发现和消除未遂事件保障装置安全生产——洛阳分公司2006年未遂事件、事故隐患统计分析

统计了洛阳分公司2006年度事故隐患情况,从未遂事件、事故隐患的时间段、后果、性质、直接原因等方面进行了深入细致的分析,找出影响洛阳分公司安全生产的主要隐患,提出了相应对策措施和建议.     

油品装卸过程静电特性研究

为了研究油品装卸过程中的静电危险性,在两个城市的油库和加油站对油品的装油、卸油过程,以及装油的油罐车从油库向加油站行驶的过程中,油罐车内油品的油面电位进行了静电检测。通过对大量油罐车内油面电位的检测数据分析可以看出,在正常装卸油过程中,油罐车内油品的油面电位远远小于标准所规定安全油面电位,有缩短稳油时间的可能性。     

燃煤电厂锅炉PM2.5排放危害度评价模型建立及案例分析

为评价燃煤电厂锅炉PM2.5排放的危害度,根据颗粒的形成机制及对环境和人体健康的影响程度,将PM2.5进行了粒径分段,综合考虑不同粒径段颗粒物的质量浓度、粒数浓度、汞相对富集因子及汞元素在煤灰分中含量,建立了燃煤锅炉PM2.5排放危害度综合评价模型,最后利用已有文献现场实验测得的数据对评价模型进行了案例分析,并提出了危害度削减系数概念,可用于对除尘装置进行评价.     

静置/好氧/缺氧序批式反应器（SBR）脱氮除磷效果研究

以静置段代替传统厌氧段,采用后置缺氧方式,考察了静置/好氧/缺氧序批式反应器(SBR)(R1)的生物脱氮除磷(BNR)性能,并与传统厌氧/好氧/缺氧序批式反应器(SBR)(R2)进行对比.两反应器进水乙酸钠、氨氮(NH+4-N)及磷酸盐(PO3-4-P)浓度均分别为350 mg·L-1(以COD计)、40 mg·L-1及12 mg·L-1,水力停留时间(HRT)为12 h.研究结果表明,R1长期运行中磷的去除率与R2相当,分别为92.4%和92.1%,而总氮(TN)去除率则较R2高,分别为83.5%和77.0%.R1静置段省去搅拌但仍能起到厌氧段的作用,为好氧快速摄磷奠定了基础,同时R1缺氧段发生反硝化摄磷,使出水磷降至0.91 mg·L-1.好氧段内R1发生了同步硝化-反硝化(SND),贡献了18.0%的TN去除量,R2也存在SND,但脱氮贡献率较少,仅为9.8%.R1和R2后置缺氧反硝化均以糖原驱动,反硝化速率分别为0.98、0.84 mg·g-1·h-1(以每g VSS产生的N(mg)计),出水TN分别为6.62、9.21 mg·L-1.研究表明,静置段代替传统厌氧段后,可获得更好的脱氮效果,且工艺更为简化.     

基于静态特征和动态行为的火灾检测模型

为实时准确地检测视频监控的火灾信号,减少火灾误报,提出1种基于静态特征和动态行为的火灾检测方法.利用改进的Faster RCNN检测模型,根据可疑火灾区域的颜色特征和空间特征对其进行目标检测和特征降维,与传统的Faster RCNN相比平均检测精度提升5％;利用ILSTM对连续帧中的特征进行累加,对短期内是否发生过火灾...     

室内环境污染危害及防治

介绍了我国室内环境污染问题的现状和室内环境中的主要污染物及其来源, 分析了室内环境污染对人体健康的危害,提出了针对室内环境污染的防治措施.     

有机酸性腐蚀品生产危险性分析

目前我国化工生产中涉及大量有机酸性腐蚀品,通过对某市化工行业调查及分析,发现有机酸性腐蚀品生产普遍,而且生产原料易燃易爆,生产过程存在火灾爆炸危险,结合具体生产工艺,采用预先危险性分析法和作业条件的危险性评价法分析生产过程危险性,从而揭示并概括有机酸性腐蚀品生产危险性.为更好地促进我国安全生产,在此基础上探讨了一些针对性的安全措施.     

火源位置对L型管廊电缆火灾影响规律的数值模拟研究

选取某城市L型综合管廊电缆舱为研究对象,采用FDS数值模拟软件研究了不同火源位置对L型管廊电缆火灾温度纵向衰减规律、烟气浓度分布规律及烟气危害性的影响。研究结果表明,L型廊道构型影响了不同火源位置的管廊电缆火灾最高温度纵向衰减的连续性,基于热边界层理论提出了适用于L型管廊的二维平面最高温度纵向衰减模型。基于峰宽时间计算了L型管廊火灾的烟气总危害性参数,不同火源位置的烟气危害性总在靠近管廊节点位置处最低。这些结果可对综合管廊的消防设计与火灾防控提供参考。     

226Ra, 232Th and 40K analysis in soil samples from some areas of Malwa region, Punjab, India using gamma ray spectrometry

The activity concentrations of soil samples collected from thirty different locations of Malwa region of Punjab were determined by using HPGe detector based on high-resolution gamma spectrometry system. The range of activity concentrations of ²²⁶Ra, ²³²Th and ⁴⁰K in the soil from the studied areas varies from 18.37 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sangrur) to 53.11 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sitoguno), 57.28 Bq kg⁻¹ (Dhanola) to 148.28 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sitoguno) and 211.13 Bq kg⁻¹ (Sunam) to 413.27 Bq kg⁻¹ (Virk Khera) with overall mean values of 35 Bq kg⁻¹, 80 Bq kg⁻¹and 317 Bq kg⁻¹ respectively. The absorbed dose rate calculated from activity concentration of ²²⁶Ra, ²³²Th and ⁴⁰K ranges between 8.47 and 24.48, 35.68 and 92.38, and 8.74 and 17.11 nGy h⁻¹, respectively. The total absorbed dose in the study area ranges from 58.08 nGy h⁻¹ to 130.85 nGy h⁻¹ with an average value of 79.11 nGy h⁻¹. The calculated values of external hazard index (H_ex) for the soil samples of the study area range from 0.35 to 0.79. Since these values are lower than unity, therefore, according to the Radiation Protection 112 (European Commission. Radiation Protection 112 1999) report, soil from these regions is safe and can be used as a construction material without posing any significant radiological threat to population.     

Framing of Geoengineering Affects Support for Climate Change Mitigation

The growing recognition that climate change mitigation alone will be inadequate has led scientists and policymakers to discuss climate geoengineering. An experiment with a US sample found, contrary to previous research, that reading about geoengineering did not reduce conservatives’ skepticism about the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, depending on how it is framed, geoengineering can reduce support for mitigation among both conservatives and non-conservatives. When geoengineering is framed as a major solution, people worry less about climate change, leading to reduced mitigation support. When framed as disastrous, people perceived geoengineering as riskier, also leading to a decrease in mitigation support. A more moderate framing of geoengineering as a partial solution is less susceptible to moral hazard effects. Overall, results suggest that geoengineering will not lessen political polarization over anthropogenic climate change, and could undercut support for mitigation efforts. Instead, framing geoengineering as a small piece to solving a big puzzle seems to be the best strategy to weaken this potential moral hazard.