Please wait a minute...
浙江大学学报（农业与生命科学版）
浙江大学学报（农业与生命科学版）  2015, Vol. 41 Issue (1): 89-100    DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9209.2014.03.282
资源与环境科学     
不同土地利用类型污染土壤修复基准推导方法与标准值分析
周启星*, 滕涌
南开大学环境科学与工程学院,环境污染过程与基准教育部重点实验室/天津市城市生态环境修复与污染防治重点实验室,天津 300071
Derivation methods of remediation criteria for contaminated soils under different land uses and analysis of their standard values
Zhou Qixing*, Teng Yong
(Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Pollution Processes and Environmental Criteria &  Tianjin Key Laboratory of Environmental Remediation and Pollution Control,College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China)
 全文: PDF(1376 KB)   HTML ( ) 
摘要： 不同的土地利用类型,由于修复要求、暴露情景等的不同,污染土壤修复基准推导方法有较大不同,导致确立的标准值有很大的出入。因此,开展不同土地利用类型的污染土壤修复基准方法研究,并对其标准值进行分析,具有极其重要的实践意义和先导作用。本文首先结合筛选值的初始功能,简要阐述了污染土壤修复基准和标准的内涵及其功能;接着概述了国外污染土壤修复基准/标准的主要土地利用类型及其适用范围和国内的土地利用现状,分析了国外不同土地利用类型污染土壤修复基准对我国不同土地利用类型下污染土壤修复基准推导方法上的借鉴;然后,结合基于人体健康、生态系统安全和地下水保护的污染土壤修复基准推导方法,举例分析了在不同土地利用类型条件下推导方法的一些区别,并且以国外镉（Cd）和苯污染土壤修复标准为例,比较了不同土地利用类型的污染土壤修复标准值的定性关系。最后,简要归纳了不同土地利用类型污染土壤修复基准的方法和修复标准值的差异,并对今后的研究进行了展望。
关键词： 土地利用;  污染土壤;  修复基准/标准;  推导方法;  标准值    
Abstract: Many countries such as USA, Canada, Denmark and Swiss, and their states or provinces, have carried out systematic researches on the remediation criteria of contaminated soils, and their relevant remediation standards for contaminated soils have also been enacted nationwide or statewide. Especially for USA, it has so many states that there are a series of methodologies provided for references, just as “soil cleanup levels” in Alaska, “soil remediation standards” in Arizona, “soil cleanup target levels” in Florida, “soil remediation goals” in North Carolina, and so do many other countries such as “Canada soil quality guidelines” and “Canadawide standards for petroleum hydrocarbons”, “cutoff criteria” in Denmark, “action values” in Germany, “target cleanup levels” in Italy, “soil remediation intervention values” in Netherlands, and “cleanup values” in Swiss. Generally speaking, the protection of human health is the key point in most of the remediation standards among various countries or states. Meanwhile, ecosystem safety is also included as the protected objects independently, and sometimes groundwater protection is also taken into consideration directly or indirectly. At the same time, the past, current or future land uses are often discriminated in the remediation criteria for most of the countries or states. Nevertheless, the remediation standard for contaminated soils is still a gap in China and thus it is of great urgency to carry out the systematic and comprehensive research on the remediation criteria to meet the need for contaminated soil remediation under various land uses. In general, the research about “derivation methods of remediation criteria/standards for contaminated soils under different land uses and analysis of their standard values” is of great significance and necessity. Firstly, the connotation and function of remediation criteria and standards for contaminated soils are explained in brief combined with the screening values. Noticeably, the preliminary remediation goal is that remediation standards of contaminated soils intend for the protection of human health, was firstly developed at the national level in USA, while its guidance was commonly used to derive some screening levels under the similar supposed contexts and thus the screening values were used as the remediation goals for these soils. However, in 1996, the Soil Screening Guidance (SSG) was enacted by US EPA for the derivation of screening values specially, and stated that the function of soil screening levels is to screen out a contaminated site and its potential pollutants. And in most European countries, the screening values are regarded as soilenvironmental quality standards rather than remediation standards of contaminated soils. In fact, remediation standards of contaminated soils should be the guidance for the nationwide or statewide remediation projects and the protection of plow lands. Land uses should be considered in derivation and development of remediation standards for contaminated soils, and the reference methods are suggested for the development of remediation standards for contaminated soils under various land uses. Then, it is followed by deriving and enacting methods of remediation criteria for contaminated soils under different land uses and the analysis of their standard values. We set forth the variations of the methods and the standard values under various land uses as the result of various remedial requirements and exposure scenarios from three aspects, that is, human health, ecosystem safety and groundwater protection. Generally speaking, exposure scenarios are different in various land uses, and there are some discrimination on exposure population, exposure pathways, and exposure parameters based on human health, while the differences are mainly reflected on receptors, and toxic indicators for ecobased remediation criteria. As for groundwater protection based remediation criteria, water quality standards are often used for the back calculation of soil remediation criteria by the soilwater partition equation, and they are somewhat different in terms of the function of groundwater under various land uses. Otherwise, remediation standards for Cd and benzene contaminated soils in some countries and states are compared qualitatively. In conclusion, many countries have enacted the nationwide or statewide remediation standards for contaminated soils, and are expressed by different denominations. In general, four types of land uses (agricultural, residential, commercial/industrial, groundwaterprotection land uses) are considered in development of remediation standards, and there are some discrimination on the methods and the standard values under various land uses.
Key words: land use    contaminated soil    remediation criteria/standard    derivation method    standard value
出版日期: 2015-01-20
CLC:  X 53  
服务　　
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章　　
周启星
滕涌

