基于生命周期评价法的贝壳资源化利用环境效益分析*——以大连市为例  

Environmental benefit evaluation of shell resource utilization based on LCA:a case study of Dalian

作　　者：张芸 秦承露 侯昊晨 孙晓阳 ZHANG Yun;QIN Chenglu;HOU Haochen;SUN Xiaoyang(Key Laboratory of Industrial Ecology and Environmental Engineering(MOE),School of Environmental Science and Technology,Dalian University of Technology,Dalian Liaoning 116024)

机构地区：[1]工业生态与环境工程教育部重点实验室大连理工大学环境学院

出　　处：《环境污染与防治》2020年第1期124-128,共5页Environmental Pollution & Control

基　　金：国家水体污染控制与治理科技重大专项（No.2012ZX07202-001）

摘　　要：以贝壳为研究对象,运用生命周期评价(LCA)法对贝壳的常规处理方法和3种资源化利用方法的环境影响进行比较。结果表明,处理1kg贝壳,方案0(填埋)的环境影响值为1.04×10^-14;方案1(代替水泥生产中使用的石灰石)的环境影响值为-3.78×10^-12;方案2(代替浸没式生物滤柱中的陶粒填料)的环境影响值为-1.85×10^-14;方案3(代替砂作为建筑材料)的环境影响值为3.62×10^-14。方案1与其他3种方案相比环境效益最大。方案0中填埋过程的环境影响贡献最大,贡献率为56.60%;方案1、方案2、方案3中环境影响最大的环节是贝壳粉碎过程,贡献率分别为85.72%、93.55%、98.48%;3种资源化利用方案主要避免原材料开采过程的环境影响。Taking the shell as the research object,the environmental impact of the conventional treatment of shells and three resource utilization methods of shells were compared by using life cycle assessment(LCA).The results showed that when the function unit was 1 kg shell,the environmental impact of scheme 0(landfill)was 1.04×10^-14;the environmental impact of scheme 1(instead of limestone in cement production)was-3.78×10^-12;the environmental impact of scheme 2(instead of the ceramsite filler in the immersion biofilter column)was-1.85×10^-14;the environmental impact of scheme 3(instead of sand as building material)was 3.62×10^-14.Compared with the other three schemes,scheme 1 had better environmental benefits.In scheme 0,the landfill contributed much to the environmental impacts with contribution rate was 56.60%.The crushing process had the greatest environmental impacts in all of 3 shell resource utilization schemes,and its contribution to scheme 1,scheme 2 and scheme 3 was 85.72%,93.55% and 98.48%.The environmental impacts of the avoided process was mainly the raw material mining process.

关 键 词：贝壳 资源化利用 生命周期评价 环境影响 

分 类 号：X714[环境科学与工程—环境工程]