三种不同光源激发空气消毒器中纳米二氧化钛丝网的空气消毒效果观察

Observation on air disinfection effect of nano-TiO_2 mesh excited by three different light sources

目的:观察普通日光灯、365 nm紫外线灯和254 nm紫外线灯激发纳米光催化空气消毒器中纳米二氧化钛丝网的空气消毒效果。方法:按照《消毒技术规范》中空气消毒效果模拟现场试验和空气消毒效果现场试验的评价方法,消毒器分别运行作用三个不同时间进行试验观察。结果:以普通日光灯作为激发光源的空气消毒器,运行60 min后,模拟现场和现场试验平均消亡率分别为92.36%和86.97%,而选用波长为365 nm紫外灯时的结果为97.37%和93.35%;选用波长为254 nm紫外灯时,消毒器分别运行30 min和15 min,模拟现场试验和现场试验结果均可达到消毒合格。结论:三种不同光源空气消毒器的消毒效果均随着消毒作用时间的增加而增强。波长为254 nm的紫外灯作为激发光源对空气消毒效果最好,而普通日光灯相对较差。

Objective： To observe the air disinfection effect of nano - Ti02 mesh in air disinfection. The nano - TiO2 mesh is excited by ordinary fluorescent light, 365 nm ultraviolet light and 254 nm ultraviolet light. Methods： According to the approach in ＂Technical Standard for Disinfection＂ that evaluates the air disinfection effect in both simulated field experiments and field experiments, the effect is observed when the air disinfection works at three different scales of time. Results： After the air disinfection with the ordinary fluorescent light for 60 minutes, the average decay rates for the simulated field experiments and field experiments are 92.36% and 86.97% respectively. Under the same work time （60 minutes）, the decay rates of 365 nm uhraviolet light for the simulated field experiments and field experiments are 97.37% and 93.35% respectively. By using the 254 nm uhraviolet light, after the air disinfection for 30 minutes or 15 minutes, both the simulated field experiments result and field experiments result are qualified. Conclusion ： The effect of the air disinfection with the three different light sources becomes better as the work time increases. The 254 nm ultraviolet light can achieve the best air disinfection effect, while the ordinary fluorescent light has a relatively bad effect.