环境卫生工程 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (4): 78-85.doi: 10.19841/j.cnki.hjwsgc.2026.04.010

• 固体废物处理生命周期评价与碳足迹 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于生命周期评价的污染场地修复碳排放核算与低碳优化方法

曹自青,袁珊珊,宋震宇,刘 凡,康学赫,巢军委,张成芳   

  1. 1.天津生态城环保有限公司;2. 天津市污染场地治理修复技术工程中心
  • 出版日期:2026-08-25 发布日期:2026-08-25

Carbon Emission Accounting and Low-carbon Optimization Methods for Contaminated Site Remediation Based on Life Cycle Assessment

Cao Ziqing, Yuan Shanshan, Song Zhenyu, Liu Fan1, Kang Xuehe1, Chao Junwei, Zhang Chengfang   

  1. 1. Tianjin Eco-city Environmental Protection Co. Ltd.; 2. Tianjin Contaminated Site Remediation Technology Engineering Center
  • Online:2026-08-25 Published:2026-08-25

摘要: 以天津市某典型氯代烃污染场地为研究对象,基于工程实测数据及生命周期评价方法,评估了两种土壤修复方案的全生命周期环境影响。研究场地调查面积49 691.52 m2,土壤污染涉及四氯乙烯、三氯乙烯等5类污染物,地下水污染涉及三氯乙烯、氯乙烯等4类污染物,总修复土方量39 236.7 m3,地下水修复体积10 118.0 m3,修复目标值基于HJ 25.3—2019建设用地土壤污染风险评估技术导则中的健康风险评估模型,结合地块暴露参数反算得到风险控制值。通过量化材料消耗、能源消耗、固体废物产生等指标,对比分析两种方案的碳排放特征及环境效益。结果表明:不同修复技术的单土方碳排放强度(以二氧化碳当量计)差异显著,原位化学氧化(0.38 t/m3)最低,水泥窑协同处置(0.57 t/m3)最高,热强化气相抽提(0.54 t/m3)和原位热脱附(0.49 t/m3)居中;方案1采用原位热脱附+原位化学氧化组合技术,总碳排放量为32 301.52 t,修复成本为9 458.54万元;方案2采用水泥窑协同处置+原位热强化土壤气相抽提+原位化学氧化+地下水抽出处理组合技术,总碳排放量为27 050.41 t,较方案1降低16.3%,修复成本为6 999.40万元,较方案1降低26.0%,体现了“低碳+高效”的修复优势。

关键词: 碳排放核算, 生命周期评价, 氯代烃污染场地, 绿色可持续修复, 分质分类修复

Abstract: A typical chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminated site in Tianjin was taken as the research object, and the full-life-cycle environmental impacts of two soil remediation schemes were evaluated based on engineering measured data and the life cycle assessment (LCA) method. The survey area of the site is 49 691.52 m2, with soil pollution involving 5 types of pollutants such as tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene, and groundwater pollution involving 4 types of pollutants such as trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride. The total remediation earthwork volume is 39 236.7 m3, and the groundwater remediation volume is 10 118.0 m3. The remediation target values were determined based on the health risk assessment model in HJ 25.3—2019 Technical Guidelines for Risk Assessment of Soil Contamination of Land for Construction, combined with the risk control values calculated inversely using plot exposure parameters. By quantifying indicators such as material consumption, energy consumption, and solid waste generation, the carbon emission characteristics and environmental benefits of the two schemes were compared and analyzed. The results showed that there were significant differences in carbon emission intensity (in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent) per cubic meter among different remediation technologies. In-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) had the lowest intensity (0.38 t/m3), cement kiln co-processing (CKC) had the highest intensity (0.57 t/m3), while thermal-enhanced soil vapor extraction (TE-SVE) (0.54 t/m3) and in-situ thermal desorption (ISTD) (0.49 t/m3) were in the middle. Scheme 1 adopted the combined technology of ISTD + ISCO, with a total carbon emission of 32 301.52 t and a remediation cost of 94.585 4 million yuan. Scheme 2 adopted the combined technology of CKC + in-situ TE-SVE + ISCO + groundwater pump-and-treat, with a total carbon emission of 27 050.41 t, which was 16.3% lower than that of scheme 1, and the remediation cost was 69.994 0 million yuan, which was 26.0% lower than that of scheme 1, reflecting the remediation advantages of “low carbon + high efficiency”.

