CRH380系列高速列车车厢工频电场强度调查  

Power frequency electric field intensity of CRH380 high-speed train carriages

作　　者：霍伟[1] 翟壹彪[1] 刘巧英[1] 孙煜[1] 石磊[1] 丁红玉[1] 刘晓鹏[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京铁路局石家庄卫生防疫站,河北050000

出　　处：《环境与健康杂志》2014年第1期41-43,共3页Journal of Environment and Health

基　　金：北京铁路局重点科研课题(2013BQ03)

摘　　要：目的了解高铁CRH380A型、CRH380AL型和CRH380AL1型车厢内和相应站台工频电场强度。方法选择3型高铁列车各5套车底,测定35节车厢工频电场强度、动车运行和停靠站台处于待运行状态下的工频电场强度,并取站台没有车辆停靠时的工频电场强度作为对照。结果 3种车型停靠和运行两种不同状态下,各车厢之间电场强度的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);同一车型,各车厢监测点比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),车窗玻璃内侧0 m的电场强度较高,且会车侧电场强度高于非会车侧;3种车型车底电机位与车顶电弓位差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论所有监测点位电场强度均达标,CRH380系列车型工频电场屏蔽效果符合卫生学要求。Objective： To investigate power frequency electric field（PFEF） intensity of high-speed train CRH380A, CRH380AL and CRH380ALA carriages and the platform. Methods Power frequency electric field intensity was tested in three kinds of high-speed trains, five underbodies in each and 35 carriages. The tests were conducted in the conditions of running and stopping at the station. Results There was no significant difference in PFEF intensity between each carriage of three types of train during stopping and running periods （P〉0.05）; As for the same type of train, the difference was statistically significant among each monitoring sites （P〈0.01）, the electric field intensity of the inner surface of the window was higher, especially for the crossing side.No significant difference was seen in the roof bow position and motors position （P〉0.05）. Conclusion The power frequency electric field （PFEF） intensities in all of the monitoring points accord standard, as for CRH380 series models, the power frequency electric field shielding effect meets the hygiene requirements.

关 键 词：CRH380型高速列车 工频电场强度 电磁辐射 

分 类 号：R994.6[医药卫生—毒理学]