STUDY ON RISK SCREENING VALUES AND INTERVENTION VALUES FOR SOIL CONTAMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT LAND IN SHENZHEN

LUO Fei; LIAO Man; LIN Ting; XI Xiuping; CHEN Mengfang; SONG Jing

doi:10.13205/j.hjgc.202408019

Volume 42 Issue 8

Aug. 2024

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Article Navigation > ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING > 2024 > 42(8): 159-166

YUE Xiupeng, SUN Qianzhao, LÜ Mengxue, LI Jiaqi, WANG Andong, ZHANG Shuyan, XIE Tian, WANG Qing. EVALUATION ON EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT RESTORATION MEASURES ON SUAEDA SALSA WETLAND IN THE YELLOW RIVER DELTA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2024, 42(8): 8-16. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202408002

Citation:

LUO Fei, LIAO Man, LIN Ting, XI Xiuping, CHEN Mengfang, SONG Jing. STUDY ON RISK SCREENING VALUES AND INTERVENTION VALUES FOR SOIL CONTAMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT LAND IN SHENZHEN[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2024, 42(8): 159-166. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202408019

Citation:

PDF( 3954 KB)

STUDY ON RISK SCREENING VALUES AND INTERVENTION VALUES FOR SOIL CONTAMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT LAND IN SHENZHEN

doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202408019

1. Shenzhen Academy of Environmental Sciences, Shenzhen 518001, China;
2. Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China

Received Date: 2023-09-06
Available Online: 2024-12-02

Abstract

Abstract

The risk screening and intervention values for soil contamination of development land can be used for decision-making on soil pollution risk control and remediation. This study was based on the basic theory and methodology of soil pollution health risk assessment for global development land. It involved selecting multi-medium exposure assessment models, determining localized model parameters, calculating model theoretical values, and correcting model theoretical values. Based on the characteristics of land use for development land and the types of pollutants in typical industries in Shenzhen, the soil risk screening and intervention values for 68 pollutants under the first and second types of land use were established. The classification differences of development land in major countries and regions were analyzed. The study showed that the second-category land screening value of pollutants was higher than the first-category land, and the intervention value of the same pollutant was higher than the screening value. The screening and intervention values were within the representative range of similar soil pollution risk control standards at home and overseas. The main reasons for the differences in screening values at home and overseas are the selection of exposure assessment models, receptor exposure values, soil properties, air characteristics, pollutant toxicity parameters, and the correction of theoretical calculation values for the model. The results will play a guiding role in risk screening and control for soil contamination of development land in Shenzhen.
- risk assessment,
- risk screening,
- risk intervention,
- characteristic pollutants,
- land use

FullText(HTML)

References(40)

