-
近年来,以冶金工业产生的含砷固废和垃圾焚烧后产生的垃圾焚烧飞灰为代表的危险固体废弃物日益增多,严重危害着生产地周边的生态环境[1-2]。含砷固废的大量堆存会污染土地,或造成滑坡、泥石流等灾害;风化形成的碎屑和尾矿,或被水冲刷进入水域,或溶解后渗入地下水,或被风刮入大气,以水、气为媒介污染环境[3]。目前,对含砷废渣的处理方法主要有2种:1)固化/稳定化,即将游离的砷转化成化学性质稳定的砷酸盐形式存放或采用惰性材料进行包裹;2)资源化利用,回收利用废渣中的砷和其他有价金属,以实现含砷废渣无害化和资源化利用的双重目的,但这对技术和设备均有较高要求[4-5]。针对上述问题,徐伟航等[6]以矿渣、钢渣、脱硫灰和磷酸淤渣为原材料制备冶金渣基胶凝材料,并探究其对垃圾焚烧飞灰中重金属的固化性能,结果表明,垃圾焚烧飞灰固化体的抗压强度和重金属浸出浓度均满足进入填埋场的要求。目前,含砷废渣和垃圾焚烧飞灰的最佳处置方式仍是固化填埋[4, 7]。垃圾焚烧飞灰固化/稳定化含砷废渣已有研究,张理群等[8]针对尾渣中砷的化学结构及赋存形态进行研究,发现尾渣中的砷主要以金属砷酸盐的形式存在,如果长期堆放,存在砷释放风险。另外,LI等[9]采用FeSO4和H2SO4联合处理砷渣,揭示了Fe可以形成稳定的Fe-O-As络合物(FeAsO4∙xFe(OH)3)来减少砷的释放。LI等[10]利用垃圾焚烧飞灰和赤泥对含砷废渣进行固化/稳定化处理,固砷体的抗压强度和浸出效果良好,固砷率高达99.9%。但是,固砷体的长期稳定性和潜在危害性还未得到应有的重视,固砷体在填埋或临时堆放过程中存在重金属浸出风险,须考虑其长期稳定性。
含砷固化体长期稳定性的评价方法有浸泡实验[11]、动态淋溶实验[12]、半动态浸出实验[13]、高温加速实验[14]、稳定性判别法[15]、释放机理法[16]和浸出分析法[17]等。何品晶等[18]、HYKS等[19]通过柱式浸出法对飞灰及其稳定化合物的长期浸出特性进行了研究,结果表明,短期测试可能低估稳定化处理飞灰在填埋初期的重金属浸出风险。但有学者[11, 20]指出,短期测试并不能准确描述飞灰固化体进入实际填埋场后的动态浸出行为。TANG等[21]对燃煤飞灰中的重金属残留量及环境危害进行了研究,采用2种稀硝酸对飞灰进行浸提,发现飞灰中重金属的浸出率不超过5%。LI等[22]采用终点pH淋溶试验方法,对不同酸性环境下的重金属淋溶形态、化学形态及环境危害进行了分析,结果显示:采用硅酸盐水泥和螯合剂进行固化剂处理,能够有效地降低大部分重金属的淋溶,而飞灰固化体中的重金属则会由于生物作用而被浸出,从而增加了对环境的危害。
本研究以飞灰基胶凝固砷体为长期稳定性风险评价对象,以(浓硫酸∶浓硝酸∶去离子水=4∶1∶40)混合酸调至pH=3.2和5.0制备淋溶液,模拟不同酸度的酸雨进行动态淋溶实验。实验采用柱浸法进行淋溶,分析不同pH淋溶液对飞灰固砷体中砷溶出量的影响,并探讨固砷体中砷在模拟酸雨作用下的淋溶累积释放特征;通过改进多级连续提取法(Sequential Extraction Procedure,简称SEP)分析飞灰固砷体中砷的结合形态,并利用潜在生态风险指数进行长期稳定性风险评价,以期为飞灰固砷体在不同侵蚀作用下的安全处置提供参考。
飞灰基胶凝固砷体长期稳定性风险评价
Risk assessment of long-term stability of fly ash-based cementitious material containing arsenic
-
摘要: 为明确酸雨条件下飞灰基胶凝固砷体的长期稳定性,模拟2种酸度的酸雨对3种粒径状态下的固砷体进行动态淋溶实验,并运用改进多级连续提取法(Sequential Extraction Procedure, SEP)和潜在风险评估指数对固砷体进行长期稳定性风险评价。结果表明,随着浸出时间的增加,固砷体中的Al3+溶出并与溶液中的OH−反应生成Al(OH)3胶体,且废渣中的硫化矿物氧化生成H2SO4、Fe2(SO4)3等氧化剂,进一步加剧硫化物的氧化溶解,使得浸出液pH呈下降趋势;而且,由于飞灰固砷体粒径大小不同,表面积大小和吸附位点变化,使砷浸出过程呈现出初始、快速释放和慢速释放3个阶段的浸出特征,最高浸出质量浓度为2.42 mg·L−1,累计释放量达133.78 mg·kg−1,累计释放率为2.32%。SEP实验发现,原渣中的还原态砷大幅度降低,酸可提取态砷和残渣态砷增加,有利于降低固砷体的风险。潜在生态风险评价表明,在Ⅰ类和Ⅱ类建设用地筛选值为背景时,潜在生态危害程度由中等危害转为轻微危害。本研究结果可为飞灰固砷体在不同侵蚀作用下的安全处置提供参考。Abstract: This paper presents a dynamic leaching test of arsenic fixation in three particle sizes based on an innovative simulation of two acid rainfall conditions in southwest China to investigate the long-term stability of fly ash-based cementitious materials that contain arsenic under acid rain conditions. Furthermore, the long-term stability risk of arsenic fixation is evaluated using a Sequential Extraction Procedure (SEP) and the potential risk assessment index. Results showed that the Al3+ in the solid arsenic bodies dissolved and reacted with the OH− in solution to form Al(OH)3 colloids as the leaching time increased. Moreover, the oxidation of sulfide minerals in the slag produced oxidants, such as H2SO4 and Fe2(SO4)3, which further aggravated the oxidative dissolution of sulfides, thereby resulting in an overall decreasing pH value of the leachate. In addition, due to the varying particle sizes of the fly ash solid arsenic bodies, surface area size, and adsorption site changes, the arsenic leaching process showed three stages of