Comprehensive Chemical Dust Suppressant Performance Evaluation and Optimization Method
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Basic Principles of the Optimization and Evaluation Index System
3. Evaluation Parameter Test Method
- Sedimentation wetting time: (a) The test solution is configured according to the mass concentration of 3% and slowly poured into a 25-mL test tube until the scale line reaches 25 mL. In actual production and life, the choice of dust suppressant concentration is mostly about 1–5%. In this experiment, considering the limitation of the comprehensive dust suppression ability of a single chemical reagent, the median concentration of 3% is selected as the test concentration in the experiment. Through the choice of the concentration of this solution, the experimental phenomenon can be more obvious. At the same time, the experimental time can be appropriately shortened, which is more convenient for the analysis of the subsequent experimental measurement data. (b) A dried 1-g test dust sample is gently placed into the solution of the test tube. The time required for all of the dust particles to settle at the bottom of the solution is recorded. The experiment is repeated three times, and the average time is recorded as the sedimentation wetting time. Figure 2 is the schematic diagram of the sedimentation wetting time experiment.
- 2.
- Evaporation stabilization time: (a) Dry 50-g test dust samples are stacked in a φ100-mm glass petri dish, showing a natural accumulation. (b) A total of 10 mL of the test solution is uniformly dropped with 3% mass concentration on the surface of the test dust reactor. The initial mass is recorded after 10 min. (c) The test dust sample is placed in a drying oven (50 °C, windless), and the dust mass is weighed and recorded every 10 min until the mass change rate is less than 0.1%. The evaporation stabilization time is recorded. Figure 3 is the schematic diagram of the stabilization experiment.
- 3.
- Surface wind erosion rate: (a) The dry 50-g quartz dust samples are naturally stacked in a φ100-mm glass surface dish, and the dust surface is gently scraped. (b) Then, 10 mL of the test solution with a mass concentration of 3% is evenly dropped on the surface of the test dust pile. The initial mass m0 is weighed and recorded after 10 min. (c) The test dust sample surface plate is placed in a stable flow field (wind speed 4 m/s) and fixed horizontally. The final mass m1 is weighed and recorded after 20 min of placement in the flow field. (d) The surface wind erosion rate is calculated according to the following formula: (m1 − m0)/m0 × 100%. Figure 4 is the schematic diagram of surface wind erosion rate experiment.
- 4.
- Annual average use cost per unit area: material cost, equipment cost, and operation cost. (a) Material cost C1: The effective action time of a single dust suppressant is t days, the single-use cost is c yuan, and the value is 360 days per year. (b) Complementary equipment cost C2: For m sets of required equipment, the service life of the first equipment is ni years, the purchase cost of equipment is xi yuan, the transportation and installation cost is yi yuan, the maintenance time is wi, and the average single maintenance cost (e.g., labor costs) is zi yuan per time. (c) Operation cost C3: The spraying period of dust suppressant is set to T days, and n devices are necessary for single spraying of dust suppressant. The i-th device is used for ti hours, and the power of the device is pi kW. The unit price is a yuan per degree. A single use manually requires x people, labor time is y yuan per day, and working time is z days. (d) Assuming that the single-use area is S m2, the annual average use cost C per unit area is calculated according to Equation (1).
- 5.
- pH value of dust suppression solution: After the dust suppression solution is fully stirred and stable, the pH value is detected by pH test paper or a pH meter, repeated three times, and the average value is taken.
- 6.
- Acute toxicity classification of chemicals: LD50 data were classified according to acute toxicity classification criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO) using acute oral LD50 values of mice (Table 1). For chemicals without data sources, standardized experimental tests were conducted according to the relevant requirements of “Technical specification for chemical toxicity identification” to obtain relevant toxicity grading data.
- 7.
