环境卫生工程 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (3): 24-33.doi: 10.19841/j.cnki.hjwsgc.2026.03.004

• 固体废物处理过程衍生污染控制 • 上一篇    下一篇

长三角典型非正规固废填埋场土壤生态环境损害评估基线水平选取对比及实践

朱 悦,张少亮,何品晶   

  1. 1. 上海市环境科学研究院;2. 同济大学 环境科学与工程学院;3. 上海第二工业大学 资源与环境工程学院
  • 出版日期:2026-06-30 发布日期:2026-06-30

Comparison and Practice of Baseline Level of Soil Ecological Environment Damage Assessment in Typical Informal Solid Waste Landfills in the Yangtze River Delta

ZHU Yue, ZHANG Shaoliang, HE Pinjing   

  1. 1. Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences; 2. College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University; 3. School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Shanghai Polytechnic University
  • Online:2026-06-30 Published:2026-06-30

摘要: 非正规固废填埋场土壤生态环境基线的科学性与合理性关系到评估结论的公正性与修复方案的有效性。针对当前土壤生态环境损害评估中普遍以国家风险筛选值替代区域环境基线,易导致高背景区“假阳性”与低背景区“假阴性”的问题,本研究以长三角9处典型非正规固废填埋场为对象,分层采集0~0.5、0.5~5.0 m土壤样品,分别采用现场对照区调查统计法(对照区基线)与国家风险筛选值(标准基线)作为参照,系统比较两种基线在污染识别、超标判定、修复深度核算等方面的差异。结果表明:对照区基线普遍低于标准基线,差幅24.2%~99.8%,且随深度和污染物类型呈显著梯度;以对照区基线衡量,总体超基准率由10.8%升至47.3%,大量“达标但超基线”的隐性污染得以暴露;生活垃圾填埋场呈现“低浓度、大范围”面源累积特征,工业固废填埋场则表现为“复合-深层”渗透特征。把“区域真实背景”固化为可即刻引用的活数据,以解决“假达标”、“过度赔偿”和“过度修复”风险,推动非正规固废填埋场土壤生态环境损害评估从“全国一条线”迈向“本地真基线”,为精准鉴定、适度修复、合理赔偿提供闭环支撑。

关键词: 非正规固废填埋场, 生态环境损害鉴定评估, 土壤生态环境基线, 对照区法, 风险筛选值, 污染识别, 修复目标

Abstract: The scientific validity and rationality of soil eco-environmental baselines for informal solid waste landfills fundamentally govern the impartiality of assessment conclusions and the efficacy of remediation strategies. To address the prevalent issue whereby national risk screening values are routinely substituted for regional environmental baselines in current soil ecological damage assessments, practices that readily generate false positives in high-background areas and false negatives in low-background areas, this study investigated nine typical informal solid waste landfills in the Yangtze River Delta. Stratified soil samples were collected at depths of 0-0.5 m and 0.5-5.0 m, with two reference frameworks employed: the control-area baseline derived from on-site survey statistics, and the standard baseline represented by national risk screening values. A systematic comparison was conducted to elucidate discrepancies between these two baselines regarding pollution identification, exceedance determination, and remediation depth accounting. The results showed that the control area baseline was generally 24.2% to 99.8% lower than the standard baseline, exhibiting significant gradients with soil depth and pollutant type. When assessed against the control area baseline, the overall exceedance rate increased from 10.8% to 47.3%, revealing substantial “hidden” pollution that met regulatory standards but exceeded local baseline levels. Domestic waste landfills exhibited characteristics of “low-concentration, large-scale” non-point source accumulation, while industrial waste landfills showed “composite-deep” penetration patterns. Embedding the “real regional background” as living data that can be cited on demand will defuse the risks of “false compliance”, “excessive compensation” and “over-remediation”, promoting soil ecological environment damage assessment for informal landfills from “one-size-fits-all national line” to “true local baseline” and providing closed-loop support for precise identification, moderate remediation and fair compensation.

Key words: informal solid waste landfill, identification and assessment of eco-environmental damage, soil eco-environmental baseline, control area method, risk screening values (RSVs), pollution identification, remediation targets

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
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