渗滤液回灌负荷对填埋场垃圾产气效能的影响

以4座有效垃圾量均为30t的模拟厌氧生物反应器填埋柱(R1～R4),每周分别回灌1.6,0.8,0.2m³的渗滤液和0.1m³清水,对比分析渗滤液回灌负荷对垃圾产气效能及稳定化进程的影响.结果表明,回灌比例最大(5.3%)的实验柱R1在回灌5周后开始大量产气,比R2～R4分别提前了7～13周;且垃圾产气速率与系统进水COD、VFA等污染负荷的变化存在正相关关系.回灌至第50周时,R1柱内垃圾更趋于稳定,TOC和COD的累积气相转化率分别为28.96%和14.57%,这表明部分有机质在回灌早期随液相流失,减少了垃圾产气潜能.因此,为提高生物反应器填埋场的垃圾产气效能,应根据垃圾稳定化的不同阶段适时地调整回灌方案.     

渗滤液回灌对其最终处理的影响中试研究

针对2座中试规模反应柱,分别考察渗滤液回灌和不回灌的情况,研究传统厌氧型生物反应器填埋场渗滤液回灌对其最终处理的影响.结果表明:回灌对渗滤液中的有机污染物有很好的去除效果,但对难降解物质以及氮、磷的净化效果不明显.回灌44周后,渗滤液的BOD5去除率达到98.5%,但出流的BOD₅/COD值仅为0.07,BOD₅/TN和BOD₅/TP分别为0.13和11,远低于厌氧条件下微生物生长适值,很难通过传统的生物处理方法净化.在设计生物反应器填埋场时,应该充分考虑到渗滤液经过回灌后组成特性,选择合适的渗滤液处理方案和填埋、回灌方式,充分利用垃圾体的净化作用.     

高低压废气再循环系统(EGR)对进气道喷醇式柴油甲醇双燃料发动机的影响

以一台加装了进气道喷醇系统（MIIA）、高低压废气再循环系统（EGR）的2.8 L增压中冷高压共轨直喷柴油机为平台,在不同负荷下开展不同外部EGR循环方式对进气道喷醇式柴油甲醇双燃料发动机性能影响的试验研究.结果表明,柴油甲醇组合燃烧（DMCC）技术对EGR技术具有良好兼容性.在采用国VI排放法规标准规定的稳态试验循环（WHSC）测试条件下,借助EGR技术的DMCC发动机氮氧化物（NO_x）排放会显著降低且颗粒物（PM）保持在较低水平,打破了NO_x-PM的trade-off关系.此外,不同EGR方式对排放特性、进排气参数、燃烧特性和经济性能的影响存在显著差异,耦合排气背压阀（BPV）后的低压EGR策略可实现更高的EGR率,将NO_x排放降至国VI限值附近.但同等EGR率下发动机采用高压EGR更具优势,利于均质混合气的形成,增加预混燃烧占比,获得更高的燃烧效率和热效率.然而受限于高EGR率需求,采用单一型式EGR策略实现DMCC发动机满足国VI限值仍存在困难.     

A/O生物脱氮工艺内循环回流和外碳源投加综合控制的优化

为了提高A/O工艺反硝化效果,应用COST/IWA-Benchmark基准对5种内循环回流量和外碳源投加综合控制策略进行了比较.结果表明,控制策略1无论从外碳源消耗量、出水水质,还是从控制器稳定性上都是最优的控制策略,它有2个反馈环路组成,一个环路控制外碳源投加量,从而维持缺氧区出水硝酸氮浓度处于最优设定值2mg/L,另外一个环路控制内循环回流量,维持好氧区出水硝酸氮浓度(根据排放标准确定,一般为8～12mg/L).该策略在低负荷时可以高效利用缺氧区反硝化容量,而在高负荷时通过控制外碳源投量保证出水硝酸氮满足排放标准.     

生物反应器填埋场稳定技术

通过模拟实验研究了污泥接种、回灌前对渗滤液进行加热、不同的渗滤液回灌频率对生物反应器填埋场稳定进程的影响。研究表明，污泥接种、回灌前对渗滤液进行加热、较高的环境温度均有利于生物反应器填埋场快速稳定，垃圾填埋前期较低的渗滤液回灌频率有助于生物反应器填埋场快速进入产甲烷阶段，后期较高的渗滤液回灌频率则有利于填埋垃圾较快稳定。     

垃圾填埋场渗滤液处理的研究进展

介绍了城市垃圾填埋场渗滤液的不同处理方法(生物处理、物化处理、土地处理)和不同处理工艺的现状。由于渗滤液成分的复杂和多样化,所以常采用组合工艺联合处理,处理工艺流程的选用应符合因地制宜的原则,由填埋场当地的气候特征、周围环境、渗滤液水量、水质特性、处理程度及投资情况决定。最后还指出了渗滤液处理技术的发展趋势。     

