不同有机螯合剂对飞灰中重金属的稳定化效果及环境风险评估

关艳艳; 王晓娜; 赵楚峒; 张泽; 高明; 吴川福; 汪群慧

doi:10.13205/j.hjgc.202312038

不同有机螯合剂对飞灰中重金属的稳定化效果及环境风险评估

doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202312038

北京科技大学能源与环境工程学院, 北京 100083

基金项目:

国家重点研发计划政府间重点专项项目(2021YFE0112100)

详细信息

作者简介:
关艳艳(1998-),女,硕士,主要研究方向为固体废物处理和资源化。13051108399@163.com

通讯作者:
吴川福(1983-),男,副教授,主要研究方向为固体废物处理和资源化。wucf@ustb.edu.cn

计量
- 文章访问数: 124
- HTML全文浏览量: 4
- PDF下载量: 4
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-01-19
- 网络出版日期: 2024-03-08

STABILIZATION EFFECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF HEAVY METALS IN MSWI FLY ASH BY DIFFERENT ORGANIC CHELATING AGENTS

School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China

摘要

摘要: 对比考察了不同剂量哌嗪类螯合剂(TS300)和二甲基二硫代氨基甲酸盐(SDD)对生活垃圾焚烧飞灰中重金属的稳定化效果。结果表明:TS300添加量为3%、SDD添加量为5%时,飞灰螯合产物重金属浸出浓度可满足GB 16889—2008《生活垃圾填埋场污染控制标准》的标准限值。然而,飞灰螯合产物在放置28 d后,3%TS300组的Cd、5%SDD组的Pb和Cd的浸出浓度超过标准限值。此外,螯合稳定化处理可将飞灰中重金属从不稳定的可还原态转化为较稳定的可氧化态,同时还可拓宽飞灰稳定存在的pH值范围(即在该pH范围内重金属浸出浓度达标)。环境风险评估指数分析结果表明:3%TS300处理组,目标重金属在考察时间范围内(0~28 d)均对环境无风险,而5%SDD处理组飞灰螯合产物中Pb、Zn和Cd在放置28 d后会造成潜在环境风险。因此,就研究所用飞灰的重金属稳定效果而言,TS300优于SDD。
- 生活垃圾焚烧飞灰 /
- 有机螯合剂 /
- 重金属浸出 /
- 化学形态分析 /
- 环境风险
Abstract: The stabilization effects of heavy metals in municipal solid waste incineration fly ash stabilized by piperazine chelating agent (TS300) and dimethyl dithiocarbamate (SDD) at different dosages were compared. The results showed that the leaching concentrations of heavy metals in chelated fly ash met the standard limit of GB 16889—2008, when the dosage of TS300 and SDD was 3% and 5%, respectively. However, the leaching concentrations of Cd in the 3% TS300 group, and Pb and Cd in the 5% SDD group, all exceeded the standard limit after the chelated fly ash was placed for 28 days. In addition, chelation stabilization treatment can transform heavy metals in fly ash from unstable reducible fractions to more stable oxidizable fractions, and it can also broaden the range of pH value for stable existence of fly ash (the leaching concentrations of heavy metals met the standard within this pH range). The analysis results of the environmental risk assessment code showed that the target heavy metals in the 3% TS300 group posed no risk to the environment within the inspection time range (0 to 28 days), while the Pb, Zn and Cd in the 5% SDD group posed potential environmental risks after being placed for 28 days. Therefore, TS300 is superior to SDD, in terms of heavy metal stabilization effect of fly ash in this study.
- MSWI fly ash /
- organic chelating agent /
- heavy metals leaching /
- chemical speciation /
- environmental risk

HTML全文

参考文献(31)

