期刊文献+

化工企业环境风险综合评价模式及其应用 被引量:25

Development of composite environment risk evaluation method for chemical enterprises and its application
下载PDF
导出
摘要 针对现有化工企业环境风险评价模式在指标筛选与不确定性处理方面的不足,构建了包括源项因子、过程因子和受体因子3项一级指标、14项二级指标的评价指标体系层次结构;并提出了基于模糊层次分析法的指标权重确定方法和基于模糊隶属度的指标风险水平确定方法,计算化工企业环境风险综合评价值,判定风险等级.以上海某化工企业作为案例,验证了本评价模式的有效性;根据评估,若将该企业迁至人口密度较低的工业区(低于2000人/km2)并控制风险物质在容器设备中的充装率(低于80%),可使其风险综合评价值从0.75(Ⅳ级风险)降至0.5(Ⅲ级风险). A new environmental risk evaluation index system made up of 3 first-grade indicators including source indicator,process indicator and receiving indicator,and 14 second-grade indicators was established to overcome the limitation of indicators selecting and uncertainty processing in traditional evaluation methods for chemical enterprises.The evaluation system was further quantified by employing fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process programming to reduce the uncertainty of indicator's weighted value and fuzzy membership degree to ascertain the indicator's risk level.The newly developed method was applied to environmental risk evaluation of a given chemical enterprise in Shanghai to prove its availability.It was found that the composite environmental risk value of this enterprise could be reduced from 0.75(risk rank Ⅳ) to 0.59(risk rank Ⅲ) by moving it to an industrial area with population density less than 2000 person/km2 and keeping chemicals in equipment with filling ratio lower than 80%.
出处 《中国环境科学》 EI CAS CSCD 北大核心 2010年第1期133-138,共6页 China Environmental Science
基金 国家"863"项目(2007AA06A401) 上海市环境保护局科研基金(沪环科07-10)
关键词 环境风险综合评价 指标体系 层次分析法 模糊综合评价 化工企业 composite environmental risk evaluation evaluation indicators analytic hierarchy process (AHP) fuzzycomprehensive assessment chemical enterprise
  • 相关文献

参考文献26

  • 1Hou Y, Zhang T Z. Evaluation of major polluting accidents in China-Results and perspectives [J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 168(213):670-673.
  • 2Khan F I, Abbasi S A. Techniques and methodologies of risk analysis in chemical process industries [J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1998,11 (4):261-277.
  • 3Cave S R, Edwards D W. Chemical process route selection based on assessment of inherent environmental hazard [J]. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 1997,21(Supplement 1):965- 970.
  • 4Scott A. Environment accident index: validation of a model [J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 1998,61 (1-3):305 -312.
  • 5Hansen B G, Haelst A G, Leeuwen K, et al. Priority setting for existing chemicals: European Union risk ranking method [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1999,18(4):772-779.
  • 6Koller G, Fischer U, Hungerbuhler K. Assessing safety, health, and environmental impact early during process development [J]. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 2000,39:960- 972.
  • 7Gunasekera M Y, Edwards D W. Estimating the environmental impact of catastrophic chemical releases to the atmosphere an index method for ranking alternative chemical process routes [J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2003,81(6):463- 474.
  • 8Kletz T A. Preventing catastrophic accidents [J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 1976,83(8):124-128.
  • 9Edwards D W, Lawrence D. Assessing the inherent safety of chemical process routes: Is there a relation between plant costs and inherent safety? [J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 1993,7103):252- 258.
  • 10Khan F I, Husain T, Abbasi S A. Safety weighted hazard index (SWeHI): A new user-friendly tool for swift yet comprehensive hazard identification and safety evaluation in chemical process industries [J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2001,79(2):65-80.

二级参考文献19

共引文献197

同被引文献235

引证文献25

二级引证文献221

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部