- The monthly corrosion rate of Q235 steel: (a) Experiments were conducted in accordance with the test methods and test process control requirements of the “Cyclic immersion test of corrosive salt solution for metals and alloys” (GB/T 19746-2018). (b) Q235 steel with a rectangular, thin plate (90 mm × 120 mm × 2 mm) was used as the test block, the initial mass was weighed, and m0 was recorded after cleaning and drying. The test block was completely immersed in the test solution with a mass concentration of 3% and placed in a constant temperature- and humidity-controlled (20 °C, 90%) experimental box for 30 days. During the experiment, the test block remained suspended in the test solution. (c) The test block was carefully removed from the solution, the corrosion products of the test block were removed according to the requirements of “Elimination of corrosion products on corrosion specimens of metals and alloys” (GBT 16545-2015), and the mass of the test block was weighed after the corrosion products were removed by washing and drying. (d) The monthly corrosion rate of the Q235 steel was calculated according to the formula (m1 − m0)/m0 × 100%. Figure 5 is the figure of the monthly corrosion rate of Q235 steel experiment.
4. Evaluation Parameter Weight and Standardization Processing
4.1. Evaluation Workflow
4.2. Standardization of Evaluation Parameters
- Standardization of the measured values of evaporation stabilization time evaluation parameters. This type of evaluation index is a positive index—the greater the value of the evaluation parameters, the better the performance—and the standard deviation of the measurement value is small. If the range transformation method is used, the dispersion of the evaluation results is high. Therefore, the linear proportional transformation method is used to standardize the measurement value of this type of evaluation index and multiply the efficacy coefficient [16] to make the range of the standardized value normal. The formula is the average value of the measured value of the evaluation parameter. ZBi is the standard value of the evaporation stabilization time index of the ith chemical.
- Standardization of surface wind erosion rate and monthly corrosion rate of Q235 steel. This type of evaluation index is a reverse index. The smaller the evaluation parameter value, the better the performance, and the standard deviation of the measurement value is small. If the range transformation method is used, the dispersion of the evaluation results is high. Therefore, the linear proportional transformation method is used to standardize the measurement value of this type of evaluation index. ZCi is the standard value of the surface wind erosion rate index of the ith chemical. ZGi is the standard value of the monthly corrosion rate of Q235 steel index of the ith chemical.
- Standardization of solution acidity and alkalinity evaluation parameters. The pH value of the solution is the evaluation index, which ranges from 0 to 14, and the pH value is the best when it is 7. Therefore, the standardization of this index is the standardization of appropriate indicators; that is, the closer the measured value of the evaluation parameters is to the appropriate value, the better. ZEi is the standard value of the pH value index of the ith chemical.
- Standardization of annual average cost per unit area and evaluation parameters of acute oral LD50 toxicity grading in mice. This type of evaluation index is a reverse index—the smaller the evaluation parameters, the better the performance—and the standard deviation of the measured value is large, which is not suitable for direct linear scale transformation. Therefore, the range transformation method is used to standardize it. The LD50 data were classified according to the WHO acute toxicity grading standard, and the relevant toxicity grade was 1–6. ZDi is the standard value of the annual average cost per unit area index of the ith chemical. ZFi is the standard value of the acute oral LD50 toxicity grading in mice index of the ith chemical.
4.3. Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Analysis
5. Case Analysis
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Surui, X. Coal-fired power plants of productive dust health risk assessment. China J. Saf. Sci. 2020, 30, 152–157. [Google Scholar]
- Li, D.; Liao, Y. Spatial Characteristics of Heavy Metals in Street Dust of Coal Railway Transportation Hubs: A Case Study in Yuanping, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Huang, Y.; Bao, M.; Xiao, J.; Qiu, Z.; Wu, K. Effects of PM2.5 on Cardio-Pulmonary Function Injury in Open Manganese Mine Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Maasago, M.S.; Martha, C.; Vusumuzi, N. Platinum Mine Workers’ Exposure to Dust Particles Emitted at Mine Waste Rock Crusher Plants in Limpopo, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 655. [Google Scholar]
