Monte-Carlo human health risk assessment of mercury emissions from a MSW gasification plant

Waste Management

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 347-355

  Lonati, Giovanni ^a   Zanoni, Francesca ^b  

^a POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

^b Airprotech srl   (Italy)

Author keywords

Mercury; Monte Carlo simulation; MSW gasification; Probabilistic approach; Risk assessment; Speciated mercury emissions

Indexed keywords

AMBIENT AIR; ATMOSPHERIC EMISSION; BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION; DERMAL CONTACTS; EMISSION RATES; GASIFICATION PLANTS; HAZARD INDICES; HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT; INDIVIDUAL RISKS; INPUT DATAS; MEDIAN CONCENTRATION; MERCURY EMISSIONS; MERCURY INTAKE; MERCURY LEVELS; MODEL PARAMETERS; MONTE CARLO; MONTE CARLO SIMULATION; MONTE CARLO TECHNIQUES; ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE; PARTICULATE SPECIES; PLANT EMISSIONS; POTENTIAL IMPACTS; PROBABILISTIC APPROACHES; PROBABILITY FUNCTIONS; REFERENCE DOSE; SOIL CONCENTRATIONS; SOIL INGESTIONS; SPECIATED MERCURY; WASTE GASIFICATION;

CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; GASIFICATION; GEOLOGIC MODELS; HAZARDS; INPUT OUTPUT PROGRAMS; MERCURY (METAL); MONTE CARLO METHODS; NUTRITION; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SOILS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

SOIL POLLUTION;

MERCURY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EMISSION; HEALTH RISK; MERCURY (ELEMENT); MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; WASTE FACILITY;

AMBIENT AIR; ARTICLE; ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; DIETARY INTAKE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS; FLOW RATE; GASIFICATION PLANT; GEOGRAPHIC MAPPING; HEALTH HAZARD; INDUSTRY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOIL; UNCERTAINTY;

ADULT; AIR POLLUTANTS; CHILD; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMANS; ITALY; MERCURY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; REFUSE DISPOSAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOIL POLLUTANTS; VOLATILIZATION;

