Birgisdóttir H, Bhander G, Hauschild M Z, Christensen T H
Environment & Resources, DTU, Technical University of Denmark, Building 115, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark.
Waste Manag. 2007;27(8):S75-84. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.016. Epub 2007 Apr 9.
Two disposal methods for MSWI bottom ash were assessed in a new life cycle assessment (LCA) model for road construction and disposal of residues. The two scenarios evaluated in the model were: (i) landfilling of bottom ash in a coastal landfill in Denmark and (ii) recycling of bottom ash as subbase layer in an asphalted secondary road. The LCA included resource and energy consumption, and emissions associated with upgrading of bottom ash, transport, landfilling processes, incorporation of bottom ash in road, substitution of natural gravel as road construction material and leaching of heavy metals and salts from bottom ash in road as well as in landfill. Environmental impacts associated with emissions to air, fresh surface water, marine surface water, groundwater and soil were aggregated into 12 environmental impact categories: Global Warming, Photochemical Ozone Formation, Nutrient Enrichment, Acidification, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Human Toxicity via air/water/soil, Ecotoxicity in water/soil, and a new impact category, Stored Ecotoxicity to water/soil that accounts for the presence of heavy metals and very persistent organic compounds that in the long-term might leach. Leaching of heavy metals and salts from bottom ash was estimated from a series of laboratory leaching tests. For both scenarios, Ecotoxicity(water) was, when evaluated for the first 100 yr, the most important among the twelve impact categories involved in the assessment. Human Toxicity(soil) was also important, especially for the Road scenario. When the long-term leaching of heavy metals from bottom ash was evaluated, based on the total content of heavy metals in bottom ash, all impact categories became negligible compared to the potential Stored Ecotoxicity, which was two orders of magnitudes greater than Ecotoxicity(water). Copper was the constituent that gave the strongest contributions to the ecotoxicities. The most important resources consumed were clay as liner in landfill and the groundwater resource which was potentially spoiled due to leaching of salts from bottom ash in road. The difference in environmental impacts between landfilling and utilization of bottom ash in road was marginal when these alternatives were assessed in a life cycle perspective.
在一个用于道路建设和残渣处置的新生命周期评估(LCA)模型中,对城市固体废弃物焚烧(MSWI)底灰的两种处置方法进行了评估。该模型评估的两种情景为:(i)在丹麦的一个沿海垃圾填埋场填埋底灰,以及(ii)将底灰作为沥青二级路的底基层进行回收利用。生命周期评估包括资源和能源消耗,以及与底灰升级、运输、填埋过程、底灰在道路中的掺入、天然砾石作为道路建设材料的替代以及底灰在道路和填埋场中重金属和盐分的浸出相关的排放。与向空气、新鲜地表水、海洋地表水、地下水和土壤排放相关的环境影响被汇总为12个环境影响类别:全球变暖、光化学臭氧形成、营养物富集、酸化、平流层臭氧消耗、通过空气/水/土壤的人体毒性、水/土壤中的生态毒性,以及一个新的影响类别,对水/土壤的储存生态毒性,该类别考虑了重金属和非常持久的有机化合物的存在,这些物质长期可能会浸出。通过一系列实验室浸出试验估算了底灰中重金属和盐分的浸出情况。对于这两种情景,在前100年进行评估时,生态毒性(水)在评估涉及的12个影响类别中是最重要的。人体毒性(土壤)也很重要,特别是对于道路情景。当基于底灰中重金属的总含量评估底灰中重金属的长期浸出时,与潜在的储存生态毒性相比,所有影响类别都变得微不足道,储存生态毒性比生态毒性(水)大两个数量级。铜是对生态毒性贡献最大的成分。消耗的最重要资源是作为填埋场衬垫的粘土以及由于道路底灰中盐分浸出而可能受到污染的地下水资源。从生命周期角度评估这些替代方案时,填埋和在道路中利用底灰之间的环境影响差异很小。