- Iyaloo, S.; Kootbodien, T.; Naicker, N.; Kgalamono, S.; Wilson, K.S.; Rees, D. Respiratory Health in a Community Living in Close Proximity to Gold Mine Waste Dumps, Johannesburg, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Maysaa, N.; Rita, G.; Abdullatif, H. Lung Function and Respiratory Health of Populations Living Close to Quarry Sites in Palestine: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6068. [Google Scholar]
- Dutschk, V.; Breitzke, B. Spreading characteristics of aqueous surfactant solutions on polymer surfaces. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2005, 42, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Nie, W.; Yan, J.; Bao, Q.; Wang, H.; Jin, H.; Peng, H.; Chen, D.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Q. Preparation and performance study of a novel polymeric spraying duet suppression agent with enhanced wetting and coagulation properties for coal mine. Powder Technol. 2020, 364, 901–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, Q.; Nie, W.; Liu, C.; Zhang, H.; Wang, H.; Jin, H.; Yan, J.; Liu, Q. The preparation of a novel hydrogel based on crosslinked polymers for suppressing coal dusts. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 249, 119343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, M.; Hu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, J.; Cheng, W.; Fan, Y.; Zhu, S.; Lu, W.; Song, C. Preparation and performance evaluation of environment-friendly biological dust suppressant. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 123162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, Z.; Shuying, Y.; Bin, H.; Zhulin, Y.; Hao, W.; Linjun, Y. Evaluating of the performance of a composite wetting dust suppressant on lignite dust. Powder Technol. 2018, 339, 882–893. [Google Scholar]
- Liao, X.; Wang, B.; Wang, L.; Zhu, J.; Chu, P.; Zhu, Z.; Zheng, S. Experimental study on properties of new polymer dust suppressive agent for bulk coal transportation. China J. Saf. Sci. 2019, 29, 140–146. [Google Scholar]
- Yanqing, L. Progress and evaluation factors of mine spray dust suppressant. Ind. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2015, 11, 77–79. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Yuan, H. Optimization and Decision Model of Coal Dust Inhibitor Based on Topsis Method. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2018, 38, 162–166+173. [Google Scholar]
- Liping, Y.; Yuntao, P.; Yishan, W. Standardized methods and the evaluation results for evaluation of combination of science and technology. Influ. Intell. J. 2012, 31, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
- Wenzhan, D.; Lihua, Z.; Jianzhang, W.; Jingang, Z.; Rong, Z. A multi-stage and multi-objective decision-making model based on the principle of reward, reward, penalty and disadvantage. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2000, 6, 32–36. [Google Scholar]
- Yixian, L. Organic Chemistry, 7th ed.; People’s Medical Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Toxicity Classification | Toxicity | LD50 (mg/kg) |
---|---|---|
Grade 6 | Extremely toxic | <1 |
Grade 5 | Highly toxic | 1–50 |
Grade 4 | Moderately toxic | 51–500 |
Grade 3 | Slightly toxic | 501–5000 |
Grade 2 | Practically non-toxic | 5001–15,000 |
Grade 1 | Non-toxic | >15,000 |
WIII1 | WIII2 | WIII3 | WIII4 | WIII5 | WIII6 | WIII7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.2 |
Purified Water | Calcium Chloride | Triton X-100 | Polyacrylamide | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sedimentation wetting time (s) | 632.0 | 566.7 | 278.3 | 1257.6 |
Evaporation stabilization time (min) | 540 | 580 | 610 | 510 |
Surface wind erosion rate (%) | 2.265 | 2.177 | 3.931 | 1.359 |
Annual average use cost per unit area (yuan) | 86 | 312 | 2184 | 585 |
pH value of dust suppression solution | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.3 | 6.7 |
Acute toxicity classification of chemicals (mg/kg) | Grade 1 - | Grade 3 1000 * | Grade 3 3500 * | Grade 2 12,950 * |
Monthly corrosion rate of Q235 steel (%) | 0.192 | 0.189 | 0.359 | 0.081 |
Chemical | Purified Water | Calcium Chloride | Triton X-100 | Polyacrylamide |
---|---|---|---|---|
Score | 54.00 | 53.51 | 48.25 | 63.31 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, M.; Wang, R.; Li, G.; Song, X.; Yang, H.; Lai, H. Comprehensive Chemical Dust Suppressant Performance Evaluation and Optimization Method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5617. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095617
Li M, Wang R, Li G, Song X, Yang H, Lai H. Comprehensive Chemical Dust Suppressant Performance Evaluation and Optimization Method. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):5617. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095617
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Ming, Rujia Wang, Gang Li, Xinzhu Song, Huaizhen Yang, and Huinan Lai. 2022. "Comprehensive Chemical Dust Suppressant Performance Evaluation and Optimization Method" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 5617. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095617