EID: 84874326896     PISSN: 0956053X     EISSN: 18792456     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.10.015     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adlhoch, W., Sato, H., 2000. High-temperature winkler gasification of municipal solid waste. In: Proceeding of 2000 Gasification Technologies Conference, San Francisco, California, October 8-11.
2. Arena U. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A review. Waste Manage. 2012, 32:625-639.
3. Barducci G.L., Ulivieri P., Polzinetti G.C., Donati A., Repetto F. New developments in biomass utilisation for electricity and low energy gas production, on the gasification plant of Greve in Chianti - Florence, development in exploitation of LEG from BF and RDF. Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion 1997, vol. 2:1045-1057. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, United Kingdom.
4. Belcher G.D., Travis C.C. Health Effects of Municipal Waste Incineration 1991, CRC Press, 211-235.
5. Bullock O.R., Brehme K.A. Atmospheric mercury simulation using the CMAQ model: formulation description and analysis of wet deposition results. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 26:2135-2146.
6. Calaminus B., Stahlberg R. Continuous in-line gasification/vitrification process for thermal waste treatment: process technology and current status of project. Waste Manage 1998, 18:547-556.
7. Cangialosi F., Intini G., Liberti L., Notarnicola M., Stellacci P. Health risk assessment of air emissions from a municipal solid waste incinerator plant - a case study. Waste Manage 2008, 28:885-895.
8. Carpi A. Mercury from combustion sources: a review of the chemical species emitted and their transport in the atmosphere. Water Air Soil Poll. 1997, 98:241-254.
9. CE-CERT, 2009. Evaluation of Emissions from Thermal Conversion Technologies Processing Municipal Solid Waste and Biomass. Final report Prepared by University of California at Riverside's College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and Technology for BioEnergy Producers Association. (Emissions Report 62109). http://socalconversion.org/pdfs/UCR.
10. Choy K.K.H., Porter J.F., Hui C.-W., McKay G. Process design and feasibility study for small scale MSW gasification. Chem. Eng. J. 2004, 105:31-41.
11. Cohen M., Artz R., Draxler R., Miller P., Poissant L., Niemi D., Rattè D., Deslauriers M., Duval R., Laurin R., Slotnick J., Nettesheim T., McDonald J. Modeling the atmospheric transport and deposition of mercury to the Great Lakes. Environ. Res. 2004, 95:247-265.
12. Constantinou E., Gerath M., Mitchell D., Seigneur C., Levin L. Mercury from power plants: a probabilistic approach to the evaluation of potential health risks. Water Air Soil Poll. 1995, 80:1129-1138.
13. Decisioneering, 1996. Crystal BallTM Version 4.0. Decisioneering Inc., Denver, Colorado.
14. Defra, 2007. Advanced thermal treatment of municipal solid waste. Enviros Consulting Limited on behalf of Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), http://www.defra.gov.uk.
15. European Union Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal L 175, (05.07.85).
16. European Union, Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European, Communities, L332/91.
17. Giuliano M., Grosso M., Rigamonti L. Energy recovery from municipal waste: a case study for a middle-sized Italian district. Waste Manage 2008, 28:39-50.
18. Grigal D.F. Mercury sequestration in forests and peatlands: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32:393-405.
19. Grubbs F.E. Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics 1969, 11:1-21.
20. Hall B., Lindqvist O., Ljungstrom E. Mercury chemistry in simulated flue gases related to waste incineration conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1990, 24:108-111.
21. Hall B., Schager P., Lindqvist O. Chemical reactions of mercury in combustion flue gases. Water Air Soil Poll. 1991, 56:3-14.
22. Hirt H., Lochum J., Jodeit H. A thermal process for decontaminating fly ash from waste incinerators. Chem. Eng. Technol. 1990, 12:1054-1055.
23. Khoo H.H. Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion technologies. Waste Manage 2008, 29:1892-1900.
24. Kilgroe J.D. Control of dioxin, furan, and mercury emissions from municipal soild waste combustors. J. Hazard Mater. 1996, 47:163-194.
25. Kordel W., Dassenakis M., Lintelmann J., Padberg S. The importance of natural organic material for environmental processes in waters and soils. Pure Appl. Chem. 1997, 69:1571-1600.
26. Kumar V., Mari M., Schumacher M., Domingo J.L. Partitioning total variance in risk assessment: application to a municipal solid waste incinerator. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2009, 24:247-261.
27. Larson E., Worrel E., Chen J. Clean fuels from municipal solid waste for fuel cell buses in metropolitan areas. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 1996, 17:273-298.
28. Levin A. Comparative analysis of health risk assessment for municipal waste combustors. J. Air Waste Manage. 1991, 41:20-31.
29. Lindqvist O. Fluxes of mercury in the Swedish environment: contributions from waste incineration. Waste Manage. Res. 1986, 4:35-44.
30. Lonati G., Cernuschi S., Giugliano M., Grosso M. Health risk analysis of PCDD/F emissions from MSW incineration: comparison of probabilistic and deterministic approaches. Chemosphere 2007, 67:334-343.
31. Lonati, G., Ozgen, S., Giugliano, M., Cernuschi, S., 2007b. Atmospheric mercury in Milan area (Italy). In: Proc. 14th International Union of Air Pollution Prevention and Environmental Protection Associations (IUAPPA) World Congress 2007, Brisbane, Australia, 9-13, September.
32. Malkow T. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. Waste Manage. 2004, 24:53-79.
33. Marsik F.J., Keeler G.J., Landis M.S. The dry deposition of speciated mercury to the Florida Everglades: measurements and modeling. Atmos. Environ. 2007, 41:136-149.
