两种噪声强度测定法用于噪声作业岗位卫生学评价的比较

目的　探讨两种不同方法对工作场所的噪声强度进行测定的效果 ,为噪声作业岗位的卫生学评价提供科学依据。方法　选择有噪声作业的 3个场所 ,且噪声是不连续、非稳态噪声 ,分别用瞬时测定方法和等效连续A声级测定方法对噪声强度进行测定。结果　用瞬时测定方法测得 3个工作场所A、B、C的噪声强度分别是 89 6dB(A)、95 3dB(A)和 92 7dB(A) ,3个工作场所的噪声强度都超过国家职业卫生标准。用等效连续A声级方法测得 3个工作场所的噪声强度分别是 83 8dB(A)、92 5dB(A)和 88 7dB(A) ,根据国家职业卫生标准 ,工作场所A噪声强度未超标 ,工作场所B、C噪声强度超标。结论　对于不连续、非稳态噪声 ,用等效连续A声级方法测定噪声强度比瞬时测定方法更科学合理 ,更客观反映劳动者接触噪声的实际情况

Comparison of two methods of noise intensity monitoring applied in hygienic evaluation on noise-exposed workplaces

Objective] To explore the effect of two methods of monitoring noise intensity in workplaces and to provide scientific basis for hygienic evaluation on noise-exposed workplaces. Methods] Instant monitoring and equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level monitoring were applied to monitor the noise intensity in 3 workplaces with incontinuous and unstable noise. Results] Instant monitoring indicated that the noise intensity in the 3 workplaces were 89.6 dB (A), 95.3 dB (A) and 92.7 dB (A) respectively. All of them exceeded the national standard for occupational hygiene. The equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level monitoring indicated that the noise intensity in the 3 workplaces were 83.8 dB (A), 92.5 dB (A) and 88.7 dB (A) respectively. Noise intensity in workplace A didn't exceed the standard while that in workplace B and C both exceeded the standard. Conclusion] Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level monitoring is more scientific and reasonable in determining incontinuous and unstable noise, and more objective in reflecting the reality of workers' exposure to noise.