References

[1]	生态环境部. 土壤环境质量建设用地土壤污染风险管控标准:GB 36600—2018[S]. 北京: 生态环境部, 2018.
[2]	United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (EPA/540/R95/128)[R]. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1996.
[3]	United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (OSWER 9355.4-24)[R]. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
[4]	American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM). Standard Guide for Risk-based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites (E1739-95)[R]. Conshohocken: American Society for Testing of Materials, 1995.
[5]	American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM). Standard Guide for Risk-based Corrective Action (E2081-00)[R]. Conshohocken: American Society for Testing of Materials, 2000.
[6]	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency (DEFRA and EA). The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical Basis and Algorithms[R]. Bristol: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency, 2002.
[7]	Environment Agency (EA). Updated Technical Background to the CLEA Model (SC050021/R3)[R]. Bristol: Environment Agency, 2009.
[8]	Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL: AIRE). SP1010-Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination[R]. London: Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments, 2014.
[9]	Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM). Circular on Target Values and Intervention Values for Soil Remediation[R]. Amsterdam: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2000.
[10]	Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites[R]. Winnipeg: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1991.
[11]	Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). A Protocol for Deriving Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines[R]. Winnipeg: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1996.
[12]	Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines[R]. Winnipeg: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2006.
[13]	北京市质量技术监督局. 建设用地土壤环境风险评价筛选值: DB11/T 811—2011[S]. 北京: 北京市质量技术监督局, 2011.
[14]	上海市环境保护局. 上海市建设用地土壤环境健康风险评估筛选值[S]. 上海: 上海市环境保护局, 2015.
[15]	重庆市质量技术监督局. 场地土壤环境风险评估筛选值: DB50/T 723—2016[S]. 重庆: 重庆市质量技术监督局, 2016.
[16]	深圳市市场监督管理局. 建设用地土壤污染风险筛选值和管制值: DB4403/T 67—2020[S]. 深圳: 深圳市市场监督管理局, 2020.
[17]	江西省市场监督管理局. 建设用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行): DB36/1282—2020[S]. 南昌: 江西省市场监督管理局, 2020.
[18]	广西壮族自治区市场监督管理局. 建设用地土壤污染风险筛选值和管制值: DB45/T 2556—2022[S]. 南宁: 广西壮族自治区市场监督管理局, 2022.
[19]	河北省市场监督管理局. 建设用地土壤污染风险筛选值: DB13/T 5216—2022[S]. 石家庄: 河北省市场监督管理局, 2022.
[20]	四川省市场监督管理局. 四川省建设用地土壤污染风险管控标准: DB51/2978—2023[S]. 成都: 四川省市场监督管理局, 2023.
[21]	宋静, 陈梦舫, 骆永明, 等. 制订我国污染场地土壤风险筛选值的几点建议[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 2011,23(3):26-33.
[22]	张斌, 邹卉, 肖杰, 等. RAG-C和RBCA模型中场地特征参数的差异及其启示[J]. 环境工程, 2015,33(9):130-133 ,99.
[23]	骆永明, 夏家淇, 章海波, 等.中国土壤环境质量基准与标准制定的理论和方法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015.
[24]	陈梦舫, 韩璐, 罗飞. 污染场地土壤与地下水风险评估方法学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2017.
[25]	陈梦舫, 韩璐, 罗飞. 污染场地土壤与地下水精细化风险评估理论与实践[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2022.
[26]	赵彬, 彭天玥, 张昊, 等. 汞污染场地特征识别与健康风险研究[J]. 环境工程, 2023,41(4):205-212.
[27]	生态环境部. 建设用地土壤污染风险评估技术导则: HJ 25.3—2019[S]. 北京: 生态环境部, 2019.
[28]	生态环境部. 土壤环境质量建设用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行)(征求意见稿)编制说明[R]. 北京: 生态环境部, 2018.
[29]	United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)[EB/OL]. http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. 2019-5-21.
[30]	United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites[EB/OL]. https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls. 2019-5-21.
[31]	Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Texas Risk Reduction Program: Protective Concentration Levels[EB/OL]. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html. 2018-4-18.
[32]	陈梦舫, 罗飞, 韩璐, 等. 污染场地健康与环境风险评估软件(HERA, Version 1.1)[CP]. 南京: 中国科学院南京土壤研究所, 2014.
[33]	香港环境保护署. 按风险厘定的土地污染整治标准的使用指引[S]. 香港: 香港环境保护署, 2007.
[34]	住房和城乡建设部. 城市用地分类与规划建设用地标准: GB 50137—2011[S]. 北京: 住房和城乡建设部, 2011.
[35]	深圳市人民政府. 深圳市城市规划标准与准则[S]. 深圳: 深圳市人民政府, 2013.
[36]	周友亚, 颜增光, 周光辉, 等. 制定场地土壤风险评价筛选值中关注污染物的预筛选方法[J]. 环境工程技术学报, 2011,1(3):264-269.
[37]	杨龙, 孙长虹, 李珊珊, 等. 典型行业环境地表灰尘重金属污染比较研究[J]. 环境工程, 2015,33(2):122-125.
[38]	刘臣辉, 付玲玲, 申雨桐, 等. 欧盟水框架指令优先污染物筛选方法的应用[J]. 环境工程, 2015,33(10):126-129.
[39]	深圳市人居环境委员会. 深圳市建设用地土壤环境调查评估工作指引(试行)[S]. 深圳: 深圳市人居环境委员会, 2018.
[40]	罗飞, 宋静, 潘云雨, 等. 典型滴滴涕废弃生产场地污染土壤的人体健康风险评估研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2012,49(1):26-35.