Key words: carbon emission accounting, life cycle assessment (LCA), chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminated sites, green and sustainable remediation (GSR), classification-based remediation

[1] 郭佳鑫, 廖艳芬, 唐玉婷. 基于商业源可燃固废气化多联产系统的工艺优化和生命周期评价[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2026, 34(4): 67-77,85.
[2] 翟凯雄, 刘宇隆. 高铝煤矸石三级协同集成利用的 MFA-LCA 研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2026, 34(4): 94-102.
[3] 扎史取宗, 郑良峰, 童星冰, 嵇灵烨, 赵佳渊, 汪晨希, 南 琼, 吴伟祥. 杭州市典型易腐垃圾处置厂碳排放与环境影响分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2026, 34(2): 75-83,92.
[4] 王 丰, 李梦婷, 罗 淋, 王英达. 装修垃圾资源化利用的碳足迹核算与影响因素分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(6): 87-95.
[5] 陶爽奕, 陈英健, 杜 倩, 杨家宽. 基于生命周期的含铁污泥热解资源化新工艺环境影响研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(4): 18-27,37.
[6] 何伟煜. 城市生活垃圾处理行业温室气体减排机会分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2023, 31(5): 9-17.
[7] 淦方茂, 吴莉鑫, 虞文波, 胡 广, 惠二青, 郭 帅. 村镇生活垃圾不同处置模式下温室气体排放潜力对比研究——以湖北埠河镇为例[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2023, 31(1): 112-118.
[8] 赵宇轩, 魏国侠, 刘汉桥, 赵海龙, 李 通, 龚永月, 乔浩宇. 两种医疗废物应急协同处置技术的生命周期评价[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2022, 30(6): 58-63.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 王占磊 陈 丽 刘兰英 等. 厌氧消化过程中氨氮的抑制浓度和消除方法[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2018, 26(3): 33 -35 .
[2] 王凯楠. 北京市大兴区建筑垃圾资源化工程设计[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2018, 26(3): 71 -74 .
[3] 鄢丰邢汝明. 果蔬垃圾好氧堆肥小试研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2018, 26(1): 9 -12 .
[4] 陈海滨宋飞苗雨余威汪俊时朱斌查星星. 农村生活垃圾“五类三段”分类模式探究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2018, 26(2): 1 -3 .
[5] 朱羽廷. 柱塞式压榨工艺的设计探讨[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2018, 26(2): 53 -54 .
[6] 高凯敏,董玉锋. 生活垃圾填埋场密闭工程对填埋气收集的影响[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2019, 27(1): 93 -96 .
[7] 汪 晶1,平 措1,周 鹏1,穷达卓玛1,周文武1,李 扬1,旦 增1, 2. 拉萨市生活垃圾卫生填埋场填埋气体调查研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2019, 27(2): 28 -32 .
[8] 陆月龙, 冯淋淋. 低温催化剂在垃圾焚烧发电厂的应用与再生研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2019, 27(3): 45 -47 .
[9] 张 玉, 李奔浩. 西安市城市生活垃圾转运站的提升改造建议[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2019, 27(3): 69 -71 .
[10] 余 毅. 山谷型填埋场周边截洪沟设计方法研究——以南京某垃圾填埋场三号库周边截洪沟的设计为例[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2019, 27(5): 89 -92 .
版权所有 © 天津市城市管理研究中心
津ICP备2022007900号-1   津公网安备 12010302000952号   中央网信办违法和不良信息举报中心
地址:天津市河西区围堤道107号    邮政编码: 300201
电话: 022-28365069 传真: 022-28365080 E-mail: csglwyjs10@tj.gov.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发