leaching characteristics, namely, initial, rapid, and slow release, with a maximum leaching concentration of 2.42 mg·L−1, the cumulative release of 133.78 mg·kg−1, and the cumulative release rate of 2.32%. The SEP test revealed that the reduced state of arsenic in the raw slag was lowered substantially, and the acid extractable state and residual state of arsenic were increased, which was conducive to lessening the risk of arsenic fixation bodies. The evaluation of the potential ecological risk showed that the potential ecological hazard when the screening value of Class Ⅰ and Class Ⅱ construction sites was the background changed from moderate hazard to slight hazard.
-
Key words:
- fly ash /
- arsenic slag solidification /
- simulated acid rain /
- leaching /
- risk assessment
-
表 1 实验材料各化学成分质量分数
Table 1. Chemical composition of raw materials (mass fraction)
% 供试原料 CaO SiO2 Al2O3 As2O3 SO3 ZnO Fe2O3 飞灰 43.00 3.17 0.63 — 6.02 0.31 0.50 水淬渣 38.52 33.19 12.93 — 1.13 0.83 0.60 含砷废渣 36.31 1.81 0.95 31.61 12.31 6.69 3.07 硅粉 0.36 98.18 0.20 — 0.25 — 0.05 注:“—”表示未检出。 表 2 动态模拟酸雨实验降雨分布
Table 2. Distribution of dynamic simulated rainfall
月份 降雨量/mm 淋溶量/mL 月份 降雨量/mm 淋溶量/mL 1 75.9 104 7 229.8 315 2 80.3 110 8 236.4 324 3 69.3 95 9 143.7 197 4 71.5 98 10 135.0 185 5 118.2 162 11 72.2 99 6 163.4 224 12 52.5 72 表 3 单一重金属潜在生态风险等级
Table 3. Potential ecological risk level of single heavy metal
Eir值 单一潜在
生态风险等级Eir<40 轻微 40≤Eir<80 中等 80≤Eir<160 强 160≤Eir<320 很强 Eir≥320 极强 表 4 沉积物重金属潜在生态风险等级
Table 4. Potential ecological risk rating of sediment heavy metals
PERI值 综合潜在
生态风险PERI<150 轻微 150≤PERI<300 中等 300≤PERI<600 高 PERI≥600 严重 表 5 动态淋溶前后砷的潜在风险评估指数(PERI)
Table 5. Potential ecological risk index (PERI) of arsenic before and after dynamic leaching
材料或处理条件 潜在风险评估指数 Ⅰ类PERI Ⅱ类PERI 原渣 86.19 28.73 pH=3.2,250~850 μm 169.86 56.62 pH=3.2,150~250 μm 169.82 56.61 pH=3.2,<150 μm 163.72 54.57 pH=5.0,250~850 μm 154.36 51.45 pH=5.0,150~250 μm 164.2 54.73 pH=5.0,<150 μm 170.53 56.84 -
[1] HOJSAK I, BRAEGGER C, BRONSKY J, et a1. Arsenic in Rice: A Cause for Concern[J]. Journal of pediatric gastroenterology andnutrition, 2015, 60(1): 142-145. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000502 [2] PODGORSKI J, BERG M. Global threat of arsenic in groundwater[J]. Science, 2020, 368(6493): 845-850. doi: 10.1126/science.aba1510 [3] LIU G, SHI Y, GUO G, et al. Soil pollution characteristics and systemic environmental risk assessment of a large-scale arsenic slag contaminated site[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 251(1/2/3): 119721. [4] 龚傲, 陈丽杰, 吴选高, 等. 含砷废渣处理现状及研究进展[J]. 有色金属科学与工程, 2019, 10(4): 28-33. doi: 10.13264/j.cnki.ysjskx.2019.04.005 [5] 郑锦一, 张学洪, 刘杰, 等. 广西老厂铅锌尾矿重金属动态纵向释放迁移规律[J]. 桂林理工大学学报, 2020, 40(3): 580-586. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9057.2020.03.018 [6] 许伟航, 傅平丰, 方贵稳, 等. 冶金渣基胶凝材料固化生活垃圾焚烧飞灰的性能研究[J]. 矿产保护与利用, 2021, 41(3): 10-16. doi: 10.13779/j.cnki.issn1001-0076.2021.03.002 [7] 倪海凤, 旦增, 周鹏, 等. 国内城市生活垃圾焚烧飞灰研究现状及进展[J]. 再生资源与循环经济, 2021, 14(3): 24-30. