| 能源化工基地窟野河多环芳烃污染特征及健康风险源定量解析 |
| 摘要点击 238 全文点击 5 投稿时间：2024-06-19 修订日期：2024-09-01 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 能源化工区 多环芳烃（PAHs） PMF-HHR耦合模型 风险源解析 人类健康 |
| 英文关键词 energy and chemical industry area polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons （PAHs） PMF-HHR coupling model risk source apportionment human health |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 以榆林国家能源化工基地典型河流窟野河为研究对象，在枯水期和丰水期分别采集59个水体样品，测定了16种多环芳烃（PAHs）的浓度. 分析PAHs的季节性分布特征，运用正定矩阵因子分解模型（PMF）解析PAHs污染来源，并通过将PMF与人类健康风险评估模型（HHR）相结合，建立PMF-HHR风险源定量解析耦合模型，计算了各类污染来源对人群健康风险水平的贡献. 结果表明，窟野河枯水期和丰水期分别检测出10种和16种优控PAHs， ρ（∑PAHs）范围分别为54.36~369.94 ng·L-1和50.06~278.16 ng·L-1，平均值为185.11 ng·L-1和128.22 ng·L-1. PMF模型解析的水体中PAHs主要来自焦化和石油源（37.39%）、煤炭燃烧源（34.78%）、交通排放源（14.40%）和薪材燃烧源（13.44%）. 研究区PAHs的非致癌风险可以忽略，而致癌风险已超出显著致癌风险阈值的2~5倍. PMF-HHR耦合模型解析的4类污染源对致癌风险的平均贡献率为：交通排放源（36.75%）>焦化和石油源（30.15%）>煤炭燃烧源（17.17%）>薪材燃烧源（15.93%），交通排放源和BaP是窟野河水体中PAHs致癌风险的优先控制污染源和优先控制单体. 同一种污染源对PAHs浓度的贡献与对健康风险的贡献存在差异，建议将风险源定量解析模型应用到环境风险管控中，可更有效地降低人类健康风险. |
| 英文摘要 |
| Taking Kuye River， a typical river in the Yulin National Energy and Chemical Base as the research object， 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons （PAHs） concentrations were measured from 59 water samples collected in the dry and wet seasons. The seasonal distribution characteristics of PAHs were analyzed， and the positive definite matrix factorization model （PMF） was used to analyze the PAHs pollution sources. By combining PMF and the human health risk assessment model （HHR）， the PMF-HHR risk source quantitative analysis coupling model was established， and the contribution of various pollution sources to population health risk was calculated. The results showed that 10 and 16 PAHs were detected in the dry and wet seasons， respectively. The concentration of ∑PAHs in the dry season was higher than that in the wet season， and the ranges of ρ∑PAHs in the dry season were 54.36-369.94 ng·L-1， with an average value of 185.11 ng·L-1， and low ring （2-3 ring） PAHs was the dominant compound， accounting for 89.55% of ∑PAHs on average. During the wet season， the ranges of ρ∑PAHs were 50.06-278.16 ng·L-1， with an average value of 128.22 ng·L-1， mainly middle-low ring （2-4 ring） PAHs， of which the average proportion of low ring （2-3 ring） was 33.22%， and that of the middle ring （4 ring） was 51.41%. PAHs in the Kuye River analyzed by the PMF model mainly came from coking and petroleum emissions （37.39%）， coal combustion （34.78%）， traffic emission （14.40%）， and fuel-wood combustion （13.44%）. The coking and petroleum source and coal combustion source were the main factors affecting the PAHs concentration in the study area. The non-carcinogenic risk of PAHs in the study area could be ignored， but the carcinogenic risk exceeded the significant threshold by 2-5 times. The average contribution rate of pollution sources to carcinogenic risk by the PMF-HHR model was as follows： traffic emissions （36.75%） > coking and petroleum emissions （30.15%） > coal combustion （17.17%） > fuel-wood combustion （15.93%）. Traffic emission sources and BaP were priority control sources and monomer for PAHs carcinogenic risk in the Kuye River. The contribution of the same pollution source to the PAHs concentration and health risk was different. Quantitative analysis PAHs pollution source risk was the key to pollution mitigation and risk control in energy and chemical industry area. It is suggested that the risk source quantitative analysis model should be applied to environmental risk management to reduce human health risk more effectively. |
