车间空气中铅烟、铅尘的有火焰与无火焰原子吸收测定法比较  

Comparison between two Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Methods with Flame or with Graphite Furnace in Determining Lead Fume and Dust in the Air of Workplaces

作　　者：吴惠刚[1] 黄诚[1] 周日东[1] 冯银凤[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省中山市疾病预防控制中心,528403

出　　处：《职业与健康》2005年第11期1664-1665,共2页Occupation and Health

摘　　要：目的比较火焰原子吸收法和无火焰原子吸收法对车间空气中铅烟、铅尘测定方法是否存在差异。方法预先对18份经空气采样器采集的车间空气中的铅烟、铅尘进行样品预处理,然后分别用火焰原子吸收法和无火焰原子吸收法检测其铅的含量,并应用统计学检验中配对设计的差值均数与总体均数比较的方法进行分析比较。结果两方法结果经统计学处理t=0.548,P>0.05。当检验水平α=0.20,并运用双侧检验时,样品信息支持无效假设不拒绝Ho。结论应用火焰原子吸收法和无火焰原子吸收法测定车间空气中铅烟、铅尘,在一定的条件之下,结果没有差异。[ Objective] To compare the two atomic absorption spectrometric methods with flame （FAAS） or with graphite furnace （GFAAS） in determining lead fume and dust in the air of workplaces. [Methods] After the 18 air samples were pre- treated, the content of lead in them was determined with FAAS and GFAAS. The result was statistically analyzed. [ Results] When the test level α = 0.20 and double- side test was applied, the sample information supported null hypothesis. [ Conclusion] There is no difference in the results whether use FAAS or GFAAS to determine the lead fume and dust.

关 键 词：火焰原子吸收法 无火焰原子吸收法 检验分析 铅烟 铅尘 

分 类 号：R115[医药卫生—公共卫生与预防医学]