首页> 外文OA文献 >Can thermal soil remediation be sustainable? A case study of the environmental merit of the remediation of a site contaminated by a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL)
【2h】

Can thermal soil remediation be sustainable? A case study of the environmental merit of the remediation of a site contaminated by a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL)

机译:热土修复能否可持续?以轻质非水相液体(LNAPL)污染的场地修复的环境价值为例

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

When evaluating remediation technologies for contaminated soil and groundwater, the beneficial effects of the remediation, namely cleaner soil and groundwater, are mostly emphasized without consideration of the environmental impact of the remediation activities themselves. In the present study, the environmental impact of two soil remediation techniques was evaluated. Based on the detailed analysis of a case study, the results of a life cycle-based analysis (Risk Reduction, Environmental Merit and Costs (REC)) were compared with the results of a best available technology not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC) analysis, a method that is currently applied in Flanders (Belgium) to evaluate the feasibility of remediation technologies for soil and groundwater. According to the REC analysis, in situ thermal treatment showed a lower global environmental impact than soil excavation and off-site treatment, mainly because there were fewer emissions from the transport of contaminated soil. Within the environmental aspects group of the BATNEEC method, soil excavation performed better than thermal soil remediation because it obtained a better score to meet the legal objectives for soil and groundwater quality. It also showed fewer environmental liabilities and obtained a better score for a decrease in the contaminants' content in soil and groundwater. The BATNEEC method does not take into account the emissions from the transport of the soil. Despite these differences between both methods, thermal remediation technology obtains the best overall score in terms of both assessment methods (taking into account the environmental, financial, and technical aspects). Although an life cycle analysis (LCA) based evaluation method is much more complex and requires much more data than a classical BATNEEC analysis, both evaluation tools could be used in a complementary way. A preliminary selection of remediation technologies could be based on a BATNEEC analysis, followed by a detailed analysis of the selected remediation options by means of LCA.
机译:在评估受污染的土壤和地下水的修复技术时,大多数强调了修复的有益效果,即更清洁的土壤和地下水,而没有考虑到修复活动本身对环境的影响。在本研究中,评估了两种土壤修复技术对环境的影响。在对案例研究进行详细分析的基础上,将基于生命周期的分析结果(减少风险,环境优点和成本(REC))与最佳技术(不要求过度成本分析)的结果进行了比较,目前在法兰德斯(比利时)应用的一种方法,用于评估土壤和地下水修复技术的可行性。根据REC分析,与土壤开挖和异地处理相比,原位热处理对全球环境的影响较小,这主要是因为受污染土壤的运输产生的排放较少。在BATNEEC方法的环境方面,土壤开挖的表现优于热土壤修复,因为它取得了更好的成绩,可以满足土壤和地下水水质的法律目标。它还显示出更少的环境责任,并且在减少土壤和地下水中污染物含量方面得分更高。 BATNEEC方法未考虑土壤运输产生的排放。尽管两种方法之间存在这些差异,但热补救技术在两种评估方法方面都获得了最佳的总体评分(考虑到环境,财务和技术方面)。尽管与传统的BATNEEC分析相比,基于生命周期分析(LCA)的评估方法要复杂得多,并且需要更多的数据,但是这两种评估工具可以互补使用。补救技术的初​​步选择可以基于BATNEEC分析,然后通过LCA对所选补救方案进行详细分析。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号