陕西省四城市超高压变电站工频电场强度及噪声强度分析
|
摘要
目的了解陕西省四城市不同等级超高压变电站作业环境工频电场强度和噪声强度差异及相同等级变电站不同岗位工频电场强度的分布,为变电站作业环境及作业人员防护提供参考依据。方法选取陕西省四城市18座不同电压等级变电站及办公场所,依据GBZ/T 189.3-2007《工作场所物理因素测量第3部分:工频电场》规定的方法检测工频电场强度,依据GBZ/T 189.8-2007《工作场所物理因素测量第8部分:噪声》规定方法检测噪声强度,依据GBZ 2.2-2007《作业场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素》规定进行评价。结果 215个作业点中,电场强度最小值为5 V/m,最大值为17 000 V/m,其中72(33.49%)个作业点电场强度超过职业卫生限值要求。77个噪声作业点中,噪声强度最小值为58.1 dB,最大值为79.0 d B,均未超过国家职业卫生标准。3种电压等级变电站作业环境工频电场分布比较差异有统计学意义(χ~2=6.322,P<0.05),750 kV变电站电场强度最高;三组变电站工频电场强度超限率比较差异有统计学意义(χ~2=5.549,P<0.05),750 kV变电站超限率最高;同一变电站不同岗位电场强度分布比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),相对高压区电场强度最高;3组变电站噪声强度比较差异无统计学意义(F=3.12,P>0.05)。结论陕西省四城市超高压变电站不同电压等级与工作岗位其工频电场分布存在差异,而超高压变电站中工频电场超标严重,需要采取相应的防控措施,从而保障作业人员健康。
[Objective ] To understand the difference of power frequency electric field intensity and noise intensity in working environment of different grade ultra-high voltage substation and distribution of power frequency electric field intensity in different positions of same grade substations in four cities of Shaanxi Province, and provide reference for prevention of working environment and workers of substation. [Methods] Eighteen substations and offices with different voltage levels in four cities of Shaanxi Province were selected. According to GBZ/T 189.3-2007 "Measurement of Physical Agents in Workplace Part 3:Power Frequency Electric Field" to test the power frequency electric field intensity, according to GBZ/T 189.8-2007 "Measurement of Physical Agents in Workplace Part 7:Noise" to detect noise intensity. The results were assessed according to GBZ 2.2-2007 "Occupational Exposure Limits for Hazardous Factors in Workplace Part 2: Physical Agents". [Results] Among 215 operating points, the minimum electric field intensity was 5 V/m, and the maximum value was 17 000 V/m, and 72(33.49%) operating points were beyond the requirement of occupational health limit. Among 77 noise operating points, the minimum noise intensity was 58.1 dB, and the maximum value was 79.0 dB, which all does not exceed the national occupational health standards. There was significant difference in the distribution of power frequency electric field among three voltage grade substations(χ~2=6.322,P <0.05), and 750 kV substation had the highest electric field intensity. The difference of rate of exceeding limit of power frequency electrical field intensity among three substations was statistically significant(χ~2=5.549,P<0.05), and 750 kV substation was the highest. The difference of distribution of electric field intensity in different positions of same substation was statistically significant(P<0.05),and the relatively high voltage region was the highest. There was no significant difference in noise intensity between the three substations(F=3.12,P>0.05).[Conclusion] There are differences in the distribution of power frequency electric field due to the difference of voltage grade and working position in ultra-high voltage substations in four cities of Shaanxi Province, and the power frequency electric field exceeds the standard seriously in ultra-high voltage substations. The corresponding prevention and control measures should be taken to ensure the health of workers.
[Objective ] To understand the difference of power frequency electric field intensity and noise intensity in working environment of different grade ultra-high voltage substation and distribution of power frequency electric field intensity in different positions of same grade substations in four cities of Shaanxi Province, and provide reference for prevention of working environment and workers of substation. [Methods] Eighteen substations and offices with different voltage levels in four cities of Shaanxi Province were selected. According to GBZ/T 189.3-2007 "Measurement of Physical Agents in Workplace Part 3:Power Frequency Electric Field" to test the power frequency electric field intensity, according to GBZ/T 189.8-2007 "Measurement of Physical Agents in Workplace Part 7:Noise" to detect noise intensity. The results were assessed according to GBZ 2.2-2007 "Occupational Exposure Limits for Hazardous Factors in Workplace Part 2: Physical Agents". [Results] Among 215 operating points, the minimum electric field intensity was 5 V/m, and the maximum value was 17 000 V/m, and 72(33.49%) operating points were beyond the requirement of occupational health limit. Among 77 noise operating points, the minimum noise intensity was 58.1 dB, and the maximum value was 79.0 dB, which all does not exceed the national occupational health standards. There was significant difference in the distribution of power frequency electric field among three voltage grade substations(χ~2=6.322,P <0.05), and 750 kV substation had the highest electric field intensity. The difference of rate of exceeding limit of power frequency electrical field intensity among three substations was statistically significant(χ~2=5.549,P<0.05), and 750 kV substation was the highest. The difference of distribution of electric field intensity in different positions of same substation was statistically significant(P<0.05),and the relatively high voltage region was the highest. There was no significant difference in noise intensity between the three substations(F=3.12,P>0.05).[Conclusion] There are differences in the distribution of power frequency electric field due to the difference of voltage grade and working position in ultra-high voltage substations in four cities of Shaanxi Province, and the power frequency electric field exceeds the standard seriously in ultra-high voltage substations. The corresponding prevention and control measures should be taken to ensure the health of workers.
