论文部分内容阅读
目的研究工作场所纳米颗粒或超细颗粒质量、数量和表面积浓度评价暴露水平的适用性。方法检测纳米Fe2O3、纳米Al2O3、电焊颗粒和柴油尾气的暴露水平,分析其浓度变化倍数、浓度位次、粒径分布及其与3个暴露浓度指标相关性。结果包装岗位纳米Fe2O3和气保焊岗位纳米颗粒数量浓度和表面积浓度变化倍数大于质量浓度变化倍数。纳米Al2O3数量浓度由高到低依次为包装岗位、取样岗位、大气背景和车间控制室,与表面积浓度位次相同,与质量浓度位次不一致。粒径<100 nm的纳米Al2O3颗粒、电焊烟尘分别占总质量浓度54.55%和65.77%,分别小于相似粒径的数量浓度比例。数量浓度与表面积浓度相关系数为0.611(P<0.01),大于质量浓度与数量浓度、质量浓度与表面积浓度的相关系数。结论数量和表面积浓度较质量浓度更准确评估工作场所纳米颗粒暴露水平。
Objective To study the applicability of evaluating the exposure level of the quality, quantity and surface area concentration of nanoparticles or ultrafine particles in the workplace. Methods The exposure levels of nano-Fe2O3, nano-Al2O3, electric welding particles and diesel exhaust were detected. The concentration change, concentration order, particle size distribution and their correlation with three exposure concentration indexes were analyzed. Results The nano-Fe2O3 and gas-welding positions in the packing posts showed the change of the concentration of nano-particles and the change of surface area concentration were greater than the change of mass concentration. From high to low, the number concentration of nano-Al2O3 is packed position, sampling post, atmosphere background and workshop control room, with the same order of surface area concentration and different order of mass concentration. Nano-Al2O3 particles with a particle size of <100 nm and welding fumes accounted for 54.55% and 65.77% of the total mass concentration, respectively, which were less than that of the similar particle size. The correlation coefficient between quantity concentration and surface area concentration was 0.611 (P <0.01), which was greater than the correlation coefficient between mass concentration and quantity concentration, mass concentration and surface area concentration. Conclusions Quantitative and surface area concentrations are more accurate than mass concentrations to assess workplace exposure to nanoparticles.