期刊文献+

Johnson & Ettinger模型和Volasoil模型在污染物室内挥发风险评价中的应用和比较 被引量:17

Comparative study on Johnson & Ettinger model and Volasoil model in the indoor volatilization risk assessment of contaminant
原文传递
导出
摘要 在土壤污染和地下水污染的现场,挥发过程是挥发性污染物暴露的重要途径.设置典型土壤污染场景作为研究对象,选取Johnson&Ettinger模型和Volasoil模型进行室内挥发过程的模拟和暴露浓度的计算.对两个模型中污染物的运移机理进行了比较和分析.尽管方法和参数选择有所不同,二者对污染源处三相平衡浓度的计算本质上是一致的.暴露浓度的计算结果表明,两个模型对室内挥发过程的模拟可能会有较大差异,与污染现场的具体情况有关.参数影响的分析表明,污染源顶部埋深对二者暴露浓度的影响一致,Johnson&Ettinger模型对污染土壤含水率的大小非常敏感.建议考虑房屋结构的实际情况,选用或者改进模型进行室内挥发过程的评价. On soil or groundwater contamination site, volatilization is an important exposure pathway for volatile contaminant. Johnson & Ettinger model and Volasoil model were used to simulate indoor volatilization process and calculate contaminant concentrations in air on typical soil contamination site, and the migration mechanism of contaminant was analyzed. For the contaminant concentrations in three phases including volatile phase in soil gas,dissolved phase in moisture and sorption phase on soil grains at equilibrium status, two models are theoretically the same although the methods and parameters are different. However, the calculated indoor exposure concentrations due to volatilization were quite different between the two models. The depth of contamination had similar influence on the exposure concentrations for the two models. Johnson & Ettinger model was sensitive to the water content in soils. It was suggested to select or improve the model for indoor volatilization assessment based on the building structure.
作者 武晓峰 谢磊
出处 《环境科学学报》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2012年第4期984-991,共8页 Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae
基金 国际合作项目“风险评价工具的开发”~~
关键词 室内挥发 Johnson & Ettinger模型 Volasoil模型 污染源埋深 土壤含水率 Lndoor volatilization Johnson & Ettinger model Volasoil model burial depth water content
  • 相关文献

参考文献10

  • 1陈炼钢..土壤地下水污染治理健康风险分析系统研究[D].清华大学,2005:
  • 2付在毅,许学工.区域生态风险评价[J].地球科学进展,2001,16(2):267-271. 被引量:214
  • 3Johnson P C,Ettinger R A.1991.Heuristic model for predicting theintrusion rate of contaminant vapors into buildings[J].Environmental Science and Technology,25(8):1445-1452. 被引量:1
  • 4Olgab,Jim W B,John F P.2000.A generic comparison of the airbornerisks to human health from landfill and incinerator disposal ofmunicipal solid waste[J].The Environmentalist,20(4):325-334. 被引量:1
  • 5Otte P F,Lijzen J P A,Otte J G,et al.2001.RIVM Report711701021:Evaluation and revision of the CSOIL parameter set[R].Bilthoven,Netherlands.RIVM:17-55. 被引量:1
  • 6Rikke M G J,Lijzen J P A,Cornelese A A.2001.RIVM Report711701022:Evaluation of model concepts on human exposure[R].Bilthoven,Netherlands,RIVM:59-82. 被引量:1
  • 7USEPA.2004.An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles andPractices[R].EPA/100/B04/001.Washington DC:USEPA.9-17. 被引量:1
  • 8USEPA.2004.User's Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusioninto Buildings[R],Washington D C:USEPA.3-66. 被引量:1
  • 9Waitz M F W,Freijer J I,Kreule P,et al.1996.RIVM Report715810014:The VOLASOIL risk assessment model based on CSOILfor soils contaminated with volatile compounds[R].Bilthoven,Netherlands,RIVM:49-109. 被引量:1
  • 10杨昱,姜永海,席北斗,何小松,安达,张进保.生活垃圾填埋场地下水污染风险分级方法研究[J].生态环境学报,2010,19(7):1704-1709. 被引量:17

二级参考文献27

共引文献229

同被引文献176

引证文献17

二级引证文献127

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部