城市固体废物好氧生物反应器填埋方式的实验研究

MSW(城市固体废物)生物反应器型填埋是一种较新颖的方法。在系统分析现有填埋方法优缺点的基础上,对其加以改进,将强制通风好氧和渗滤液循环2种方式有机地结合在一起,构建了MSW好氧生物反应器。考察了NH3、CH4、CO2、pH和温度等因素,并监测分析了渗滤液中的COD、BOD5、Zn2+、NH4+和NO3-等指标,旨在研究其中垃圾的降解及渗滤液中COD、BOD5、Zn2+、NH4+和NO3-的去除情况,探讨该生物反应器对垃圾和渗滤液相关参数的作用机理。结果表明,该反应器对渗滤液中COD、BOD5、NO3-的去除率分别达到96.34%、94.58%和99.9%,对其中的Zn2+也有较好的脱除效果。     

垃圾填埋场渗滤液回流处理技术研究进展

垃圾渗滤液回流处理后，CODcr去除率最高达95％，在半好氧状态下NH3-N质量浓度降低至10mg/L几以下，渗滤液水质得到改善；渗滤液回流增加了湿度，使有机物的降解速率加快；渗滤液同流处产甲烷速率是不回流处产甲烷速率的2倍多：渗滤液回流处的总沉降幅度可达填埋场深度的20％，而不回流处仅为8％。回流处理技术分为直接回流至垃圾层、表面喷灌或浇灌至填埋场表面、地表下回流或内层回流技术。在填埋场处于产酸阶段早期，回流的渗滤液量宜少不宜多：在产气阶段则可逐渐增加。应将稳定化程度高的垃圾层区(产甲烷区)排出的渗滤液回流至新填人的垃圾层(产酸区)，将新垃圾层所产生的渗滤液回流至老的稳定化区。通过控制垃圾的组成、回流的时间、渗滤液的pH值等手段可改善回流处理效果。     

渗滤液的反渗透浓缩液回灌技术应用

以宜昌、宁国、蒙城垃圾填埋场为例,介绍了碟管式反渗透(DTRO)——浓缩液回灌工艺,研究发现:浓缩液回灌方式应根据垃圾填埋场的地理特征和业主的具体要求来确定。山谷型填埋场可以采用石笼回灌法,施工简单,成本较低,另外也可采用两层生物滤化床方式,成本稍高,但效果较好;平原型填埋场宜采用两层生物滤化床方式,而采用石笼回灌法容易出现短流现象。浓缩液回灌对渗滤液电导率无明显影响,不会影响后续反渗透系统的正常运行。     

Evaluation of groundwater flow patterns around a dual-screened groundwater circulation well

Dual-screened groundwater circulation wells (GCWs) can be used to remove contaminant mass and to mix reagents in situ. GCWs are so named because they force water in a circular pattern between injection and extraction screens. The radial extent, flux and direction of the effective flow of this circulation cell are difficult to measure or predict. The objective of this study is to develop a robust protocol for assessing GCW performance. To accomplish this, groundwater flow patterns surrounding a GCW are assessed using a suite of tools and data, including: hydraulic head, in situ flow velocity, measured hydraulic conductivity data from core samples, chemical tracer tests, contaminant distribution data, and numerical flow and transport models. The hydraulic head data show patterns that are consistent with pumping on a dual-screened well, however, many of the observed changes are smaller than expected. In situ thermal perturbation flow sensors successfully measured horizontal flow, but vertical flow could not be determined with sufficient accuracy to be useful in mapping flow patterns. Two types of chemical tracer tests were utilized at the site and showed that much of the flow occurs within a few meters of the GCW. Flow patterns were also assessed based on changes in contaminant (trichloroethylene, TCE) concentrations over time. The TCE data clearly showed treated water moving away from the GCW at shallow and intermediate depths, but the circulation of that water back to the well, except very close to the well, was less clear. Detailed vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivities were measured on 0.3 m-long sections from a continuous core from the GCW installation borehole. The measured vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity data were used to construct numerical flow and transport models, the results of which were compared to the head, velocity and concentration data. Taken together, the field data and modeling present a fairly consistent picture of flow and transport around the GCW. However, the time and expense associated with conducting all of those tests would be prohibitive for most sites. As a consequence, a sequential protocol for GCW characterization is presented here in which the number of tools used can be adjusted to meet the needs of individual sites. While not perfect, we believe that this approach represents the most efficient means for evaluating GCW performance.