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-0912.2021.03.009 [8] 张理群, 周慧慧, 郑刘根, 等. 尾渣中砷的精细化学结构、赋存形态[J]. 环境化学, 2021, 40(5): 1611-1618. doi: 10.7524/j.issn.0254-6108.2019121202 [9] LI E P, YANG T, WANG Q, et al. Long-term stability of arsenic calcium residue (ACR) treated with FeSO4 and H2SO4: Function of H+ and Fe(II)[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021, 420: 126549. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126549 [10] LI Y C, MIN X B, KE Y, et al. Preparation of red mud-based geopolymer materials from MSWI fly ash and red mud by mechanical activation[J]. Waste Management, 2019, 83: 202-208. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.019 [11] 曹珊珊, 吴光红, 苏睿先. 模拟中性和酸性降雨及垃圾渗滤液浸泡粉煤灰及渣重金属浸出特征[J]. 环境科学, 2011, 32(6): 1831-1836. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.2011.06.045 [12] 刘建, 何亮, 骆成杰, 等. 生活垃圾焚烧飞灰固化体重金属动态浸出规律[J]. 中国环境科学, 2019, 39(3): 1087-1093. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6923.2019.03.023 [13] 孙胤涛, 姚科, 郑虞琪, 等. 飞灰基碱激发胶凝材料中重金属的一维半动态浸出行为分析[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2021, 44(1): 24-31. doi: 10.19672/j.cnki.1003-6504.2021.01.004 [14] 盛农. 加速碳酸化法稳固化工业危险废物焚烧飞灰重金属的研究[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2018, 24(5): 74-79. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-7731.2018.05.034 [15] 王娜娜. 水中重金属的快速判别与铜铬镍快速检测方法研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨工业大学, 2014. [16] BU Y W, DAI X, LU P, et al. Release characteristics of semi-volatile heavy metals during co-combustion of sewage sludge and coal under the O2/CO2 atmosphere[J]. Journal of Thermal Analysis & Calorimetry, 2018, 133(2): 1041-1047. [17] FAN C, WANG B, ZHANG T. Review on cement stabilization/solidification of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash[J]. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 10(2): 1-7. [18] 何品晶, 吴长淋, 章骅, 等. 生活垃圾焚烧飞灰及其稳定化产物的长期浸出行为[J]. 环境化学, 2008, 27(6): 786-790. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0254-6108.2008.06.018 [19] HYKS J, ASTRUP T, CHRISTENSEN T H. Long-term leaching from MSWI air-pollution-control residues: Leaching characterization and modeling[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 162(1): 80-91.21. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.011 [20] 李清毅, 宋凯, 何亮, 等. 生活垃圾填埋场中飞灰固化体动态/半动态浸出行为[J]. 环境工程, 2019, 37(11): 149-154. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.201911024 [21] TANG Y, PAN J S, LI B Q, et al. Residual and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in fly ash from co-combustion of excess sludge and coal[J]. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11(1): 2499. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81812-5 [22] LI W H, SUN Y J, HUANG Y M, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.033 [23] 潘建华. 中国西南地区时雨量分布特征与时月变化[J]. 灾害学, 2019, 34(4): 113-120. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-811X.2019.04.020 [24] 潘建华. 中国西南地区小时雨量概率分布特征[J]. 干旱气象, 2020, 38(2): 226-233. [25] 费讲驰. 含砷废渣固砷体环境稳定性及其潜在风险评价[D]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2019. [26] 杜梅, 杨俊, 刘君, 等. 