Relative Articles

[1]	CHEN Xuejuan, GAO Fang, WANG Qing, PANG Bo, XIE Yiliang, CUI Baoshan, YUE Xiupeng, SONG Jianbin. DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL RISK OF HEAVY METALS IN WETLAND FRESHWATER RESTORATION AREA OF THE YELLOW RIVER DELTA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(1): 232-239. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202301028
[2]	CHAO Zhu, XIA Peng, SI Jingyi, JIN Qi, BAI Yingchen, TAN Weiqiang. PRELIMINARY STUDY ON WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF CARBAMAZEPINE IN FRESHWATER IN CHINA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(4): 170-177. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202304024
[3]	GENG Zhi, DU Jizeng, LIU Hongxi, CAO Bo, LI Xinyu, ZHANG Yong, CUI Baoshan. EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL WATER REPLENISHMENT AMOUNT AND PATH FOR URBAN SMALL AND MICRO WETLANDS BASED ON HYDRODYNAMIC PROCESS: A CASE STUDY OF BEIJING HANSHIQIAO WETLAND[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(1): 51-60. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202301007
[4]	HUANG Sheng. INFLUENCE OF WIND WAVES ON RESUSPENSION OF LAKE SEDIMENTS AND ENGINEERING INHIBITION[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(12): 247-255. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202312031
[5]	MA Xu, HAN Zhen, WANG Shiyan, LIU Xiaobo, ZHAO Shilin, LIU Chang, MENG Zhujian, ZHANG Huan, WANG Liang, ZHU Bei, TAN Yiqian, WANG Jie, LIU Wei, PENG Wenqi. RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBMERGED PLANT VALLISNERIA SPINULOSA YAN TO DIFFERENT FLOODING CONDITIONS IN POYANG LAKE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(1): 204-212. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202301025
[6]	PANG Bo, YANG Wenxin, CUI Baoshan, ZHANG Shuyan, XIE Tian, NING Zhonghua, GAO Fang, ZHANG Hongshan. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF VEGETATION RESTORATION IN THE YELLOW RIVER DELTA WETLAND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(1): 213-221. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202301026
[7]	ZHANG Hanxu, LI Xinyu, CUI Baoshan, WANG Qing, YU Hailing, WU Xia, XU Jiamei. EFFECT OF WETLAND ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT ON MACROBENTHOS COMMUNITY IN THE YELLOW RIVER DELTA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(1): 222-231. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202301027
[8]	SONG Huiping, AN Quan, SHEN Wuyan, FENG Zhengjun, FU Yuanhong, JIN Dapeng. PREPARATION OF SOLID WASTE-BASED SOIL CONDITIONERS AND THEIR ECOLOGICAL REMEDIATION EFFECTS ON THE MINING AREA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2022, 40(12): 187-195,230. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202212025
[9]	LIANG Shuai, HAN Bing, NIU Ze-pu, ZHAO Ling-dong, GU Jin-yi, WANG Wan-wan, ZHANG Li-feng, ZHANG Yang. SOURCE, MIGRATION AND ECOTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MICRO-PLASTICS IN FRESHWATER[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2021, 39(12): 1-9,70. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202112001
[10]	YU Ying-nan, SUN Dan-yan, ZHENG Tao, CHENG Wei, LU Zhi-bo, LU Li-jun, HUANG Ju-wen, XU Jing-cheng. ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION EFFECT AND SAFETY EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED WATER FROM SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT FOR URBAN RIVERS[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2021, 39(6): 1-5,26. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202106001
[11]	ZHANG Lei, WANG Zhong-yu, WANG Hua-lin, ZHONG Mei-fang, HUANG Hai, ZHANG Hua-yong. ANALYSIS ON THE DOMINANT GENERA AND NICHE OF SEDIMENT MICROORGANISMS IN FRESHWATER LAKES: A CASE STUDY IN LAKE BALIHE[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2020, 38(5): 8-12,35. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202005002
[12]	HU Si-kui, ZHANG Shi-jun, REN Chen-yuan, WANG Qing-guo, LIANG Ying, LIU Chao-rong. SIMULATION AND CONTROL OF URBAN SHALLOW LAKES WATER ECOSYSTEM WITH AQUATOX[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2020, 38(9): 82-88. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202009014
[13]	CHEN Jin-huan, TANG Jia-wen, WANG Kai-nan, ZHANG Qiu-zhuo. APPLICATION OF AQUATIC PLANTS COMMUNITY BUILDING TECHNOLOGY IN EUTROPHIC WATER RESTORATION[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2020, 38(8): 105-112,135. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202008018
[14]	ZHANG Ling-ling, TERIGELE, LI Jing-nan, ZHAO Yan-hui, YAN Qing-qing, ER Wen-fei. APPLICATION OF ULTRAFINE BUBBLE OXYGEN ENRICHMENT AND BIOLOGICAL ACTIVATION TECHNOLOGY IN BLACK AND ODOROUS WATER TREATMENT[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2020, 38(11): 66-71,156. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202011011
[15]	PAN Jun, SUN Bo-yang, WEI Wei, ZHANG Jin, TAN Shuai-chen, LI Rui-fang. EXPERIMENT OF MICRO-POLLUTED WATER TREATMENT BY COMBINED TECHNOLOGY OF MICRO-NANO AERATION-ECOLOGICAL FLOATING WETLAND[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2020, 38(5): 49-53,209. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202005009