基于生命周期评价的土壤热脱附修复技术绿色可持续性分析

石油炼制与化工 ›› 2024, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (9): 118-128.

基于生命周期评价的土壤热脱附修复技术绿色可持续性分析

原慧聪¹,桑义敏¹,杨磊²,杨婷玉¹,宋权威³,张雪²,甄占胜²

1. 北京石油化工学院机械工程学院
2. 中国石油辽河石化分公司
3. 中国石油安全环保技术研究院有限公司

收稿日期:2024-03-11 修回日期:2024-05-04 出版日期:2024-09-12 发布日期:2024-08-28
通讯作者: 原慧聪 E-mail:1982404498@qq.com
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划资助项目;国家重点研发计划资助项目

GREEN SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS OF SOIL THERMAL DESORPTION REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY BASED ON LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Received:2024-03-11 Revised:2024-05-04 Online:2024-09-12 Published:2024-08-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 基于全生命周期评价的产品碳足迹在线分析系统eFootprint和中国华东区域5个污染土壤异位热脱附修复工程案例，从环境影响潜值角度评估了热脱附技术的绿色可持续性。结果表明，天然气、活性炭和电力污染是土壤热脱附修复技术的主要环境影响因素，其累积环境影响频率分别为95.00%，97.03%，92.82%。对于初级能源消耗潜值、气候变化潜值和臭氧层消耗潜值指标来说，土壤预处理是主要影响阶段，贡献率分别为51.37%，59.09%，53.86%。对于水资源消耗潜值和竞争-土地使用潜值指标来说，尾气处理是主要影响阶段，贡献率占比分别为55.1%和99.92%。在污染土壤预处理过程中，柴油对臭氧层消耗潜值和竞争-土地使用潜值指标的影响最大，贡献率分别为83.68%和100%；在主处理过程中，对于所有的可持续性和绿色性指标，天然气均是主要贡献因素，所有指标的贡献率均超过60%；在尾气处理过程中，废水对初级能源消耗潜值、非生物质资源消耗潜值、气候变化潜值、酸化潜值、富营养化潜值和可吸入无机物潜值的贡献较大，贡献率分别为75.90%，66.92%，81.90%，91.98%，93.61%，90.76%。综合考虑各阶段的影响，可采用电加热或其他清洁能源来代替传统的柴油加热，研究和推广可回收或可生物降解的聚偏二氟乙烯膜材料，开发和使用低钙或者无钙的土壤改良剂以减少对生石灰的需求，逐步增加可再生能源在热脱附过程中的应用比例等，以改善能源和修复效率，减少环境排放，从而提高热脱附技术的绿色可持续性。

关键词: 热脱附修复, 生命周期评价, 产品碳足迹在线分析系统, 绿色可持续

Abstract: Based on the whole life cycle assessment software eFootprint and five cases of ectopic thermal desorption remediation projects of contaminated soil in East China, the green sustainability of thermal desorption technology was evaluated from the perspective of environmental impact potential. The results showed that natural gas, activated carbon and electric power were the main environmental factors affecting the thermal desorption remediation technology, and the cumulative environmental impact frequencies were 95.00%, 97.03% and 92.82%, respectively. For primary energy consumption potential, climate change potential and ozone layer depletion potential, soil pretreatment was the main influence stage, contributing 51.37%, 59.09% and 53.86%, respectively. For water resources consumption potential and competition-land use potential, exhaust gas treatment is the main influence stage, accounting for 55.1% and 99.92%, respectively. During the pretreatment of contaminated soil, diesel oil had the greatest influence on the ozone layer depletion potential and competition-land use potential, accounting for 83.68% and 100%, respectively. In the main treatment process, natural gas is the main contributing factor for all sustainability and green indicators, and the contribution rate of all indicators is more than 60%. In the process of tail gas treatment, the contribution of wastewater to primary energy consumption potential, non-biomass resources consumption potential, climate change potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential and inhalable inorganic potential was 75.90%, 66.92%, 81.90%, 91.98%, 93.61% and 90.76%, respectively. Taking into account the impact of each stage, electric heating or other clean energy sources can be used instead of traditional diesel heating, and research and promotion of recycled or biodegradable polyvinylidene fluoride membrane materials can be carried out, developing and using low or calcium-free soil amendment to reduce the need for quick lime, and gradually increasing the proportion of renewable energy used in the thermal desorption process to improve energy and remediation efficiency and reduce environmental emissions, therefore, the green sustainability of thermal desorption technology can be improved.