引用本文:

周启星, 滕涌. 不同土地利用类型污染土壤修复基准推导方法与标准值分析[J]. 浙江大学学报（农业与生命科学版）, 2015, 41(1): 89-100.

Zhou Qixing, Teng Yong. Derivation methods of remediation criteria for contaminated soils under different land uses and analysis of their standard values. Journal of Zhejiang University (Agriculture and Life Sciences), 2015, 41(1): 89-100.

链接本文:

http://www.zjujournals.com/agr/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-9209.2014.03.282    或    http://www.zjujournals.com/agr/CN/Y2015/V41/I1/89

[1] 李丹，梁新强，吴嘉平. 水库型饮用水源地水环境模拟与预测[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2018, 44(1): 75-88.
[2] 孟凡德，袁国栋，韦婧，毕冬雪，王海龙，刘兴元. 风化煤提取的胡敏酸对镉的吸附性能及其应用潜力[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2016, 42(04): 460-468.
[3] . 矿物改良剂对污染土壤中重金属多目标有效性的影响[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2012, 38(5): 629-638.
[4] 王晓旭， 黄佳鸣， 章明奎. 浙江省水耕人为土主要肥力指标状况及其演变[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2012, 38(4): 429-437.
[5] 张慧敏　章明奎　. 城市复合土地利用系统中土壤磷素的积累和流失潜力的空间分异 [J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2008, 34(4): 453-460.
[6] 杨志荣　吴次芳　刘勇等. 快速城市化地区生态系统对土地利用变化的响应——以浙江省为例[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2008, 34(3): 341-346.
[7] 梁红梅　刘卫东　林育欣等　. 土地利用效益的耦合模型及其应用[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2008, 34(2): 230-236.
[8] 冯秀丽　 王珂　 楼立明. SPOT5遥感影像在土地利用变更调查中的应用[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2005, 31(1): 12-16.
[9] 王人潮　 王珂. 论中国土地利用总体规划的作用及其实施基础[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2005, 31(1): 1-6.
[10] 陈建杰　 叶智宣　 柯正谊. 基于本体的土地利用数据集成[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2004, 30(5): 582-588.
[11] 包志毅　 陈波. 乡村可持续性土地利用景观生态规划的几种模式[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2004, 30(1): 57-62.
[12] 欧海若　 吴次芳　 高宏伟. 乡镇土地利用总体规划图编制的底图规范和成图方法研究[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2002, 28(4): 453-456.
[13] 王人潮. 试论土地分类[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2002, 28(4): 355-361.
[14] 陈和平　 王深法　 胡先松. 浙江突发性山地水土灾害与土地利用类型的相关性研究[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2002, 28(1): 89-93.
[15] 王建弟　 王人潮. 县级土地利用管理决策支持系统的研制[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2001, 27(1): 49-54.