Measuring and Assessing the Environmental Risk of Pollutants Released from Gypsum Production Industries with William-Fine's Technique

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran

Abstract
Introduction: The growth of technology and industry has brought prosperity to mankind on the one hand, but on the other hand, it has caused the creation of physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in the environment and by creating unfavorable conditions in the work environment, it has endangered the basis of a healthy life. Suspended particles (Particulate Matter (PM)), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) are among the standard and important pollutants in air pollution. In this research, the pollutants emitted from the chimneys of Semnan gypsum industries including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (PM10), and dry dust have been studied in five Semnan gypsum factories.
Materials and Methods: The concentration of PM10 and dry dusts was determined using a particle measuring device (TCR-Tecora) and a Testo 350-M/XL device was used to measure gaseous pollutants. Sampling of industrial chimneys as well as the space around the factories has been done in four places. Also, risk assessment has been done by the William-Fine technique, which is a systematic risk assessment method to identify possible risks, estimate the level of risk in risk management, and reduce it to an acceptable level.
Results: In this study, the amount of NOx is between 24.5 and 39 ppm, the concentration of SO2 is between 33.44 and 321 ppm, the concentration of CO is between 5 and 100 ppm, the concentration of PM10 pollutant is between 2.68 and µg/m3 97.66, ​​and the concentration of dry dust between 53.23 and 31896 mg/m3 was reported in the five investigated industries. For environmental assessment, 40 environmental aspects were identified using the William-Fine technique. For pollutants CO, SO2, NOx, PM10 and dry particles according to the risk priority number (RPN) calculated and according to the results of the category length, 4 risk classes were obtained with titles of very high, high, medium and low risk. Based on the ranking of 40 environmental aspects, the frequency of low category was 22, average category was 4, high category was 4, and very high category was 10. In gypsum units No. 3 and 4, the risks of PM10 suspended particles were among very high risks. Also, the risk related to dust dry in both chimney of factory No. 5 was reported at a very high level.
Discussion: The concentrations of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and dry dusts are lower than the standard values ​​of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to chimney emissions (carbon monoxide: 435 ppm, sulfur dioxide: 800 ppm, nitrogen oxides: 350 ppm and Dry particles: 600 mg/m3). The concentration of PM10 based on the standard of the World Health Organization (WHO) was higher than the permissible limit (50 µg/m3), while it was lower than the permissible limit based on the EPA (150 µg/m3). The entry of PM10 suspended particles into the atmosphere and also the accumulation of dusts in the environment around the factory is one of the important environmental problems of gypsum factories. Based on the classification, 55% of the aspects were at the low risk level, 10% of the aspects were at the medium risk level, 10% of the aspects were at the high-risk level, and 25% were at the very high-risk level. Finally, in order to reduce the level of risk and for the effective management of these industries, measures such as changing the used fuel to clean fuel, regular monitoring of the quantity and quality of the exhaust gas flow from the industrial chimney, using filter masks when in contact with dust, replacing bag filters Impact type with jet pulse type is remarkable.