[1]	WANG F, ZHANG F, CHEN Y, et al. A comparative study on the heavy metal solidification/stabilization performance of four chemical solidifying agents in municipal solid waste incineration fly ash[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2015, 300: 451-458.
[2]	MA W, CHEN D, PAN M, et al. Performance of chemical chelating agent stabilization and cement solidification on heavy metals in MSWI fly ash: a comparative study[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 247: 169-177.
[3]	WEI J, LI H, LIU J. Curbing dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incineration: China's action and global share[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2022, 435: 129076.
[4]	LIN S, JIANG X, ZHAO Y, et al. Disposal technology and new progress for dioxins and heavy metals in fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration: a critical review[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2022, 311: 119878.
[5]	LIN X, MA Y, CHEN T, et al. PCDD/Fs and heavy metals in the vicinity of landfill used for MSWI fly ash disposal: pollutant distribution and environmental impact assessment[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2022, 312: 120083.
[6]	LI W, SUN Y, XIN M, et al. Municipal solid waste incineration fly ash exposed to carbonation and acid rain corrosion scenarios: release behavior, environmental risk, and dissolution mechanism of toxic metals[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 744: 140857.
[7]	WANG Y, HU Y, XUE C, et al. Risk assessment of lead and cadmium leaching from solidified/stabilized MSWI fly ash under long-term landfill simulation test[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 816: 151555.
[8]	CHEN L, WANG L, CHO D, et al. Sustainable stabilization/solidification of municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash by incorporation of green materials[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 222: 335-343.
[9]	LUO H, CHENG Y, HE D, et al. Review of leaching behavior of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) ash[J]. Science of the Total Encironment, 2019, 668: 90-103.
[10]	YUE Y, ZHANG J, SUN F, et al. Heavy metal leaching and distribution in glass products from the co-melting treatment of electroplating sludge and MSWI fly ash[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 232: 226-235.
[11]	TANG J, SU M, WU Q, et al. Highly efficient recovery and clean-up of four heavy metals from MSWI fly ash by integrating leaching, selective extraction and adsorption[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 234: 139-149.
[12]	ASSI A, BILO F, ZANOLETTI A, et al. Zero-waste approach in municipal solid waste incineration: Reuse of bottom ash to stabilize fly ash[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 245: 118779.
[13]	LIU Q, WANG X, GAO M, et al. Heavy metal leaching behaviour and long-term environmental risk assessment of cement-solidified municipal solid waste incineration fly ash in sanitary landfill[J]. Chemosphere, 2022, 300: 134571.
[14]	蒋旭光,段茵,吕国钧,等. 垃圾焚烧飞灰中重金属固化稳定机理及系统评价方法的研究进展[J]. 环境工程学报, 2022, 16(1): 10-19.
[15]	曾映达,程银汉,瞿广飞,等. 固体废物中重金属的固化/稳定化技术研究进展[J]. 环境化学, 2022: 1-16.
[16]	朱子晗,陈卫华,华银锋,等. 垃圾焚烧飞灰重金属药剂稳定化研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(11): 6358-6368.
[17]	QUINA M J, BORDADO J C M, QUINTA-Ferreira R M. Chemical stabilization of air pollution control residues from municipal solid waste incineration[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2010, 179(1/2/3): 382-392.
[18]	杨延梅,慕宗宇,王菲,等. 螯合剂固化生活垃圾焚烧飞灰中重金属的机理研究进展[J]. 环境科学研究, 2022, 35(10): 2388-2395.
[19]	国家环境保护总局. 固体废物浸出毒性浸出方法醋酸缓冲溶液法HJ/T 300—2007[S]. 2007.
[20]	LI R, ZHANG B, WANG Y, et al. Leaching potential of stabilized fly ash from the incineration of municipal solid waste with a new polymer[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 232: 286-294.
[21]	冯世进,李浩东,曹剑锋,等. 入场飞灰重金属协同处置及环境风险评价研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2022: 1-10.
[22]	PAN Y, WU Z, ZHOU J, et al. Chemical characteristics and risk assessment of typical municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) fly ash in China[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2013, 261: 269-276.
[23]	ZHOU Y, NING X, LIAO X, et al. Characterization and environmental risk assessment of heavy metals found in fly ashes from waste filter bags obtained from a Chinese steel plant[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2013, 95: 130-136.
[24]	张宇晨,陈小朵,桂思,等. 福州地区垃圾焚烧飞灰中矿物组分和重金属污染特征[J]. 环境工程, 2022, 40(8): 102-109.
[25]	LI W, SUN Y, HUANG Y, et al. Evaluation of chemical speciation and environmental risk levels of heavy metals during varied acid corrosion conditions for raw and solidified/stabilized MSWI fly ash[J]. Waste Management, 2019, 87: 407-416.
[26]	CHEN M, LI X, YANG Q, et al. Total concentrations and speciation of heavy metals in municipal sludge from Changsha, Zhuzhou and Xiangtan in middle-south region of China[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2008, 160(2/3): 324-329.
[27]	YAKUBU Y, ZHOU J, PING D, et al. Effects of pH dynamics on solidification/stabilization of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, 207: 243-248.
[28]	QUINA M J, BORDADO J C M, QUINTA-FERREIRA R M. The influence of pH on the leaching behaviour of inorganic components from municipal solid waste APC residues[J]. Waste Management, 2009, 29(9): 2483-2493.
[29]	宋倩楠,王峰,童立志,等. 药剂螯合对飞灰重金属形态及浸出行为的影响[J]. 应用化工, 2021, 50(3): 571-576.
[30]	ZHIPENG T, BINGRU Z, CHENGJUN H, et al. The physiochemical properties and heavy metal pollution of fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2015, 98: 333-341.
[31]	SUN Y, XU C, YANG W, et al. Evaluation of a mixed chelator as heavy metal stabilizer for municipal solid-waste incineration fly ash: behaviors and mechanisms[J]. Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society, 2019, 66(2): 188-196.