34. McKone T., Bogen K. Predicting uncertainties in risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1991, 25:1674-1681.
35. Meneses M., Schuhmacher M., Domingo J.L. Health risk assessment of emissions of dioxins and furans from a municipal waste incinerator: comparison with other emission sources. Environ. Int. 2004, 30:481-489.
36. Mosbæk H., Tjell J.C., Sevel T. Plant uptake of airborne mercury in background areas. Chemosphere 1988, 17:1227-1236.
37. Muenhor D., Satayavivad J., Limpaseni W., Parkpian P., Delaune R.D., Gambrell R.P., Jugsujinda A. Mercury contamination and potential impacts from municipal waste incinerator on Samui Island, Thailand. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 2009, 44:376-387.
38. Munthe J., Wangberg I., Iverfeldt A., Lindqvist O., Stromberg D., Sommar J., Gardfeldt K., Petersen G., Ebinghaus R., Prestbo E., Larjava K., Siemens V. Distribution of atmospheric mercury species in Northern Europe: final results from the MOE project. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37:S9-S20.
39. Noll K.E., Fang K.Y.P. Development of a dry deposition model for atmospheric coarse particles. Atmos. Environ. 1989, 23:585-594.
40. OEHHA, 2002. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III, Technical Support Document for the Determination of Non-cancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard.
41. Otani Y., Emi H., Kanaoka C., Matsuit S. Behavior of metal mercury in gases. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1984, 18:793-796.
42. Pacyna J.M., Munch J. Anthropogenic mercury emission in Europe. Water Air Soil Poll. 1991, 56:51-61.
43. Pacyna E.G., Pacyna J.M., Steenhuisen F., Wilson S. Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40:4048-4063.
44. Pacyna E.G., Pacyna J.M., Fudala J., Strzelecka-Jastrzab E., Hlawiczka S., Panasiuk D. Mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources in Europe in 2000 and their scenarios until 2020. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 370:147-156.
45. Ripamonti, G., Lonati, G., Baraldi, P., Cadini, F., Zio, E., 2011. Uncertainty propagation methods in PCDD/F emission estimation models. In: Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Association, ESREL 2011 Annual Conference, Troyes, France, September 18-22.
46. Sakata M., Marumoto K., Marukawa M., Asakura K. Regional variations in wet and dry deposition fluxes of trace elements in Japan. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 46:521-531.
47. Saponaro S., Sezenna E., Bonomo L. Remediation actions by a risk assessment approach: a case study of mercury contamination. Water Air Soil Poll. 2005, 168:187-212.
48. Schroeder W.H., Jackson R.A. An instrumental analytical technique for speciation of atmospheric mercury. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 1985, 22:1-18.
49. Schroeder W.H., Munthe J. Atmospheric mercury - an overview. Atmos. Environ. 1998, 32:809-822.
50. Schuhmacher M., Meneses M., Xifrò A., Domingo J.L. The use of Monte Carlo simulation techniques for risk assessment: study of a municipal waste incinerator. Chemosphere 2001, 43:787-799.
51. Schwede B.D., Paumier O.J. Sensitivity of the industrial source complex model to input deposition parameters. J. Appl. Meteorol. 1997, 36:1088-1095.
52. Scire J.S., Strimaitis D.G., Yamartino R.J. A user guide for CALPUFF dispersion model 2000, Earth Tech Inc., Concord, MA.
53. Sehmel, G.A., Hodgson, W.H., 1978. A Model for Predicting Dry Deposition of Particles and Gases to Environmental Surfaces, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, PNL-SA-6721.
54. Seigneur C., Vijayaraghavan K., Lohman K., Karamchandani P., Scott‡ C. Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38:555-569.
55. Selin N.E., Jacob D.J., Park R.J., Yantosca R.M., Strode S., Jaeglè L., Jaffe D. Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury: global constraints from observations. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112:D02308.
56. Sonnemann G.W., Pla A., Schuhmacher M., Castells C. Framework for the uncertainty assessment in the impact pathway analysis with an application on a local scale in Spain. Environ. Int. 2002, 28:9-18.
57. Tanigaki N., Manako K., Osada M. Co-gasification of municipal solid waste and material recovery in a large-scale gasification and melting system. Waste Manage. 2012, 32:667-675.
58. Themelis, N.J., 2008. Developments in thermal treatment technologies. In: Proceedings of NAWTEC16, 16th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference, May 19-21, 2008, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
59. U.S. EPA, 1997a. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume III: Fate and Transport of Mercury in the Environment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/452/R-97/005.
60. U.S. EPA, 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/P-95/002F a-c.
61. U.S. EPA, 2005. Human health risk assessment for hazardous waste combustion facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Wastes, Washington, DC, Report EPA-530-R- 05-006.
62. van Veizen D., Langenkamp H., Herb G. Review: mercury in waste incineration. Waste Manage. Res. 2002, 20:556-568.
63. WHO Environmental Health criteria 118: Inorganic mercury 1991, World Health Organization, Geneva.
64. Wolkin A., Hunt D., Martin C., Caldwell K.L., McGeehin M.A. Blood mercury levels among fish consumers residing in areas with high environmental burden. Chemosphere 2012, 86:967-971.
65. Yuan C.-S., Lin H.-Y., Wu C.-H., Liu M.-H. Partition and size distribution of heavy metals in the flue gas from municipal soild waste incinerators in Taiwan. Chemosphere 2005, 59:135-145.
66. Zemba G.S., Green C.L., Crouch A.C., Lester R.R. Quantitative risk assessment of stack emissions from municipal waste combustors. J. Hazard Mater. 1996, 47:229-275.