Key words: thermal desorption remediation, life cycle assessment, product carbon footprint online analysis system, green and sustainable

原慧聪桑义敏杨磊杨婷玉宋权威张雪甄占胜. 基于生命周期评价的土壤热脱附修复技术绿色可持续性分析[J]. 石油炼制与化工, 2024, 55(9): 118-128.

参考文献

参考文献： [1] Sakan S, Mihajlidi-Zelic A, Skrivanj S, et al. An Integrated Approach in the Assessment of the Vlasina River System Pollution by Toxic Elements[J]. FRONTIERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, 2022,10. [2] Yan K, Wang H, Lan Z, et al. Heavy metal pollution in the soil of contaminated sites in China : Research status and pollution assessment over the past two decades[J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2022,373. [3] Zhao C, Dong Y, Feng Y, et al. Thermal desorption for remediation of contaminated soil: A review[J]. CHEMOSPHERE, 2019,221:841-855. [4] Song P, Xu D, Yue J, et al. Recent advances in soil remediation technology for heavy metal contaminated sites : A critical review[J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2022,838. [5] MEP. National soil contamination survey report. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Beijing, China.[J]. 2014. [6] Hou D, Guthrie P, Rigby M. Assessing the trend in sustainable remediation : A questionnaire survey of remediation professionals in various countries[J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2016,184:18-26. [7] Hou D, Qi S, Zhao B, et al. Incorporating life cycle assessment with health risk assessment to select the 'greenest' cleanup level for Pb contaminated soil[J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2017,162:1157-1168. [8] Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A, Guthrie P, et al. Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park[J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014,83:87-95. [9] Lesage P, Deschenes L, Samson R. Evaluating holistic environmental consequences of brownfield management options using consequential life cycle assessment for different perspectives[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2007,40(2):323-337. [10] Lemming G, Hauschild M Z, Chambon J, et al. Environmental Impacts of Remediation of a Trichloroethene -Contaminated Site: Life Cycle Assessment of Remediation Alternatives[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2010,44(23):9163-9169. [11] Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A. Sustainability: A new imperative in contaminated land remediation[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2014,39:25-34. [12] Rizzo E, Bardos P, Pizzol L, et al. Comparison of international approaches to sustainable remediation[J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2016,184:4-17. [13] Chen C, Zhang X, Chen J, et al. Assessment of site contaminated soil remediation based on an input output life cycle assessment[J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020,263. [14] Chen Y, Cui Z, Cui X, et al. Life cycle assessment of end-of-life treatments of waste plastics in China[J]. RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2019,146:348-357. [15] Ding J, Hu X, Feng Z, et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of monosodium glutamate production in China: Based on the progress of cleaner production in recent ten years[J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2022,818. [16] Shen Z, Ma L, Yang Y, et al. A life cycle assessment of Hydropower-Silicon-Photovoltaic industrial chain in China[J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2022,362. [17] Anon. Ecoinvent-Public2.2.0[EB/OL]. http://www. efootprint.net/#/home.[EB/OL]. [18] 中国生命周期数据库 -ECER0.8.1[EB/OL]. http://www.efootprint.net/#/home.[EB/OL]. [19] Zhao H, Liu F, Liu H, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of two ceramsite production technologies for reusing municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash in China[J]. WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2020,113:447-455. [20] 翟一杰, 张天祚, 申晓旭, 等. 生命周期评价方法研究进展[J]. 资源科学, 2021,43(03):446-455. [21] 刘爽, 陈盼, 宋慧敏, 等. 我国华东地区污染土壤异位热脱附修复碳排放及减排策略[J]. 环境工程学报, 2022,16(08):2663-2671. [22] Ferrari A M, Volpi L, Settembre-Blundo D, et al. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) integrating life cycle inventory (LCI) and Enterprise resource planning (ERP) in an industry 4.0 environment[J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021,286. [23] 杨勇, 黄海, 陈美平, 等. 异位热解吸技术在有机污染土壤修复中的应用和发展[J]. 环境工程技术学报, 2016,6(06):559-570.