论文部分内容阅读
目的调查广州市公共场所室内CO、CO2浓度,并探讨公共场所室内CO、CO2浓度标准值统一的可行性。方法在广州市选择各类公共场所的822个监测点,将公共场所按《公共场所卫生标准》室内CO标准值分为第1类(≤5mg/m3)、第2类(≤10mg/m3)、第3类(未作强制项目),按CO2标准值分为第Ⅰ类(≤0.07%)、第Ⅱ类(≤0.10%)、第Ⅲ类(≤0.15%),监测室内空气中CO、CO2浓度,并进行分析。结果822个空气样本监测值显示,CO浓度(x±s)为(2.76±1.41)mg/m3,第95百分位数(P95)为6.2mg/m3;CO2浓度(x±s)为0.060%±0.020%,P95为0.099%。CO、CO2监测值呈正偏态分布,即向污染较低的方向聚集;按CO浓度标准分级的3类公共场所空气中CO浓度差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.70,P=0.157);按CO2浓度标准分级的3类场所CO2浓度差异有统计学意义(χ2=35.266,P<0.01);且第Ⅱ类场所CO2的污染比Ⅰ、Ⅲ类严重(P<0.01)。结论公共场所室内空气CO、CO2标准值分类的现实意义已减弱,采用合适的统一标准更具有现实可行性。
Objective To investigate the indoor CO and CO2 concentrations in public places in Guangzhou and discuss the feasibility of unifying the standard values of indoor CO and CO2 concentrations in public places. Methods 822 monitoring points of various public places were selected in Guangzhou. The indoor public places were classified into Category 1 (≤5mg / m3) and Category Ⅱ (≤10mg / m3) according to the indoor CO standard value of “Public Places Health Standards” , Class 3 (non-compulsory items) were classified into Category I (≤0.07%), Category Ⅱ (≤0.10%) and Category Ⅲ (≤0.15%) according to the standard value of CO2. CO2 concentration, and analyzed. Results The monitoring results of 822 air samples showed that the CO concentration (x ± s) was (2.76 ± 1.41) mg / m3, the 95th percentile (P95) was 6.2 mg / m3 and the CO2 concentration % ± 0.020%, P95 0.099%. There was no significant difference in the CO concentration in air between the three public places classified by CO concentration (χ2 = 3.70, P = 0.157) There were significant differences in CO2 concentration among the three sites (χ2 = 35.266, P <0.01). The CO2 pollution in the second site was more serious than that of the first and third sites (P <0.01). Conclusion The practical significance of classifying the standard values of CO and CO2 in indoor air of public places has been weakened, and it is more feasible to adopt suitable uniform standards.