非水相液体污染场地调查修复技术的研究进展  

Review on investigation methods and remediation of sites contaminated with non-aqueous phase liquid

作　　者：王琼 吴佳丽[1] 贺勇 苏薇 叶为民 陈永贵[1,2] 胡广[1,2] WANG Qiong;WU Jiali;HE Yong;SU Wei;YE Weimin;CHEN Yonggui;HU Guang(Department of Geotechnical Engineering,College of Civil Engineering,Tongji University,Shanghai 200092,China;Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education,Tongji University,Shanghai 200092,China;School of Geosciences and Info-physics,Central South University,Changsha 410083,China)

机构地区：[1]同济大学地下建筑与工程系,上海200092 [2]同济大学岩土及地下工程教育部重点实验室,上海200092 [3]中南大学地球科学与信息物理学院,湖南长沙410083

出　　处：《中南大学学报(自然科学版)》2025年第3期1064-1079,共16页Journal of Central South University:Science and Technology

基　　金：国家自然科学基金资助项目(42172298,42002289,41907231);中央高校基本科研业务费项目(22120240243)。

摘　　要：本文从非水相液体(non-aqueous phase liquid,NAPL)的基础性质出发,系统梳理了国内外关于NAPL调查和污染场地修复技术的研究进展,阐述了常用技术的原理与机制,并结合实际应用总结了其优势与局限性。研究表明:NAPL调查技术主要分为非地球物理探测技术和地球物理探测技术;非地球物理探测技术原理简单、操作直接,但效率较低、灵活性不足,且高度依赖钻井和采样设备等硬件条件;地球物理探测技术则具有原位测试、环境扰动小、效率高等优势,但其解译准确性存在局限。在实际应用中,推荐采用多种调查方法,以提高调查结果的可靠性。NAPL污染场地修复技术主要包括物理修复、化学修复和生物修复三类技术;物理修复技术涵盖隔离法、焚烧法、热脱附法、土壤气相抽提法和原位曝气法等,优势在于机制明晰、工艺成熟,但能耗较高且对环境扰动较大;化学修复技术如表面活性剂浸出法和氧化还原法等,具有高效灵活的特点,但对试剂选用要求高,且存在二次污染风险;生物修复技术包括动物修复、微生物修复和植物修复等,具有经济美观、生态友好的优势,但修复周期较长,且降解能力有限。联合修复技术能够有效整合各类技术的优势,典型的联合修复技术包括微生物-生物联合修复、电化学-微生物联合修复以及渗透性反应墙等。建议化学修复技术进一步开发高效且适应性强的试剂;生物修复技术与其他技术联合使用;对于多污染场地,可结合物理、化学和生物技术,研究条件耦合机制,以提升协同修复效果。This overview begins with the definition and properties of NAPLs,and then explores investigation methods and remediation technologies.It explains the mechanisms,advantages,and limitations of commonly used techniques based on practical applications.Investigation methods are primarily divided into non-geophysical and geophysical methods.Non-geophysical methods are simple in principle and easy to operate,but less efficient and flexible,and rely heavily on drilling and sampling equipment.Geophysical methods,preferred for their in-situ testing capability,minimal environmental impact and high efficiency,face challenges in interpretation accuracy.Therefore,combining multiple investigation methods is recommended for better results.Remediation technologies of sites contaminated with NAPL mainly include physical remediation,chemical remediation,and biological remediation.Physical remediation,such as isolation,incineration,thermal desorption technology,soil vapor extraction and in-situ air sparging,have clear mechanisms and mature processes.However,it is mostly energyintensive and can cause significant environmental disruption.Chemical remediation,including surfactant flushing and in-situ chemical oxidation,is efficient and flexible but requires high chemical reagent standards and may risk secondary pollution.Biological remediation,involving animals,microbes and plants,is environmentally friendly and cost-effective but has long remediation cycles and limited pollutant removal capacity.By integrating the advantages of various technologies,combined remediation technologies stand out.The most representative examples are microbial-biological combined remediation,electrochemical-microbial combined remediation and permeable reactive barriers.In summary,chemical remediation technologies need further development of efficient and adaptable reagents;biological remediation techniques are recommended for use in combination with other methods.For multi-contaminant sites,integrating physical,chemical and biological technologies to study

关 键 词：NAPL 土壤 地下水 污染调查 污染修复 

分 类 号：X53[环境科学与工程—环境工程]