矿区尾矿重金属环境风险评价方法综述[J]. 环境与可持续发展, 2021, 6: 143-151. doi: 10.19758/j.cnki.issn1673-288x.202106143 [27] 胡煜欣, 宋炜, 周瑞静. 某金属冶炼企业土壤As污染特征及潜在生态风险评价[J]. 中国环境监测, 2021, 37(6): 147-155. doi: 10.19316/j.issn.1002-6002.2021.06.16 [28] 中华人民共和国生态环境部, 中华人民共和国国家市场监督管理总局. 土壤环境质量建设用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行): GB36600-2018[S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2018. [29] HAKANSON L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control a sedimentological approach[J]. Water Research. 1980, 14(8): 975-1001. [30] WEIBEL G, EGGENBERGER U, SCHLUMBERGER S, et al. Chemical associations and mobilization of heavy metals in fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration[J]. Waste Management, 2017, 62: 147-159. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.004 [31] LI W H, GU K, YU Q W, et al. Leaching behavior and environmental risk assessment of toxic metals in municipal solid waste incineration fly ash exposed to mature landfill leachate environment[J]. Waste Management, 2021, 120(1): 68-75. [32] LUBNA A A I. Chemical characterization and mobility of metal species in fly ash-water system[J]. Water Science, 2015, 29(2): 109-122. doi: 10.1016/j.wsj.2015.10.001 [33] XUE-HUA P Y, DENG R Y, WANG C C, et al. Leaching characteristics of heavy metals from tailings under simulated rainfall in dexing copper mine[J]. Environmental Engineering, 2019, 37(5): 61-65. [34] 杨玉婷. 尾矿材料重金属释放机理及其运移规律研究[D]. 昆明: 昆明理工大学, 2020. [35] 中华人民共和国环境保护总局, 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 危险废物鉴别标准-浸出毒性鉴别: GB 5085.3-2007[S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2007. [36] 刘平. 煤矸石及其燃后灰渣中砷、硒、锑的淋溶释放研究[D]. 南昌: 南昌大学, 2013. [37] HUANG X R, ZHAO H H, ZHANG G B, et al. Potential of removing Cd(II) and Pb(II)from contaminated water using a newly modified fly ash[J]. Chemosphere, 2020, 242: 125148. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125148 [38] WANG Y T, ZHANG H, WU X Y, et al. Ecotoxicity assessment of sodium dimethyl dithio carbamate and its micro-sized metal chelates in Caenorhabditis elegans[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2020, 720: 137666. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137666 [39] KIM H S, SEO B H, KUPPUSAMY S, et al. A DOC coagulant, gypsum treatment cansimultaneously reduce As, Cd and Pb uptake by medicinal plants grown in contaminated soil[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2018, 148: 615-619. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.10.067 [40] 肖劲光, 刘喜, 肖武, 等. 高浓度砷渣土稳定化/固化效果及其影响因素研究[J]. 节能与环保, 2018(12): 74-75. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-539X.2018.12.025 [41] 钱玲, 李冰, 陈希, 等. 黄金尾砂重金属淋溶释放规律[J]. 东南大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 50(6): 1084-1089. [42] LI X H, WU Y G, LIU M F, et al. Effects of simulated acid rain on heavy metal release and biological toxicity of lead and zinc smelting waste residues[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2020, 39(11): 2504-2514.