中国和丹麦土壤重金属污染检测方法对比研究——以四川泸县某场地为例
|
摘要
从政策法规和技术规范两方面入手,对比分析中国、丹麦在土壤污染调查和检测方面的差异,以四川泸县某一典型区域的调查为实证,针对同一工业和农业用地,分别运用中国现行技术规范、检测工艺和丹麦技术理念与方法,进行场地土壤质量检测,并用统计方法分析中国与丹麦标准和方法检测结果存在的差异。结果表明:中国丹麦在土壤污染防治法律立法历程、内容制度以及技术标准上都存在一定的差异,在土壤重金属污染调查中丹麦普遍使用的快速检测方法可以作为实验室检测的有效辅助和补充。
This thesis conducts a contrastive analysis of soil pollution survey and testing between China and Denmark from the differences in policies and regulations as well as technical specifications.Based on the investigation of a typical area in Lu county,Sichuan Province,the soil quality of the same industrial and agricultural land are tested by using the Chinese current technical specifications and testing techniques as well as Danish technical concepts,methods and statistical methods respectively.And statistical methods are also used to analyze the differences of testing results in the standards and methods between China and Denmark.The results show that there are certain differences in legislation,system and technical standard of soil pollution control in Denmark and China.In addition,the rapid detection method which is an effective supplement for laboratory detection is commonly used in soil pollution investigation in Denmark.
This thesis conducts a contrastive analysis of soil pollution survey and testing between China and Denmark from the differences in policies and regulations as well as technical specifications.Based on the investigation of a typical area in Lu county,Sichuan Province,the soil quality of the same industrial and agricultural land are tested by using the Chinese current technical specifications and testing techniques as well as Danish technical concepts,methods and statistical methods respectively.And statistical methods are also used to analyze the differences of testing results in the standards and methods between China and Denmark.The results show that there are certain differences in legislation,system and technical standard of soil pollution control in Denmark and China.In addition,the rapid detection method which is an effective supplement for laboratory detection is commonly used in soil pollution investigation in Denmark.
引文
[1]周际海,袁颖红,朱志保,等.土壤有机污染物生物修复技术研究进展[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(2):343-351.
[2]王虹,马娜,叶露,等.国外土壤污染防治进展及对我国土壤保护的启示[J].环境监测管理与技术,2006,(5):51-53.
[3]环境保护部,国土资源部.全国土壤污染状况调查公报[R].北京:环境保护部,2014.
[4]朱静.美、日土壤污染防治法律度对中国土壤立法的启示[J].环境科学与管理,2011,36(11):21-26.
[5]陈静文.微博在环境议题建构中的角色探析[D].北京:北京林业大学,2015.
[6]李海楠.土壤污染防治立法的国际经验[N].中国经济时报,2016-11-10.
[7]杨敬忠.丹麦怎样防治土壤污染?[J].环境经济,2015,(Z1):55.
[8]蔡守秋,李建勋.土壤污染防治法论纲[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(3):123-135.
[9]Brian Kronvang,Hans E.Andersen,Christen Brgesen,et al.Effects of policy measures implemented in Denmark on nitrogen pollution of the aquatic environment[J].Environmental Science&Policy,2008,11(2):144-152.
[10]张文显.法理学(第2版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[11]常纪文.环境法律责任原理研究[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2001.
[12]Danish Environmental Protection Agency of Danish Ministry Of The Environment.Guidelines on Remediation of Contaminated Sites[Z].2002.
[13]邹德萍.丹麦的土壤污染防治之道[J].黑龙江水利,2014,(8):25-25.
[14]董彩霞.丹麦的土壤污染法规及治理[J].世界环境,2016,(4):31-33.
[15]周珂,汪小娟.环评脱钩;我国环境影响评价制度的改革路向[J].深圳大学学报:人文社会科学版,2015,32(6):62-67.
[16]杨兴.提高环境影响评价制度法律实效的构想——基于长江三峡工程环评等典型案例的分析[J].中南大学学报:社会科学版,2013,19(5):107-111.
[17]王卓晖.论我国《环境保护法》“三同时”制度价值理念与现实瓶颈的冲突[J].法制博览(中旬刊),2013,(2):30-31.
