吹脱-水解酸化-SBR法处理垃圾渗滤液的试验研究

研究采用吹脱—水解酸化—SBR工艺处理含高浓度氨氮的垃圾渗滤液。结果表明，采用吹脱预处理可去除废水中60％以上的氨氮，有利于后续生物脱氮和脱碳的进行。生物水解酸化处理在降低废水CODCr值的同时，可以提高废水的可生化性。该方法将曝气期分为二段，并设置缺氧反硝化期，可明显提高氨氮的去除率。     

Recycling, landfill consumption, and CO2 emission: analysis by waste input–output model

The emission of waste in an economy, including landfill, is to a large extent determined by its patterns of technology, institutions, and lifestyle. A mathematical model (the waste input–output model) is presented that gives a simple analytical representation of this interdependence. The model was used to evaluate the effects of alternative waste disposal and recycling options on the levels of industrial production, landfill consumption, and the emission of carbon dioxide, and also to analyze the overall dependence on landfill of individual industries. It was found that a systematic combination of the options could be effective in reducing the overall landfill consumption and carbon dioxide emission. Received: November 4, 2000 / Accepted: August 2, 2001     

中国东南部地区城市垃圾填埋场的环境岩土工程问题及其对策(英文)

东南部是中国经济最发达和人口密度最高的地区之一,因此城市垃圾堆放和处理已成为日益迫切的社会问题。对于一个发展中的国家,卫生填埋是城市垃圾处置的主要途径。本文首先回顾了中国城市垃圾卫生填埋处理的4个阶段;对比了城市垃圾卫生填埋、焚烧、堆肥3种处理方法的费用;提供了中国东南部地区城市垃圾的组成、增长和处理的相关数据;根据垃圾填埋场的地貌特征、地质环境和地质结构,对我国东南部地区城市垃圾卫生填埋场进行了分类,即丘陵型、平原型、滨海或河滨型和矿山型4类,并对这4类垃圾卫生填埋场的主要环境岩土工程问题进行了分析和探讨,最后对这些问题提出了相应的对策和今后的工作内容。     

An evaluation of landfill disposal of asbestos-containing waste and geothermal residues within a risk-assessment framework

 The public perception of risks related to waste disposal facilities appears to reflect general societal anxieties and fears, which may not have a reasonable basis. A three-tier risk assessment study was therefore conducted to evaluate the landfill disposal of asbestos-containing waste (ACW) and geothermal residues. From the tier-1 analysis, the dominant asbestiform phase was identified as chrysotile, that is tightly bound in the matrix of calcite, while arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead were identified as the chemicals of potential concern associated with geothermal residues. From the tier-2 analysis, none of the possible exposure pathways associated with the landfill disposal of ACW was found to be potentially significant. On the other hand, there were potentially significant pathways associated with landfill disposal of geothermal residues because of the considerable potential pollution impact of leachate on soil and groundwater quality. From the tier-3 analysis, the health risk associated with landfill disposal of geothermal residues was found to be time-dependent, since the contributions to risk from water-dependent and water-independent pathways occur at different times, as indicated by RESRAD–Chem simulations. Component pathway analyses were performed to identify critical exposure pathways. The results from model sensitivity analysis have identified the input parameters that have the most influence on the time of peak risk, and the cancer risk associated with water-dependent and water-independent pathways. Received: July 9, 2002 / Accepted: October 17, 2002     

混凝沉淀SBR活性炭过滤处理垃圾渗滤液

采用沉淀-SBR-活性炭过滤复合工艺对城市垃圾渗滤液进行处理，确定混凝、SBR和活性炭过滤的最佳参数。结果表明，当进水CODcr 2500mg／L、氨氮在900mg／L的条件下，经该系统处理后，出水CODcr均在300mg/L以下，氨氮在20mg/L以下。CODcr去除率达90％以上，氨氮去除率达98％以上，达到去除有机物和氨氮的较好效果。     

倾倒和填埋工业固废类事件遗留地块污染状况调查方法的研究

近年来江苏省非法倾倒、填埋工业固体废物事件仍处于高发态势。此类事件遗留地块环境隐患突出,污染调查难度大,要求高。简述了国内外关于该类型遗留地块污染调查的相关标准,调研了江苏省30个倾倒、填埋工业固废类事件遗留地块案例,总结了该类型地块污染调查面临的重点难点问题以及相关调查技术的应用,并分析了污染源探查和综合生物毒性辅助判别应用2个典型案例。提出了关于调查指南的建议,包括工作程序、调查范围、信息收集、现场踏勘等方面。以期为后续该类型地块污染问题处理处置提供科学支撑。     

城市垃圾填埋场表面覆盖层的厚度及外观设计

以青岛湖岛垃圾填埋场为试验点,研究了非封闭式填埋场的表面覆盖层的厚度,并对封闭式填埋场的表面覆盖层厚度和垃圾填埋场生态工程表面覆盖的外观设计进行了探讨。对于非封闭式填埋场,实验结果表明:表面覆盖层的厚度应在0.20~0.50m之间;对于封闭式填埋场,表面覆盖厚度应大于1.5m。垃圾填埋场的外观以坡度为1∶3的凸状设计较为适宜。      

热脱附-GC/MS法测定垃圾填埋场周围空气中氯代烃

采用热脱附-冷阱捕集-GC/MS法测定垃圾填埋场周围空气中24种氯代烃,通过试验优化并确定热脱附质谱的最佳处理条件。方法在5.00 mg/L～100 mg/L范围内线性良好,24种氯代烃的方法检出限为0.060μg/m~3～0.200μg/m~3,测定下限为0.240μg/m~3～0.800μg/m~3。空白加标回收率为91.8%～110%,6次测定结果的RSD均5%。实际样品测定结果为0.112 mg/m~3～0.412 mg/m~3,表明离垃圾填埋场最近的居民区环境中氯代烃为未检出或痕量分布,对生命体危害极低。     

Options for management of municipal solid waste in New York City: a preliminary comparison of health risks and policy implications

Landfill disposal and waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration remain the two principal options for managing municipal solid waste (MSW). One critical determinant of the acceptability of these options is the different health risks associated with each. In this analysis relying on published data and exposure modeling, we have performed health risk assessments for landfill disposal versus WTE treatment options for the management of New York City's MSW. These are based on the realistic scenario of using a waste transfer station (WTS) in Brooklyn and then transporting the untreated MSW by truck to a landfill in Pennsylvania or using a WTE facility in Brooklyn and then transporting the resultant ash by truck to a landfill in Pennsylvania. The overall results indicate that the individual cancer risks for both options would be considered generally acceptable, although the risk from landfilling is approximately 5 times greater than from WTE treatment; the individual non-cancer health risks for both options would be considered generally unacceptable, although once again the risk from landfilling is approximately 5 times greater than from WTE treatment. If one considers only the population in Brooklyn that would be directly affected by the siting of either a WTS or a WTE facility in their immediate neighborhood, individual cancer and non-cancer health risks for both options would be considered generally acceptable, but risks for the former remain considerably higher than for the latter. These results should be considered preliminary due to several limitations of this study such as: consideration of risks only from inhalation exposures; assumption that only volume and not composition of the waste stream is altered by WTE treatment; reliance on data from the literature rather than actual measurements of the sites considered, assuming comparability of the sites. However, the results of studies such as this, in conjunction with ecological, socioeconomic and equity considerations, should prove useful to environmental managers, regulators, policy makers, community representatives and other stakeholders in making sound and acceptable decisions regarding the optimal handling of MSW.