论文部分内容阅读
通过对比分析我国个体采样方法与美国个体采样方法对粉尘检测结果的影响,找出中美对于粉尘个体采样不同方法之间的区别及联系。本研究对北京市丰台区4个电焊车间的劳动者分别按照中国《工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范》(GBZ159-2004)和美国《Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual》规定的采样对象选取原则和采样方法进行个体采样,其中,在中国采样对象确定原则中,将“不能确定接触有害物质浓度最高和接触时间最长的劳动者时”的采样方案定义为第一种方案,将“能够确定接触有害物质浓度最高和接触时间最长的劳动者时”的采样方案定义为第二种方案;美国采样对象选取的原则按照“最高风险概率等于10%,置信区间为95%时确定采样对象人数。数据的分析及处理采用统计学SPSS 16.0软件进行,定量资料的分析采用双侧t检验,定性资料分析采用双侧χ2检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果显示,采用中国第一方案采样的检测结果均值范围(1.85±1.46)mg/m3~(5.72±3.81)mg/m3,采用美国方案为(1.85±1.46)mg/m3~(5.44±3.12)mg/m3,中国第一方案的结果略高于美国方案,差异无统计学意义;采用中国第二种采样方案检测结果中,某消毒设备厂、某汽车公司的检测结果 (6.34±1.33)mg/m3和(7.42±2.40)mg/m3,略高于美国方案检测结果 (3.80±2.01)mg/m3和(3.84±2.67)mg/m3,某车辆装备公司和某构件厂的结果 (5.41±5.23)mg/m3和(1.00±0.25)mg/m3,略低于美国检测结果(5.44±3.12)mg/m3和(1.85±1.46)mg/m3,差异无统计学意义。在95%可信区间上限值比较中,中国采样结果均较美国采样结果有增高的趋势。在采样对象较少的情况下,中国个体采样方法与美国个体采样方法所得出结果差异无统计学意义,但中国个体采样数据及95%可信上限值普遍高于美国个体采样数据。与美国采样方法比较,我国现行采样规范有一些不足,应加快我国”采样规范“修订的步伐,满足职业卫生工作发展的需要。
By comparing and analyzing the influence of the individual sampling method in our country and the individual sampling method in the United States on the dust detection results, we can find out the difference and connection between different methods of dust sampling in China and the United States. In this study, laborers of four welding workshops in Fengtai District of Beijing were selected according to the principles of sampling objects selected by China’s ”Sampling Procedure for Monitoring Airborne Hazardous Materials in the Workplace“ (GBZ159-2004) and the ”Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual“ of the United States Sampling method for individual sampling, which, in the principle of sampling objects in China, the ”can not be determined when exposed to the highest concentration of pollutants and contact with the longest working hours,“ the sampling plan is defined as the first program, the ” Able to determine the highest exposure to harmful substances and the longest contact time laborers “sampling program is defined as the second option; the United States of America sampling object selection principle according to ” the highest risk probability is equal to 10%, the confidence interval of 95% To determine the number of sampling objects.Data analysis and processing using statistical SPSS 16.0 software, quantitative data analysis using two-tailed t test, qualitative data analysis using two-sided χ2 test, P <0.05 for the difference was statistically significant.The results showed that, The mean value range of the test results using the first Chinese program was (1.85 ± 1.46) mg / m 3 ~ (5.72 ± 3.81) mg / m 3 and the US program was (1.85 ± 1.46) mg / m3 ~ (5.44 ± 3.12) mg / m3. The results of China’s first plan were slightly higher than those of the U.S. plan, with no significant difference. In the second Chinese sampling plan, (6.34 ± 1.33) mg / m3 and (7.42 ± 2.40) mg / m3 were slightly higher than those of the U.S. scheme (3.80 ± 2.01 mg / m3 and (3.84 ± 2.67) mg / m3, respectively) (5.41 ± 5.23) mg / m3 and (1.00 ± 0.25) mg / m3 for the equipment company and a component plant were slightly lower than the U.S. test results (5.44 ± 3.12) mg / m3 and (1.85 ± 1.46) mg / The difference was not statistically significant in the 95% confidence interval upper limit value comparison, the Chinese sampling results are higher than the US sampling results tend to increase in the case of fewer samples, the Chinese individual sampling method and the United States individual sampling method However, there was no significant difference between the two methods in China, but the individual sample data and the 95% credible upper limit in China were generally higher than the individual sample data in the United States. Compared with the sampling methods in the United States, there are some deficiencies in the current sampling standards in our country. "Revision pace to meet the needs of the development of occupational health work.