Why are people so sensitive to ammonia in environmental impact assessments?
Thread Content
Liquid ammonia or ammonia water are widely used in industries such as chemicals and refrigeration. Both liquid ammonia and ammonia water are considered chemical hazards, and they are classified as malodorous gases from an environmental perspective. Now, environmental impact assessments are required for any project. For projects involving ammonia, these assessments are particularly stringent. The smell of ammonia is indeed very noticeable to the human sense of smell. However, I believe that since ammonia is a chemical product that has been used for many years on a large scale, people already have a good understanding of its production and use. With proper measures in place to ensure safety during use, such as those to prevent leakage and pollution as well as to safeguard worker health, why is it still necessary to go through such complicated procedures? I remember when I was a child, the ammonia-based solution used in the production of synthetic ammonia, commonly known as mother liquor, was used by farmers as a liquid fertilizer that could be applied directly to the fields. Back then, people considered it to be a useful substance. Nowadays, with improved awareness of environmental protection and hygiene, ammonia is seen as something undesirable. What I mean here is that ammonia should be given strategic importance, but treated with contempt at the tactical level. Don’t you all think the same? Discussion is welcome.
The hazards of ammonia are minuscule compared to those of other organic pollutants; its toxicity to humans is much lower than that of other organic substances. Perhaps this is because ammonia is used so frequently! That’s why those involved in environmental impact assessments pay too much attention to it; people come into contact with it through textbooks as they study. In fact, ammonia is quite safe as long as its transportation and storage are properly managed – it’s not as dangerous as those toxic organic substances and gases.
The harm caused by N and P in water bodies is eutrophication, which allows many microorganisms to proliferate rapidly, thereby disrupting the ecological balance of those water bodies and even that of entire regions. It would certainly be a very sensitive environmental assessment indicator.
From a safety perspective, the storage and transportation of ammonia, especially liquid ammonia, are subject to very strict regulations； From an environmental perspective, ammonia is volatile and forms fine aerosols in the atmosphere, causing harm to humans, animals, and other organisms. In environmental impact assessments, the evaluation of ammonia focuses mainly on the offensive odor pollution caused by ammonia gas in the atmosphere. The spread of this pollution is quite wide.
Liquid ammonia is actually mainly a concern due to its strong odor. Some people prefer things that yield immediate results, things that are tasteless and odorless; as long as no one dies, it’s likely difficult to get everyone’s attention.
Ammonia is quite familiar in chemical manufacturing; those who work with this substance are not afraid of it, as in the event of an ammonia leak (even in small amounts), they still have to handle the situation wearing gas masks. Thus, they are accustomed to such operations. However, from a environmental impact perspective, restrictions are imposed based on the quantity of ammonia used.
Ammonia exacerbates water eutrophication, leading to an excessive growth of algae in the water and resulting in oxygen deficiency in the aquatic environment. Therefore, ammonia nitrogen in water cannot be ignored.
It’s a matter of direction – it’s not about the level of pollution caused by ammonia; there’s already a lot of waste being discharged from toilets: lol. It’s the departments that are worried about receiving complaints and wanting to avoid trouble at work, so they impose strict restrictions on enterprises
The harm caused by N and P in water bodies is eutrophication, which allows many microorganisms to proliferate rapidly, thereby disrupting the ecological balance of those water bodies and even that of entire regions. It would certainly be a very sensitive environmental assessment indicator. As mentioned above, ammonia has low toxicity, and toxicity is not the main factor in evaluation. It’s mainly to prevent water eutrophication! Avoid natural crises such as red tides! ~
The smell of ammonia is too pungent, and its impact on the environment is easily detectable
I agree with the opinion from the 11th floor; there must be another reason. Ammonia is widespread and very common, so its hazards are likely not significant. In the ammonia-alkali process, during the filtration and calcination steps, large amounts of free chlorine are present in the air, and there is no effective solution to this problem. Workers who work in these processes for over a decade undergo medical check-ups, and aside from a higher incidence of allergic rhinitis, no other specific diseases have been found among them – perhaps such diseases have not yet become apparent
The harm caused by N and P in water bodies is eutrophication, which allows many microorganisms to proliferate rapidly, thereby disrupting the ecological balance of those water bodies and even that of entire regions. It would certainly be a very sensitive environmental assessment indicator: lol
Agree with the view from floor 6. Ammonia itself is highly irritating and easily detectable. Ammonia also causes significant harm to the human body. Additionally, there are certain safety risks associated with its storage, as ammonia is a flammable and explosive substance. Naturally, it receives special attention in the environmental impact assessment.
Every year, there are still some accidents related to ammonia pollution and explosions; given the safety implications, this issue must be taken seriously.