Paladino O, Massabò M
DICCA, Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genoa, Via Opera Pia 15, 16145 Genoa, Italy.
CIMA Research Foundation, International Centre on Environmental Monitoring, University Campus, via A. Magliotto 2, Savona 17100, Italy.
Waste Manag. 2017 Oct;68:344-354. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.021. Epub 2017 Jul 21.
The aim of the present paper is to show how an approach based on human health risk analysis can be used as a decisional tool for the evaluation of impacts on population and for deciding between different waste treatment processes. The situation in which the increasing production of solid wastes cannot be confined in the old existing Municipal Solid Waste landfill (settled in Genoa, Liguria Region, Italy) is used as a case study. Risk assessment for human health due to air, surface water, groundwater and soil contamination is performed in different scenarios for the old landfill and compared with alternative Waste-to-Energy management solutions that consider thermal treatment by gasification of the total waste or gasification of the dry fraction coupled with anaerobic digestion of the wet fraction, plus biogas combustion with or without sludge and bottom ash/slag disposal in the old landfill. Hazard Index (HI) and Cancer Risk (CR) in case of operating landfill and under the suspected situation of failure of the sealing system, were respectively 1.15 and 1.1∗10. Unacceptable HI were found due to groundwater contamination, while HI due to river pollution was slightly under the threshold. Vegetables ingestion was the most important pathway and ammonia the most responsible of toxic adverse effects. Fish ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated water were found to be the most important exposure pathways for carcinogenic risk, due mainly to BTEX. HI and CR in the supposed scenario of total waste gasification were respectively 9.4∗10 and 1.1∗10 while they were respectively 3.2∗10 and 6∗10 in case of gasification of the dry fraction. CR in both scenarios was over the threshold mainly due to dioxins, where milk and meat ingestion were found to be the highest risk pathways. Inhalation resulted as the highest not-carcinogenic risk exposure pathway, mainly due to NOx. Decision making was made by weighing up the different scenarios, and results suggested to definitively close the landfill and to eliminate gasification of the total waste as a possible waste treatment process.
本文旨在展示基于人类健康风险分析的方法如何用作一种决策工具,用于评估对人群的影响以及在不同的废物处理工艺之间做出抉择。以意大利利古里亚大区热那亚市现有老旧城市固体垃圾填埋场无法容纳日益增加的固体废物产量这一情况作为案例研究。针对该老旧填埋场,在不同情景下对空气、地表水、地下水和土壤污染导致的人类健康风险进行评估,并与替代的废物转化能源管理解决方案进行比较,这些替代方案包括对全部废物进行气化热处理、对干馏分进行气化并结合对湿馏分进行厌氧消化,以及在老旧填埋场进行有或没有污泥及底灰/炉渣处置的沼气燃烧。在填埋场运营情况下以及密封系统疑似失效的情况下,危害指数(HI)和癌症风险(CR)分别为1.15和1.1×10。由于地下水污染发现了不可接受的HI,而河流污染导致的HI略低于阈值。蔬菜摄入是最重要途径,氨是造成毒性不良反应的最主要因素。鱼类摄入和皮肤接触受污染水被发现是致癌风险的最重要暴露途径,主要归因于苯系物。在假定的全废物气化情景下,HI和CR分别为9.4×10和1.1×10,而在干馏分气化情况下分别为3.2×10和6×10。两种情景下的CR均超过阈值,主要原因是二噁英,其中牛奶和肉类摄入被发现是风险最高的途径。吸入是最高的非致癌风险暴露途径,主要归因于氮氧化物。通过权衡不同情景进行决策,结果建议彻底关闭填埋场,并排除全废物气化作为一种可能的废物处理工艺。