坑道空气两种方法消毒效果观察  

Observation on Disinfection Effect of Two Kinds of Methods on the Air in Tunnel

作　　者：张永良[1] 侯小平[1] 赵英坡[2] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民解放军第251医院 [2]中国人民解放军66455部队工化处

出　　处：《实用预防医学》2013年第9期1090-1091,共2页Practical Preventive Medicine

基　　金：北京军区基金课题(06BJ005)

摘　　要：目的观察紫外线和二氧化氯(ClO2)消毒剂对坑道空气的消毒效果,为坑道科学管理提供依据。方法紫外线消毒采用紫外线灯照射法,ClO2消毒采用气溶胶喷雾法;用撞击法监测两种方法消毒前后细菌总数及真菌数,计算消亡率。结果紫外线消毒细菌总数消亡率为76.6%,真菌数消亡率为74.9%;ClO2消毒细菌总数消亡率为94.3%,真菌数消亡率为92.8%;两种方法消毒细菌总数和真菌数消亡率差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论坑道空气两种消毒方法中,ClO2消毒效果优于紫外线消毒,消毒方法简便、快速、安全,消毒效果好,适合坑道条件下的空气消毒。Objective To evaluate the sterilization effect of ultraviolet light and chlorine dioxide （ClO2） on the air in tun- nel, and provide a basis for the scientific management of tunnel. Methods Ultraviolet light irradiation method was employed for ultraviolet disinfection, and aerosol spray method was used for ClO2disinfection. Before and after using the two disinfection methods, the collision method was used to monitor the total bacterial count and fungi count, and the extinction rate was calculat ed. Results After using ultraviolet disinfection, the total bacterial death rate and the extinction rate of fungi were 76.6 % and 74.9%, respectively. After using ClO2 disinfection, the total bacterial death rate and the extinction rate of fungi were 94.3 % and 92.8 %, respectively. And the two methods showed statistically significant differences （ P 〈 0.01 ）. Conclusions The effect of ClO2 disinfection is superior to that of ultraviolet light. ClO2 disinfection is simple, rapid, safe, and effective; moreover, it is suitable for air disinfection in tunnel.

关 键 词：坑道空气 二氧化氯 紫外线 空气消毒 

分 类 号：R187[医药卫生—流行病学]