗位进行纤维粉尘浓度测定,使用纤维采样专用采样头和滤膜以2L/min流量采样2～4 h,采样滤膜用丙酮蒸气透明,三乙酸甘油酯进行固定,分别采用我国标准方法中石棉纤维浓度测定方法(以下简称“国标方法”)和WHO纤维计数浓度测定方法(以下简称“WHO方法”)中的计数规则,在相差显微镜下对样品进行计数浓度测定.2种方法测定结果的比较采用配对符号秩和检验以及Spearsman秩相关分析.结果 对同一样本而言,WHO方法获得的计数浓度均高于国标方法的计数浓度,2种方法计数浓度比值为1.88～3.70;配对符号秩和检验发现,2种方法计数结果的差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).Spearsman秩相关分析结果显示,2种方法计数结果存在正相关关系(P＜0.01),秩相关系数为0.621～0.975.出现差异的主要原因是石棉纤维与人造矿物纤维的性状存在差异,以及2种方法不同的计数规则.结论 WHO方法的纤维计数浓度测定结果高于国标方法的纤维计数浓度的结果,2种方法测定结果的相关性高,建议我国研制人造纤维粉尘的计数测定标准方法.
目的 比較我國目前使用的石棉纖維計數濃度測定方法和WHO纖維計數濃度測定方法的異同,為現場準確測定纖維計數濃度提供依據.方法 以某熱陶瓷纖維生產企業作為研究現場,採用箇體採樣方法對該企業40箇工作崗位進行纖維粉塵濃度測定,使用纖維採樣專用採樣頭和濾膜以2L/min流量採樣2～4 h,採樣濾膜用丙酮蒸氣透明,三乙痠甘油酯進行固定,分彆採用我國標準方法中石棉纖維濃度測定方法(以下簡稱“國標方法”)和WHO纖維計數濃度測定方法(以下簡稱“WHO方法”)中的計數規則,在相差顯微鏡下對樣品進行計數濃度測定.2種方法測定結果的比較採用配對符號秩和檢驗以及Spearsman秩相關分析.結果 對同一樣本而言,WHO方法穫得的計數濃度均高于國標方法的計數濃度,2種方法計數濃度比值為1.88～3.70;配對符號秩和檢驗髮現,2種方法計數結果的差異有統計學意義(P＜0.01).Spearsman秩相關分析結果顯示,2種方法計數結果存在正相關關繫(P＜0.01),秩相關繫數為0.621～0.975.齣現差異的主要原因是石棉纖維與人造礦物纖維的性狀存在差異,以及2種方法不同的計數規則.結論 WHO方法的纖維計數濃度測定結果高于國標方法的纖維計數濃度的結果,2種方法測定結果的相關性高,建議我國研製人造纖維粉塵的計數測定標準方法.
목적 비교아국목전사용적석면섬유계수농도측정방법화WHO섬유계수농도측정방법적이동,위현장준학측정섬유계수농도제공의거.방법 이모열도자섬유생산기업작위연구현장,채용개체채양방법대해기업40개공작강위진행섬유분진농도측정,사용섬유채양전용채양두화려막이2L/min류량채양2～4 h,채양려막용병동증기투명,삼을산감유지진행고정,분별채용아국표준방법중석면섬유농도측정방법(이하간칭“국표방법”)화WHO섬유계수농도측정방법(이하간칭“WHO방법”)중적계수규칙,재상차현미경하대양품진행계수농도측정.2충방법측정결과적비교채용배대부호질화검험이급Spearsman질상관분석.결과 대동일양본이언,WHO방법획득적계수농도균고우국표방법적계수농도,2충방법계수농도비치위1.88～3.70;배대부호질화검험발현,2충방법계수결과적차이유통계학의의(P＜0.01).Spearsman질상관분석결과현시,2충방법계수결과존재정상관관계(P＜0.01),질상관계수위0.621～0.975.출현차이적주요원인시석면섬유여인조광물섬유적성상존재차이,이급2충방법불동적계수규칙.결론 WHO방법적섬유계수농도측정결과고우국표방법적섬유계수농도적결과,2충방법측정결과적상관성고,건의아국연제인조섬유분진적계수측정표준방법.
Objective To compare the determination methods of fiber number concentration between China and WHO.Methods Individual fiber samplings were conducted at a RCF manufacturing enterprise for 40 types of work.Flow rate was set as 2 L/min and lasted 2 to 4 hours.We used acetone-triacetin to prepare samples.The rules of two methods were used to count fibers for each sample respectively.The differences between the results of two methods were compared using the sign-rank test,and the correlation between the two methods' counting results were evaluated by the Spearsman rank correlation analysis.Results The results of WHO counting rule were higher than those of Chinese counting rule for the same sample.The ratios of WHO method to Chinese method ranged from 1.88 to 3.70.Paired sign-rank test found the statistically significant differences of the results between the two methods (P＜0.01).The rank correlation coefficient of the results by two rules counting ranged between 0.621 to 0.975,suggested positive correlation (P＜0.01).The possible reasons of the difference between the two methods included the difference between the shapes of asbestos fiber and man-made mineral fiber,and counting rules of two methods.Conclusion The results of WHO counting method is higher than those of Chinese counting method.High correlations between the results of the two methods were observed.
