Abstract：Objective To learn the accuracy of sound level meters among occupational diseases prevention institutes in Shenzhen and to provide basis for noise measurement and control. Methods In November 2017, the inter-laboratory comparisons between the sound level meters performance results of 9 district-level occupational diseases prevention institutes in Shenzhen were conducted using GLQC-202 multi-frequency point acoustic calibrator,the allowable deviation of the frequency-weighted measurements,the linear level measurements and the simulated on-site noise sources at fixed locations in workplaces were evaluated according to JJG 188-201 and GB/T 27043-2012.Results Eighteen sound level meters were included and were certified within the validated period. The satisfaction rate for frequency-weighted measurement results was 64.7%,and the unsatisfactory results mainly lay in the two high-frequency bands of 4 000 and 8 000 Hz. The satisfaction rate for linear level measurement results was 88.4%,and the unsatisfactory results lay in the two acoustic signals of 104 and 124 dB of the 4 000 Hz octave center frequency band. The satisfaction rates of inter-laboratory Z-score（ZB）and intra-laboratory Z-score（ZW）were 94.4% and 83.3% respectively,and the outlier rates both were 5.6%.Conclusion Although the sound level meters tested were within their valid certification periods,the accuracy of measurement results may still be biased,which mainly lay in the two high-frequency bands of 4 000 and 8 000 Hz.
[1] 金泰. 职业卫生与职业医学[M]. 6版. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2008. [2] 石勇兵,WILLIAM H M,隋音,等. 中国的噪声性听力损害是一个潜在严重的公众健康问题[J]. 中华耳科学杂志,2016,14(6):713-718. [3] ANTONIO C.Reproducibility interlabroatory impact sound insulation measurement:proceeding of the Thirteenth International Congress on Sound and Vibration,July 2-6,2006[C]. Vienna:International Congress on Sound and Vibration,2006. [4] CHRISTIAN S.Uncertainty of measured and calculated sound insulation in buildings—results of a sound robin test:proceeding of Managing Uncertainty in Noise Measurement and Prediction[J]. Noise Control Eng J,2007,55(1):67-75. [5] 肖斌,陈青松,温薇,等. 职业卫生技术服务机构噪声测量仪器实验室间比对研究[J]. 中国职业医学,2014,41(6):683-688. [6] 宫曼. 声校准器法在声级计频率计权和频率响应校准中的应用[C]. 全国几何量、力学专业计量测试技术交流会,2013. [7] 张婷婷,沈洁,杨盛谊,等. 噪声性耳聋动物模型研究[J]. 预防医学,2017,29(10):1013-1016. [8] 石磊,张星. 噪声对人体健康影响研究进展[J]. 中国职业医学,2015,42(2):225-228. [9] 郭桂梅,邓欢忠,韦献革,等. 噪声对人体健康影响的研究进展[J]. 职业与健康,2016,32(5):713-716. [10] 周彩玲,贾月芝,胡应祖,等. 噪声作业工人听力损失调查[J]. 预防医学,2017,29(1):91-92. [11] 李成林. 噪声作业对工人听力及心血管系统的影响[D]. 济南:济南大学,2016. [12] 陈辉,蒋健敏,张美辨,等. 工业噪声测量指标研究进展[J].预防医学,2016,28(4):376-379. [13] 同立民,吴群. 空气声测量器具计量检定原理等工作的探讨[J]. 计量与测试技术,2017,44(3):22-23. [14] 张多利. 声级计示值误差测量值的不确定度分析[J]. 计量与测试技术,2014,41(12):58-59. [15] Nordic Innovation Centre.NT technical report:inter-laboratory comparison of nordtest test method for measurement of noise in working environment[R]. Norway:Nordic Innovation Centre,2004. [16] 严茂胜,林瀚生,陈青松,等. 噪声测量仪器性能实验室间比对评价[J]. 中国职业医学,2015,42(3):292-296. [17] 王建平,王超杰,廖俊强. 三明市疾病预防控制机构噪声检测仪器实验室间比对[J]. 临床合理用药,2010,31(14):112. [18] 徐国勇,林瀚生,肖斌,等. 职业卫生技术服务机构现场噪声测量操作能力实验室间比对[J]. 中国职业医学,2015,42(1):51-54. [19] 徐国勇,陈青松,林瀚生,等. 68家职业卫生技术服务机构非稳态噪声模拟测量的比对[J]. 中国工业医学杂志,2016,29(3):217-219. [20] 陈青松. 工作场所噪声检测与评价[M]. 广州:中山大学出版社,2015.
