| 基于修复效果的污染土壤修复工程环境足迹分析 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 刘文晓,夏天翔,张丽娜,贾晓洋,朱笑盈,梁竞,蔡敏琦.基于修复效果的污染土壤修复工程环境足迹分析[J].环境科学研究,2022,35(10):2367-2377. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 刘文晓 夏天翔 张丽娜 贾晓洋 朱笑盈 梁竞 蔡敏琦 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1.北京市生态环境保护科学研究院，北京 100037 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家重点研发计划项目(No.2020YFC1807502, 2018YFC1801401) |
| |
| 摘 要： | 为定量评估污染土壤修复工程的环境影响，基于北方某焦化厂有机污染场地原位热脱附和阻隔通风技术的实际修复效果，计算了该工程各阶段的环境足迹及相对贡献，阐明了其主要来源，并对这两种技术修复单位方量土壤的环境足迹和基于污染物含量变化与风险削减的环境足迹强度进行了分析. 结果表明:在达到修复目标的情况下，工程施工准备阶段环境足迹占比仅在1%左右，高风险区原位热脱附施工运行阶段温室气体排放量、能源消耗量、耗水量、空气污染物排放量占比分别为63.39%、93.02%、72.82%和71.08%，低风险区阻隔通风施工运行阶段温室气体排放量、能源消耗量、耗水量、空气污染物排放量占比分别为35.40%、6.77%、26.26%和27.74%；原位热脱附技术修复单位方量土壤的环境足迹高于阻隔通风技术，原位热脱附技术的能源消耗量约为阻隔通风技术的49.70倍，温室气体排放量、耗水量、空气污染物排放量为阻隔通风技术的6.32~10.30倍. 研究显示:天然气使用、电能消耗和现场机械设备使用是该工程环境足迹的主要来源，在高风险区原位热脱附修复工程中苯的环境足迹强度高于苯并a]芘，原位热脱附技术的能源强度高于阻隔通风技术，基于污染物含量降低情况的环境足迹强度对量化原位热脱附技术的环境足迹适用性较好，而基于风险削减的环境足迹强度适用于阻隔通风技术.
|
| 关 键 词： | 环境足迹分析 原位热脱附 阻隔通风 温室气体排放 可持续修复 |
| 收稿时间： | 2022-02-21 |
Environmental Footprint Analysis of Contaminated Soil Remediation Projects Based on Remediation Effects |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1.Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Eco-Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China2.National Engineering Research Center for Urban Environmental Pollution Control, Beijing 100037, China3.Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Beijing 100037, China |
| |
| Abstract: | In order to quantitatively assess the environmental impacts of contaminated soil remediation projects, the environmental footprint, relative contribution and main sources of different remediation projects at each stage were calculated based on the actual remediation effect of in-situ thermal desorption (ISTR) and in-situ barrier &bioventing (ISBB) of organic contaminated soil at a northern coking plant. Meanwhile, the environmental footprint intensity was also analyzed. The results showed that the environmental footprint of the remediation project was only about 1% due to the short construction preparation stage and low energy and material consumption; the energy consumption, water consumption, GHG emission and air pollutant emission of ISTR construction in the high-risk zone were 93.02%, 72.82%, 63.39% and 71.08%, respectively. The energy consumption, water consumption, GHG emission and air pollutant emission of ISBB in the low-risk zone were 6.77%, 26.26%, 35.40% and 27.74%, respectively. Overall, it seemed that the ISTR link could bring a larger energy input, among which natural gas use, electrical energy consumption, and fuel for on-site mechanical equipment were the main sources of the environmental footprint of the remediation process at this site. The environmental footprint intensity of benzene was higher than that of benzoa]pyrene for the ISTR project in the high-risk zone. The energy intensity of ISBB was higher than that of different remediation technologies. The environmental footprint intensity based on concentration reduction was better for quantifying the environmental footprint of ISTR, while the environmental footprint intensity based on risk reduction was applicable for ISBB. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
| 点击此处可从《环境科学研究》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《环境科学研究》下载全文 |
|