[18]秦文弟.复合污染对土壤生物的交互作用[J].河南科学,2008,26(6):730-733.
[19]周启星.复合污染生态学[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1995.
[20]JL Regens,KR Obenshain,JT Gunter,V Miller.Modeling Radiological Risks to Human Health from Contaminated Soils;Comparing MEPAS,MMSOILS,and RESRAD[J].Human and Ecological Risk Assessment;An International Journal,2000,6(5):777-788.
[21]Sarah Bull,Chris Collins.Promoting the use of BaP as a marker for PAH exposure in UK soils[J].Environmental Geochemistry and Health,2013,35(1):101-109.
[22]FA Swartjes,KW Versluijs,PF Otte.A tiered approach for the human health risk assessment for consumption of vegetables from with cadmium-contaminated land in urban areas[J].Environmental Research,2013,126(10):223.
[23]伍海兵,方海兰,郝冠军.园林绿化土壤质地的快速检测方法探讨[J].园林科技,2017,(1):27-29.
[2]王虹,马娜,叶露,等.国外土壤污染防治进展及对我国土壤保护的启示[J].环境监测管理与技术,2006,(5):51-53.
[3]环境保护部,国土资源部.全国土壤污染状况调查公报[R].北京:环境保护部,2014.
[4]朱静.美、日土壤污染防治法律度对中国土壤立法的启示[J].环境科学与管理,2011,36(11):21-26.
[5]陈静文.微博在环境议题建构中的角色探析[D].北京:北京林业大学,2015.
[6]李海楠.土壤污染防治立法的国际经验[N].中国经济时报,2016-11-10.
[7]杨敬忠.丹麦怎样防治土壤污染?[J].环境经济,2015,(Z1):55.
[8]蔡守秋,李建勋.土壤污染防治法论纲[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(3):123-135.
[9]Brian Kronvang,Hans E.Andersen,Christen Brgesen,et al.Effects of policy measures implemented in Denmark on nitrogen pollution of the aquatic environment[J].Environmental Science&Policy,2008,11(2):144-152.
[10]张文显.法理学(第2版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[11]常纪文.环境法律责任原理研究[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2001.
[12]Danish Environmental Protection Agency of Danish Ministry Of The Environment.Guidelines on Remediation of Contaminated Sites[Z].2002.
[13]邹德萍.丹麦的土壤污染防治之道[J].黑龙江水利,2014,(8):25-25.
[14]董彩霞.丹麦的土壤污染法规及治理[J].世界环境,2016,(4):31-33.
[15]周珂,汪小娟.环评脱钩;我国环境影响评价制度的改革路向[J].深圳大学学报:人文社会科学版,2015,32(6):62-67.
[16]杨兴.提高环境影响评价制度法律实效的构想——基于长江三峡工程环评等典型案例的分析[J].中南大学学报:社会科学版,2013,19(5):107-111.
[17]王卓晖.论我国《环境保护法》“三同时”制度价值理念与现实瓶颈的冲突[J].法制博览(中旬刊),2013,(2):30-31.
[18]秦文弟.复合污染对土壤生物的交互作用[J].河南科学,2008,26(6):730-733.
[19]周启星.复合污染生态学[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1995.
[20]JL Regens,KR Obenshain,JT Gunter,V Miller.Modeling Radiological Risks to Human Health from Contaminated Soils;Comparing MEPAS,MMSOILS,and RESRAD[J].Human and Ecological Risk Assessment;An International Journal,2000,6(5):777-788.
[21]Sarah Bull,Chris Collins.Promoting the use of BaP as a marker for PAH exposure in UK soils[J].Environmental Geochemistry and Health,2013,35(1):101-109.
[22]FA Swartjes,KW Versluijs,PF Otte.A tiered approach for the human health risk assessment for consumption of vegetables from with cadmium-contaminated land in urban areas[J].Environmental Research,2013,126(10):223.
[23]伍海兵,方海兰,郝冠军.园林绿化土壤质地的快速检测方法探讨[J].园林科技,2017,(1):27-29.