两种家用空气净化器的消毒效果评价
Disinfection Effect Evaluation of Household Air Cleaners
-
摘要:目的 比较两种类型家用空气净化器对空气中自然菌的净化效果。方法 选取代表性品牌家用空气净化器, 其中复合过滤型空气净化器8台、紫外臭氧型空气净化器6台, 参照《消毒技术规范》(卫生部2002版)进行空气消毒效果试验, 按照《家用和类似用途电器的抗菌除菌净化功能空气净化器的特殊要求》(GB 21551-2010) 和《消毒技术规规范》(卫生部2002版)进行空气消毒效果评价, 实验数据用SPSS进行统计分析。结果 两种类型空气净化器都可以达到《家用和类似用途电器的抗菌除菌净化功能空气净化器的特殊要求》(GB 21551-2010) 的要求, 但以更为严格的《消毒技术规规范》(卫生部2002版)来进行评价时, 紫外臭氧型空气净化器合格率仅为50%, 而复合过滤型空气净化器合格率为88%, 统计学分析结果说明时间和分组的交互作用无统计学意义, 而净化时间有统计学意义, 说明随着净化时间的延长, 净化效果越好。结论 紫外臭氧型空气净化器仅依靠紫外线的除菌作用导致空气净化效果较差且可能会造成臭氧的残留, 建议一般家庭使用复合过滤型空气净化器, 在有效去除微生物之外, 也能有效去除颗粒物污染。Abstract:Objective To compare the effect of two types of air cleaner on removing natural bacteria in air.Methods Two types of representative household air cleaners, including 8 sets of composite filter type air cleaner and 6 sets of UV-ozone type air cleaner, were selected to test the disinfection effect according to the Technical Standard for Disinfection(2002) and to evaluate the effect of disinfection according to the Antibacterial and Cleaning Function for Household and Similar Electrical Appliances-Particular Requirements of Air Cleaner(GB 21551.3-2010) and Technical Standard for Disinfection(2002). The data were analyzed by SPSS statistically.Results Both air cleaner types were qualified with the standards in GB 21551.3-2010, but the qualified rate of composite filter type air cleaners and UV-ozone type air cleaners based on the standard of Technical Standard for Disinfection (2002) was 50% and 88%, respectively. Statistical analysis results showed that no significant difference on the interaction of time and group except cleaning time; it means that the effect of disinfection would be better with increasing the time of running cleaner.Conclusions The disinfection effect of UV-ozone type air cleaner was not good while using UV only, and some ozone could be remained in the air. It would be better to choose composite filter type air cleaner for cleaning in household, which could remove both microorganism and particles in the air.
下载: