發(fā)布時間：2018-05-17 19:40

  本文選題：土壤 + 鉛��； 參考：《山西大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：為了推進(jìn)全國重金屬污染防治的實(shí)施,開展污染土壤的健康風(fēng)險評價已成為污染土地再利用的必要手段。傳統(tǒng)健康風(fēng)險評價體系過分保護(hù)人體健康,以致污染場地過分修復(fù)。研究者推薦采用生物可給性完善風(fēng)險評價體系。目前,不同的體外方法設(shè)計原理和初始目的不同,且方法的選擇缺乏標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、統(tǒng)一的原則。這不僅使得不同體外試驗(yàn)方法的結(jié)果缺乏可比性,也造成了對體外消化方法選擇和使用的隨意性。為了完成體外消化方法的統(tǒng)一化、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化,本文選用的提取方法為五種常見的體外試驗(yàn)方法(PBET、SBET、IVG、RIVM、DIN法),供試土壤為兩類性質(zhì)差異較大的土壤。圍繞常見的、分布廣、危害大的鉛元素,研究主要包括了酸性和堿性土壤鉛生物可給性比較和體外方法的篩選、消化酶的提取作用及以生物可給性為基礎(chǔ)的對生物質(zhì)炭修復(fù)效果評價。主要結(jié)論有以下三點(diǎn)：(1)適合酸性和堿性土壤鉛的體外試驗(yàn)方法主要為PBET法。PBET法對酸、堿土壤鉛的生物可給性分別為13.5%-38.5%、5.4%-17.1%,與動物相關(guān)性較好,且從安全角度考慮PBET土壤篩選值142.9 mg·kg-1,320.9 mg·kg-1相對符合GB15618-2008居住用地標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和風(fēng)險控制趨勢。(2)試驗(yàn)分別比較了三種體外消化方法(PBET、IVG和SBET法)中添加消化酶和不添加消化酶時,土壤鉛生物可給性的差異。結(jié)果表明,消化酶對不同類型土壤鉛提取能力有差異：消化酶對堿性土壤鉛提取作用影響較明顯,對酸性土壤鉛的提取作用影響無明顯差異。同時揭示了胃蛋白酶和豬膽鹽、胰酶對兩類土壤鉛提取作用較顯著。(3)試驗(yàn)分別利用三種體外消化方法(PBET、IVG和SBET法)評估生物質(zhì)炭修復(fù)效果。結(jié)果表明：第一從健康風(fēng)險評價角度,對于非農(nóng)業(yè)用地土壤修復(fù)生物質(zhì)炭可能的最適添加量為2%-4%之間；對于高濃度鉛污染土壤,生物質(zhì)炭修復(fù)的效果不理想。第二不同體外試驗(yàn)方法影響評估生物質(zhì)炭的修復(fù)效果,因此,選擇合適的體外方法至關(guān)重要。
[Abstract]:In order to promote the implementation of heavy metal pollution prevention and control in China, health risk assessment of contaminated soil has become a necessary means for the reuse of contaminated land. Traditional health risk assessment system overprotects human health, resulting in excessive remediation of contaminated sites. Researchers recommend using bioavailability to improve risk assessment systems. At present, different in vitro method design principle and initial purpose are different, and the method choice lacks the standard, the unification principle. This not only makes the results of different in vitro test methods not comparable, but also makes the selection and use of in vitro digestion methods arbitrary. In order to unify and standardize the digestion methods in vitro, five common in vitro test methods were used in this paper. Around the common, widely distributed and harmful lead elements, the research mainly includes the comparison of bioavailability of lead in acidic and alkaline soils and the screening of methods in vitro. Extraction of digestive enzymes and evaluation of biomass carbon remediation based on bioavailability. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) the main in vitro test method for acid and alkaline soil lead is PBET method. The bioavailability of lead in alkaline soil is 13.5-38.5% -5.4- 17.1g, respectively, which has a good correlation with animals. Considering that the PBET soil screening value of 142.9 mg kg-1320.9 mg kg-1 was in accordance with the GB15618-2008 residential land standard and the risk control trend from the safety point of view, the experiments were conducted to compare three in vitro digesting methods, I. e., the addition of digestive enzymes and the absence of digestive enzymes, respectively. Differences in the bioavailability of lead in soils. The results showed that the ability of digestive enzymes to extract lead from different types of soils was different: the effect of digestive enzymes on the extraction of lead in alkaline soils was obvious, but there was no significant difference in the extraction of lead in acidic soils. It was also revealed that pepsin, porcine bile salt and trypsin had significant effects on the extraction of lead from two kinds of soils. The results showed that: first, from the health risk evaluation point of view, the optimal amount of biomass carbon remediation for non-agricultural soil was between 2- 4%, and for high-concentration lead-contaminated soil, the effect of biomass carbon remediation was not ideal. Second, different in vitro test methods affect the evaluation of biomass carbon remediation, so it is very important to select a suitable in vitro method.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：X825

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 宋靜;陳夢舫;駱永明;夏家淇;吳春發(fā);羅飛;韋婧;李春平;;制訂我國污染場地土壤風(fēng)險篩選值的幾點(diǎn)建議[J];環(huán)境監(jiān)測管理與技術(shù);2011年03期

2 崔玉靜;張旭紅;朱永官;;體外模擬法在土壤-人途徑重金屬污染的健康風(fēng)險評價中的應(yīng)用[J];環(huán)境與健康雜志;2007年09期

3 陳星;馬建華;李新寧;劉德新;李一蒙;;基于棕地的居民小區(qū)土壤重金屬健康風(fēng)險評價[J];環(huán)境科學(xué);2014年03期

4 顏增光;谷慶寶;周娟;李發(fā)生;;構(gòu)建土壤生態(tài)篩選基準(zhǔn)的技術(shù)關(guān)鍵及方法學(xué)概述[J];生態(tài)毒理學(xué)報;2008年05期

5 崔立強(qiáng);楊亞鴿;嚴(yán)金龍;丁成;;生物質(zhì)炭修復(fù)后污染土壤鉛賦存形態(tài)的轉(zhuǎn)化及其季節(jié)特征[J];中國農(nóng)學(xué)通報;2014年02期

，

本文編號：1902603