4.7 Article

Method to analyze the regional life loss risk by airborne chemicals released after devastating earthquakes: A simulation approach

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 366-379

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2014.09.001

关键词

Airborne dispersion; Ammonia; Disaster chain; Earthquake; Risk; Na-Tech

资金

  1. National Key Technology R&D Program - Ministry of Science & Technology of China [2012BAJ24B04]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities - Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education of China [2009SD-20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Widespread chemical plants render human life more vulnerable to major natural disasters such as earthquakes. Recognizing the potential cascading threats initiated by a devastating earthquake, a general methodology for assessing the life loss risks introduced by airborne hazardous chemical dispersion following seismically induced chemical release (SICR) was proposed. With a 600 km x 600 km region in North China as a demonstrative study area, the dispersion of ammonia released from multiple relevant chemical plants that were supposed to be damaged by a devastating earthquake was simulated in a probabilistic manner. Using an ammonia toxicity-fatality relationship and its toxicity concentration threshold, regional life loss and spatial spread were evaluated. The life loss risk was found to be non-prominent but would be very contingent on unfavorable meteorological conditions. Non-parametric correlation analysis revealed that the respective effects of meteorological mixing parameters on the risk exhibit new features in a disaster context, that is, stronger mixing would cause elevation of risk in a region. This preliminary research implied that the risk of chemical-induced life loss after a devastating earthquake deserves attention and a thorough uncertainty evaluation in the future. (C) 2014 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据