引文
[1]金泰廙.职业卫生与职业医学[M].6版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2007:241.
[2]姜槐,许正平.电磁辐射与人体健康[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志2002,20(1):241.
[3]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所物理因素测量第3部分:工频电场:GBZ/T 189.3-2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2014:1-3.
[4]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所物理因素测量第8部分:噪声:GBZ/T 189.8─2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2014:1-6.
[5]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素:GBZ 2.2-2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2014:47-60.
[6]ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields(1 Hz to 100 k Hz)[J]. Health Physics,2010,99(6):818-836.
[7]刘跟生,江红,沈竞为,等.500 kV高压变电站工作场所工频电磁场强度研究[J].环境与职业医学,2011,28(11):661-663.
[8]李红,尹燕.500 k V变电站作业场所工频电场强度评价[J].职业卫生与职业医学,2003,18(4):287.
[9]郎燕,尹燕.南充500 kV高压变电站工频电磁场强度监测结果分析[J].工业卫生与职业病,2010,36(2):107-110.
[10]徐禄文,李永明,刘昌盛.重庆地区500 kV变电站工频电磁场分析[J].电网技术,2008,32(2):66-70.
[11]梁振光,董霞,郑路,等.500 kV变电站工频电场的测量与分析[J].高电压技术,2006,32(11):81-84.
[12]饶章权,郭启贵.500 kV变电站工频电磁场分布监测[J].高电压技术,2004,30(9):41-43.
[13]万保权,路瑶.750 kV兰州东官亭输电变电工程的工频电磁场测量[J].高电压技术,2007,33(5):41-45.
[14]刘嘉文,李丽.220 kV及以上等级变电站区域工频电磁场强度特性研究[J].广东电力,2011,24(1):7-9.
[15]陈青松,李丽琴.供电企业工频电磁场职业暴露现况研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2012,30(8):575-578.
[16]谢谦怀,唐飞,郑琪.不同等级变电站工作环境工频电磁场强度比较分析[J].中国工程卫生学,2013,12(4):296-298.
[17]徐长顺,杨培记,李魁中.某300 KV变电站职业病危害因素现状调查与评价[J].中国伤残医学,2012,20(9):111-112.
[18]刘加敏,杨培记.某500 KV变电站职业病危害因素现状调查与评价[J].中国实用医药,2011,6(22):274-275.
[2]姜槐,许正平.电磁辐射与人体健康[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志2002,20(1):241.
[3]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所物理因素测量第3部分:工频电场:GBZ/T 189.3-2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2014:1-3.
[4]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所物理因素测量第8部分:噪声:GBZ/T 189.8─2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2014:1-6.
[5]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所有害因素职业接触限值第2部分:物理因素:GBZ 2.2-2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2014:47-60.
[6]ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields(1 Hz to 100 k Hz)[J]. Health Physics,2010,99(6):818-836.
[7]刘跟生,江红,沈竞为,等.500 kV高压变电站工作场所工频电磁场强度研究[J].环境与职业医学,2011,28(11):661-663.
[8]李红,尹燕.500 k V变电站作业场所工频电场强度评价[J].职业卫生与职业医学,2003,18(4):287.
[9]郎燕,尹燕.南充500 kV高压变电站工频电磁场强度监测结果分析[J].工业卫生与职业病,2010,36(2):107-110.
[10]徐禄文,李永明,刘昌盛.重庆地区500 kV变电站工频电磁场分析[J].电网技术,2008,32(2):66-70.
[11]梁振光,董霞,郑路,等.500 kV变电站工频电场的测量与分析[J].高电压技术,2006,32(11):81-84.
[12]饶章权,郭启贵.500 kV变电站工频电磁场分布监测[J].高电压技术,2004,30(9):41-43.
[13]万保权,路瑶.750 kV兰州东官亭输电变电工程的工频电磁场测量[J].高电压技术,2007,33(5):41-45.
[14]刘嘉文,李丽.220 kV及以上等级变电站区域工频电磁场强度特性研究[J].广东电力,2011,24(1):7-9.
[15]陈青松,李丽琴.供电企业工频电磁场职业暴露现况研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2012,30(8):575-578.
[16]谢谦怀,唐飞,郑琪.不同等级变电站工作环境工频电磁场强度比较分析[J].中国工程卫生学,2013,12(4):296-298.
[17]徐长顺,杨培记,李魁中.某300 KV变电站职业病危害因素现状调查与评价[J].中国伤残医学,2012,20(9):111-112.
[18]刘加敏,杨培记.某500 KV变电站职业病危害因素现状调查与评价[J].中国实用医药,2011,6(22):274-275.