4.7 Article

Mass balance evaluation of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in landfill leachate and potential for transfer from e-waste

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 461, 期 -, 页码 290-301

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.080

关键词

Environmental modelling; Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); Landfill; Leachate; Mass transfer/reaction; Emerging contaminants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous research on brominated flame retardants (BFRs), including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) has largely focussed on their concentrations in the environment and their adverse effects on human health. This paper explores their transfer from waste streams to water and soil. A comprehensive mass balance model is developed to track polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), originating from e-waste and non-e-waste solids leaching from a landfill. Stepwise debromination is assumed to occur in three sub-systems (e-waste, aqueous leachate phase, and non-e-waste solids). Analysis of landfill samples and laboratory results from a solid-liquid contacting chamber are used to estimate model parameters to simulate an urban landfill system, for past and future scenarios. Sensitivity tests to key model parameters were conducted. Lower BDEs require more time to disappear than high-molecular weight PBDEs, since debromination takes place in a stepwise manner, according to the simplified reaction scheme. Interphase mass transfer causes the decay pattern to be similar in all three sub-systems. The aqueous phase is predicted to be the first sub-system to eliminate PBDEs if their input to the landfill were to be stopped. The non-e-waste solids would be next, followed by the e-waste sub-system. The model shows that mass transfer is not rate-limiting, but the evolution over time depends on the kinetic degradation parameters. Experimental scatter makes model testing difficult. Nevertheless, the model provides qualitative understanding of the influence of key variables. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据