Keywords

Subjects


  1. Alizadeh Aliabadi H. and Vaziri, M., 2012. The concentration of the carbon monoxide emissions and its relation with the temperature in the Towhid tunnel. The Ninth International Congress of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, https://www.civilica.com/Paper-ICCE09-ICCE09_894.htm (in Persian).
  2. Alizadeh Dakhel, A., Ghavidel, A. and Panahandeh, M., 2010. CFD modeling of particulate matter dispersion from Kerman cement plant, Iran. Journal of Health and Environment. 3(1), 67-74 (In Persian with English abstract).
  3. Almasi, A., Asadi, F., Mohamadi, M., Farhadi, F., Atafar, Z., Khamutian, R. and Mohamadi, A., 2013. Survey of pollutant emissions from stack of Saman cement factory of Kermanshah city from year 2011 to 2012. Journal of Health in the Field, 1(2), 36-43 (In Persian with English abstract).
  4. Brauer, R., 2006. Safety and health for engineers. Published by John Wiley and Sons. Second Edition, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
  5. Department of Environment, Islamic Republic of Iran (DOE), 2021. https://www.doe.ir/ (accessed January 2021).
  6. Ebrahimzadeh, M., Halvani, G.H., Darvishi, E. and Froghinasab, F., 2015. Application of Job Safety Analysis and William Fine methods to identify and control hazards in a uranium mine in central area of Iran. Journal of Health, 6(3), 323-324, (In Persian with English abstract).
  7. EPA, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
  8. Gholampour, A., Nabizadeh, R., Hassanvand, M.S., Taghipour, H., Faridi, S. and Mahvi, A.H., 2015. Investigation of the ambient particulate matter concentration changes and assessing its health impacts in Tabriz, Iran. Journal of Health and Environment, 7(4), 541-556 (In Persian with English abstract).
  9. Gunnarsson, S.A., 2001. Guideline for implementation of Environment Failure Mode and Effect Analysis method. Marmait Publish, Sofia, Bulgaria.
  10. Hafezi, S., Dashti, S. and Sabzghabaei, G., 2018. Risk Assessment Health and Safety of Acid Recovery unit of Abadan Oil Refining Company by using William Fine. Journal of Ethics in Higher Education. 6 (1), 67-83(In Persian with English abstract).
  11. Halvani, G., Ehrampoush, M.H., Ghaneian, M.T., Dehghani, A. and Hesami Arani, M., 2017. Applying Job Hazard Analysis and William-Fine methods on risks identification and assessment of jobs in hot rolling steel, Iran. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 26 (145), 293-303, (In Persian with English abstract).
  12. Hazrati, S., Rezazadeh, Azari, M., Sadeghi, H. and Rahimzadeh, S., 2011. Dust concentrations in an Ardabil portland cement industry, Journal of University of Medical Science, Ardabil, 9(4), 292-298, (In Persian with English abstract).
  13. Jozi, S.A., Atabi, F. and Honarman, H., 2014. Health, safety and environmental risk management in North cement plant by using William-Fine technique, Environmental Researches, 5(10), 23-34, (In Persian with English abstract).
  14. Jozi, S.A., Esmat Saatloo, S.J. and Javan, Z., 2014. Environmental risk assessment of the olefin plant in Arya Sasol petrochemical complex using Fault Tree Analysis method, Iran. Journal of Health and Environment. 7(3), 385-398 (In Persian with English abstract).
  15. Jozi, S.A., Haghighifard, N. and Bebahani, N., 2014. Identifying and assessing environmental risks due to high-voltage power transmission lines in urban areas by William-Fine method. Scientific Journal of Ilam University of Medical Scienc, 22(2), 82-92 (In Persian with English abstract).
  16. Jozi, S.A., Kaabzadeh, S.H. and Irankhahi, M., 2010. Safety, health and environmental risk assessment and  management of Ahwaz pipe manufacturing  company via William-Fine method. Scientific Journal of Ilam University of Medical Sciences, 18(1), 1-8 (In Persian with English abstract).
  17. Kouhnavard, B., Najimi, M.R., Aghanasab, M. and Bolghan Abadi, S., 2012. Occupational hazard identification and assessment in a foam company applying William-Fine method. Journal of Student Research Center, 3(34), 62-73 (In Persian with English abstract).
  18. Meknatjoo, M. and Omidvari, M., 2015. Safety risk assessment using William–Fine method with compilation fuzzy DEMATEL in Machining process. Iran Occupational Health, 12(5), 31-42.
  19. Nourmoradi, H., Omidikhaniabadi, Y., Goudarzi, G., Jourvand, M. and Nikmehr, K., 2014. Investigation on the dust dispersion (PM10 and PM2.5) by Doroud cement plant and study of its individual exposure rates. Scientific Journal of Ilam University of Medical Sciences, 24(1), 64-75, (In Persian with English abstract).
  20. Perez, P. and Reyes, J., 2006. An integrated neural network model for PM10 forecasting. Atmospherci Environment, 40, 2845-51.
  21. Pouyakian, M. and Moloudpourfard, B., 2020. Application of Cost Justification Index of Safety Control Measures (J) In William Fine's Method in the Iranian Studies: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 12(2), 162-175.
  22. Rashideh, H. and Farrokhiyan, F., 2020. Assessment and management of environmental risks in the mining industry using the William Fine's Method and analysis of failure modes and their effects on the environment. The first international conference and the fourth national conference on materials engineering, metallurgy and mining. 1-19.
  23. Ryahi Samani, M., 2007. Investigation of application precipitations in treatment output gas in cement factories. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(3), 166-174.
  24. WHO, 2016. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/.
  25. Zahed, M.A., Seidi, F., Salehi, S. and Pardakhti, A., 2023. Simultaneous assessment of health, safety, and environmental risks using William Fine and FMEA methods based on OHSAS 18001: 2007 standard in the Alborz tunnel, Iran. Geomechanics and Tunnelling. 16(1), 103-113.