刘武忠, 张超, 黄沪涛, 赵乾魁, 孙原, 赵忠林, 陈香, 王翔, 田雨来. 典型呼吸防护用品对工作场所空气中不同金属颗粒物的防护能力研究[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2022, 40(4): 407-411. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2022.04.004
引用本文: 刘武忠, 张超, 黄沪涛, 赵乾魁, 孙原, 赵忠林, 陈香, 王翔, 田雨来. 典型呼吸防护用品对工作场所空气中不同金属颗粒物的防护能力研究[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2022, 40(4): 407-411. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2022.04.004
shu
LIU Wuzhong, ZHANG Chao, HUANG Hutao, ZHAO Qiankui, SUN Yuan, ZHAO Zhonglin, CHEN Xiang, WANG Xiang, TIAN Yulai. Study on protective ability of typical respiratory protective equipment against different airborne metal particles in workplaces[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2022, 40(4): 407-411. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2022.04.004
Citation: LIU Wuzhong, ZHANG Chao, HUANG Hutao, ZHAO Qiankui, SUN Yuan, ZHAO Zhonglin, CHEN Xiang, WANG Xiang, TIAN Yulai. Study on protective ability of typical respiratory protective equipment against different airborne metal particles in workplaces[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2022, 40(4): 407-411. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2022.04.004
shu

典型呼吸防护用品对工作场所空气中不同金属颗粒物的防护能力研究

Study on protective ability of typical respiratory protective equipment against different airborne metal particles in workplaces

    摘要
  • 摘要:
      目的  通过测定焊接工人佩戴的不同呼吸防护用品（respiratory protection equipment，RPE）对不同金属的工作场所防护因数（workplace protection factor，WPF），比较不同类型RPE对不同金属颗粒物的防护能力。
      方法  选择上海某船厂焊接岗位工人18人（17名男性和1名女性）为研究对象，根据工人日常工作实际佩戴的RPE类型，确定相应的RPE测试，其中5人佩戴过滤式半面罩（RPE1），13人佩戴三折折叠式防颗粒物口罩（RPE2），采用改良的美国WPF测试方法分别测试RPE内、外的金属颗粒物浓度，计算WPF值并进行对数转换，组间相关性采用Pearson相关分析，组间比较采用两因素非参数Scheirer-Ray-Hare检验。
      结果  锰颗粒和铁颗粒的WPF值符合对数正态分布，呼吸防护用品对锰颗粒和铁颗粒的WPF第5百分位数（WPF5%）分别为15.01和13.60，几何均数（GM）分别为114.76和82.37，RPE1和RPE2的WPF5%分别为11.25和22.28，GM分别为86.49和123.01。两种RPE对空气中金属粉尘颗粒物的WPF数值差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05），而铁和锰两种金属的WPF数值差异亦无统计学意义（P > 0.05），且RPE类型和不同金属颗粒物之间对防护效果不存在交互作用（P > 0.05）。
      结论  改良的WPF测试方法能有效测试RPE的WPF值，本次测试的2种RPE对不同金属颗粒物均能起到防护作用，防护效果接近。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To compare the protective effect of 2 types of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) against various metal particles by calculating the workplace protection factor (WPF) of RPEs worn by welders in a shipyard.
      Methods  A total of 18 welding workers (17 male and 1 female) from a shipyard in Shanghai participated in this study. They used the same type of PRE as they actually wore in the daily work, with 5 of them wearing filtered half masks (RPE1) and 13 wearing tri-folded anti-particulate masks (RPE2). The concentrations of metal particles inside and outside the RPE were measured using modified American WPF test method and the WPF values were computed. Pearson correlation analysis was adopted to analyze log-transformed data and a two-way nonparametric Scheirer-Ray-Hare test was used to compare the effect of 2 types of RPE against metal particles.
      Results  Against manganese particles and iron particles, the WPF values followed lognormal distribution, and the 5th percentile of WPF (WPF5%) were 15.01 and 13.60 with the geometric mean (GM) of 114.76 and 82.37, respectively. The WPF5% of RPE1 and RPE2 were 11.25 and 22.28, with the GM of 86.49 and 123.01, respectively. The differences of WPF values between 2 types of RPEs were not statistically significant (P > 0.05), while the differences of WPF values against two metal particles, Fe and Mn, were also not statistically significant (P > 0.05), and there was no interaction between the RPE types and metal particles on the protection effect (P > 0.05).
      Conclusions  The modified WPF test method can effectively test the WPF values of RPE, and the two types of RPEs tested in this study can provide protection against different metal particles with a similar effect.

     

    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(20)
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)

/

返回文章
返回